संSamvidhan

Practice paper — BNS Chapter XIX — Of Criminal Intimidation, Insult, Annoyance, Defamation

35 questions · answer key at the end · no time limit

samvidhan.co.in

1.Under Section 351(1) of the BNS, criminal intimidation is committed when a person threatens another with injury to:
- (A) His person only
- (B) His person, reputation or property, or the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested
- (C) His property only, provided the property is immovable
- (D) His person or property, but not his reputation
2.What is the punishment for the basic offence of criminal intimidation under Section 351(2) of the BNS?
- (A) Imprisonment up to seven years, or fine, or both
- (B) Imprisonment up to five years and fine
- (C) Fine only
- (D) Imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both
3.A threatens to injure the reputation of B's deceased father, in whom B is interested, in order to compel B to withdraw a lawful claim. Under Section 351 BNS, A:
- (A) Commits criminal intimidation, as the Explanation covers a threat to injure the reputation of a deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested
- (B) Commits no offence since a deceased person has no reputation in law
- (C) Commits defamation, not criminal intimidation
- (D) Is liable only if the threat is carried out
4.Which of the following threats attracts the aggravated punishment of up to seven years under Section 351(3) of the BNS?
- (A) A threat to file a civil suit against a person
- (B) A threat to cause simple hurt
- (C) A threat to cause death or grievous hurt, to destroy property by fire, or to impute unchastity to a woman
- (D) A threat to expose a person's business losses
5.A sends an anonymous letter threatening to burn B's house unless B abandons a civil suit. Under Section 351 of the BNS, the anonymity of the communication:
- (A) Makes no difference to A's punishment
- (B) Attracts an additional punishment of up to two years under sub-section (4), in addition to the punishment for the underlying intimidation
- (C) Reduces A's liability as identity cannot be proved
- (D) Converts the offence into extortion
6.Under Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, what is the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed for intentionally insulting with intent to provoke breach of public peace?
- (A) Six months
- (B) One year
- (C) Two years
- (D) Five years
7.Which of the following is an essential element of the offence under Section 352 in addition to an intentional insult?
- (A) That the insult thereby gives provocation to any person
- (B) That the insult causes death
- (C) That the insult causes financial loss
- (D) That the insult is made in writing
8.A person intentionally insults another, but the target remains calm and is not provoked. Is the insulter punishable under Section 352?
- (A) Yes — intentional insult alone is sufficient
- (B) No — the provision requires that the insult “thereby gives provocation” to a person
- (C) Yes — intention to insult suffices even if no provocation occurs
- (D) No — only if the target then commits an offence
9.Which mental state, as expressed in Section 352, suffices for liability for intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace?
- (A) Being merely negligent about the effect of the insult
- (B) Knowing with certainty that the person will commit an offence
- (C) Accidentally insulting with no foresight of consequences
- (D) Intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause the person to break the public peace or to commit any other offence
10.Does Section 352 require that the provoked person actually break the public peace or actually commit another offence before the insulter can be punished?
- (A) Yes — the provoked person must actually break the public peace or commit an offence
- (B) No — the offence is complete if the insult gives provocation and the offender intended or knew it likely would cause such an outcome
- (C) Yes — only if the provoked person both breaks the public peace and commits another offence
- (D) No — only the intention to insult is required, even if no provocation was given
11.Which of the following actions are expressly made an offence under Section 353 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?
- (A) Making, publishing or circulating any statement, false information, rumour, or report, including through electronic means
- (B) Only publishing false statements in print media
- (C) Only verbal rumours causing public alarm
- (D) Only creating false electronic messages (e.g., emails, texts)
12.What is the maximum imprisonment prescribed under Section 353(1) for making or circulating statements that are intended or likely to cause mutiny, public alarm, or communal incitement?
- (A) One year
- (B) Five years
- (C) Three years
- (D) Seven years
13.Does Section 353 expressly cover statements circulated through electronic means?
- (A) No, electronic means are excluded
- (B) Yes, the section expressly includes electronic means
- (C) Only if circulated on social media platforms
- (D) Only if accompanied by audio or video
14.If an offence under sub‑section (2) (creating/promoting enmity) is committed in a place of worship, what is the punishment as per Section 353(3)?
- (A) Up to three years imprisonment
- (B) Only fine
- (C) Death penalty
- (D) Up to five years imprisonment and fine
15.A person publishes a false report believing on reasonable grounds that it is true and publishes it in good faith, but he also intended to create feelings of enmity between communities. Is he exempted from liability under the Exception to Section 353?
- (A) Yes, because he believed it to be true and acted in good faith
- (B) Yes, but only if he can prove the belief in a court
- (C) No, because the exception requires absence of the intent specified in the section
- (D) No, because the exception applies only to communications not through electronic means
16.Which of the following best describes the act criminalised by Section 354 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?
- (A) Voluntarily causing or attempting to cause a person to do something he is not legally bound to do, or to omit something he is legally entitled to do, by inducing belief that he will become an object of Divine displeasure.
- (B) Threatening a person with physical injury to compel them to act against their will.
- (C) Any public act intended to insult religious sentiments.
- (D) Coercing a person to surrender property by threats of legal action.
17.What is the maximum punishment prescribed under Section 354?
- (A) Imprisonment for life
- (B) Imprisonment up to three years
- (C) Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both
- (D) Death penalty
18.Ainduces B to refrain from voting (an act B is legally entitled to do) by telling B that B will be an object of Divine displeasure if B votes. Is A liable under Section 354?
- (A) No, because voting is a civic act and outside the section
- (B) Yes, because inducing a person to omit something they are legally entitled to do by making them believe they will become an object of Divine displeasure is covered
- (C) No, because Divine displeasure is not actionable under criminal law
- (D) Yes, but only if the offender actually brings about the Divine displeasure
19.If an offender promises spiritual reward (heavenly benefits) to induce a person to perform an act, does Section 354 apply?
- (A) Yes — all religious inducements fall within Section 354
- (B) Yes — if the promise is made by a religious leader
- (C) Yes — only if the promised reward is contingent on a public act
- (D) No — Section 354 specifically criminalises inducing belief that the person will become an object of Divine displeasure if they do not comply, not promises of reward
20.Does the offence under Section 354 require that the offender actually render the person an object of Divine displeasure?
- (A) Yes — actual rendering of Divine displeasure is essential for the offence
- (B) No — it is sufficient that the offender induces or attempts to induce the person to believe they will be rendered an object of Divine displeasure
- (C) Yes — unless the act is only an attempt
- (D) Yes — but only if the person is a religious office-holder
21.Which mental state is expressly required by Section 355 (Misconduct in public by a drunken person) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?
- (A) Criminal intent (mens rea)
- (B) Being in a state of intoxication
- (C) Reckless disregard
- (D) Negligence
22.What is the maximum term of simple imprisonment that Section 355 provides for the offence?
- (A) Seven days
- (B) One year
- (C) Twenty-four hours
- (D) Thirty days
23.A person, lawfully invited to a private home, appears there intoxicated and behaves so as to annoy the host. Does Section 355 apply to this conduct?
- (A) Yes — the section applies to any place where annoyance is caused
- (B) No — it applies only where the person appears in a public place or a place it is trespass for him to enter
- (C) Only if the host reports the offence to police
- (D) Only if the person is also guilty of another offence
24.Is causing annoyance to any person an essential element of the offence under Section 355?
- (A) No — mere appearance while intoxicated is enough
- (B) No — annoyance only matters if accompanied by property damage
- (C) Only if the person is in a public place
- (D) Yes — the intoxicated person must "conduct himself in such manner as to cause annoyance to any person"
25.Which of the following punishments is explicitly available under Section 355 as stated in the text?
- (A) Only a fine which may extend to one thousand rupees
- (B) Community service as an alternative punishment
- (C) Mandatory imprisonment of not less than twenty-four hours
- (D) Corporal punishment
26.Under Section 356(1) of the BNS, defamation may be committed by:
- (A) Words spoken or intended to be read, signs, or visible representations making or publishing an imputation intended or known to harm a person's reputation
- (B) Spoken words only
- (C) Written words only
- (D) Physical gestures amounting to assault
27.According to Explanation 2 to Section 356(1) of the BNS, an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such:
- (A) Can never amount to defamation
- (B) May amount to defamation
- (C) Amounts to defamation only if made in writing
- (D) Amounts to sedition
28.A publishes a true statement about Z's past conduct. Under Exception 1 to Section 356 BNS, A's publication is not defamation:
- (A) In all cases, because truth is an absolute defence
- (B) Only if Z consents to the publication
- (C) Only if it is for the public good that the imputation be made or published, which is a question of fact
- (D) Only if the statement concerns Z's public functions
29.A says in good faith: 'I think Z's evidence at that trial is so contradictory that he must be stupid or dishonest.' B says: 'I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because I know him to be a man without veracity.' Under Exception 5 to Section 356 BNS:
- (A) Both A and B are protected
- (B) Neither A nor B is protected
- (C) B is protected but A is not
- (D) A is protected because his opinion is founded on Z's conduct as a witness, but B is not, as his opinion rests on Z's character generally
30.Which of the following statements about imputations concerning deceased persons under Section 356 BNS is correct?
- (A) An imputation against a deceased person may be defamation if it would harm his reputation if living and is intended to hurt the feelings of his family or near relatives
- (B) An imputation against a deceased person is always defamation
- (C) A deceased person can never be defamed under the BNS
- (D) Defamation of the dead requires the imputation to be false and made in writing
31.What is the offence created by Section 357 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?
- (A) Voluntarily omitting, while bound by a lawful contract, to attend on or to supply the wants of a helpless person
- (B) Assaulting a helpless person
- (C) Theft from a helpless person
- (D) Negligent causing of bodily harm
32.What punishment does Section 357 prescribe for the offence?
- (A) Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months only
- (B) Fine which may extend to five thousand rupees only
- (C) Imprisonment of either description for up to three months, or fine up to five thousand rupees, or both
- (D) Imprisonment for life
33.Which of the following conditions, as listed in Section 357, can make a person 'helpless or incapable' for the section to apply?
- (A) Youth, unsoundness of mind, disease or bodily weakness
- (B) Only unsoundness of mind
- (C) Only temporary physical injury
- (D) Only those under guardianship by court order
34.Does Section 357 apply where there is no lawful contract to attend on or supply the wants of the helpless person?
- (A) Yes — it applies to any omission to help a helpless person
- (B) Yes — but only if the omission is by a public servant
- (C) Yes — but only if the contract is written
- (D) No — it applies only when the accused is bound by a lawful contract
35.If a person is capable of supplying their own wants but is incapable of providing for their own safety, does Section 357 apply?
- (A) No — both inability to provide for safety and to supply wants must be present
- (B) Yes — inability to provide for safety OR inability to supply own wants is sufficient
- (C) No — the section applies only when the person cannot supply their own wants
- (D) Yes — but only when the person is a minor

Answer key

1. B2. D3. A4. C5. B6. C7. A8. B9. D10. B11. A12. C13. B14. D15. C16. A17. C18. B19. D20. B21. B22. C23. B24. D25. B26. A27. B28. C29. D30. A31. A32. C33. A34. D35. B

Explanations

1. (B) Section 351(1) BNS covers threats of any injury to a person's body, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom the threatened person is interested. The threat must be with intent to cause alarm or to make the person do an act he is not legally bound to do, or omit an act he is legally entitled to do.
2. (D) Section 351(2) BNS punishes criminal intimidation with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The aggravated form in sub-section (3) alone attracts imprisonment up to seven years.
3. (A) The Explanation to Section 351(1) BNS expressly provides that a threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested falls within the section. The offence is complete upon the threat made with the requisite intent; execution of the threat is not necessary.
4. (C) Section 351(3) BNS enhances punishment to imprisonment up to seven years, or fine, or both, where the intimidation is by threatening death or grievous hurt, destruction of property by fire, commission of an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment up to seven years, or imputing unchastity to a woman. Ordinary threats fall under the basic offence in sub-section (1).
5. (B) Section 351(4) BNS provides that criminal intimidation by anonymous communication, or after taking precaution to conceal the name or abode of the threatener, is punishable with imprisonment up to two years in addition to the punishment for the offence under sub-section (1). The threat to destroy property by fire would itself attract the aggravated punishment under sub-section (3).
6. (C) Section 352 states the offender “shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” Thus the maximum imprisonment specified is two years.
7. (A) The provision requires “Whoever intentionally insults in any manner, and thereby gives provocation to any person…”; therefore actual giving of provocation is an essential element besides the intentional insult.
8. (B) Section 352 penalizes an intentional insult that “thereby gives provocation to any person,” so if the insult does not actually give provocation the statutory requirement is not met. The text therefore requires the insult to have given provocation.
9. (D) The provision requires that the offender acts “intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence.” Thus liability requires intent or knowledge of the likely consequence, not mere negligence or accident.
10. (B) Section 352 criminalises intentionally insulting “and thereby gives provocation… intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence.” The text requires the giving of provocation plus the offender’s intent/knowledge of its likely effect; it does not require that the provoked person actually go on to break the peace or commit the offence.
11. (A) Section 353(1) begins: 'Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, false information, rumour, or report, including through electronic means—' so all three acts (make, publish, circulate) including electronic means are covered. The other options restrict the act or medium contrary to the text.
12. (C) Section 353(1) states such an offender 'shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.' Therefore the maximum imprisonment under sub‑section (1) is three years.
13. (B) Both sub‑sections (1) and (2) explicitly state 'including through electronic means,' so electronic circulation is expressly covered. The other options add limitations not found in the text.
14. (D) Section 353(3) provides that committing the offence specified in sub‑section (2) in any place of worship 'shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.' Hence the correct punishment is up to five years and fine.
15. (C) The Exception states there is no offence when the person 'has reasonable grounds for believing that such ... is true and makes, publishes or circulates it in good faith and without any such intent as aforesaid.' Since he intended to create enmity, the required absence of the specified intent is lacking, so the exception does not apply.
16. (A) Section 354 penalises voluntarily causing or attempting to cause a person to do/omit something they are not legally bound/are legally entitled to do by inducing belief that they will become or be rendered an object of Divine displeasure. The other options describe different offences not covered by this text.
17. (C) The provision states the offender shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. The other punishments listed are not provided in this section.
18. (B) Section 354 covers causing a person to omit to do anything which he is legally entitled to do by inducing belief that he will become an object of Divine displeasure; therefore inducing B to refrain from voting is within the section. The provision requires inducing belief, not a distinction based on civic/political character.
19. (D) Section 354 targets inducement to believe that one will become or be rendered an object of Divine displeasure if they do or omit an act. A promise of spiritual reward does not, by itself, induce belief in Divine displeasure for non-compliance and thus is not covered by this wording.
20. (B) The section penalises whoever voluntarily causes or attempts to cause a person to do/omit something by inducing or attempting to induce that person to believe they will become or be rendered an object of Divine displeasure. The focus is on inducing that belief or attempt, not on actually producing Divine displeasure.
21. (B) The provision begins, "Whoever, in a state of intoxication, appears...", so the statute specifically requires the person to be in a state of intoxication. Other mental states like mens rea, recklessness or negligence are not mentioned in the text.
22. (C) The provision prescribes "simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty-four hours." Thus the maximum imprisonment under this section is twenty-four hours (one day).
23. (B) The offence applies where the intoxicated person "appears in any public place, or in any place which it is a trespass in him to enter." A lawfully invited presence in a private home is not a public place nor necessarily a trespass, so the text does not make such conduct an offence under this section.
24. (D) The provision requires that the intoxicated person "conduct himself in such manner as to cause annoyance to any person." Therefore causing annoyance is an essential element; mere appearance while intoxicated, without such conduct, is not sufficient under the text.
25. (B) The provision lists punishments as "simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty-four hours, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both or with community service." Hence community service is explicitly provided as an alternative punishment.
26. (A) Section 356(1) BNS covers imputations made or published by words either spoken or intended to be read, by signs, or by visible representations, with intent to harm or knowledge or reason to believe that the imputation will harm the person's reputation. Both spoken and written forms are covered, subject to the exceptions.
27. (B) Explanation 2 to Section 356(1) BNS provides that it may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such. Defamation under the section is thus not limited to imputations against natural individuals.
28. (C) Exception 1 to Section 356 BNS protects a true imputation only if its making or publication is for the public good, and whether it is for the public good is expressly declared a question of fact. Truth alone, without public good, is not a complete defence under the section.
29. (D) The illustrations to Exception 5 of Section 356 BNS show that a good-faith opinion on a witness's character is protected only so far as it appears from his conduct in the case, and no further. A's remark is founded on the contradictory evidence itself, while B's rests on prior personal knowledge of Z's character, taking it outside the exception.
30. (A) Explanation 1 to Section 356(1) BNS provides that imputing anything to a deceased person may amount to defamation if the imputation would harm his reputation if living and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives. Both conditions must be satisfied; mere reference to the dead is not enough.
31. (A) Section 357 penalises whoever, being bound by a lawful contract to attend on or to supply the wants of a helpless person, voluntarily omits to do so. The provision specifically addresses voluntary omission under a contractual duty.
32. (C) The provision states punishment may be imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees, or with both. Thus the statute allows imprisonment up to three months, or a fine up to Rs.5,000, or both.
33. (A) Section 357 describes the helpless person as one who, by reason of youth, or of unsoundness of mind, or of a disease or bodily weakness, is helpless or incapable. The statute explicitly lists youth, unsoundness of mind, disease or bodily weakness.
34. (D) The section applies specifically to a person 'being bound by a lawful contract to attend on or to supply the wants' of the helpless person. If there is no lawful contractual duty, the offence as defined by this provision does not arise.
35. (B) The provision describes the person as helpless or incapable 'of providing for his own safety or of supplying his own wants.' The use of 'or' shows that inability with respect to either safety or supplying wants is sufficient for the section to apply.