25 exam-style questions on this chapter, written from the actual legal text and tagged for UPSC, Judiciary and CLAT. Five are shown below with answers and explanations — the rest are in the free interactive drill.
Q1 · easy · IPC S.295
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.✓ correct
- 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.
Why: 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.
Read Section 295 — Injuring or defiling place of worship, with intent to insult the religion of any class →Q2 · easy · IPC S.295
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.✓ correct
- C.Strict liability irrespective of intention or knowledge.
- D.Only motive of personal gain.
Why: 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.
Read Section 295 — Injuring or defiling place of worship, with intent to insult the religion of any class →Q3 · medium · IPC S.295
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.✓ correct
- D.No, because the provision applies only to public places of worship, not private ones.
Why: 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.
Read Section 295 — Injuring or defiling place of worship, with intent to insult the religion of any class →Q4 · medium · IPC S.295
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.✓ correct
Why: 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.
Read Section 295 — Injuring or defiling place of worship, with intent to insult the religion of any class →Q5 · hard · IPC S.295
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.✓ correct
- 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.
Why: 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.
Read Section 295 — Injuring or defiling place of worship, with intent to insult the religion of any class →20 more questions on Offences Relating To Religion
Drill them interactively — instant feedback, links to every provision, and your accuracy tracked on the syllabus map. Free.
Start the free drill →Questions are AI-generated from the legal text, machine-verified against the provision, and editorially reviewable. Education, not legal advice.