The shift from the Indian Penal Code to the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 is not merely a renaming. The BNS restructures offences, renumbers provisions, and — in several instances — reformulates the substantive rule. CLAT 2027 passages will reflect these changes, and aspirants need to know what has changed and what has not.
Criminal law passages follow the same principle-fact format as all other CLAT legal reasoning passages, but they have a distinctive structural feature: the passage principle frequently incorporates a definitional element and a mental element that must both be satisfied before liability arises.
A passage may state: "A person commits theft if they dishonestly take movable property out of the possession of another without consent, intending to permanently deprive that person of the property." This single sentence contains a mental element (dishonestly; intent to permanently deprive), a physical element (taking; moving), a definitional element (movable property; out of possession), and a consent element.
Each of these can be isolated in a fact scenario to deny liability. This multi-element structure is why criminal law passages generate more high-difficulty questions than tort passages — there are more conditions to satisfy, and the Consortium can fail any one of them across the question set.
The defendant desired the precise consequence that occurred. The highest standard of mens rea. Murder under BNS Section 101 requires intention-level mental state (or knowledge of imminently dangerous act). A passage that requires "intention" will not be satisfied by recklessness or negligence on the facts.
The defendant was aware that the consequence was substantially certain to follow. Knowledge is a lower threshold than intention — the actor need not desire the outcome, only know it will follow. Culpable homicide under BNS Section 100 can be established by knowledge of likely death even without the intention to kill.
The defendant was aware of the risk and proceeded regardless. This appears in BNS-sourced passages but less frequently than intention or knowledge. If the passage requires recklessness, mere negligence (failure to take care without awareness of risk) will not satisfy it.
Under the BNS as under the IPC, there is generally no criminal liability for mere omission unless there is a legal duty to act — arising from a contractual duty, a relationship (parent-child), a public servant role, or voluntary undertaking. Passages that include an omission scenario will state whether the passage principle covers omissions. If it does not, omission ≠ criminal act.
IPC Section 124A (sedition) criminalised "exciting disaffection" toward the government — a colonial formulation subject to sustained challenge. BNS Section 152 instead criminalises acts that endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India, extending to economic security and financial stability. CLAT passages built on BNS Section 152 will test whether a given act or expression falls within this formulation, which is broader than the IPC provision in some respects and narrower in others.
"A person commits culpable homicide if they cause death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with knowledge that their act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death. An act done without any of these mental states does not constitute culpable homicide even if it results in death."
Harsha, a pharmacist, makes an error in dispensing medication: she gives a customer a dose three times the prescribed amount, believing she is dispensing the correct dose. The customer dies.
The passage requires intention to cause death, intention to cause likely-fatal injury, or knowledge that the act must in all probability cause death. Harsha believed she was dispensing the correct dose. She had none of the three mental states required.
Answer: Harsha has not committed culpable homicide under the passage principle. Her act may attract liability for negligent act causing death (BNS Section 106), but not culpable homicide as defined by this passage.
CLAT 2027 will reference BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023) provisions, which came into force on 1 July 2024. IPC section numbers are no longer operative. However, CLAT passages rarely cite section numbers at all — they extract principles. The BNS matters because the substantive rules have changed in some areas (sedition, organised crime, community service as punishment), and passages drawn from BNS will reflect those changes.
Under BNS Section 100 (culpable homicide) and Section 101 (murder), the distinction tracks the IPC Sections 299 and 300 distinction. Murder is culpable homicide with an additional mental element: intention to cause death, intention to cause bodily injury knowing it will cause death, or knowledge that the act is imminently dangerous and must cause death. CLAT passages use this distinction by giving facts where the mental element falls just short of murder-level intention — testing whether culpable homicide or murder applies.
Abetment passages test whether a person who instigates, conspires with, or intentionally aids another to commit an offence is liable. The key test: instigation requires knowledge that the principal will commit the act. Casual mention without such knowledge is not instigation. If the passage states that "mere presence at the scene does not constitute abetment," facts placing a person near the crime who took no active part will not give rise to abetment liability.
The IPC's Section 124A (sedition) — which criminalised "exciting disaffection" toward the government — has been replaced by BNS Section 152, which criminalises acts that endanger the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India. The reformulation is broader in some respects (it adds economic security and financial stability to the scope) and avoids the word "sedition." CLAT may present passages built on BNS Section 152 and test whether a given expression or act falls within the new formulation.
Preparation is acquiring tools, planning, or conducting reconnaissance — it does not attract criminal liability under most CLAT passage formulations. Attempt is the crossing of a threshold from preparation into execution: the act must be immediately and not merely remotely connected to the commission of the offence. The passage will define where this line falls. Apply the passage's definition, not general doctrinal tests.
The Consortium states the general rule and one or more exceptions, then presents fact scenarios designed to test whether the exception applies. For private defence, the key condition is reasonable necessity — the harm caused must not exceed what was necessary to repel the threat. A fact where the defendant used disproportionate force tests whether the exception is triggered (it typically is not). For unsoundness of mind, voluntary intoxication does not satisfy the exception under most passage formulations.
Because most criminal law passages define the mental element precisely and most wrong answers involve applying the wrong mental state. If the passage requires intention and the facts show recklessness, the mental element is not satisfied — no liability under the passage, even if general criminal law would impose it. Identifying the required mental state first eliminates this error at the root.
The key facts: BNS 2023 replaced the IPC (in force from 1 July 2024). Community service was added as a punishment — the first time this exists in Indian criminal law. BNS Section 152 replaced IPC Section 124A (sedition). BNS Section 111 introduced organised crime provisions. Murder: BNS Section 101. Rape: BNS Section 63. These are high-yield GK items for CLAT 2027.