Download Indian Penal Code: Enhanced Penalties for Child Sexual Assault and Kidnapping and more Study notes Criminal Law in PDF only on Docsity!
Clause 2 (1): “act” as well a series of acts as a single act; Section 33: The word “act” denotes as well as series of acts as a single act [...] The definition in section 33 explained that the term “act” also denoted a series of acts. The definition in clause 2(1) of the BNS does not convey the same meaning, and may lead to confusion as to whether an “act” signifies a series of acts. In its current form, the definition has no meaning. Clause 2(4): “Court” means a Judge who is empowered by law to act judicially alone, or a body of Judges, which is empowered by law to act judicially as a body, when such Judge or body of Judges is acting judicially; Section 20: The words “Court of Justice” denote a Judge who is empowered by law to act judicially alone, or a body of Judges which is empowered by law to act judicially as a body, when such Judge or body of Judges is acting judicially. It is not clear why this change was necessitated. Further, due to the change in the definition of “judge” in the BNS, some institutions presided over by quasi- judicial authorities may no longer be considered “courts of justice”. Clause 2 (9): “gender”—the pronoun “he” and its derivatives are used of any person, whether male, female or transgender. Explanation.–– “transgender” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (k) of section 2 of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019; Section 8: The pronoun “he” and its derivatives are used of any person, whether male or female. While the definition is now more inclusive, it will have no practical implication unless specific offences applicable to transgender persons are defined/created. For instance, the Justice Verma Committee had recommended that victims in sexual offences be gender- neutral, with the objective that trans persons be covered within the definition of rape. That change was neither made in 2013 when the rape laws were amended, nor has it been made in the BNS. Further, there are no offences relating to specific targeting of trans persons due to their gender identity. This is further exacerbated by the fact that they have historically been one of the most persecuted and criminalised communities in India.
Clause 2(15): “Judge” means a person who is officially designated as a Judge and includes a person,––(i) who is empowered by law to give, in any legal proceeding, civil or criminal, a definitive judgment, or a judgment which, if not appealed against, would be definitive, or a judgment which, if confirmed by some other authority, would be definitive; or (ii) who is one of a body or persons, which body of persons is empowered by law to give such a judgment. Illustration: A Magistrate exercising jurisdiction in respect of a charge on which he has power to sentence to fine or imprisonment, with or without appeal, is a Judge; Section 19: The word “Judge” denotes not only every person who is officially designated as a Judge, but also every person who is empowered by law to give, in any legal proceeding, civil or criminal, a definitive judgment, or a judgment which, if not appealed against, would be definitive, or a judgment which, if confirmed by some other authority, would be definitive, or who is one of a body or persons, which body of persons is empowered by law to give such a judgment. Illustrations: (a) A Collector exercising jurisdiction in a suit under Act 10 of 1859 is a Judge. (b) A Magistrate exercising jurisdiction in respect of a charge on which he has power to sentence to fine or imprisonment, with or without appear, is a Judge. (c) A member of a panchayat which has power, under 4Regulation VII, 1816, of the Madras Code, to try and determine suits, is a Judge. (d) A Magistrate exercising jurisdiction in respect of a charge on which he has power only to commit for trial to another Court, is not a Judge. The change proposed by the definition in the BNS appears to exclude quasi- judicial authorities. This may make the defence under section 15, BNS unavailable to quasi-judicial authorities. Under the IPC, the defence under section 77 was available to quasi-judicial authorities. These provisions save a Judge from criminal liability when acting judicially in exercise of their powers. Clause 2(19): “mental illness” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (a) of section 2 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017; No equivalent provision in the IPC. This is an error since clause (a) of Section 2 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 does not define “mental illness”. The reference ought to be to clause (s) of Section 2, which reads: ‘“mental illness” means a substantial disorder of thinking, mood, perception, orientation or memory that grossly impairs judgment, behaviour, capacity to recognise reality or ability to meet the ordinary demands of life, mental conditions associated with the abuse of alcohol and drugs, but does not include mental retardation which is a condition of arrested or incomplete development of mind of a person, specially characterised by subnormality of intelligence’.
Clause 22: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of mental illness, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law Section 84: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law. The definition of mental illness in Section 2(s) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 is both broad, and restrictive. For instance, it excludes “mental retardation”, which is defined as a condition of arrested or incomplete development of mind of a person, specially characterised by subnormality of intelligence. Such a person may not have the capacity to form knowledge, and hence get excluded from the benefit of clause 22 of the BNS. On the other hand, the breadth of the definition may also make it overinclusive, i.e. include individuals who would earlier not have got the benefit of section 84, IPC. However, since the test under the new provision remains unchanged, the standards used for its invocation would still apply. Therefore, the stereotypes associated with Sec. 84 of the IPC would continue. Clause 23: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law; unless that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will. Section 85: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law; provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will. Replacing “provided that” with “unless that” completely changes the meaning of the intoxication defence. It makes voluntary intoxication a defence.
Clause 27: Nothing which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or of person with mental illness, by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause or be known by the doer to be likely to cause to that person: Provided that this exception shall not extend to–– (a) the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death; (b) the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity; (c) the voluntary causing of grievous hurt, or to the attempting to cause grievous hurt, unless it be for the purpose of preventing death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity; (d) the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend. Section 89: Nothing which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or of unsound mind, by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause or be known by the doer to be likely to cause to that person: Provided— Provisos. First.—That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death; Secondly.—That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity; Thirdly.—That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of grievous hurt, or to the attempting to cause grievous hurt, unless it be for the purpose of preventing death or grievous hurt; or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity; Fourthly.—That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend. As discussed in the context of clause 22, the definition of “mental illness” being broad, the agency of persons with mental illness may be impacted in this case. The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 has a particular mechanism for appointment of nominated representatives, which puts the agency/capacity of the person with mental illness at the forefront.
Clause 69: Whoever, by deceitful means or making by promise to marry to a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, and has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.––– “deceitful means” shall include the false promise of employment or promotion, inducement or marring after suppressing identity. No equivalent provision in the IPC. This brings in a new offence of deceitful sexual intercourse. The terminology used—“not amounting to rape”—creates confusion. This term is used earlier in Section 376C of the IPC (now clause 68, BNS) and covers situations where there was consent at the time of sexual intercourse, which was not vitiated. Section 376C and 68, BNS are meant to prohibit sexual relations between people of particular relationships. However, in this clause, deceit conceptually vitiates consent; so does breach of promise which involves the accused not having any intention of going through with the promise. Hence, the meaning of “not amounting to rape” is not clear. It could possibly mean that the offence is not rape, or that if a person is acquitted of rape, they can still be prosecuted and punished under this section. Further, all others sections in this chapter that use the term “sexual intercourse” (such as Clause 67 and 68) define it to mean sexual acts beyond penile-vaginal penetration. Using the term “sexual intercourse” without defining it means that it covers only penile-vaginal penetration. Furthermore, unlike other sections in this chapter, there is no minimum punishment under this section, and the maximum punishment prescribed is 10 years. Clause 70(2): Where a woman under eighteen years of age is raped by one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention, each of those persons shall be deemed to have committed the offence of rape and shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person’s natural life, and with fine, or with death:Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical Section 376DA: Where a woman under sixteen years of age is raped by one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention, each of those persons shall be deemed to have committed the offence of rape and shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and with fine: Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim: Provided further that any Changing the age from 16 years to 18 years expands the scope of the provision to include those offenders who commit gangrape on women between 16 to 18 years of age. Additionally, this offence is now punishable with the death penalty. This also explains why Section 376 DB (which prescribed the punishment for gangrape of a woman under twelve years of age) has now been deleted, as the offences under that provision are now included within the scope of Clause 70(2).
expenses and rehabilitation of the victim:Provided further that any fine imposed under this sub-section shall be paid to the victim. fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victimSection 376DB: Where a woman under twelve years of age is raped by one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention, each of those persons shall be deemed to have committed the offence of rape and shall be punished with imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and with fine, or with death:Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation ofthe victim: Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim. No equivalent provision in the BNS.
- Unnatural offences.— Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.—Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section. The BNS repeals section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 377, to the extent that it covered consensual sexual acts was held to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Navtej Johar v. Union of India. However, section 377 also covered cases of forced sexual acts against men, trans persons, and animals. By removing section 377 altogether, the BNS no longer provides legal remedy for non- consensual sexual acts against men, trans persons, and animals. A separate section needed to be introduced to cover such cases. Clause 75: Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets such act with the intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Section 354B: Any man who assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets such act with the intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. This makes the offence gender neutral qua the offender. Clause 76: Whoever watches, or captures the image of a Section 354C: Any man who watches, or captures the image of This makes the offence of voyeurism gender neutral qua the offender.
or exhibits any object in any form, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine. any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine. remains unclear as to why such expansion was necessary. Clause 83: Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Section 498: Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. The deletion of the phrase “from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man” broadens the scope of the section inasmuch as where, or from whom, the woman is enticed becomes irrelevant to the offence. Further, while the exclusion serves to remove some patriarchal notions from the code, the section in its entirety still continues to be patriarchal since it takes away the agency of the woman in question. Clause 93: Whoever hires, employs or engages any person below the age of eighteen years to commit an offence shall be punished with imprisonment of either description or fine provided for that offence as if the offence has been committed by such person himself. Explanation.—Hiring, employing, engaging or using a child for sexual exploitation or pornography is covered within the meaning of this section. No equivalent section in the IPC. This is a new provision which criminalises hiring/employing/engaging a minor to commit an offence. However, the explanation to the section is unclear since in a case of “hiring, employing, engaging or using a child for sexual exploitation or pornography” the child will be a victim, whereas the clause suggests that the child is committing an offence on the instructions of the primary offender. Clause 94: Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any child below the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such child below the age of eighteen years may Section 366A: Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, This provision has been made gender neutral.
be, or knowing that it is likely that such child will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Clause 101(2): When a group of five or more persons acting in concert commits murder on the ground of race, caste or community, sex, place of birth, language, personal belief or any other ground each member of such group shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. No equivalent section in the IPC. This section appears to introduce an aggravated form of murder committed by a group of 5 or more persons acting in concert, and with a specific intent in mind. It provides for a minimum punishment of 7 years, and a maximum of death. At the outset, the meaning of the term “acting in concert” is undefined. Furthermore, a lesser minimum punishment for an aggravated offence does not adhere to established penological policy. Clause 102: Whoever, being under sentence of imprisonment for life, commits murder, shall be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, which shall mean the remainder of that person’s natural life. Section 303: Whoever, being under sentence of imprisonment for life, commits murder shall be punished with death. Section 303 was struck down by the Supreme Court in Mithu v. State of Punjab. It has been reintroduced in the form of Clause 102, with a modification that allows for a mandatory minimum sentence of life imprisonment with no possibility of remission. Clause 103: Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and with fine, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is Section 304: Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to This provision introduces a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Additionally, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder where the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, fine has been made mandatory.
imprisonment for life, which shall mean the remainder of that person’s natural life. hurt is caused, be punished with death. No equivalent section in the BNS. Section 309: Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both. This provision was, in effect, repealed by way of Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. It has been removed from the text of the BNS. No equivalent section in the BNS. Section 310: Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall have been habitually associated with any other or others for the purpose of committing robbery or child-stealing by means of or accompanied with murder, is a thug. This is a positive change. This provision previously criminalised people based on their caste and status, such as nomads, etc. No equivalent section in the BNS. Section 311: Whoever is a thug, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. This is a positive change. People were defined as “thugs” and criminalised based on belonging to the community. Clause 109(1): Any continuing unlawful activity including kidnapping, robbery, vehicle theft, extortion, land grabbing, contract killing, economic offences, cyber-crimes having severe consequences, trafficking in people, drugs, illicit goods or services and weapons, human trafficking racket for prostitution or ransom by the effort of groups of individuals acting in concert, singly or jointly, either as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate, by use of violence, threat of violence, intimidation, coercion, corruption or related activities or other unlawful means to obtain direct or indirect, material benefit including a financial benefit, shall constitute organised crime. No equivalent section in the IPC. This section introduces a new offence of “organised crime” in the IPC. However, given the manner in which it is worded, without appropriate punctuation marks or sub-sections, it creates confusion on which offences are covered within the ambit of organised crime. For instance, there is a reference to “human trafficking racket for prostitution or ransom”. What “human trafficking for ransom” implies is unclear. It also states: “by the effort of groups or individuals acting in concert, singly or jointly.” It is not clear what is implied by individuals acting in concert, but singly. Further, the phrase “cyber crimes having severe consequences” has not been defined.
Clause 109(1) Explanation: For the purposes of this subsection...: (ii) “organised crime syndicate” means a criminal organisation or group of three or more persons who, acting either singly or collectively in concert, as a syndicate, gang, mafia, or crime ring indulging in commission of one or more serious offences orinvolved in gang criminality, racketeering, and syndicated organised crime; No equivalent section in the IPC. Some elements of this definition seem to have been borrowed from the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and other similar organised crime statutes in other states. However, it also introduces certain new elements in the provision, which render the provision vague and unclear. Clause 109(1) Explanation: For the purposes of this subsection...: (iii) “continuing unlawful activity” means an activity prohibited by law, which is a cognizable offence undertaken either singly or jointly, as a member of an organised crime syndicate or on behalf of such syndicate in respect of which more than one charge-sheets have been filed before a competent court within the preceding period of ten years and that court has taken cognizance of such offence. No equivalent section in the IPC. This definition has been borrowed from the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 and other similar organised crime statutes in other states. Clause 109(2): Whoever, attempts to commit or commits an offence of organised crime shall,—(i) if such offence has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable with death or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees ten lakhs;(ii) in any other case, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine No equivalent section in the IPC. The punishment for attempt to commit the offence and the punishment for actual commission of the offence under this provision is the same. The distinction is instead drawn on the basis of whether a death is caused or not. In the former case, the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or death. Otherwise, there is a mandatory minimum sentence of five years, extendable to life imprisonment.
Clause 109(5): Whoever, intentionally harbours or conceals or attempts to harbour or conceal any person who has committed the offence of an organised crime or any member of an organised crime syndicate or believes that his act will encourage or assist the doing of such crime shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs: Provided that this sub-section shall not apply to any case in which the harbour or concealment is by the spouse of the offender. No equivalent section in the IPC. This section is taken from MCOCA. The proviso is from UAPA. The jurisprudence from these legislations will apply. Clause 109(6): Whoever, holds any property derived, or obtained from the commission of an organised crime or proceeds of any organised crime or which has been acquired through the organised crime syndicate funds shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees two lakhs. No equivalent section in the IPC. This section is taken from MCOCA, save for the term “proceeds of any organised crime”, which has been defined in the explanation. The proviso is from UAPA. The jurisprudence from these legislations will apply. Clause 109(7): If any person on behalf of a member of an organised crime syndicate is, or at anytime has been in possession of movable or immovable property which he cannot satisfactorily account for, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three years but which may extend to imprisonment for ten No equivalent section in the IPC. This section is taken from MCOCA. The proviso is from UAPA. The jurisprudence from these legislations will apply.
years and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees one lakh and such property shall also be liable for attachment and forfeiture. Clause 109: Explanation.–– For the purposes of this section, “proceeds of any organised crime” means all kind of properties which have been derived or obtained from commission of any organised crime or have acquired through funds traceable to any organised crime and shall include cash, irrespective of person in whose name such proceeds are standing or in whose possession they are found. No equivalent section in the IPC. This provides a broad definition to the term “proceeds of an organized crime”, and can thus be overinclusive. Currently, there is debate and criticism of similar provisions in the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, which have not been taken into consideration while drafting this clause of the BNS. Clause 110. (1) Any crime that causes general feelings of insecurity among citizens relating to theft of vehicle or theft from vehicle, domestic and business theft, trick theft, cargo crime, theft (attempt to theft, theft of personal property), organised pick pocketing, snatching, theft through shoplifting or card skimming and Automated Teller Machine thefts or procuring money in unlawful manner in public transport system or illegal selling of tickets and selling of public examination question papers and such other common forms of organised crime committed by organised criminal groups or gangs, shall constitute petty organised crimes and shall include the said crimes when No equivalent section in the IPC. This provision has vague and broad terms such as “general feelings of insecurity among citizens”. It also consists of terms such as “mobile organised crime groups”. This may lead to criminalisation of individuals/groups who are nomadic, which is was the rationale behind the repealed “Criminal Tribes Act”.
atmosphere or spread a message of fear, to cause death or serious bodily harm to any person, or endangers a person’s life; (ii) to cause damage or loss due to damage or destruction of property or disruption of any supplies or services essential to the life of the community, destruction of a Government or public facility, public place or private property; Same as above. (iii) to cause extensive interference with, damage or destruction to critical infrastructure; Same as above. (iv) to provoke or influence by intimidation the Government or its organisation, in such a manner so as to cause or likely to cause death or injury to any public functionary or any person or an act of detaining any person and threatening to kill or injure such person in order to compel the Government to do or abstain from doing any act, or destabilise or destroy the political, economic, or social structures of the country, or create a public emergency or undermine public safety; Same as above. (v) included within the scope of any of the Treaties listed in the Second Schedule to the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. Same as above.
Clause 111(2): Whoever, attempts to commit or commits an offence of terrorist act shall,––(i) if such offence has resulted in the death of any person, be punishable with death or imprisonment for life without the benefit of parole, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees ten lakhs;(ii) in any other case, be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs. No corresponding provision in the IPC. A large part of Clause 111(2) is taken from Section 16 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. However, in 111 (2) (i), life imprisonment has been specifically enhanced to exclude parole. Additionally fine amounts have been mentioned in the section which is absent in the UAPA. The punishment under this provision is more stringent than corresponding provisions of the UAPA. Clause 111 (3): Whoever, conspires, organises or causes to be organised any organisation, association or a group of persons for terrorist acts, or assists, facilitates or otherwise conspires to engage in any act preparatory to any terrorist act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs. No corresponding provision in the IPC. Clause 111(3) is taken from Section 18 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
- However, punishment under this provision specifically mentions a fine amount which is absent in the UAPA. Clause 111(4): Any person, who is a member of terrorist organisation, which is involved in terrorist act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine which shall not be less than rupees five lakhs. No corresponding provision in the IPC Clause 111(4) is taken from Section 20 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act,
- However, punishment under this provision specifically mentions a fine amount which is absent in the UAPA.
