- Published on
KembaraXtra - Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita - Section 324: Mischief
Q1. What does Section 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita provide?
Answer:
Section 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) defines and punishes the offence of mischief.
A person commits mischief when, with the intention of causing wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, or knowing that such loss or damage is likely to be caused, he:
• Destroys any property;
• Changes any property;
• Changes the situation of any property;
• Diminishes its value;
• Diminishes its utility; or
• Otherwise affects it injuriously.
The section also clarifies that mischief may be committed even in relation to property belonging to the offender himself or jointly to the offender and others.
Section 324 further provides different punishments depending upon the nature and monetary extent of the loss or damage caused.
________________________________________
Q2. What is the basic concept of mischief?
Answer:
Mischief is essentially an intentional or knowingly harmful interference with property.
The offence is committed when a person acts in such a way that property is destroyed, altered, made less useful, reduced in value, or otherwise injuriously affected, and the person intends to cause wrongful loss or knows that wrongful loss is likely to result.
Thus, mere physical interference with property is not enough. There must also be the necessary criminal intention or knowledge.
The offence therefore requires both:
• Actus reus — the wrongful act affecting property; and
• Mens rea — the intention or knowledge that wrongful loss or damage is likely to be caused.
________________________________________
Q3. What principle underlies the offence of mischief?
Answer:
The supplied comments explain that the offence is based upon the principle expressed in the maxim:
sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas
The idea behind the maxim is that a person should use his own property in such a way as not to injure another person's rights or property.
The principle is relevant because mischief may sometimes be committed even through acts done upon one's own property where those acts are intended or known to cause wrongful loss to another.
________________________________________
Q4. What are the essential ingredients of mischief under Section 324(1)?
Answer:
The essential ingredients are:
1. Intention or knowledge;
2. An act affecting property;
3. Destruction, alteration, diminution in value or utility, or other injurious effect;
4. Wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person; and
5. A sufficient connection between the accused's act and the resulting injury to the property.
Each ingredient is important.
________________________________________
Q5. What is meant by mens rea in the offence of mischief?
Answer:
Mens rea refers to the guilty mental state of the accused.
Under Section 324(1), the accused must:
• Intend to cause wrongful loss or damage; or
• Know that wrongful loss or damage is likely to result.
Therefore, mischief is not ordinarily committed through a mere accident or negligent act.
Example / Application
A intentionally breaks the windows of B's house because he wants to cause financial loss to B.
A has the required mental element for mischief.
________________________________________
Q6. What is meant by actus reus in the offence of mischief?
Answer:
Actus reus refers to the physical act constituting the offence.
In mischief, the act may consist of conduct that:
• Causes wrongful loss or damage;
• Is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage;
• Destroys property;
• Changes property;
• Changes the situation of property;
• Diminishes its value;
• Diminishes its utility; or
• Otherwise affects it injuriously.
The offence therefore requires an actual act affecting property together with the necessary mental element.
________________________________________
Q7. Is negligence sufficient to constitute mischief?
Answer:
No.
The supplied comments make clear that acts caused merely by negligence or accident do not ordinarily amount to mischief.
There must be intention to cause wrongful loss or damage, or knowledge that such loss or damage is likely.
Example / Application
A burns rubbish in his own field. The fire unexpectedly spreads to a neighbouring forest area without A intending the damage or knowing that such spread was likely.
On the supplied explanation, the accidental damage would not by itself amount to mischief.
________________________________________
Q8. Can mischief relate to both movable and immovable property?
Answer:
Yes.
The offence of mischief can apply to both:
• Movable property; and
• Immovable property.
Examples may include damage to:
• Vehicles;
• Machinery;
• Jewellery;
• Crops;
• Buildings;
• Land;
• Fixtures; or
• Other property.
What matters is that the property is destroyed, altered, diminished in value or utility, or injuriously affected with the required intention or knowledge.
________________________________________
Q9. Must the accused intend to cause loss to the owner of the property?
Answer:
No.
Explanation 1 to Section 324 specifically states that it is not necessary that the accused intends to cause loss or damage to the owner of the property that is injured or destroyed.
It is sufficient if he intends to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring the property.
Therefore, the person suffering the wrongful loss need not necessarily be the owner.
________________________________________
Q10. Can a person commit mischief in relation to his own property?
Answer:
Yes.
Explanation 2 states that mischief may be committed by an act affecting:
• Property belonging to the offender himself; or
• Property belonging jointly to the offender and others.
This is important because ownership of the property does not by itself provide a defence.
Example / Application
A jointly owns a horse with Z. A shoots the horse intending to cause wrongful loss to Z.
Even though A is himself a co-owner, he may still commit mischief.
________________________________________
Q11. Explain Illustration (a) to Section 324.
Answer:
A voluntarily burns a valuable security belonging to Z intending to cause wrongful loss to Z.
A commits mischief because:
• Property belonging to Z is destroyed;
• A acts voluntarily; and
• A intends to cause wrongful loss.
The illustration shows a straightforward case of intentional destruction of property.
________________________________________
Q12. Explain Illustration (b).
Answer:
A introduces water into an ice-house belonging to Z, causing the ice to melt, intending wrongful loss to Z.
A commits mischief.
This illustration demonstrates that destruction does not have to involve breaking or burning property. Property may be affected by changing its physical condition or usefulness.
The ice loses its value and utility because of A's deliberate act.
________________________________________
Q13. Explain Illustration (c).
Answer:
A deliberately throws Z's ring into a river intending to cause wrongful loss to Z.
A commits mischief.
The ring may remain physically intact, but its usefulness and availability to Z have been seriously affected.
This illustrates that mischief may occur even without physically breaking the property.
________________________________________
Q14. Explain Illustration (d).
Answer:
A knows that his property is about to be taken in execution to satisfy a debt owed to Z.
A destroys that property in order to prevent Z from obtaining satisfaction of the debt.
A commits mischief.
Although the property destroyed belongs to A himself, the destruction is intended to cause wrongful loss to Z.
This directly illustrates the principle contained in Explanation 2.
________________________________________
Q15. Explain Illustration (e).
Answer:
A has insured a ship and voluntarily causes it to be cast away with the intention of causing loss to the underwriters.
A commits mischief.
The important point is that the ship may belong to A, but his deliberate act is intended to cause wrongful loss to another party.
Ownership therefore does not prevent liability for mischief.
________________________________________
Q16. Explain Illustration (f).
Answer:
A causes a ship to be cast away intending to cause loss to Z, who has lent money on bottomry on the ship.
A commits mischief.
Again, the focus is on wrongful loss caused to another person through deliberate interference with property.
________________________________________
Q17. Explain Illustration (g).
Answer:
A jointly owns a horse with Z.
A shoots the horse intending to cause wrongful loss to Z.
A commits mischief.
This illustration confirms that a person may commit mischief in relation to property in which he himself has an ownership interest.
________________________________________
Q18. Explain Illustration (h).
Answer:
A causes cattle to enter Z's field intending to cause, and knowing that he is likely to cause, damage to Z's crops.
A commits mischief.
The illustration shows that mischief can be committed indirectly.
A need not personally destroy the crops with his own hands. It is sufficient that he deliberately causes the destructive event.
________________________________________
Q19. Is physical destruction always necessary for mischief?
Answer:
No.
Section 324 covers a much wider range of conduct.
It is sufficient if the accused:
• Changes the property;
• Changes its situation;
• Diminishes its value;
• Diminishes its utility; or
• Otherwise affects it injuriously.
Therefore, property may remain physically intact but still be the subject of mischief.
Example / Application
If A deliberately disables machinery so that it cannot be used, the machinery may not be destroyed, but its utility has been diminished.
________________________________________
Q20. What is meant by diminution of value or utility?
Answer:
Diminution of value means reducing the worth of the property.
Diminution of utility means reducing its usefulness or serviceability.
The supplied comments emphasise that a change need not necessarily alter the physical form, character or composition of the property.
It is sufficient if the act interferes with the property's normal use or makes it less useful to the person entitled to use or enjoy it.
________________________________________
Q21. What did Byomkesh Bhattacharya v. Lakshmi Narayan Dutta explain?
Answer:
In Byomkesh Bhattacharya v. Lakshmi Narayan Dutta, (1978) Cr LJ 848 (Cal), the supplied comments explain that the court considered the meaning of destruction or diminution of value or utility.
The court indicated that it is not necessary for the property to undergo a complete change in physical form, character or composition.
What is important is whether the act:
• Changes its natural use;
• Reduces its serviceability;
• Diminishes its value or utility; or
• Interferes with the lawful enjoyment of the property.
The change in value or utility must also be a sufficiently direct result of the accused's act.
________________________________________
Q22. Must the harmful effect be directly connected with the act of the accused?
Answer:
Yes.
According to the supplied comments, the destruction or diminution of value or utility should be the proximate result of the act committed by the accused.
Therefore, there must be a clear connection between:
• The accused's conduct; and
• The injurious effect upon the property.
The other elements of mischief, including mens rea, must also be present.
________________________________________
Q23. What did Bihar State Electricity Board v. Nand Kishore Tamakhuwala decide?
Answer:
In Bihar State Electricity Board v. Nand Kishore Tamakhuwala, AIR 1986 SC 1653, the supplied comments state that a mill filed a private complaint regarding loss suffered because of absence of power supply.
The court observed that there was no sufficient material showing:
• Intention to cause wrongful loss or damage;
• Knowledge that wrongful loss or damage was likely;
• Destruction of property; or
• A change in property diminishing its value or utility.
Accordingly, the court held that no prima facie case of mischief was made out and the complaint was quashed.
The case illustrates the importance of proving both the mental element and the physical effect upon property.
________________________________________
Q24. What is the difference between a civil wrong and criminal mischief?
Answer:
Not every interference with property amounts to criminal mischief.
If the conduct merely constitutes an invasion of a civil right without the required criminal intention or knowledge, it may remain a civil matter.
For criminal mischief, the prosecution must establish both:
• The wrongful act affecting property; and
• The intention or knowledge required by Section 324.
Therefore, mens rea is what often distinguishes criminal mischief from a purely civil dispute.
________________________________________
Q25. Is personal gain by the accused necessary?
Answer:
No.
The offence focuses on the wrongful loss or damage caused or intended to be caused.
It is not necessary that the accused should personally obtain a financial benefit.
Similarly, an accused cannot necessarily avoid liability merely by arguing that he acted for his own benefit if his conduct was intended or known to cause wrongful loss to another.
________________________________________
Q26. What is the punishment for simple mischief under Section 324(2)?
Answer:
Section 324(2) provides the general punishment for mischief.
The punishment is:
• Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months; or
• Fine; or
• Both.
According to the supplied comments, this subsection corresponds to Section 426 IPC.
The maximum imprisonment has been increased from three months under the IPC to six months under the BNS.
________________________________________
Q27. What does Section 324(3) provide?
Answer:
Section 324(3) provides punishment where a person commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to any property, including property belonging to:
• Government; or
• A Local Authority.
The punishment is:
• Imprisonment of either description for a term extending to one year; or
• Fine; or
• Both.
According to the supplied comments, Section 324(3) is a newly added provision under the BNS.
________________________________________
Q28. What is the significance of Section 324(3)?
Answer:
Section 324(3) expressly recognises damage to property belonging to the Government or a Local Authority.
Its wording covers loss or damage to any property, while specifically mentioning Government and Local Authority property.
This provides a distinct punishment level of imprisonment extending to one year.
________________________________________
Q29. What does Section 324(4) provide?
Answer:
Section 324(4) applies where the mischief causes loss or damage amounting to:
₹20,000 or more but less than ₹1,00,000.
The punishment is:
• Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years; or
• Fine; or
• Both.
The amount of loss therefore becomes relevant to the degree of punishment.
________________________________________
Q30. What does Section 324(5) provide?
Answer:
Section 324(5) applies where the mischief causes loss or damage amounting to:
₹1,00,000 or upwards.
The punishment is:
• Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years; or
• Fine; or
• Both.
This subsection provides a more severe punishment because of the higher value of the loss or damage.
________________________________________
Q31. How do Sections 324(4) and 324(5) differ?
Answer:
The distinction depends upon the monetary value of the damage.
Under Section 324(4):
• Damage must be ₹20,000 or more but less than ₹1,00,000.
• Maximum imprisonment: 2 years.
Under Section 324(5):
• Damage must be ₹1,00,000 or upwards.
• Maximum imprisonment: 5 years.
Thus, the higher the monetary loss, the more severe the possible punishment.
________________________________________
Q32. Which IPC provision corresponds to Sections 324(4) and 324(5)?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, Sections 324(4) and 324(5) BNS correspond to Section 427 IPC.
The BNS has introduced a more detailed monetary classification.
Section 324(4) deals with damage between ₹20,000 and below ₹1 lakh, while Section 324(5) deals with damage of ₹1 lakh or more.
________________________________________
Q33. What does Section 324(6) provide?
Answer:
Section 324(6) deals with mischief committed after preparation has been made for causing:
• Death;
• Hurt;
• Wrongful restraint;
• Fear of death;
• Fear of hurt; or
• Fear of wrongful restraint.
The punishment is:
• Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years; and
• Fine.
This is an aggravated form of mischief because the offender has prepared to use or threaten personal violence in connection with the act.
________________________________________
Q34. What are the essential ingredients of Section 324(6)?
Answer:
The prosecution must establish that:
1. The accused committed mischief;
2. Before or in connection with that act, the accused made preparation for causing:
o Death;
o Hurt;
o Wrongful restraint;
o Fear of death;
o Fear of hurt; or
o Fear of wrongful restraint.
The existence of such preparation makes the offence more serious.
________________________________________
Q35. Which IPC provision corresponds to Section 324(6)?
Answer:
According to the supplied comments, Section 324(6) BNS corresponds to Section 440 IPC.
The language has been retained substantially unchanged.
________________________________________
Q36. What is the punishment under Section 324(6)?
Answer:
The punishment is:
• Imprisonment of either description for a term extending to five years; and
• Fine.
The use of “shall also be liable to fine” indicates an additional liability to fine.
________________________________________
Q37. What is the classification of offences under Sections 324(2), (3) and (4)?
Answer:
According to the supplied classification, offences under Sections 324(2), 324(3) and 324(4) are:
• Non-cognizable;
• Bailable; and
• Triable by any Magistrate.
________________________________________
Q38. What is the classification of Sections 324(5) and 324(6)?
Answer:
Offences under Sections 324(5) and 324(6) are:
• Cognizable;
• Bailable; and
• Triable by a Magistrate of the First Class.
The more serious procedural classification corresponds with the higher level of punishment.
________________________________________
Q39. Why are intention and knowledge so important in mischief?
Answer:
The offence of mischief is not based merely upon the fact that property has been damaged.
Property may be damaged:
• Accidentally;
• Negligently;
• Through natural causes; or
• Through conduct without criminal intention.
Section 324 requires the accused to intend wrongful loss or damage or know that such wrongful loss or damage is likely.
Therefore, mens rea is a central element of the offence.
________________________________________
Q40. Give a simple practical example of mischief.
Answer:
A is angry with B and deliberately smashes the windows of B's house.
A knows that breaking the windows will cause financial loss to B.
The elements are present:
• Property has been damaged;
• Its value or utility has been affected;
• A acted intentionally; and
• A intended or knew that wrongful loss would result.
A may therefore be liable for mischief.
________________________________________
Key Provisions (Study Notes)
Definition of Mischief
Mischief occurs where a person, intending or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage:
• Destroys property;
• Changes property;
• Changes its situation;
• Diminishes its value;
• Diminishes its utility; or
• Otherwise injuriously affects it.
Essential Ingredients
The four principal elements are:
1. Mens rea — intention or knowledge;
2. Actus reus — wrongful act affecting property;
3. Property — movable or immovable;
4. Wrongful loss or damage — physical, financial or loss of utility.
Important Explanations
• Loss need not be intended against the owner of the property.
• Mischief may be committed against one's own property.
• Mischief may also be committed against jointly owned property.
• Negligence or accident alone does not ordinarily constitute mischief.
Punishments
Section 324(2):
Simple mischief — imprisonment up to 6 months, or fine, or both.
Section 324(3):
Damage to property, including Government or Local Authority property — imprisonment up to 1 year, or fine, or both.
Section 324(4):
Damage of ₹20,000 or more but less than ₹1 lakh — imprisonment up to 2 years, or fine, or both.
Section 324(5):
Damage of ₹1 lakh or upwards — imprisonment up to 5 years, or fine, or both.
Section 324(6):
Mischief after preparation for death, hurt, wrongful restraint, or fear thereof — imprisonment up to 5 years and fine.
Classification
Sections 324(2), (3) and (4):
• Non-cognizable;
• Bailable;
• Triable by any Magistrate.
Sections 324(5) and (6):
• Cognizable;
• Bailable;
• Triable by Magistrate of the First Class.
IPC Equivalents
• Section 324(1) BNS → Section 425 IPC
• Section 324(2) BNS → Section 426 IPC
• Section 324(3) BNS → Newly introduced
• Sections 324(4) & (5) BNS → Section 427 IPC
• Section 324(6) BNS → Section 440 IPC
Important BNS Changes
• Maximum imprisonment for simple mischief increased from 3 months to 6 months.
• Section 324(3) is newly introduced.
• Separate monetary punishment bands have been created:
o ₹20,000 to below ₹1 lakh; and
o ₹1 lakh and above.
• Higher-value mischief can now attract imprisonment extending to 5 years.
Key Takeaway
Section 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 establishes the basic offence of mischief, which consists of intentionally or knowingly causing wrongful loss or damage by destroying, altering, reducing the value or utility of, or otherwise injuriously affecting property. Both actus reus and mens rea are essential, which means that purely accidental or negligent damage does not ordinarily constitute mischief. The offence may relate to movable or immovable property and can even be committed in relation to the offender's own or jointly owned property where another person is intentionally caused wrongful loss. The BNS also introduces graded punishments based on the amount of damage and creates a new provision specifically covering damage to property including Government or Local Authority property.
