संSamvidhan

Practice paper — IPC Chapter 15 — Offences Relating To Religion

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

samvidhan.co.in

1.Which of the following acts is expressly penalised by Section 295 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
- (A) Destroying, damaging or defiling any place of worship or any object held sacred by any class of persons.
- (B) Abusive speech against a religious leader without any physical damage.
- (C) Entering a place of worship without permission.
- (D) Refusing to perform religious rites for a person.
2.What mental element (mens rea) does Section 295 require for the offence to be made out?
- (A) Simple negligence or accidental conduct.
- (B) An intention to insult the religion of any class of persons, or knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such act an insult to their religion.
- (C) Strict liability irrespective of intention or knowledge.
- (D) Only motive of personal gain.
3.During renovation, a worker accidentally knocks over and breaks an idol in a temple. There was no intention to insult and no knowledge that anyone would consider it an insult. Under Section 295, is the worker criminally liable?
- (A) Yes, any damage to a sacred object is an offence under Section 295.
- (B) Yes, but only if the temple authorities file a complaint.
- (C) No, because the section requires either intention to insult or knowledge that people would likely consider it an insult, which are absent here.
- (D) No, because the provision applies only to public places of worship, not private ones.
4.A person destroys a place of worship belonging to one religious community with the express aim of insulting the religion of a different community. Does Section 295 apply?
- (A) No, the offence applies only when the insult is directed at the religion of the class that holds the place sacred.
- (B) No, the provision applies only if the offender belongs to the same religious class as the victims.
- (C) Only if the destruction causes public disorder in addition to insult.
- (D) Yes, the offence applies when the act is done with the intention of insulting the religion of any class of persons.
5.Does Section 295 require the accused to be aware that the damaged object or place is 'held sacred' by some class of persons in order to be convicted?
- (A) No; the provision requires only intention to insult or knowledge that people are likely to consider the act an insult, but does not expressly require the accused to know the object was held sacred.
- (B) Yes; knowledge that the object is held sacred is an essential element of the offence.
- (C) Only if the object is privately owned must the accused know it is sacred.
- (D) Only when the punishment imposed exceeds two years is such knowledge required.
6.What mental element does Section 295A require for the offence?
- (A) Negligence
- (B) Deliberate and malicious intention to outrage religious feelings
- (C) Knowledge without malice
- (D) Recklessness
7.What is the maximum term of imprisonment prescribed by Section 295A?
- (A) One year
- (B) Six months
- (C) Three years
- (D) Life imprisonment
8.Section 295A is directed at outraging the religious feelings of which of the following?
- (A) Any class of citizens of India
- (B) A single individual of any religion
- (C) All human beings worldwide whether citizens or not
- (D) Only non‑citizens
9.Does Section 295A criminalize an 'attempt' to insult religion even if the attempt does not actually outrage feelings?
- (A) Only successful insults are criminalized
- (B) Only attempts that actually cause outrage are criminalized
- (C) No, it requires proof that feelings were actually outraged
- (D) Yes, it punishes 'insults or attempts to insult' when done with deliberate and malicious intention
10.Which limitation is expressly set out in the language of Section 295A?
- (A) Its protection extends to the religious feelings of any person, citizen or non‑citizen
- (B) It applies only when the act is committed in writing
- (C) It is limited to the religious feelings of classes of citizens of India
- (D) It permits punishment exceeding three years
11.Under Section 296 IPC, what is the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed for voluntarily disturbing a religious assembly?
- (A) Six months
- (B) One year
- (C) Two years
- (D) Three years
12.Which of the following best describes the conduct penalised by Section 296 IPC?
- (A) Voluntarily causing disturbance to any assembly lawfully engaged in religious worship or religious ceremonies
- (B) Causing any disturbance to a public meeting, whether religious or not
- (C) Damaging property during a religious procession
- (D) Abetting a person to commit theft during a religious ceremony
13.A person accidentally trips and knocks over a loudspeaker during a lawful religious ceremony, causing a disturbance. Under Section 296 IPC, is that person punishable?
- (A) Yes, because a disturbance occurred
- (B) Yes, if the ceremony was officially sanctioned
- (C) No, because Section 296 requires the disturbance to be voluntarily caused
- (D) No, because only organizers of the ceremony can be punished
14.Does Section 296 IPC apply to disturbing a lawful political meeting that is not engaged in religious worship or religious ceremonies?
- (A) Yes, because it protects any lawful assembly
- (B) Yes, if the political meeting includes prayers
- (C) No, because the section specifically refers to assemblies engaged in religious worship or religious ceremonies
- (D) Only if the disturbance leads to public disorder
15.A group gathers without lawful sanction to perform a religious ceremony (i.e., the assembly is not lawfully engaged). Someone disturbs that gathering. Under Section 296 IPC, is the disturber punishable under this section?
- (A) Yes, because the assembly was performing a religious ceremony
- (B) Yes, because any disturbance of an assembly is covered
- (C) No, because the section protects only assemblies 'lawfully engaged' in religious worship or ceremonies
- (D) No, because disturbances to unlawful gatherings are always dealt with under another section
16.Under Section 297 IPC, which of the following acts is expressly made an offence?
- (A) Committing trespass in a place of worship or on a place of sepulture
- (B) Stealing offerings from a temple
- (C) Neglecting maintenance of a public burial ground
- (D) Making an unauthorised public speech about religion
17.Which mental state is required by Section 297 IPC for liability under the section?
- (A) Mere negligence or accident
- (B) Recklessness without knowledge that feelings may be wounded
- (C) Desire to benefit financially from the place of sepulture
- (D) Intention to wound feelings or to insult religion, or knowledge that such feelings or religion are likely to be insulted
18.A person offers an indignity to a human corpse but neither intended to wound anyone's feelings nor knew that their feelings were likely to be wounded. Under Section 297 IPC, this act is:
- (A) Punishable under Section 297 in all circumstances
- (B) Not punishable under Section 297
- (C) Punishable only if the corpse was in a place of worship
- (D) Punishable only if a funeral ceremony was in progress
19.If a person knowingly causes a disturbance to persons assembled for a funeral ceremony and is aware that such conduct is likely to wound their feelings, is the conduct covered by Section 297 IPC?
- (A) No, causing disturbance is not covered by the section
- (B) Yes, but only if the disturbance involves trespass into the burial place
- (C) Yes, the provision punishes causing disturbance to persons assembled for funeral ceremonies when done with the required intention or knowledge
- (D) Only if the disturbance also involves offering indignity to a corpse
20.Which statement correctly describes the role of trespass in the offences listed in Section 297 IPC?
- (A) Trespass is required only for the offences that relate to places (place of worship, sepulture, funeral-rites depository); offering indignity to a corpse or causing disturbance are separate acts that do not require trespass
- (B) Trespass must occur in every case; offering indignity or causing disturbance without trespass falls outside the section
- (C) The section applies only when both trespass and offering indignity to a corpse occur together
- (D) The section applies only to acts inside a place of worship, not to places of sepulture or funeral rites
21.Which of the following acts are expressly covered by Section 298 IPC?
- (A) Only uttering words with intent to wound religious feelings.
- (B) Uttering words or making any sound in the hearing of the person, making any gesture in the sight of the person, or placing any object in the sight of the person with deliberate intent to wound their religious feelings.
- (C) Only making gestures or placing objects in the sight of the person.
- (D) Any act, including writing or publishing, that may wound religious feelings.
22.What mental element (mens rea) does Section 298 IPC require for the offence?
- (A) Deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person.
- (B) Negligence leading to hurt to religious feelings.
- (C) Knowledge that the act may possibly wound religious feelings.
- (D) No particular mental element; only the act is required.
23.A speaker utters insulting words about a religion while a third party hears them, but the person at whom the words were aimed is not present and does not hear them. Is the act punishable under Section 298 IPC as framed?
- (A) Yes — presence of the intended person is not necessary if the intention existed.
- (B) Yes — if anyone hears the words, the offence is complete.
- (C) No — the provision requires the words or sounds to be in the hearing of that person, so it is not made out unless the targeted person hears them.
- (D) No — because Section 298 applies only to written materials.
24.Does Section 298 IPC, as worded, criminalise written statements that are intended to wound a person's religious feelings?
- (A) Yes — any expression intended to wound religious feelings is covered.
- (B) Yes — written statements are covered as 'placing any object' in sight of a person.
- (C) No — written statements are expressly excluded by the provision.
- (D) No — the provision only mentions uttering words/sounds in hearing, gestures in sight, or placing objects in sight, and does not mention writing.
25.Is it necessary, under Section 298 IPC, to prove that the person's religious feelings were actually wounded for the offence to be complete?
- (A) Yes — actual wounding of feelings must be established.
- (B) No — the offence is made out by deliberate intention to wound plus the specified act, regardless of whether feelings were actually wounded.
- (C) Yes — unless the accused admits intention, actual hurt must be shown.
- (D) No — only the utterance or gesture matters; intention is irrelevant.

Answer key

1. A2. B3. C4. D5. A6. B7. C8. A9. D10. C11. B12. A13. C14. C15. C16. A17. D18. B19. C20. A21. B22. A23. C24. D25. B

Explanations

1. (A) Section 295 penalises whoever "destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons." The provision therefore specifically targets destruction, damage or defilement of places of worship or sacred objects.
2. (B) The section requires that the destruction, damage or defilement be done "with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons or with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such ... as an insult." Negligence or strict liability is not set out in the provision.
3. (C) Section 295 applies only when the act is done "with the intention of thereby insulting the religion" or "with the knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such ... as an insult." Absent intention or such knowledge, the provision is not satisfied by mere accidental damage.
4. (D) The section criminalises destruction, damage or defilement done "with the intention of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons." It therefore captures acts intended to insult the religion of any class, not only the class that holds the place sacred.
5. (A) Section 295 specifies the acts (destroying, damaging or defiling a place of worship or object held sacred) coupled with "intention of thereby insulting the religion" or "knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such ... as an insult." The text does not expressly make the accused's awareness of the object's sacred status a separate required element.
6. (B) The provision states the offence is committed 'with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings...' so the mens rea required is a deliberate and malicious intention. Other states like negligence or mere recklessness are not specified in the text.
7. (C) Section 295A provides punishment by 'imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.' Thus the maximum term of imprisonment stated is three years.
8. (A) The section refers specifically to 'the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India,' so the provision is framed in terms of classes of citizens. It does not, on its face, speak of single individuals or non‑citizens.
9. (D) The provision expressly criminalizes 'insults or attempts to insult the religion or the religious beliefs' provided they are done 'with deliberate and malicious intention of outraging the religious feelings.' Therefore an attempt accompanied by the required intention is covered even if actual outrage is not proven.
10. (C) The section specifies protection for 'the religious feelings of any class of citizens of India,' which shows an express limitation to classes of citizens. It does not say it extends to non‑citizens, nor does it limit itself to written acts or permit imprisonment beyond three years.
11. (B) The provision states punishment with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year. Therefore the maximum imprisonment specified is one year.
12. (A) Section 296 penalises whoever voluntarily causes disturbance to any assembly lawfully engaged in the performance of religious worship, or religious ceremonies. The provision is specifically about disturbing lawful religious assemblies.
13. (C) Section 296 begins with 'Whoever voluntarily causes disturbance', so voluntariness is an element. An accidental (non-voluntary) disturbance would not fall under the provision as stated.
14. (C) The provision applies to disturbance of 'any assembly lawfully engaged in the performance of religious worship, or religious ceremonies.' It is therefore specific to religious assemblies and does not, on its face, cover non-religious political meetings.
15. (C) Section 296 protects assemblies that are 'lawfully engaged in the performance of religious worship, or religious ceremonies.' If the assembly is not lawfully engaged, the wording of this section does not, by itself, make disturbing it an offence under Section 296.
16. (A) The provision specifically punishes anyone who "commits any trespass in any place of worship or on any place of sepulture, or any place set apart for the performance of funeral rites or as a depository for the remains of the dead." The other options are not mentioned in the text.
17. (D) Section 297 requires either "the intention of wounding the feelings of any person, or of insulting the religion of any person," or "the knowledge that the feelings of any person are likely to be wounded, or that the religion of any person is likely to be insulted thereby." Mere negligence is not enough.
18. (B) The section makes the offence subject to the mental element: intention to wound or insult, or knowledge that feelings/religion are likely to be insulted. If neither intention nor knowledge is present, the act does not fall within the provision.
19. (C) Section 297 explicitly includes "causes disturbance to any persons assembled for the performance of funeral ceremonies" and requires the same mental element (intention to wound/insult or knowledge that feelings/religion are likely to be insulted). Trespass or indignity to a corpse are separate alternatives.
20. (A) The provision lists alternatives: committing trespass in certain places, or offering any indignity to any human corpse, or causing disturbance to persons assembled for funeral ceremonies. This shows trespass is tied to the place-related clause, while indignity to a corpse and causing disturbance are separate offences under the same section.
21. (B) Section 298 specifies acts: uttering any word or making any sound in the hearing of that person, making any gesture in the sight of that person, or placing any object in the sight of that person, done with deliberate intention of wounding religious feelings. The provision does not mention writing or publishing.
22. (A) The provision begins with 'Whoever, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person...', so a deliberate intention is required. It does not describe mere negligence or mere knowledge of possibility.
23. (C) Section 298 requires uttering any word or making any sound 'in the hearing of that person.' Therefore, if the targeted person did not hear the words, the statutory element of being in that person's hearing is not satisfied. The provision does not accept mere presence of others hearing as a substitute.
24. (D) Section 298 specifies 'utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person', 'makes any gesture in the sight of that person', or 'places any object in the sight of that person.' It does not refer to writing, so written statements are not covered by the text of this section.
25. (B) Section 298 criminalises acts done 'with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person' and then specifies the prohibited acts. The offence is constituted by the deliberate intention together with the act; the text does not require proof that the feelings were in fact wounded.