UGC NET LAW · CODE 058 · UNIT 04

UGC NET Law Unit 4: Law of Crimes Notes and MCQs

Unit 4 tests both principles and offences. Since 1 July 2024 India's substantive criminal law is the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which replaced the Indian Penal Code, but the exam still draws on IPC-era cases. These notes cover the ten syllabus topics and show where the BNS changed the numbering.

  • Mens rea
  • Common intention
  • General exceptions
  • Offences
  • Punishment
  • BNS 2023
  • 10 syllabus topics
  • 450+ free MCQs
  • No sign-up
  • Updated 11 October 2026

NET Law 058 is an independent study aid, not affiliated with UGC or NTA. Always check the official UGC NET syllabus and the current bare Acts.

What Unit 4 covers

Criminal law changed in 2024. Check which version of the question's law the option refers to. The official syllabus lists 10 topics for this unit. Each is explained below with the points examiners most often use.

1General principles of criminal liability: actus reus and mens rea; individual, group and constructive liability

  • Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea: a guilty act and a guilty mind are generally both required.
  • Strict liability offences and the limits of mens rea (R v. Prince, 1875).
  • Common intention and joint liability: Barendra Kumar Ghosh (1925) and Mahboob Shah (1945), which stresses a prior meeting of minds.
  • Common object and unlawful assembly. Transferred malice.

2Stages of crime and inchoate crimes: abetment, criminal conspiracy and attempt

  • Four stages: intention, preparation, attempt and commission. Preparation is generally not punishable.
  • Attempt: where preparation ends and attempt begins (Abhayanand Mishra, 1961).
  • Abetment by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid.
  • Criminal conspiracy: an agreement between two or more persons is the essence.

3General exceptions

  • Mistake of fact, judicial acts, accident, necessity and the defence of children below seven (absolute) and between seven and twelve (conditional).
  • Insanity: the M'Naghten rules (1843) and the Indian provision on unsoundness of mind.
  • Intoxication, consent and acts done in good faith.
  • Right of private defence of body and property, its limits and the exceptions where the right does not extend to causing death.

4Offences against human body

  • Culpable homicide and murder: the injury test in Virsa Singh (1958), and the exceptions such as grave and sudden provocation (K.M. Nanavati, 1962).
  • Hurt, grievous hurt, assault and criminal force.
  • Kidnapping and abduction. Wrongful restraint and confinement.
  • Dowry death and the offences linked to marriage.

5Offences against State and terrorism

  • Waging war against the Government of India and offences against the sovereignty of India.
  • Sedition under the IPC: Kedar Nath Singh (1962), and the Supreme Court's 2022 order putting the provision in abeyance (S.G. Vombatkere). The BNS does not retain sedition by that name.
  • Terrorism: the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the BNS provisions on terrorist acts and organised crime.
  • Punishments and procedural safeguards in these offences.

6Offences against property

  • Theft, extortion, robbery and dacoity, and how each is distinguished from the other.
  • Criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust.
  • Cheating, mischief, criminal trespass and house-breaking.
  • Receiving stolen property.

7Offences against women and children

  • Rape and sexual offences. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 followed the Justice Verma Committee report after the 2012 Delhi incident.
  • Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and the offence of dowry death.
  • Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012: a child is anyone below 18.
  • Adultery under Section 497 IPC was struck down in Joseph Shine (2018).

8Drug trafficking and counterfeiting

  • Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985: offences, punishments and the bail restrictions.
  • Counterfeiting currency notes and coins and possession of counterfeit notes knowing them to be so.
  • Forgery and related offences.

9Offences against public tranquillity

  • Unlawful assembly: five or more persons with a common unlawful object.
  • Rioting and affray.
  • Promoting enmity between groups and other offences affecting public peace.
  • Liability of members of an unlawful assembly for acts done in pursuit of the common object.

10Theories and kinds of punishments; compensation to victims of crime

  • Theories: retributive, deterrent, preventive and reformative.
  • Kinds of punishment: death, imprisonment, forfeiture, fine and community service as introduced by the BNS.
  • Death penalty: Bachan Singh (1980) 'rarest of rare', Machhi Singh (1983) and Mithu (1983), which struck down the mandatory death sentence.
  • Victim compensation by the court and the State victim compensation schemes.

Quick reference tables

Where the IPC provisions went in the BNS (verify against the bare Act)
SubjectIPCBNS
Common intention343(5)
Abetment (definition)10745
Criminal conspiracy120A / 120B61
Attempt (punishment)51162
Murder (punishment)302103
Culpable homicide not amounting to murder (punishment)304105
Rape (punishment)37664
Dowry death304B80
Theft378 / 379303
Robbery390 / 392309
Dacoity391 / 395310
Unlawful assembly141189
Rioting146 / 147191
Unsoundness of mind8422

Landmark cases to revise

R v. Prince1875

Mistake of age was no defence to taking a girl under 16 from her father's possession.

Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King-Emperor1925

Joint liability and common intention; 'they also serve who only stand and wait'.

Mahboob Shah v. Emperor1945

Common intention needs a prior meeting of minds.

Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab1958

Test for murder where the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death.

K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra1962

Grave and sudden provocation; led to the end of jury trials in India.

Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar1961

Distinction between preparation and attempt.

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab1980

Death penalty valid only in the rarest of rare cases.

Mithu v. State of Punjab1983

Mandatory death sentence is unconstitutional.

R v. Dudley and Stephens1884

Necessity is no defence to murder.

Joseph Shine v. Union of India2018

Adultery provision in Section 497 IPC struck down.

Practise Law of Crimes MCQs topic by topic

Beyond the six samples, all 489 questions for this unit are on their own pages, grouped by syllabus topic, with the answer key on the page.

See all 25 topic sets (489 MCQs) →

Try 6 sample questions

Tap “Show answer” after you have tried each one. These come from the 450+ MCQs in this unit.

1'Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea' means:

  1. Act is crime
  2. Mind is crime
  3. Intention is not needed
  4. Act alone does not make guilty unless mind is guilty
Show answer and explanation

Answer: D. Act alone does not make guilty unless mind is guilty

Both a guilty act and a guilty mind are generally required.

Report this question

2The 'rarest of rare' doctrine for the death penalty comes from:

  1. Jagmohan Singh
  2. Mithu
  3. Machhi Singh
  4. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
Show answer and explanation

Answer: D. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab

Bachan Singh (1980) upheld the death penalty in rarest of rare cases.

Report this question

3Mandatory death sentence was struck down in:

  1. Mithu v. State of Punjab
  2. Rajendra Prasad
  3. Bachan Singh
  4. Shatrughan Chauhan
Show answer and explanation

Answer: A. Mithu v. State of Punjab

Mithu (1983) held a mandatory death sentence unconstitutional.

Report this question

4A child below what age is conclusively presumed incapable of crime in India?

  1. Five years
  2. Seven years
  3. Ten years
  4. Twelve years
Show answer and explanation

Answer: B. Seven years

Under both IPC and BNS, a child under seven is exempt.

Report this question

5The doctrine of transferred malice applies when:

  1. Intent to harm one results in harm to another
  2. Both are harmed intentionally
  3. Intent is absent
  4. Acts are lawful
Show answer and explanation

Answer: A. Intent to harm one results in harm to another

Intent transfers to the actual victim.

Report this question

6K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra concerned:

  1. Dowry death
  2. Grave and sudden provocation
  3. Attempt
  4. Insanity
Show answer and explanation

Answer: B. Grave and sudden provocation

Led to abolition of jury trials in India.

Report this question

How to study this unit

  • Learn both the IPC and BNS section numbers for the headline offences. Questions may use either.
  • Group the cases by topic: common intention, attempt, murder, death penalty. This makes recall easier.
  • For application questions, name the principle first (transferred malice, necessity, conspiracy) and then pick the option.

Planning your time? See the UGC NET Law preparation plans for 6 months, 3 months, 1 month or 2 weeks, or check the cut-off trend to set a target score.

Last updated: . Notes are a revision aid and not legal advice. Spotted a mistake? Write to netlawverse@gmail.com.