With the rollout of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) in 2023, Indian criminal law underwent a structural overhaul . Among the many revamped sections, Section 324 BNS holds particular relevance in protecting public and private property from willful damage . This provision deals with mischief a term that legally means any act of destruction or alteration of property done with wrongful intent .

In everyday life, acts like vandalizing public parks, damaging street lights or destroying someone’s vehicle fall under mischief . Section 324 BNS covers these situations in depth and outlines graded punishments based on the value of damage caused .

This article explores the definition, examples, punishments, and legal scope of Section 324 BNS while also comparing it with IPC Section 425, its judicial interpretations, and landmark cases. You’ll also find answers to trending questions like section 324 BNS bailable or non bailable, and the exact 324 4 BNS punishment. Explore other important Judiciary Notes.

Section 324 BNS: Mischief

(1) Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits mischief.

Explanation 1.—It is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender should intend to cause loss or damage to the owner of the property 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 any property, whether it belongs to that person or not.

Explanation 2.—Mischief may be committed by an act affecting property belonging to the person who commits the act, or to that person and others jointly.

Illustrations.

(a) A voluntarily burns a valuable security belonging to Z intending to cause wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.

(b) A introduces water into an ice-house belonging to Z and thus causes the ice to melt, intending wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.

(c) A voluntarily throws into a river a ring belonging to Z, with the intention of thereby causing wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.

(d) A, knowing that his effects are about to be taken in execution in order to satisfy a debt due from him to Z, destroys those effects, with the intention of thereby preventing Z from obtaining satisfaction of the debt, and of thus causing damage to Z. A has committed mischief.

(e) A having insured a ship, voluntarily causes the same to be cast away, with the intention of causing damage to the underwriters. A has committed mischief.

(f) A causes a ship to be cast away, intending thereby to cause damage to Z who has lent money on bottomry on the ship. A has committed mischief.

(g) A, having joint property with Z in a horse, shoots the horse, intending thereby to cause wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.

(h) A causes cattle to enter upon a field belonging to Z, intending to cause and knowing that he is likely to cause damage to Z’s crop. A has committed mischief.

(2) Whoever commits mischief shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

(3) Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to any property including the property of Government or Local Authority shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

(4) Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of twenty thousand rupees and more but less than one lakh rupees shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

(5) Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of one lakh rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.

(6) Whoever commits mischief, having made preparation for causing to any person death, or hurt, or wrongful restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Note: "The information provided above has been sourced from the official website, i.e., Indian Code. While the content has been presented here for reference, no modifications have been made to the original laws and orders"

Free Download PDF on Section 324 BNS

Section 324 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) deals with mischief, defined as intentionally or knowingly causing wrongful loss or damage to public or private property. It includes destruction, alteration or any change that reduces the value or utility of property .

Definition:

Mischief is not restricted to acts against others' property. Even damage to one’s own jointly owned property, if done to cause loss to someone else, falls under Section 324 BNS. The law focuses on the consequence of loss—not ownership.

Intent and Knowledge:

The offence requires either:

• An intent to cause wrongful loss/damage, or
• Knowledge that such loss is likely to occur.

This makes Section 324 BNS punishment applicable even in non-violent cases involving financial loss.

Examples of Mischief:

Examples of mischief are as under -

• Destroying playground equipment in a public park.
• Deliberate damage to office computers to prevent a colleague from working.
• Breaking a rented property’s windows during a dispute.

Penalties:

Penalties escalate based on damage value:

• Minor damage (under ₹20,000): BNS section 324 2
• Government property damage: BNS section 324 3
• ₹20,000–₹1 lakh damage: section 324 4 BNS
• ₹1 lakh and above: section 324 5 BNS

Thus, under Section 324 BNS, punishment varies from 6 months to 5 years.

Section 324 BNS: Essential Elements

For an act to qualify as mischief under Section 324 BNS, four key elements must be present:

• Intent or Knowledge: The person must either intend to cause loss or know it is likely.
• Destruction or Alteration: Any act that damages or reduces the utility/value of property.
• Property Involved: Can be public, private, or even owned by the offender jointly.
• Wrongful Loss: The outcome must be financial loss or harm.

Notably, ownership of the property is not essential. A person can commit mischief on their own property if it leads to someone else’s financial loss.

This widens the legal net to include cases like insurance fraud, tenant vandalism, or destruction of mortgaged items. Courts examine both motive and impact to determine guilt under section 324 BNS.

The nature of Section 324 BNS is both preventive and punitive. It seeks to protect societal order by penalizing those who intentionally harm property, whether personal, public, or jointly owned.

Scope:

• Applies to individuals or groups (e.g., during protests or personal vendettas).
• Includes government, municipal, and private property.
• Recognizes economic damage beyond physical destruction.

The law reflects modern challenges, especially in urban environments where property disputes and vandalism are common.

Is section 324 BNS bailable or not?
Yes. Bailability depends on the degree of damage:

• Minor offences (under ₹20,000) are bailable.
• Serious ones (over ₹1 lakh or involving threat) may become non-bailable, especially under section 324 6 BNS.

Thus, the scope of 324 BNS punishment ranges widely, but always focuses on safeguarding property value.

Comparison Table: Section 324 BNS vs IPC Section 425

Before BNS, similar conduct was covered under Section 425 Indian Penal Code (IPC). The transition to Section 324 BNS preserved the structure while fitting into the reformed legal framework under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita.

Section 324 BNS: Judicial Interpretation 

Indian courts interpret Section 324 BNS by focusing on intent and loss, not just on physical destruction. The key takeaway from judgments is that:

• Mischief includes economic harm, not only physical damage.
• Ownership is not a defense if the act harms others.

For instance, in Gopal Singh vs. State of MP, damaging a jointly-owned tractor was held as mischief. The courts also clarified in Surendra vs. State of MP that acts against public property like street lighting or water pipelines invite stricter penalties.

The judiciary also distinguishes accidental damage from intentional mischief, ensuring fair application. Courts rely on eyewitnesses, circumstantial evidence, and financial estimates to fix liability.Thus, under section 324 BNS 2023, intent and resulting damage form the basis of legal scrutiny.

Section 324 BNS: Landmark Cases 

The landmark Judgments relating to section 324 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 has been explained as under,they are -

• Gopal vs. State of Bihar (2001)
  The accused destroyed a jointly-owned farm plow during a land dispute. The court confirmed this as mischief under Section 324 BNS, highlighting co-ownership does not exempt liability.
• Ravi vs. State of Maharashtra (2017) During a political rally, individuals broke CCTV cameras. The High Court noted this as aggravated mischief involving public property under BNS section 324 3.
• Arvind vs. State of Gujarat (2015)
  Arvind burned a document mortgaged to a bank. The court invoked section 324 4 BNS due to financial intent and loss exceeding ₹20,000.
• Kumar vs. State of Delhi (2009)
  A contractor damaged civic repair material in protest. The court used section 324 5 BNS since the loss exceeded ₹1 lakh and was public in nature.
• Rafiq vs. State of Rajasthan (2018) The accused dumped paint over a public statue as a protest. The High Court viewed this as calculated mischief involving public sentiment and penalized under section 324 6 BNS.

Section 324 BNS: Impact

Section 324 BNS has strengthened property protection under Indian law. By linking punishment to damage value, it delivers proportional justice.

The inclusion of public property, government assets, and joint ownership damage gives the law broad relevance in civil and criminal contexts. Law enforcement now has a clearer guide to determine charges and whether Section 324 BNS is bailable or non bailable, based on specific loss brackets.

Moreover, the deterrent value of up to 5 years imprisonment under section 324 5 BNS discourages large-scale vandalism, insurance fraud, and protest violence.This modern, graded, and practical approach improves judicial efficiency, supports municipal authorities, and safeguards public infrastructure.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Section 324 BNS is a powerful and well-structured provision that tackles the offence of mischief comprehensively. Whether the damage is minor or massive, public or private, this law ensures accountability based on intent and consequences.

With tiered punishments under BNS section 324 2, section 324 4 BNS, and section 324 5 BNS, the law allows proportional action. The inclusion of cases involving preparations to harm, as seen in section 324 6 BNS, adds a vital deterrent for planned destruction.

Replacing IPC Section 425, the BNS framework makes mischief laws modern, fair, and enforceable. The detailed classifications also answer key concerns about section 324 BNS punishment and bailability, making it easier for both law enforcers and courts.

Ultimately, under Section 324 BNS, the message is clear: property destruction, in any form and with malicious intent, will not go unpunished in today’s legal system.