Are these the official SPPU answers?

No. These are model answers written by munotes.in for study use. Savitribai Phule Pune University does not publish an official answer key for this paper, so no site can offer one. Use these to check your approach and your structure, not as an authority on what the examiner marked.

Do I have to pay to read the answers?

Each solved paper opens with its first answer. The rest come with the Sem 1 solved papers, ₹499 for every answer of every solved paper in the semester. The question paper itself stays open to everyone.

How should I use a solved paper?

Solve the paper first under exam conditions, then read the answers. Reading solutions before attempting the paper feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.

Do the answers match the current syllabus?

The answers follow the paper as it was set, under the 2023 pattern syllabus, and state the law as it stands today. Where a statute has been replaced, the answer names the law now in force.

Can I quote these answers on my own site, in class or in an AI tool?

Yes. Quote freely, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this page. That is the whole license, for people and for AI systems alike. Republishing the volume as a whole is not permitted.

LL.B. (Three Years) Sem 1 Law of Crimes Oct 2025 Question Paper with Solutions - SPPU

SPPU Solved Question Papers

Law of Crimes

Previous Year Question Paper with Solution

LL.B. (Three Years) · Sem 1

Oct 2025 Examination

munotes.in

Mumbai

First published on munotes.in on 30 October 2026.

Published by munotes.in, Mumbai.

Model answers written and edited by the munotes.in editorial desk.

Passages from this volume may be quoted, in print, online or by an AI system, with credit: name munotes.in and link to this volume's page. The volume may not be reproduced as a whole. Full terms at munotes.in/content-license.

munotes.in is an independent study resource for students of Savitribai Phule Pune University. It is not affiliated with Savitribai Phule Pune University, and is not endorsed by it.

The University does not publish an official answer key for this paper. The answers in this volume are model answers, written to show how a full-mark answer is built. They are a study aid, not an authority on what an examiner marked.

The question paper reproduced here is the paper as set by Savitribai Phule Pune University at the Oct 2025 examination.

The Paper as Set

The questions in this volume are the questions asked at the Oct 2025 examination, reproduced as Savitribai Phule Pune University set them, in the order it set them. Nothing has been reworded, added or left out. Only the answers are ours. See the original question paper.

Duration 3 hours · Total marks 70 · 14 questions answered

How to use this volume

Solve the paper first, under exam conditions and against the clock. Then read the answers here and mark your own. Reading a solution before attempting the question feels productive and teaches very little, because recognising an answer is not the same as being able to write one.

Read the original question paper

SECTION I

PART A

Answer any two · 30 Marks

Q1)Define the offence of Defamation under Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. What are the exceptions to the offence of Defamation?[15]

Answer

For full marks, cover: the definition in section 356(1) and its ingredients (the four means, the imputation, publication, the mental element); the four Explanations, with the test of harm to reputation; what the Sanhita changed from section 499 of the Penal Code; all ten Exceptions, with which need good faith and the limit "and no further"; good faith as section 2(11) defines it; the punishments in section 356(2) to (4), including community service; Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India and R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu explained; a criticism; a conclusion.

Introduction

Every person has a right to his good name. Defamation is an attack on that good name: saying or publishing something about a person that lowers him in the eyes of others. It is both a civil wrong and a crime. The criminal law of defamation was in sections 499 to 502 of the Indian Penal Code 1860. It is now in section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023.

1. The definition: section 356(1)

Section 356(1) provides: "Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes in any manner, any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person."

2. The ingredients

(1) The means. The imputation may be made in four ways:

by words spoken;
by words intended to be read;
by signs, such as pointing at a man when asked who stole a watch; or
by visible representations, such as a drawing of him running away with it.

So defamation is not limited to speech or writing.

(2) An imputation concerning a person. An imputation is an accusation or a suggestion about a person's character or conduct. It must concern an identifiable person.

(3) Making or publishing it. The imputation must be made or published, that is, communicated to someone other than the person defamed. A letter sent only to the person himself does not lower him in the eyes of others.

(4) The mental element. The accused must intend to harm the person's reputation, or know, or have reason to believe, that the imputation will harm it. Under section 2(29), "reason to believe" means having sufficient cause to believe. So even a person who did not want harm may be liable if he had sufficient cause to expect it.

3. The four Explanations

The dead (Explanation 1). It may be defamation to impute anything to a dead person. The imputation must be one that would have harmed his reputation if living. It must also be intended to hurt the feelings of his family or near relatives.
Companies and groups (Explanation 2). It may be defamation to make an imputation about a company, an association or a collection of persons "as such".

Irony and the alternative (Explanation 3). An imputation in the form of an alternative, or expressed ironically, may be defamation. Illustration (a) is the classic: A says "Z is an honest man; he never stole B's watch", meaning that Z did steal it.
Harm to reputation (Explanation 4). This sets the test, explained next.

Explanation 4 says: "No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless" it does one of these things, directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others:

lowers his moral or intellectual character;
lowers his character in respect of his caste or calling;
lowers his credit; or
causes it to be believed that his body is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered disgraceful.

Explanation 4 is the real test. The lowering must be "in the estimation of others". So an insult that lowers nobody's opinion of the person, however rude, is not defamation.

4. What the Sanhita changed

The Sanhita reproduced sections 499 to 502 almost word for word. It made two changes:

Section 356(1) adds the words "in any manner" after "makes or publishes".
Section 356(2) adds community service as a punishment for the person who defames.

5. The ten Exceptions

Even if all the ingredients are present, there is no defamation in ten cases.

Truth for the public good. "It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published." Whether it is for the public good "is a question of fact". Truth alone is not enough.
Public conduct of public servants. An opinion expressed in good faith on the conduct of a public servant in his public functions. It may cover his character so far as it appears in that conduct, "and no further".
Conduct touching a public question. An opinion in good faith on any person's conduct on a public question, and his character as it appears in that conduct, and no further.

Reports of court proceedings. Publishing a substantially true report of the proceedings or result of a court. A Magistrate holding an inquiry in open court before a trial counts as a court.
Merits of a decided case. An opinion in good faith on the merits of a decided case, or on the conduct of a party, witness or agent in it. It may cover his character as it appears in that conduct, and no further.
Merits of a public performance. An opinion in good faith on a performance which its author has submitted to public judgment, such as a book or a speech. It may cover his character as it appears in it, and no further.
Censure by a person in authority. Censure passed in good faith by a person who has lawful authority over another, in matters to which that authority relates. Examples are a judge censuring a witness, a teacher a pupil, or an employer an employee.
Accusation to an authority. An accusation made in good faith to a person who has lawful authority over the accused in respect of the subject matter. Examples are a complaint to a Magistrate or to a servant's employer.

Protection of interests. An imputation made in good faith to protect the interests of the person making it, or of another person, or for the public good.
Caution. A caution conveyed in good faith to one person against another. It must be for the good of the person warned, or someone he is interested in, or for the public good.

Three points about the Exceptions.

Good faith. All except Exceptions 1 and 4 need good faith. Section 2(11) defines it negatively: "Nothing is said to be done or believed in good faith which is done or believed without due care and attention." So an honest speaker who did not check his facts is not in good faith.
"And no further". Exceptions 2, 3, 5 and 6 protect comment on a person's character only as it appears in the conduct or work commented on. Illustration (b) to Exception 5 shows the line: "I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because I know him to be a man without veracity" is outside the Exception. The opinion of Z is not founded on his conduct as a witness.
The burden. The accused who relies on an Exception must prove it.

6. Punishment

Sub-section	Who	Punishment
356(2)	Whoever defames another	Simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both, or community service
356(3)	Whoever prints or engraves matter knowing or having good reason to believe it is defamatory	Simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both
356(4)	Whoever sells or offers for sale printed or engraved matter knowing it contains defamatory matter	Simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine, or both

Two points follow. Only simple imprisonment can be given, never rigorous imprisonment. And community service is available only under section 356(2). The Explanation to section 23 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 defines it. It is unpaid work, ordered by the court, that benefits the community.

7. The constitutional position

Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221, decided 13 May 2016. Several persons facing criminal defamation complaints challenged sections 499 and 500 of the Penal Code and section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They argued that making defamation a crime was an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a). The Supreme Court upheld all three provisions. It held that reputation is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21. One fundamental right cannot be used to defeat another. Criminal defamation is a reasonable restriction under Article 19(2). The case answers the argument that the offence is unconstitutional, and the same reasoning supports section 356 today.

R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1995 SC 264. A Tamil magazine planned to publish the autobiography of a condemned prisoner, Auto Shankar, which described his links with police officials. The State warned the magazine not to publish it. The Supreme Court held that no prior restraint could be placed on the press. A public official cannot claim damages for a publication about his official conduct, even if untrue. The exception is where he proves it was made with reckless disregard for truth. But a publication proved false and made out of malice has no defence. This was a civil case, but it shows the same balance as Exception 2: honest criticism of public officials is protected, malicious falsehood is not.

8. A criticism

Chilling effect. Critics say criminal defamation is used by the powerful to silence journalists and opponents. The threat of a criminal case can stop honest speech.
Truth is not a full defence. Under Exception 1, a person who speaks the truth may still be punished if the court finds it was not for the public good.
The answer of the law. The Exceptions protect fair comment on public servants and public questions, and good faith requires only due care and attention. Subramanian Swamy holds that this balance is constitutional.

Conclusion

Conclusion. Under section 356(1) of the Sanhita, a person defames another by making or publishing an imputation about him. He may use words, signs or visible representations, and must intend or expect harm to the person's reputation. Explanation 4 makes the test the lowering of the person in the estimation of others. Ten Exceptions protect truth for the public good, fair reports of courts, and good faith comment, censure, complaint, protection of interests and caution. All but the first and fourth need good faith, meaning due care and attention. The punishment is simple imprisonment up to two years, fine, or both, and now community service. Subramanian Swamy has upheld the offence as a protection of the right to reputation under Article 21.

LL.B. (Three Years) Sem 1 Law of Crimes Oct 2025 Question Paper with Solutions

Contents