Assertion (A): Barendra Kumar Ghosh v King-Emperor (1925) held a man guilty of murder though he stood outside and did not fire the fatal shot. Reason (R): Under the provision on common intention (IPC s.34, now BNS s.3(5)), each participant in a criminal act done in furtherance of the common intention of all is liable as if he had done it alone. Choose the correct option.

Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A

Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A

Which of the following is the correct pairing of the offence of criminal conspiracy under the old and new codes?

IPC ss.120A and 120B, now BNS s.61

IPC ss.120A and 120B, now BNS s.62

Which of the following are notable changes made by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023? Select all that apply.

Community service is added as a punishment

Terrorism and organised crime are defined in the general code

The offence of sedition under IPC s.124A is omitted

Community service is added as a punishment

Terrorism and organised crime are defined in the general code

The offence of sedition under IPC s.124A is omitted

The right of private defence is abolished

Assertion (A): Preparation to commit an offence is generally punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Reason (R): Factual impossibility is not a defence to a charge of attempt. Choose the correct option.

Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A

Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A

Which of the following statements about the defence of unsoundness of mind (BNS s.22, formerly IPC s.84) are correct? Select all that apply.

It is based on the McNaghten Rules (1843)

The relevant time is the time of the act

Any medically diagnosed mental illness automatically satisfies it

It is based on the McNaghten Rules (1843)

The relevant time is the time of the act

The accused must prove it beyond reasonable doubt

Law of Crimes I: General Principles of Criminal Liability, Stages of Crime and Inchoate Offences, and the General Exceptions, under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023

Unit IV is "Law of Crimes", and its items are statute-neutral: general principles of liability, inchoate crimes, general exceptions, and the families of offences. The statute has changed. From 1 July 2024 the Indian Penal Code 1860 was replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 by the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), and the Indian Evidence Act 1872 by the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). This chapter teaches the law as it now stands under the BNS. The concepts are largely unchanged and the leading cases, decided under the Penal Code, remain good law on principle, so each is given with its former IPC section beside the BNS provision. Offences committed before 1 July 2024 continue to be tried under the IPC. This chapter covers items 1 to 3; the next two cover the offences and punishment.

1. The new criminal codes: what changed and what did not

The three replacement statutes
Old statute	Replaced by (in force 1 July 2024)	Scale
Indian Penal Code 1860	Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS)	511 sections reduced to 358
Code of Criminal Procedure 1973	Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS)	531 sections
Indian Evidence Act 1872	Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA)	170 sections

Sedition (IPC s.124A) is omitted. BNS s.152 instead punishes acts endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India, including by words, signs, electronic communication or financial means.
Terrorism (BNS s.113) and organised crime (BNS s.111) enter the general criminal code for the first time.
Murder by a group of five or more acting in concert on grounds such as race, caste, community, sex, place of birth, language or personal belief (mob lynching) is a specified form of murder under BNS s.103(2).
Community service is added to the punishments in BNS s.4.
Offences against women and children are grouped in one chapter (Chapter V).
The offences struck down or read down by the Supreme Court, adultery (IPC s.497) and consensual adult conduct under IPC s.377, have no counterpart in the BNS.

⚠️ The syllabus words, and the section numbers

The syllabus says "general exceptions", "abetment", "offences against human body" and so on, without naming a code, and those concepts carry over. The numbers do not: the general exceptions were IPC ss.76 to 106 and are now BNS ss.14 to 44; common intention was IPC s.34 and is now BNS s.3(5); criminal conspiracy was IPC ss.120A and 120B and is now BNS s.61; attempt was IPC s.511 and is now BNS s.62. An answer citing an IPC section as the current law for an offence committed after 1 July 2024 is out of date.

2. General principles: actus reus, mens rea, and individual, group and constructive liability

The maxim actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea states the general rule: an act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty. Actus reus is the physical element (a voluntary act or an omission where there is a legal duty to act, together with any required circumstances and consequences, and causation); mens rea is the mental element (intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence as the offence defines). The Indian codes rarely use the phrase mens rea but build it into each definition through words such as "intentionally", "knowingly", "dishonestly", "fraudulently" and "voluntarily". Where a statute is silent, mens rea is presumed unless excluded expressly or by necessary implication (Nathulal v State of Madhya Pradesh, 1966); but in State of Maharashtra v M.H. George (1965) the Supreme Court held that the offence of bringing gold into India in breach of a notification did not require knowledge of the notification.

Individual, group and constructive liability
Form of liability	Provision	Requirement and authority
Common intention	BNS s.3(5) (formerly IPC s.34)	A rule of evidence, not a separate offence: a criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all makes each liable as if he alone did it. Common intention requires a prior meeting of minds, which may develop on the spot (Mahbub Shah v Emperor, 1945); participation, even standing guard, suffices (Barendra Kumar Ghosh v King-Emperor, 1925: "they also serve who only stand and wait")
Common object of an unlawful assembly	BNS s.190 (formerly IPC s.149), with the definition of unlawful assembly in BNS s.189 (formerly IPC s.141)	A substantive head of constructive liability: every member of an assembly of five or more is guilty of an offence committed in prosecution of the common object, or which members knew was likely to be committed; no prior meeting of minds is needed
Corporate liability	General principle	A company can be prosecuted even for offences carrying mandatory imprisonment, and fined (Standard Chartered Bank v Directorate of Enforcement, 2005); the mens rea of those who are its "directing mind and will" is attributed to it (Iridium India Telecom v Motorola, 2010)

🧠 Intention versus object

Common intention: any number of persons (two is enough), a prior meeting of minds, and no separate offence. Common object: five or more persons forming an unlawful assembly, no prior concert needed, and the section itself creates liability. A question with four accused cannot turn on the unlawful-assembly provision unless others unidentified make up the number.

3. Stages of crime and inchoate offences: abetment, conspiracy and attempt

A crime passes through four stages: intention, preparation, attempt and commission. Intention alone is not punished. Preparation is generally not punished because it is hard to prove and the actor may still turn back (locus poenitentiae), but some preparations are offences, such as collecting arms with intention to wage war against the Government of India and making preparation to commit dacoity. Attempt is punished under the specific offence where the code says so (attempt to murder, BNS s.109, formerly IPC s.307) and otherwise under the general attempt provision, BNS s.62 (formerly IPC s.511), with up to half of the longest term for the offence.

When does preparation become attempt?
Test of attempt	Meaning
Proximity	The act must be sufficiently proximate to the intended crime; in Abhayanand Mishra (1961) the Supreme Court held attempt begins when preparation is complete and the accused does an act towards commission, which need not be the last act
Locus poenitentiae	So long as the accused can still withdraw voluntarily, the conduct may remain preparation
Equivocality	The act must unequivocally indicate the intention to commit the crime
Impossibility	Factual impossibility is no defence: the illustration to the attempt provision convicts a pickpocket who finds the pocket empty

Abetment (BNS s.45, formerly IPC s.107) is by instigation, by engaging in a conspiracy followed by an act or illegal omission, or by intentional aid. The abettor is liable even if the act abetted is not committed, and abetment of an offence that is committed carries the punishment of that offence where no express provision exists.
Criminal conspiracy (BNS s.61, formerly IPC ss.120A and 120B) is an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act, or a legal act by illegal means. The agreement is itself the actus reus where the object is an offence; an overt act is needed only where the object is an illegal act that is not an offence. Conspiracy is usually proved by circumstantial evidence (Kehar Singh v State (Delhi Administration), 1988).

🎯 Why the law punishes incomplete crimes

Inchoate offences punish dangerousness and a guilty mind that has been acted upon, so the police need not wait for harm to occur. The same logic explains why abetment and conspiracy are complete without the principal offence: the agreement or instigation is itself a social danger, and the group dimension makes success more likely.

4. The general exceptions: BNS ss.14 to 44 (formerly IPC ss.76 to 106)

The general exceptions with old and new section numbers
Exception	BNS (IPC)	Rule and leading authority
Mistake of fact	ss.14 and 17 (ss.76 and 79)	A good-faith mistake of fact, not of law, excuses a person bound or justified by law; ignorantia juris non excusat
Accident	s.18 (s.80)	Accident or misfortune in doing a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means with proper care
Necessity	s.19 (s.81)	An act likely to cause harm, done without criminal intention in good faith to prevent other harm; but necessity is no defence to killing an innocent (R v Dudley and Stephens, 1884)
Infancy	ss.20 and 21 (ss.82 and 83)	Nothing is an offence by a child under seven (conclusive); between seven and twelve, only if the child had not attained sufficient maturity of understanding
Unsoundness of mind	s.22 (s.84)	Legal, not medical, insanity: incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that it was wrong or contrary to law, at the time; based on the McNaghten Rules (1843); the burden is on the accused on a preponderance of probability (Dahyabhai Chhaganbhai Thakkar v State of Gujarat, 1964)
Intoxication	ss.23 and 24 (ss.85 and 86)	Involuntary intoxication rendering the person incapable of knowing the act excuses; voluntary intoxication does not, and knowledge is imputed as if sober (Director of Public Prosecutions v Beard, 1920)
Consent	ss.25 to 28 (ss.87 to 90)	Consent can excuse harm short of death or grievous hurt in specified conditions; consent given under fear or misconception, or by a person of unsound mind or under twelve, is not consent
Private defence	ss.34 to 44 (ss.96 to 106)	Defence of one's own or another's body and property; it begins with a reasonable apprehension of danger and lasts while that continues; no more harm than necessary; no right where there is time to seek the protection of public authorities

The right of private defence of the body extends to causing death where the assault reasonably causes apprehension of death or grievous hurt, and in the other grave cases the code lists, among them assault with intent to commit rape, kidnapping or abduction, and throwing or administering acid (added to the Penal Code in 2013 and carried into the BNS). Courts judge the response realistically, not with "golden scales": in Darshan Singh v State of Punjab (2010) the Supreme Court restated that a person in fear of his life is not expected to measure the exact force needed. Juveniles are governed by the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015, under which a child aged sixteen to eighteen accused of a heinous offence may, after a preliminary assessment, be tried as an adult.

⚠️ Medical insanity is not legal insanity

A diagnosis of mental illness does not by itself bring the unsoundness-of-mind exception into play. The question is cognitive and fixed at the moment of the act: did the accused know the nature of the act or that it was wrong or contrary to law? Planning, concealment and flight are commonly treated as evidence that he did.

Key takeaways

From 1 July 2024 the BNS, BNSS and BSA replaced the IPC 1860, CrPC 1973 and Evidence Act 1872; offences committed earlier are still tried under the IPC, and IPC-era cases remain good law on principle.
Sedition (IPC s.124A) is omitted; BNS s.152 punishes acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity; terrorism (s.113) and organised crime (s.111) are new; mob lynching is a form of murder under s.103(2).
Common intention is BNS s.3(5) (IPC s.34) and needs a prior meeting of minds; common object is BNS s.190 (IPC s.149) and needs an unlawful assembly of five or more.
Abetment is BNS s.45 (IPC s.107), conspiracy BNS s.61 (IPC ss.120A–120B), attempt BNS s.62 (IPC s.511); factual impossibility is no defence to attempt.
General exceptions are BNS ss.14–44 (IPC ss.76–106): unsoundness of mind s.22 (IPC s.84) is legal insanity on the McNaghten test; private defence ss.34–44 (IPC ss.96–106).

Practice questions (10)

Attempt each one before opening the answer. Every explanation names the tempting wrong option as well as the right one, because that is where marks are lost.

From which date did the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 replace the Indian Penal Code 1860?
1. 1 January 2024
2. 25 December 2023
3. 1 July 2024
4. 1 April 2025
Show answer
Answer: C — 1 July 2024
The three new criminal statutes (BNS, BNSS and BSA) came into force together on 1 July 2024. They received assent in December 2023, but assent is not commencement; offences committed before 1 July 2024 remain governed by the IPC.
The general exceptions, formerly IPC ss.76 to 106, are now found in:
1. BNS ss.14 to 44
2. BNS ss.100 to 146
3. BNS ss.45 to 62
4. BNS ss.1 to 13
Show answer
Answer: A — BNS ss.14 to 44
Chapter III of the BNS, ss.14 to 44, carries the general exceptions in the same order as IPC ss.76 to 106. Sections 45 to 62 cover abetment, conspiracy and attempt, ss.100 onward the offences affecting the human body, and ss.1 to 13 the preliminary provisions and punishments.
Assertion (A): Barendra Kumar Ghosh v King-Emperor (1925) held a man guilty of murder though he stood outside and did not fire the fatal shot. Reason (R): Under the provision on common intention (IPC s.34, now BNS s.3(5)), each participant in a criminal act done in furtherance of the common intention of all is liable as if he had done it alone. Choose the correct option.
1. Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A
2. Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A
3. A is true, but R is false
4. A is false, but R is true
Show answer
Answer: A — Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A
Both are true and R explains A. The Privy Council held that standing guard in furtherance of the common intention was participation: "they also serve who only stand and wait". The principle carries over unchanged to BNS s.3(5).
Which of the following is the correct pairing of the offence of criminal conspiracy under the old and new codes?
1. IPC s.511, now BNS s.45
2. IPC s.107, now BNS s.61
3. IPC ss.120A and 120B, now BNS s.61
4. IPC ss.120A and 120B, now BNS s.62
Show answer
Answer: C — IPC ss.120A and 120B, now BNS s.61
Conspiracy moved from IPC ss.120A (definition) and 120B (punishment) into BNS s.61. Abetment moved from IPC s.107 to BNS s.45, and the general attempt provision from IPC s.511 to BNS s.62.
Under the general exceptions, an act done by a child below what age is conclusively not an offence?
1. Twelve years
2. Ten years
3. Sixteen years
4. Seven years
Show answer
Answer: D — Seven years
Below seven the presumption of incapacity is conclusive (BNS s.20, formerly IPC s.82). Between seven and twelve it is rebuttable: the child is protected only if he had not attained sufficient maturity of understanding (BNS s.21, formerly IPC s.83). Sixteen is relevant to the Juvenile Justice Act's heinous-offence assessment.
Which of the following are notable changes made by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023? Select all that apply.
1. Community service is added as a punishment
2. Terrorism and organised crime are defined in the general code
3. The offence of sedition under IPC s.124A is omitted
4. The right of private defence is abolished
Show answer
Answer: A — Community service is added as a punishment; B — Terrorism and organised crime are defined in the general code; C — The offence of sedition under IPC s.124A is omitted
Sedition is omitted (BNS s.152 punishes acts endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity instead), community service is added in s.4, and terrorism (s.113) and organised crime (s.111) are new. Private defence survives intact in BNS ss.34 to 44.
Assertion (A): Preparation to commit an offence is generally punishable under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Reason (R): Factual impossibility is not a defence to a charge of attempt. Choose the correct option.
1. Both A and R are true, and R is the correct explanation of A
2. Both A and R are true, but R is not the correct explanation of A
3. A is true, but R is false
4. A is false, but R is true
Show answer
Answer: D — A is false, but R is true
A is false: preparation is generally not punished, because it is hard to prove and the actor may still withdraw; only specified preparations, such as for waging war or dacoity, are offences. R is true: the illustration to the attempt provision (IPC s.511, now BNS s.62) convicts a pickpocket who finds the pocket empty.
Which of the following statements about the defence of unsoundness of mind (BNS s.22, formerly IPC s.84) are correct? Select all that apply.
1. Any medically diagnosed mental illness automatically satisfies it
2. It is based on the McNaghten Rules (1843)
3. The relevant time is the time of the act
4. The accused must prove it beyond reasonable doubt
Show answer
Answer: B — It is based on the McNaghten Rules (1843); C — The relevant time is the time of the act
The test derives from McNaghten and looks at the moment of the act. It is legal, not medical, insanity, so a diagnosis alone is not enough; and the accused's burden is only a preponderance of probability, as Dahyabhai (1964) held, not proof beyond reasonable doubt.
In State of Maharashtra v M.H. George (1965), the Supreme Court held that:
1. A foreigner cannot be prosecuted for an offence committed in transit
2. Knowledge of the notification was not necessary for the offence of bringing gold into India in breach of it
3. Ignorance of law is a complete defence for a foreigner
4. Mens rea is an essential ingredient of every statutory offence without exception
Show answer
Answer: B — Knowledge of the notification was not necessary for the offence of bringing gold into India in breach of it
The Court held the offence, under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act read with an RBI notification, to be one of strict liability, so the accused's ignorance of the notification did not help him. It is the leading Indian authority for excluding mens rea by necessary implication.
Under the BNS, what is the minimum number of persons needed to form an unlawful assembly? Type the number.
Numerical answer — type the value.
Show answer
Answer: 5
An unlawful assembly is an assembly of five or more persons with a common object listed in BNS s.189 (formerly IPC s.141). Common intention, by contrast, can exist between just two persons.