KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 298: Injuring or Defiling Place of Worship with Intent to Insult Religion of Any Class

Q1. What does Section 298 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita deal with?

Answer:

Section 298 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) punishes a person who:

• Destroys;
• Damages; or
• Defiles

any:

• Place of worship; or
• Object held sacred by any class of persons,

when the act is done:

• With the intention of insulting the religion of any class of persons; or
• With the knowledge that such class is likely to regard the act as an insult to its religion.

The provision therefore protects sacred places and sacred objects from intentional or knowing acts of desecration.

Basic Formula

Sacred place/object + destruction/damage/defilement + intention or knowledge of religious insult = Section 298

Q2. What is the object of Section 298?

Answer:

The object of Section 298 is to protect religious places and sacred objects from acts that intentionally or knowingly insult the religion of a class of persons.

The supplied comments explain that the section seeks to ensure respect for the religious sentiments of persons following different:

• Religions;
• Creeds; or
• Religious persuasions.

The provision therefore protects both the physical integrity and sacred character of places and objects connected with religion.

Q3. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 298 BNS?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

Section 298 BNS → Section 295 IPC

The language remains unchanged and the provision has been retained as it is.

Q4. What are the essential ingredients of Section 298?

Answer:

The principal ingredients are:

1.     There must be:

o    A place of worship; or

o    An object held sacred by a class of persons.

2.     The accused must:

o    Destroy;

o    Damage; or

o    Defile that place or object.

3.     The accused must act:

o    With intention to insult the religion of a class; or

o    With knowledge that the class is likely to consider the act an insult to its religion.

Memory Formula

PLACE/OBJECT + DESTROY/DAMAGE/DEFILE + INTENT/KNOWLEDGE = SECTION 298

Q5. Is mens rea essential under Section 298?

Answer:

Yes.

The supplied comments strongly emphasise that mere destruction, damage or defilement is not enough.

The prosecution must establish the required mental element.

The accused must either:

• Intend to insult the religion of the class concerned; or
• Know that the class is likely to regard the act as an insult to its religion.

Thus:

Physical act alone ≠ offence

Physical act + required mens rea = offence

Q6. What are the two alternative mental states recognised by Section 298?

Answer:

The section recognises two alternatives.

First — Intention

The accused acts with the intention of insulting the religion of a class of persons.

Second — Knowledge

The accused knows that the class concerned is likely to regard the destruction, damage or defilement as an insult to its religion.

Either may satisfy the mental element.

Q7. Why is intention or knowledge so important?

Answer:

Because the offence is not designed to punish every act that physically affects a religious place or object.

For example, a structure may be damaged:

• Accidentally;
• During repairs;
• Through lawful demolition;
• For reasons unrelated to religious insult.

Without the required intention or knowledge, Section 298 may not be made out.

Q8. Can intention be inferred from circumstances?

Answer:

Yes.

The supplied comments explain that intention is a question of fact and must be determined from the circumstances of each case.

Relevant circumstances may include:

• Words spoken by the accused;
• Gestures;
• Conduct before or after the act;
• Nature of the damage;
• Manner in which the act was carried out;
• Surrounding circumstances.

Thus, intention need not always be proved by direct admission.

Q9. Can words and gestures be used to prove intention?

Answer:

Yes.

The supplied comments specifically state that words uttered and gestures made in connection with the event may be considered together with other circumstances to establish the required intention.

This is particularly important because intention is usually inferred from conduct rather than directly observed.

Q10. What kinds of places are protected?

Answer:

The section protects any place of worship.

This may include places where people gather for religious worship, depending on the facts.

The decisive question is whether the place is genuinely regarded and used as a place of worship.

Q11. What kinds of objects are protected?

Answer:

The provision protects any object held sacred by a class of persons.

Such objects may include items regarded as holy, sacred, religiously significant or worthy of veneration.

Whether a particular object is sacred is a question of fact.

Q12. Must the object be formally consecrated?

Answer:

The supplied comments do not make formal consecration the decisive test.

The important question is whether the object is held sacred by the relevant class of persons.

This depends upon the factual and religious significance of the object.

Q13. What does “destroy” mean?

Answer:

“Destroy” refers to materially or physically ruining the place or object.

It involves a serious physical interference that substantially eliminates or destroys its existence, structure or usefulness.

Q14. What does “damage” mean?

Answer:

“Damage” refers to physically or materially impairing the place or object.

The act need not completely destroy the property.

Partial physical injury may be sufficient if the other ingredients are present.

Q15. What does “defile” mean?

Answer:

The supplied comments explain that defilement is broader than physical damage.

It may include making a sacred place or object:

• Dirty;
• Foul;
• Unclean;
• Ritually impure; or
• Ceremonially impure.

Thus, defilement may occur even where there is no substantial physical destruction.

Q16. Why is “defilement” broader than destruction or damage?

Answer:

Destruction and damage generally refer to physical impairment.

Defilement may also concern the sacred or ritual character of the place or object.

Thus:

Destroy = ruin

Damage = physically impair

Defile = render impure, unclean or desecrated

Q17. Must defilement always involve physical damage?

Answer:

No.

According to the supplied comments, defilement may exist where the sacred character of an object or place is affected ritually or ceremonially even if there is no major physical damage.

Q18. Does every act regarded as ritually impure amount to defilement?

Answer:

Not automatically.

The supplied comments mention a case where the entry of a person from a caste considered “untouchable” into a temple restricted to higher-caste Hindus was held not to constitute defilement under the old Section 295 IPC.

The broader lesson is that the legal meaning of defilement is not determined simply by social prejudice or exclusionary custom.

Q19. What is the importance of the case Jan Mohmmad v. Narain Das?

Answer:

The supplied comments refer to Jan Mohmmad v. Narain Das, (1883) AWN 39.

In that case:

• An old mosque had fallen into disrepair;
• Parts of the structure were removed;
• Some Muslims assisted in the removal;
• The accused's house was adjacent to the mosque.

The court found no reason to believe that the accused intended to insult the religion of the Muslim residents or knew that the removal would likely be regarded as an insult.

Principle

Damage to a religious structure without the required intention or knowledge does not by itself establish the offence.

Q20. What does Jan Mohmmad v. Narain Das teach about mens rea?

Answer:

It shows that the religious character of the place alone is insufficient.

The prosecution must prove the required mental element.

Thus:

Religious place + physical interference, but no intent/knowledge = no Section 298 offence

Q21. What is the significance of the physical condition of the religious place?

Answer:

The physical condition may form part of the surrounding circumstances.

In Jan Mohmmad v. Narain Das, the mosque was described as old, neglected and in poor condition.

Such circumstances helped the court assess whether the accused acted with religiously insulting intent.

The condition itself is not determinative, but it may be relevant to mens rea.

Q22. What is meant by a place or object being “sacred”?

Answer:

The supplied comments state that whether a place or object is sacred is a question of fact.

The court may consider:

• How the place is used;
• Whether worship occurs there;
• How the relevant community regards it;
• Whether the object is treated as sacred or worthy of worship.

Q23. What is the importance of Joseph v. State of Kerala?

Answer:

The supplied comments refer to Joseph v. State of Kerala, AIR 1961 Ker 28.

In that case:

• A hut had been used as a place of worship;
• Possession of the hut was delivered to the accused through a court order;
• The accused later dismantled the shed and removed religious pictures.

The High Court held, according to the supplied comments, that the accused had lawful possession and authority over the property and that there was no intention to hurt religious sentiments.

Principle

Lawful control over property, coupled with absence of insulting intention, may prevent liability under Section 298.

Q24. Does ownership or lawful possession automatically defeat Section 298?

Answer:

Not necessarily.

Ownership or possession may be relevant, but the key question remains the accused's intention or knowledge.

If a person has lawful rights over the property but acts with the specific intention of insulting the religion of a class, Section 298 may still require consideration.

The supplied case demonstrates that lawful authority plus absence of the required mens rea can be decisive.

Q25. What is the key principle from Joseph v. State of Kerala?

Answer:

The central principle from the supplied account is:

Right over property + no intention to insult religion = no offence under Section 298

The case again emphasises the importance of mens rea.

Q26. Can a privately owned place still be treated as a place of worship?

Answer:

Potentially yes.

The fact that a place is privately owned does not necessarily prevent it from being used as a place of worship.

The question is factual and depends upon its actual religious use and treatment.

However, ownership and possession may still be relevant to determining the legality and intention behind the accused's conduct.

Q27. Is actual outrage of religious feelings necessary?

Answer:

The section focuses on the accused's:

• Intention to insult; or
• Knowledge that the act is likely to be regarded as an insult.

Therefore, the statutory inquiry centres on the required intention or knowledge accompanying the prohibited act.

Q28. Can accidental damage to a place of worship constitute Section 298?

Answer:

No, not merely because the damaged structure is religious.

Accidental damage lacks the required intention or knowledge contemplated by Section 298.

Q29. Give an example where Section 298 may apply.

Answer:

A deliberately damages a sacred object used by a religious community specifically intending to insult that community's religion.

If the sacred character of the object and the required intention are established, Section 298 may apply.

Q30. Give an example where Section 298 may not apply.

Answer:

A contractor accidentally damages part of a religious building during authorised repair work.

If there is no intention to insult religion and no knowledge of likely religious insult in the statutory sense, the offence under Section 298 would not be established merely because damage occurred.

Q31. What must the prosecution broadly prove?

Answer:

The prosecution must establish:

1.     The relevant property was:

o    A place of worship; or

o    An object held sacred.

2.     The accused:

o    Destroyed;

o    Damaged; or

o    Defiled it.

3.     The accused acted:

o    Intending thereby to insult the religion of a class; or

o    Knowing the class was likely to regard the act as an insult to its religion.

Q32. What is the punishment under Section 298?

Answer:

The offender may be punished with:

• Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years; or
• Fine; or
• Both.

Punishment Formula

Up to 2 years / fine / both

Q33. What is the classification of Section 298?

Answer:

According to the supplied classification, Section 298 is:

• Cognizable
• Non-bailable
• Triable by any Magistrate

Q34. Has the BNS changed the corresponding IPC provision?

Answer:

According to the supplied comments:

Section 298 BNS = Section 295 IPC

The language remains unchanged and the provision has been retained as it is.

Q35. How is Section 301 supplementary to Section 298?

Answer:

The supplied comments explain that Section 301 supplements Section 298.

Section 298

Primarily protects:

• Places of worship;
• Sacred objects,

against destruction, damage or defilement with the required intention or knowledge.

Section 301

Extends protection to:

• Places of sepulchre;
• Burial places;
• Funeral sites;
• Depositories for remains of the dead;
• Human corpses;
• Funeral ceremonies.

Memory Rule

298 = Worship place / sacred object

301 = Burial place / corpse / funeral rites

Q36. What common mental element appears in Sections 298 and 301?

Answer:

Both provisions require a significant mental element involving:

• Intention; or
• Knowledge

connected with insulting religion or wounding religious feelings.

The supplied comments therefore treat mens rea as central to both provisions.

Q37. What is the difference between Section 298 and Section 299?

Answer:

Section 298

The offence is committed primarily by a physical act involving:

• Destruction;
• Damage; or
• Defilement

of:

• A place of worship; or
• Sacred object.

Section 299

The offence is committed primarily through expression, including:

• Spoken words;
• Written words;
• Signs;
• Visible representations;
• Electronic means.

It also specifically requires a deliberate and malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of a class.

Memory Formula

298 = DAMAGE SACRED PLACE/OBJECT

299 = INSULT RELIGION THROUGH EXPRESSION

Q38. What is the easiest examination distinction between Sections 298 and 299?

Answer:

Ask:

Was the sacred place or object physically damaged, destroyed or defiled?

→ Think Section 298

Was religion insulted through words, signs, representations or electronic means with deliberate and malicious intention?

→ Think Section 299

Q39. How does Section 298 differ from Section 300?

Answer:

Section 298

Protects:

• Places of worship;
• Sacred objects.

The act is destruction, damage or defilement.

Section 300

Protects:

• A lawful religious assembly.

The act is voluntary disturbance.

Memory Rule

298 = DEFILE

300 = DISTURB

Q40. How does Section 298 differ from Section 302?

Answer:

Section 298

The focus is on physical interference with a sacred place or object.

Section 302

The focus is on deliberately wounding an individual's religious feelings through:

• Words;
• Sounds;
• Gestures; or
• Objects within hearing or sight.

Memory Rule

298 = SACRED PROPERTY

302 = INDIVIDUAL RELIGIOUS FEELINGS

Key Provisions (Study Notes)

Protected Subject Matter

Section 298 protects:

1. Place of Worship

A place genuinely regarded and used for religious worship.

2. Object Held Sacred

Any object regarded as sacred by a class of persons.

Whether a place or object is sacred is a question of fact.

Prohibited Acts

Destruction

Serious physical destruction of the sacred place or object.

Damage

Material or physical injury.

Defilement

Making the place or object dirty, foul, unclean, ritually impure or ceremonially impure.

Mens Rea

The accused must act:

With intention

to insult the religion of a class;

or

With knowledge

that the class is likely to consider the act an insult to its religion.

Central Rule

No mens rea → No Section 298 merely because damage occurred

Important Cases from the Supplied Comments

Jan Mohmmad v. Narain Das, (1883) AWN 39

Facts

An old mosque was dismantled and building material removed.

Finding

No intention or knowledge of religious insult was established.

Principle

Physical interference alone is insufficient without the required mens rea.

Joseph v. State of Kerala, AIR 1961 Ker 28

Facts

A hut used for worship came into the accused's lawful possession under court order, and he later dismantled it.

Finding

The accused had lawful authority over the place and lacked intention to hurt religious sentiments.

Principle

Lawful control + absence of religiously insulting intent may exclude liability.

Sections 298 to 302 - Quick Revision Sequence

Section 298

Destroy / damage / defile sacred place or object

Punishment:

Up to 2 years / fine / both

Section 299

Deliberate and malicious religious insult against a class

Punishment:

Up to 3 years / fine / both

Section 300

Voluntarily disturb lawful religious assembly

Punishment:

Up to 1 year / fine / both

Section 301

Trespass burial/worship place, indignity to corpse, disturb funeral ceremonies

Punishment:

Up to 1 year / fine / both

Section 302

Deliberately wound religious feelings of an individual

Punishment:

Up to 1 year / fine / both

Quick Revision Notes - Section 298

IPC Equivalent

Section 295 IPC

BNS Change

No substantive change according to the supplied comments.

Protected Subject

Place of worship or sacred object.

Act

Destroy, damage or defile.

Mental Element

Intention to insult religion or knowledge that insult is likely to be perceived.

Punishment

Up to 2 years / fine / both

Classification

Cognizable + Non-bailable + Any Magistrate

Ultimate Memory Formula

SECTION 298

PLACE OF WORSHIP / SACRED OBJECT

+

DESTROY / DAMAGE / DEFILE

+

INTENTION TO INSULT RELIGION

OR

KNOWLEDGE OF LIKELY RELIGIOUS INSULT

= SECTION 298

Key Takeaway

Section 298 BNS protects places of worship and objects held sacred from destruction, damage or defilement where the act is accompanied by the required intention or knowledge relating to religious insult.

The most important principle is that mere physical damage is not enough. Mens rea must be established.

The supplied cases reinforce this:

Jan Mohmmad v. Narain Das shows that damage to a religious structure without the required intention or knowledge does not by itself attract the offence.

Joseph v. State of Kerala shows that lawful control over property and absence of religiously insulting intention may prevent liability.

For rapid revision:

298 = SACRED PLACE/OBJECT + PHYSICAL OR RITUAL DEFILEMENT + INTENT/KNOWLEDGE

And for the surrounding sequence:

298 = DEFILE

299 = INSULT

300 = DISTURB

301 = BURIAL/CORPSE/FUNERAL

302 = WOUND INDIVIDUAL RELIGIOUS FEELINGS.