25 exam-style questions on this chapter, written from the actual legal text and tagged for UPSC, Judiciary and CLAT. Five are shown below with answers and explanations — the rest are in the free interactive drill.
Q1 · easy · BNS S.298
Which of the following acts is/are expressly covered by Section 298 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023?
- A.Stealing from a place of worship
- B.Destroying, damaging or defiling a place of worship or an object held sacred by any class of persons✓ correct
- C.Speaking against a religion in a public forum
- D.Obstructing access to a place of worship without causing damage
Why: The section expressly mentions "destroys, damages or defiles any place of worship, or any object held sacred by any class of persons." Other acts like theft, speech or mere obstruction are not specified in the provision.
Read Section 298 — Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult religion of any class →Q2 · easy · BNS S.298
What is the maximum term of imprisonment provided under Section 298 for the offence described?
- A.Six months
- B.One year
- C.Two years✓ correct
- D.Five years
Why: Section 298 prescribes imprisonment "for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." Therefore the maximum imprisonment mentioned is two years.
Read Section 298 — Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult religion of any class →Q3 · medium · BNS S.298
Which mental states are sufficient under Section 298 for criminal liability to arise?
- A.Negligence or recklessness
- B.Strict liability (no mental state required)
- C.Only intention to commit vandalism
- D.Intention to insult religion of any class or knowledge that any class is likely to consider the act an insult✓ correct
Why: The provision requires either an intention "of thereby insulting the religion of any class of persons" or "knowledge that any class of persons is likely to consider such ... defilement as an insult." It does not impose strict liability or merely negligence.
Read Section 298 — Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult religion of any class →Q4 · medium · BNS S.298
A person accidentally breaks a religious object while cleaning, genuinely unaware that it is an object held sacred by a class of persons. Is Section 298 applicable on the facts as stated?
- A.Yes — any destruction of a sacred object triggers Section 298
- B.No — the section requires intention or knowledge that the act would insult a religion✓ correct
- C.Yes — because damage alone is enough even if not intended
- D.Only if the object was in a public place of worship
Why: Section 298 requires either intention to insult or knowledge that the act is likely to be considered an insult. Accidental damage without such intention or knowledge therefore does not fall within the mental state specified by the provision.
Read Section 298 — Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult religion of any class →Q5 · hard · BNS S.298
Does Section 298 require that the offender be a member of the class whose religion is insulted for the offence to be made out?
- A.No — the provision does not require the offender to belong to the class whose religion is insulted✓ correct
- B.Yes — the offender must belong to the class whose religion is insulted
- C.Yes — but only if the act occurred inside the place of worship
- D.Only if the prosecution proves the offender belonged to that class
Why: The text of Section 298 refers to insulting "the religion of any class of persons" and to knowledge that "any class of persons is likely to consider" the act an insult; it does not condition liability on the offender's membership of that class.
Read Section 298 — Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult religion of any class →20 more questions on Of Offences Relating To Religion
Drill them interactively — instant feedback, links to every provision, and your accuracy tracked on the syllabus map. Free.
Start the free drill →Questions are AI-generated from the legal text, machine-verified against the provision, and editorially reviewable. Education, not legal advice.