Criminal Law (BNS 2023) MCQs for Judiciary, Page 4

Correct answer: B. Forgery means making a false document or electronic record or part of a document with the intent to cause damage or injury to the public or any person, or to support a claim or title, or to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed

Section 336 BNS 2023 (Section 463 IPC): 'Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.' Key elements: (1) MAKING a false document (or electronic record, expanded under BNS); (2) The document must be FALSE: a document that appears authentic but is actually fraudulent; (3) The INTENT: to cause damage/injury, support a claim, induce delivery of property, or to commit fraud. The offence is COMPLETE when the false document is made with the required intent; actual use of the document or actual harm is NOT required for the completed offence of forgery. Section 2(8) BNS expands 'document' to include electronic and digital records, making forgery of digital documents an offence.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 336

Correct answer: B. Kidnapping from India (removing a person below 18 years from India without consent of the guardian) and kidnapping from lawful guardianship (taking or enticing a minor or person of unsound mind out of the keeping of a guardian without consent)

Section 137 BNS 2023 (Sections 360-361 IPC) deals with two types of kidnapping: (1) KIDNAPPING FROM INDIA (Section 137(1) BNS, Section 360 IPC): 'Whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of India without the consent of that person, or of some person legally authorised to consent on behalf of that person, is said to kidnap that person from India.' This applies to any person regardless of age. (2) KIDNAPPING FROM LAWFUL GUARDIANSHIP (Section 137(2) BNS, Section 361 IPC): 'Whoever takes or entices any child or any person of unsound mind out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such child or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such child or person from lawful guardianship.' 'Child' under BNS = person below 18 years (uniform definition under Section 2(3) BNS, replacing the previous differentiation between boy/girl ages). S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras (AIR 1965 SC 942) is the key case on whether a minor girl who has 'consented' to leave negates the kidnapping.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 137

Correct answer: B. The consent of the minor is irrelevant to the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship; only the consent of the lawful guardian matters.

S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras (AIR 1965 SC 942) is the leading Supreme Court case on kidnapping. A 17-year-old girl wanted to marry a man against her parents' wishes. She left home on her own accord and met the man. They together went to the registration office and married. The Supreme Court held: (1) The offence under Section 361 IPC (now Section 137(2) BNS) is 'takes or entices' away a minor; (2) If the minor independently and voluntarily leaves the guardian's custody and the accused does not actively 'take' or 'entice' her, the accused is not guilty of kidnapping; (3) However, the accused's role must be carefully scrutinised; if he in any way encouraged or facilitated her departure, that may constitute 'enticing'; (4) On facts: the accused did not take or entice her; she left independently; he was acquitted of kidnapping though convicted of other charges. Compare Thakorlal D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1973 SC 2313) where the accused was found to have actively induced the minor.

Source note: S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras (AIR 1965 SC 942)

Correct answer: B. Kidnapping is an offence by itself (no need for specific ulterior purpose); abduction is merely a means to an end (compelling or inducing any person to go from any place by force or fraudulent inducement); abduction by itself is not an offence; it becomes an offence only when done for the purposes specified in Sections 139-144 BNS

Section 138 BNS 2023 (Section 362 IPC): 'Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.' Key distinctions from kidnapping: (1) AGE: kidnapping from lawful guardianship applies only to minors (below 18) and persons of unsound mind; abduction applies to any person; (2) INDEPENDENT OFFENCE vs MEANS: kidnapping is a complete offence in itself; abduction is not a standalone offence; it must be done for the purposes specified in Sections 139-144 BNS to constitute an offence (e.g., abduction for purpose of murder Section 139, abduction for wrongful confinement Section 141, abduction for forcing into marriage Section 143); (3) FORCE OR DECEPTION: abduction uses force OR deceit; kidnapping from guardianship can be by any means including persuasion; (4) MEANS: in kidnapping, the minor/unsound person may go voluntarily but is still 'taken'; in abduction, force or deception is essential.

Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 137, 138

Correct answer: B. Section 95 BNS is a new provision criminalising hiring, employing, or engaging A child to commit an offence; this provision did not exist in the IPC and addresses the problem of criminal organisations using children to commit various offences

Section 95 BNS 2023 is a NEWLY INTRODUCED PROVISION: 'Whoever hires, employs or engages any child to commit an offence shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, with or without fine; and if the offence committed is one which is not bailable and cognizable, such person shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, with or without fine.' This addresses the growing practice of criminal organisations recruiting children to commit thefts, carry contraband, beg under coercion, and other criminal activities, exploiting the fact that children attract lower sentences or may not be prosecuted at all. 'Child' means a person below 18 years under Section 2(3) BNS. The provision is distinct from: Section 98 BNS (selling child for prostitution), Section 99 BNS (buying child for prostitution), and the POCSO Act provisions.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 95 (New Provision)

Correct answer: B. The BNS provisions on trafficking and Section 143 BNS coexist with the itpa; the itpa deals with suppression of immoral traffic in persons while the BNS provisions deal with criminal offences of trafficking and abduction for marriage/prostitution; both may be applicable to the same facts, and courts apply the provision most appropriate to the specific act

The BNS 2023 contains several trafficking-related provisions: Section 143 BNS (abduction for compelling marriage or sexual exploitation), Sections 98-99 BNS (selling/buying children for prostitution). The Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956 (ITPA) deals with brothel keeping, living off prostitutes' earnings, and related offences. These laws coexist and may apply concurrently. Additionally, Section 140 BNS 2023 corresponds to Section 370 IPC (trafficking of persons), which was a comprehensive provision introduced by the Criminal Law Amendment Act 2013 after extensive consultation. The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act 2012 also applies to sexual exploitation of children. Courts in trafficking cases typically charge under multiple statutes. In Vinod Dua v. Union of India (AIR 2021 SC 3239), the Supreme Court discussed the right to free speech in the context of criminal law, which is relevant to media coverage of trafficking cases.

Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 143, 98, 99 / ITPA 1956

Correct answer: B. 'Takes' means any physical act of taking possession of the minor; it does not require force.

Thakorlal D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1973 SC 2313) extended the principle in S. Vardarajan. The Supreme Court held: (1) 'Takes' in Section 361 IPC (Section 137(2) BNS) does not necessarily require force or deception; it can include situations where the accused facilitates or enables the minor's departure; (2) A person who knowingly retains a minor who has voluntarily come to him, and fails to return her to her guardian when it is reasonably possible to do so, can be held liable for kidnapping; (3) 'Entices' covers any act of inducement, persuasion, or positive act that leads the minor to leave guardianship; (4) Courts should look at the totality of the accused's conduct and its effect in separating the minor from the guardian. This case is important because it prevents accused persons from using the minor's 'voluntary departure' as a complete defence when they have played some role in inducing or facilitating that departure.

Source note: Thakorlal D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1973 SC 2313)

Correct answer: B. The Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962 SC) principle still governs: mere criticism of the government, expressing unpopular or dissenting views, or advocating change through lawful means is not an offence; the offence requires an incitement to violence, disorder, or disaffection likely to lead to public disorder; this principle should guide the interpretation of Section 152 BNS to avoid criminalising legitimate dissent

Vinod Dua v. Union of India (AIR 2021 SC 3239) involved a journalist who was accused of sedition for his television programme criticising the government's COVID-19 response. The Supreme Court recalled the principles from Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar (1962): (1) Section 124A IPC (sedition) is constitutionally valid; (2) BUT it is limited to acts or words that have a tendency or intention to incite violence or cause public disorder; (3) Mere criticism of the government, strong language against government policies, or dissatisfied commentary does not constitute sedition; (4) Every journalist or citizen is entitled to criticise the government within the limits of law. These principles, derived from Kedar Nath Singh, should guide the interpretation of Section 152 BNS (which replaced sedition). The constitutionality of Section 152 BNS and its relationship to freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) has not yet been comprehensively addressed by the Supreme Court since BNS came into force in July 2024.

Source note: Vinod Dua v. Union of India (AIR 2021 SC 3239) / BNS 2023 Section 152

Correct answer: B. The Supreme Court held that sex workers are entitled to basic human rights including dignity; police must not abuse or violate sex workers' rights.

Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal (2022 SC) is a landmark judgment on the rights of sex workers. The Supreme Court, extending a decade of suo motu proceedings, issued comprehensive directions: (1) Sex workers are entitled to equal protection under all laws; (2) Police must not abuse sex workers verbally or physically or take legal action against consenting adult sex workers; (3) Sex workers who are victims of crime must be treated with dignity; (4) Media must not reveal the identity or publish photographs of sex workers; (5) Section 354C IPC (Section 77 BNS voyeurism) must be enforced against media that films sex workers without consent; (6) UIDAI must issue Aadhaar cards without insisting on residence proof; (7) Child sex workers must be rescued and rehabilitated. This judgment recognised that poverty and lack of options often force women into sex work, and criminalising the sex worker rather than the trafficker/exploiter is counterproductive. Section 99 BNS (buying a child for prostitution) remains a serious offence under BNS.

Source note: Budhadev Karmaskar v. State of West Bengal (2022 SC) / BNS 2023 Section 99

Correct answer: B. Knowingly arranging for, acquiring, collecting, providing or directing funds or resources, including digital or cyber means, intending or knowing that such funds or resources are likely to be used to commit a terrorist act or by a terrorist or a terrorist organisation or a terrorist gang

Section 113(3) BNS 2023: 'A person commits the offence of financing a terrorist act if that person, directly or indirectly, knowingly arranges for, acquires, or collects or provides or directs funds or resources, or by means of digital or cyber means, intending or knowing that such funds or resources are likely to be used, in full or in part, to commit a terrorist act or by a terrorist or a terrorist organisation or a terrorist gang.' This is significant because: (1) It covers both direct and INDIRECT financing; (2) It covers DIGITAL AND CYBER MEANS, making it applicable to cryptocurrency-based terrorism financing; (3) Knowledge is sufficient (actual intent not required); (4) It covers financing of any terrorist regardless of whether the terrorist act ultimately occurs. This coexists with the UAPA's provisions on terrorist financing. The BNS provision makes terrorist financing an ordinary criminal offence triable by regular courts, while UAPA cases go to special NIA courts.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 113(3)

Correct answer: B. Petty organised crime under Section 112 refers to crimes committed by a person belonging to a group or gang which include: pick-pocketing, card/atm card fraud, snatching, selling counterfeit/spurious goods, running illegal gambling/betting dens, selling of narcotics, peddling, manufacturing/selling pirated articles, and similar offences; it attracts lower punishment than organised crime (Section 111 BNS) which covers more serious criminal enterprise activities

Section 112 BNS 2023: 'Whoever, being a member of an organised crime syndicate, commits or attempts to commit or causes to be committed petty organised crime as specified below shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than one year which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.Petty organised crime means an organised crime of lesser gravity including: pick-pocketing, chain snatching, card fraud or ATM fraud, cheating through digital means, selling of narcotics or peddling, manufacturing or selling pirated articles, counterfeit or spurious goods, illegal gambling, or any other activity of similar nature.' Key: Section 112 addresses the mid-level organised street crime that is more serious than individual offences but less serious than the major crime syndicate activities covered by Section 111. Punishment under Section 112: 1 to 7 years. Under Section 111: 5 years to life imprisonment (or death if death results).

Source note: BNS 2023 Sections 111, 112

Correct answer: B. Section 197(1)(d) BNS criminalises making or publishing false or misleading information that jeopardises the sovereignty, unity and integrity or security of India; this addresses the specific problem of disinformation/fake news that threatens national security

Section 197(1)(d) BNS 2023 is a NEW PROVISION: it criminalises 'makes or publishes false or misleading information, jeopardizing the sovereignty, unity and integrity or security of India.' This provision was introduced to address the phenomenon of disinformation and fake news that has the potential to cause communal violence, incite panic, or threaten national security. It is a new specific offence that goes beyond the existing provisions: Section 197(1)(a) (promoting enmity between groups), Section 197(1)(b) (assertions prejudicial to national integration), and Section 197(1)(c) (promoting communal ill-will). The provision raises significant free speech concerns and its intersection with Article 19(1)(a) and 19(2) will be a major area of litigation. The constitutionality of similar provisions (like Sections 153A/153B/505 IPC) was addressed in Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh (1997 SC).

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 197(1)(d) (New Provision)

Correct answer: B. Section 226 BNS criminalises a specific type of attempted suicide: one committed with the purpose of compelling or restraining a public servant from exercising lawful power; this targeted provision penalises the use of attempted suicide as a coercive tool against public authorities, as distinct from ordinary attempted suicide which is no longer an offence

Section 309 IPC (attempt to commit suicide) has been DELETED in BNS, effectively decriminalising ordinary attempted suicide (aligning with the Mental Healthcare Act 2017 which presumes persons attempting suicide are suffering from mental illness requiring care, not criminal punishment). Section 226 BNS creates a NARROW NEW OFFENCE: attempting to commit suicide with the purpose of compelling or restraining a government official from exercising lawful power. This prevents the use of 'suicide threats' as a coercive political tool (e.g., threatening to self-immolate to compel a government authority to change a policy). The punishment for Section 226 BNS is simple imprisonment up to 1 year or fine or community service. The general principle that persons who attempt suicide are in mental distress and need treatment, not imprisonment, is preserved; only the specific coercive use of attempted suicide is penalised.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 226 / Mental Healthcare Act 2017 Section 115

Correct answer: B. The prescription of community service for defamation (Section 356 BNS) rather than imprisonment signals a legislative recognition that defamation is a relatively minor offence where the reformative and community-beneficial approach of community service is more appropriate than incarceration; this also reflects the ongoing debate about decriminalising defamation

Section 356 BNS 2023 (Section 499 IPC) retains defamation as a criminal offence but the punishment is now COMMUNITY SERVICE (plus potential fine), rather than simple imprisonment up to 2 years as under Section 500 IPC. This is one of the six offences for which community service is prescribed under BNS. The change reflects: (1) A recognition that defamation, while harmful, may not warrant imprisonment in all cases; (2) Community service is reformative rather than punitive; (3) There is ongoing global debate about whether criminal defamation is compatible with freedom of speech (ICCPR General Comment 34 recommends decriminalisation); (4) The Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221 upheld the constitutional validity of criminal defamation under Sections 499-500 IPC, and that decision remains applicable to the BNS provision. Exceptions 1-10 of Section 356 BNS preserve the wide exceptions to defamation (truth published for public good, fair comment, etc.).

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 356 / Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016)

Correct answer: B. A public servant being legally prohibited from trading engages in any trade or business; the crucial element is that the public servant must be legally prohibited from trading (not all public servants are prohibited; the prohibition must arise from law or their conditions of service)

Section 202 BNS 2023 (Section 168 IPC): 'Whoever, being a public servant, and being legally bound as such public servant not to purchase or bid for certain property, purchases or bids for that property, either in his own name or in the name of another, or jointly, or in shares with others, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and the property, if purchased, shall be confiscated.' Community service is one of the punishments now available. Key elements: (1) The accused must be a PUBLIC SERVANT; (2) LEGALLY BOUND not to purchase or bid for certain property (this arises from specific service rules, professional obligations, or statutory prohibitions, e.g., a judge cannot bid for court auction property, a government valuer cannot buy the property he values); (3) Purchasing or bidding for such property. This is a conflict of interest provision maintaining integrity of public service.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 202

Correct answer: B. A court may issue a proclamation requiring a person to appear at a specified place and time when that person has absconded or is concealing himself to avoid service of a summons or warrant; the proclamation is published in writing at the last known residence and at the courthouse

Section 84 BNSS 2023 (Section 82 CrPC) provides for proclamation against absconding persons: 'If any Court has reason to believe that any person against whom a warrant has been issued by it has absconded or is concealing himself so that such warrant cannot be executed, such Court may publish a written proclamation requiring him to appear at a specified place and at a specified time not less than thirty days from the date of publishing such proclamation.' Under the BNS/BNSS, if such a person fails to appear, Section 209 BNS makes non-appearance a criminal offence punishable with community service. The BNSS also provides for attachment of property (Section 85 BNSS) of an absconder. Under BNS/BNSS, accused who abscond after charge framing may be tried in absentia in certain circumstances (Section 356 BNSS), which is a new provision addressing long-standing fugitive accused cases.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 209 / BNSS 2023 Section 84

Correct answer: B. Section 2(3) BNS introduces a uniform definition of 'child' as 'any person below the age of 18 years' throughout the BNS, replacing the inconsistent IPC usage which had different ages for different contexts (minor, child under 12, child under 14, etc.)

Section 2(3) BNS 2023: 'Child means any person below the age of eighteen years.' This uniform definition is a significant improvement over the IPC which used different terms and ages in different contexts: Section 82 IPC used 'below 7 years of age'; Section 83 IPC used 'under 12 years'; various other provisions used 'minor'; Section 361 IPC used different ages for boys and girls. Under BNS, 'child' consistently means below 18 years wherever the term appears. This aligns with: (1) The Indian Majority Act 1875 (age of majority = 18 years); (2) The POCSO Act 2012 (child = person below 18 years); (3) The Juvenile Justice Act 2015 (child = person below 18 years); (4) UNCRC ratification by India. The earlier IPC exception under Section 375 Exception 2 (wife aged 15 years or above) has been replaced in Section 63 BNS by the threshold of 18 years, per Independent Thought v. Union of India (2017).

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 2(3)

Correct answer: B. Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel, and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner

Section 100 BNS 2023 Exception 4 (Section 300 IPC Exception 4): the sudden fight exception requires: (1) No PREMEDITATION: the killing was not planned in advance; (2) SUDDEN FIGHT: the fight arose spontaneously without prior plan; (3) HEAT OF PASSION upon sudden quarrel: the accused acted in the heat of emotion; (4) No UNDUE ADVANTAGE: the offender did not take unfair advantage over the deceased; (5) No CRUEL OR UNUSUAL manner: the offender did not act in an excessively cruel or unusual way. All conditions must co-exist. It is not necessary that the provocation should have been given by the deceased. The exception is relevant because the killing, though unlawful, lacks the full cold-blooded mental state of murder. In Ghapoo Yadav v. State of MP (2003) 3 SCC 528, the Supreme Court held that this exception cannot be used if the accused was the aggressor or took undue advantage.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 100 Exception 4 / Ghapoo Yadav v. State of MP (2003)

Correct answer: B. Where rape is committed by two or more persons acting in concert (gang rape), each person who commits rape shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than twenty years, extendable to imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and shall also be liable to fine paid to the victim for medical expenses and rehabilitation

Section 70 BNS 2023 (corresponding to Section 376D IPC inserted after the 2013 criminal-law amendments) provides for gang rape. Where a woman is raped by one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention, each person is deemed to have committed rape and is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for not less than 20 years, which may extend to imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and with fine paid to the victim for medical expenses and rehabilitation. This is distinct from Section 64 BNS, which covers punishment for rape generally and specified aggravated cases. Section 73 BNS is a different publication-related offence concerning court proceedings in sexual-offence cases.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 70

Correct answer: B. The right commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed; the right continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues

Section 34 BNS 2023 (Section 97 IPC): 'Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in Section 36, to defend: (a) his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body.' The key temporal aspect: COMMENCEMENT: the right arises when there is a reasonable apprehension of danger, even from a mere threat or attempt; the actual attack need not have started. END: the right CONTINUES as long as the reasonable apprehension of danger continues; once the danger has passed, the right ceases. Using force after the danger has passed is retaliation, not private defence. Importantly, a person exercising private defence need not wait for the attack to actually materialize; they can act pre-emptively when there is reasonable apprehension. However, the pre-emptive use must be based on genuine reasonable apprehension, not mere suspicion.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 34

Correct answer: B. Section 117(4) BNS criminalises voluntarily causing grievous hurt on the ground of the victim's race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other similar ground; this is a hate crime provision for identity-based grievous hurt

Section 117(4) BNS 2023 is a NEWLY INTRODUCED provision: 'Whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any person on the ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other similar ground shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.' This mirrors the identity-based aggravation in Section 103(2) BNS (mob lynching/murder) but at the level of grievous hurt rather than murder. It reflects the recognition of identity-based violence (hate crimes) as a specific category of more serious wrongdoing requiring enhanced punishment. The provision requires proof that the grievous hurt was caused ON THE GROUND OF the specified identity marker; grievous hurt coincidentally involving persons of different identities does not automatically attract Section 117(4).

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 117(4) (New Provision)

Correct answer: B. Under Section 54 BNS, if an act abetted results in a different act than that abetted, the abettor is liable for the act actually done if he knew that the act abetted was likely to be committed in the prosecution of the illegal purpose; if he had no such knowledge, he is only liable for the act actually abetted

Section 54 BNS 2023 (Section 111 IPC): 'When an act is abetted and a different act is done, the abettor is liable for the act done, in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had directly abetted it, if the act done was a probable consequence of the abetment, and was committed under the influence of the instigation, or with the aid or in pursuance of the conspiracy which constituted the abetment.' The liability extends to the different act if: (1) It was a PROBABLE CONSEQUENCE of the abetment (objective test); AND (2) It was committed under the influence of the instigation or with the abettor's aid. Example: A abets B to give a severe beating to C. B kills C while beating him. If it was probable that the beating might result in death, A is liable as abettor to the murder. This prevents abettors from escaping liability for the full consequences of violence they encouraged.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 54

Correct answer: B. The second limb of Section 191 BNS holds all members liable for offences they knew were likely to be committed even if those offences were not the shared common object; this makes membership in an unlawful assembly extremely dangerous as a member can be held liable for violent acts by co-members even if not the stated purpose of the assembly

Section 191 BNS 2023 (Section 149 IPC): 'If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.' Two bases of liability: (1) ACT IN PROSECUTION OF COMMON OBJECT: the act was committed in furtherance of what the assembly was gathered to do; (2) ACT KNOWN TO BE LIKELY: even if the specific act was not the common object, if members knew it was likely to happen given the nature of the assembly. The second limb has significant implications: a member who joins an assembly that then commits unexpectedly serious violence can be held liable if the violence was a foreseeable likelihood given the assembly's character. Compare Ranbir Singh v. State of Punjab (1973 SC) where the Court examined the extent of Section 149 IPC liability.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 191

Correct answer: B. Cheating by personation means cheating 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

Section 320 BNS 2023 (Section 416 IPC): cheating by personation is a specific form of cheating where the accused: (1) Pretends to be some other person; OR (2) Knowingly substitutes one person for another; OR (3) Represents that he or another person is someone other than who they really are. Examples: pretending to be a government official to receive money; using another person's identity to enter a contract; falsely representing that a particular expert is signing a document when another is. The offence is completed when the cheating is done through such personation, whether or not the intended deception is discovered. In the digital age, identity fraud and impersonation through online profiles has given new relevance to this provision. The IT Act 2000 Section 66C specifically addresses identity theft in digital contexts.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 320

Correct answer: B. Under Section 9 BNS 2023 (corresponding to Section 31 CrPC), when a person is convicted of two or more offences at one trial, the court may direct sentences to run concurrently or consecutively; the default is consecutive unless the court specifically orders concurrent running; courts typically order concurrent sentences to avoid disproportionate overall punishment

Section 9 BNS 2023 (corresponding to Section 31 CrPC / now Section 6 BNSS): when a person is convicted of two or more offences at one trial, the court has discretion: (1) CONSECUTIVE: sentences run one after the other (total imprisonment = sum of all sentences); (2) CONCURRENT: sentences run simultaneously (total imprisonment = the longest single sentence). The BNS provision provides courts with discretion to order either. Courts typically consider: proportionality (should total sentence reflect overall culpability?); whether offences arose from a single transaction; the nature of the offences. In Mohd. Akhtar Hussain v. Asst. Collector of Customs (1988 SC), the Supreme Court discussed the principles for awarding concurrent vs consecutive sentences, holding that sentences for offences forming part of a single transaction should ordinarily run concurrently to avoid disproportionate punishment.

Source note: BNS 2023 Section 9 / BNSS 2023