e-Nyaya Sarathi

Yes, any fact showing motive, preparation, or conduct before or after an event is relevant to understanding intention or guilt.

Yes, facts clarifying abbreviations or confusing terms in documents/materials are relevant.

Prior conduct is relevant if it directly explains or connects to the allegation, motive, or preparation for the act.

Conduct after the fact—such as fleeing, hiding, or attempting to destroy evidence—may be relevant to prove intention or consciousness of guilt.

Yes, statements made contemporaneously with the event are relevant (res gestae) if they form part of the same transaction.

Yes, if they are closely connected to facts in issue or are part of the transaction, they are relevant and authenticity must be proved.

Confessions and admissions are relevant, but only if made voluntarily and not under threat or coercion.

Yes, any fact showing the existence or furtherance of a conspiracy is relevant, including acts or statements by each conspirator.

Character of a party is generally irrelevant except in cases where character itself is at issue or impacts credibility (exceptions for rape, defamation, etc.).

Yes, any fact (through cross-examination or other evidence) that undermines or rebuts the relevance of admitted facts is also relevant.

Prior judgments are relevant in certain cases, especially those impacting the question of law or precedent, or proving foundational facts.

Expert opinions (forensic, medical, handwriting, digital evidence) are relevant if the expertise is established and the question requires specialized knowledge.

Yes, relevancy depends on connection to the issue at hand—it must contribute meaningfully to the question before the specific court.

Yes, when it helps explain motive, context, or circumstances of a dispute/crime.

Yes, such facts are considered in assessing witness credibility and the weight of their evidence.

No, relevancy is necessary, but facts must also be proved according to the rules of admissibility and procedure.

Generally, routine conduct is not relevant unless directly in issue; exceptions exist where pattern or system matters.

Usually inadmissible unless current charge is similar or character is in issue.

Yes, facts that establish or dispute the identity of people/objects/locations tied to the case are relevant.

Yes, especially in civil claims, evidence establishing prior exercise or denial of rights is relevant.

Yes, statements made by persons on deathbed relating to cause or circumstances of their death are highly relevant.

Yes, for instance, proving a document was forged or a witness was tutored is relevant.

Absolutely, as they help establish opportunity, alibi, or impossibility.

Yes, mental state (intent, insanity, duress) at the time of the act is relevant.

Yes, prior inconsistent statements, relations with the parties, bias, etc., impact credibility and are relevant.

If conducted and presented according to law, forensic results, DNA, chemical analysis are relevant.

Yes, facts that clarify how/why a document was made, signed, stored, or altered are relevant.

It is relevant only for questions beyond common knowledge where expert opinion can aid the court.

Yes, alternative possibilities may be relevant to challenge or support facts in issue.

Yes, facts indicating personal vendetta, bias, or ulterior motive for lodging a false case are relevant.

Generally not, except where they directly affect the genuineness of the allegations.

Where customary rights, practices, or usages are in issue, facts proving or disproving their existence or nature are relevant.

Yes, prior failed attempts or preparations to commit an offence help establish intent or premeditation.

Disagreement among experts is relevant for the court to assess reliability of expert evidence.

Yes, recent possession of property soon after a theft is highly relevant in criminal cases.

Sometimes consequences (injury, loss, effect) may be relevant to aggravate or mitigate the charge/sentence.

Yes, such facts may reflect on intention, admission, or settlement efforts of the accused.

Yes, especially in complex cases involving industry jargon or scientific terms, clarity is important.

Yes, a proper chain of custody helps ensure authenticity of exhibits/evidence.

Acts of public officials, notifications, government conduct may be relevant if linked to the issue.

Yes, acts or statements of co-accused may be relevant to establish conspiracy, common intention, or group liability.

Crucial; medical, forensic, or circumstantial facts on cause of death are always relevant.

Yes, the scene, environmental conditions, or objective factors are relevant for reconstructing events.

Yes, facts that trigger or rebut legal presumptions (ownership, authenticity) are relevant.

No, a fact is relevant if it has a logical connection to the case, but it must then be proved as per admissibility and procedure rules.

Facts that a court must take judicial notice of, like laws, public acts, official appointments, and territorial boundaries, do not require proof and are presumed true by virtue of the judge’s official knowledge.

No, fact needs to be proved in any proceeding that the parties or their agents formally admit during hearing, or admit in writing before hearing, or are deemed admitted by their pleadings.

Yes, the court has discretion to require proof of admitted facts if it feels proof is necessary for justice, despite the admission by parties.

No, courts take judicial notice of all laws in force in India, relevant treaties, government notifications, and similar official documents without requiring formal proof.

No, facts so well known that they are “notorious” and within the judge’s common knowledge (e.g., sunrise time, basic scientific principles, etc.) need not be proved.

Only the party that admits the fact is bound by that admission; other parties are not bound unless they also admit.

Once a fact is judicially noticed, it is considered proved for all legal purposes and the court may not allow evidence to contradict it.

If, by the rules of pleading in force, a party is deemed to have admitted a fact in their pleadings (e.g., failure to specifically deny an allegation), that fact need not be proved.

Yes, courts have wide discretion and can take judicial notice of facts not expressly listed in the law, provided they feel justified and it serves justice in the case.

Oral evidence means statements made in court by witnesses regarding facts under judicial inquiry. Crucially, under BSA, this now includes statements given electronically—so testimony may be delivered via video conferencing or other electronic means, not just in person.

Sections 54 and 55 of the BSA, 2023 exclusively address oral evidence: Section 54 says that, except for document contents, all facts may be proved by oral evidence; Section 55 establishes that oral evidence must be direct (that is, given by a witness who perceived the fact themselves).

No, Section 55 (reflecting the previous law) strictly enforces the rule against hearsay. Only direct oral evidence is admissible, meaning the witness must have directly perceived the fact (saw, heard, or experienced it personally).

Yes, the BSA explicitly allows oral evidence to be provided through electronic means such as video conferencing—this aligns with modern judicial practices and improves access to justice (e.g., for witnesses unable to be physically present).

Yes, the law provides for limited exceptions, such as when expert opinion is sought and the expert is unavailable (then their publications may be used), or when the physical condition of a material thing is at issue and it can be produced before the court for inspection.

Any evidence consisting of documents, including any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures, marks, or more notably electronic or digital records used to prove facts relevant to a case.

Section 2(i) and Chapter 5 of BSA specifically define documentary evidence and detail its rules.

The BSA advances the recognition of electronic records (emails, digital files, server logs) as documentary evidence, integral to proving facts in modern trials.

The original document itself or electronic record produced before the court for inspection constitutes primary evidence.

Copies, translations, oral accounts of document contents, or any substitutes when primary documents cannot be obtained.

As per Section 69 and related sections, primary evidence is required in proving contents of a document unless exceptions apply.

Secondary evidence can be admitted only when the primary evidence cannot be produced by lawful means or when the original is lost, destroyed, cannot be obtained, or is in possession of the opponent refusing to produce it.

Yes. BSA treats electronic documents which are retained as copies in electronic form as primary evidence if produced by proper custody and authenticity.

Section 63 mandates certificate(s) from the custodian and an expert certifying the electronic record's authenticity, origin, and integrity for admissibility.

A written declaration signed by a person in charge and an expert outlining how electronic records were produced and maintained without alteration.

An individual with specialized knowledge or training in information technology or forensic data examination recognized under the law.

Yes, rough notes may be admissible if they relate to events under inquiry and assist in understanding the facts.

Not necessarily. The court will accept secondary evidence if the original document is lost, destroyed, or unobtainable despite due diligence.

An incorrect or misleading certificate can lead to exclusion of electronic documentary evidence.

Yes, translations, if properly certified and attested, are relevant documentary evidence.

Documents proved to be forged are inadmissible and can lead to criminal consequences under BSA and related laws.

Evidence explaining abbreviations or unclear terms in documents is admissible under BSA to ascertain meaning.

BSA Section 90 prohibits presuming sender identity without adequate authentication; contents must be proven.

Documentary evidence, especially electronic records, requires a clear chain proving integrity at each stage for admissibility.

Yes, printouts or copies are admissible if accompanied by authenticating certificates from custodians/experts.

Computer programs may be treated as documentary evidence if relevant, but proof of authenticity and accuracy is critical.

Yes, if proven authentic and relevant, they can be admitted as documentary evidence under BSA.

Emails, if properly authenticated and certified, are admissible documentary evidence.

Yes, BSA treats public documents with presumptive authenticity; private documents require proof of signature and execution.

Documents made by public officials in discharge of official duties, including court records, government notifications, etc.

By offering direct evidence from parties or witnesses or by examining the authenticity of signatures or seals.

Yes, documents integral to contracts, agreements, or transactions are relevant and admissible as proof.

Yes, proving the date of execution or receipt can be admitted either through direct or circumstantial evidence.

Entries are admissible as documentary evidence if made in the ordinary course of business by authorized persons.

Yes, prior written statements inconsistent with oral testimony can be introduced for credibility assessment.

Certified copies by authorized persons or public officers qualify as secondary evidence and are admissible.

If the original documents are lost or destroyed, secondary evidence or oral evidence of contents may be used to prove.

Such documents receive presumptive authenticity and are treated as public documents.

Yes, authenticity can be challenged by cross-examination, evidence of forgery, or contrary proof.

Yes, handwriting samples can be admitted as documentary evidence with expert testimony.

Documents created at or near the time of the event are regarded as highly reliable evidence.

Yes, digital contracts with proper certification have the same status as physical documents.

Documents whose origin and integrity can be established on blockchain may be considered as evidence if accompanied by proper certification.

Documents digitally signed by authorized persons are valid and admissible as documentary evidence.

Under Section 63, if a certificate is provided, electronic records are presumed authentic unless disproved.

Yes, oral evidence may be permitted to clarify ambiguous terms, unclear parts, or context in documents.

Private correspondence may be admissible if relevant and obtained lawfully.

No; documents signed under coercion, fraud, or misrepresentation are inadmissible as evidence.

Yes, photographs depicting relevant facts or events admitted under documentary evidence standards.

Yes, such documents are public records and are admissible with presumptive authenticity.

Such documents require authentication via apostille or consulate certification but can be admissible if properly authenticated.

If compliant with IT laws, electronic signatures are valid for authentication and admissibility purposes.

Yes, proof showing how documents were stored, preserved, or accessed may be relevant to establish authenticity.

If properly certified and accompanied by a certificate of custody, they can be admitted as secondary evidence.

The court may draw adverse inference against that party and allow secondary evidence based on the assumption of suppression.

When the terms of a contract, grant, or disposition of property are reduced to writing, only the document itself (or permitted secondary evidence) can prove its contents—oral evidence cannot generally contradict, vary, add to, or subtract from such written terms.

Sections 91 and 92 of BSA, 2023 set out the main rules for excluding oral evidence when a written document exists.

It means original documents (where available) are the best proof and must be presented in court, taking priority over oral accounts about their contents.

Yes, exceptions include fraud, intimidation, illegality, mistake, conditions precedent, subsequent oral agreements, trade custom, and cases of ambiguity in the document.

Yes, oral evidence explaining or clarifying ambiguous terms, abbreviations or technical words in documents is admissible.

Yes, oral evidence can be admitted to show that a contract was induced by fraud, coercion, or is otherwise invalid, even if its terms are in writing.

Yes, oral evidence can establish that certain conditions had to be met before the contract became operative.

Yes, oral evidence of trade custom may be allowed to interpret contract terms or show collateral agreements.

If the parties made a subsequent oral arrangement changing the original terms, and the case falls within the exceptions, oral evidence is admissible.

Yes, where the document is ambiguous, incomplete, or does not reflect the true intention, oral evidence can clarify its meaning or supplement its terms.

Secondary evidence (including oral accounts) can be allowed to prove the contents of lost or destroyed documents.

Yes, electronic records are considered documentary evidence, and their contents are proved in the same way as physical documents under BSA.

The exclusion applies to all documents that set out the terms of contracts, grants, or property dispositions, whether written or electronic.

Only when the facts fall within the recognized exceptions; otherwise, courts will prioritize written terms over oral evidence.

Yes, public documents issued by government authorities generally cannot be contradicted by oral evidence except in cases of fraud or mistake.

Oral evidence may be allowed for collateral matters not directly impacting the document’s terms.

Oral evidence (including expert or witness testimony) may be admitted to prove or refute validity of a signature or attestation.

Not if it circumvents statutory requirements—courts typically enforce the exclusion unless exceptions apply.

By making documents the central proof, this rule limits the risk of tailored oral evidence being used to manipulate outcomes—thus enhancing reliability.

Yes, where exceptions exist, courts may rely on both types of evidence to resolve ambiguities or disputes; otherwise, documentary evidence dominates.

It is the duty to prove the existence of facts. Whoever asserts a fact in court must prove it; this obligation is called the burden of proof.

Sections 104 to 114 outline the rules and applications regarding burden of proof.

The prosecution, which has to prove the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The party who would lose if no evidence were given, usually the plaintiff.

Yes—it can shift by operation of law, statutory presumptions, or once a party establishes a prima facie case.

Legal burden is the overall responsibility to prove a case; evidentiary burden is the duty to produce evidence on a specific issue.

In criminal cases, if the accused claims a special defense (insanity, alibi, exception), the burden falls on them for that issue.

“Beyond reasonable doubt”—the highest threshold in law.

In civil cases, the standard of proof is typically Preponderance of the evidence, meaning the plaintiff must show that their claims are more likely than not to be true.

It states whoever desires a court to give judgment as to a legal right or liability based on a fact must prove that fact exists.

As per Section 109, a party whose specific knowledge relates to a fact carries the burden for that fact.

Yes, if a law presumes a fact, the burden shifts to the party opposing that presumption.

The party who had the burden loses on that issue.

Yes, if it forms a complete chain of facts and excludes any alternative explanation.

Yes, the party wishing to introduce evidence must establish its admissibility.

The party relying on the document must prove its execution, authenticity, and lawfulness.

Some are “conclusive proof” (irrebuttable), while others are rebuttable (“may presume” or “shall presume”).

Failure results in court judgment against the party on that issue.

The principle is the same, but the standard (degree of proof) varies by type—criminal, civil, or special statute.

Yes, prosecution must prove intent or mens rea if it is a part of the offence.

Burden lies on the party producing and relying upon the document.

The party asserting title, right, or possession generally bears the burden unless protected by legal presumption.

Prosecution must prove the confession is voluntary; defense may raise doubts on voluntariness, shifting the burden.

Certain statutes or situations may put additional burden on parties in cases involving minors or vulnerable persons.

Yes, courts may decide an issue is not proved where the party fails to discharge the burden.

If a party admits a fact, the burden to prove that fact is generally discharged.

Secondary or collateral facts may shift the burden, especially to support or undermine main facts in issue.

It is flexible, shifting throughout the trial as facts and presumptions are established.

It determines case outcomes—ensuring fairness, preventing injustice, and guiding judges on legal responsibility for proof.

Estoppel is a rule that prevents a person from denying or contradicting a previous statement, claim, act, or omission when another party has relied upon it to their detriment. It promotes honesty and prevents fraud by stopping parties from going back on their word in court.

Estoppel is covered under Sections 121 to 123 of BSA, 2023. Section 121 sets out the general doctrine, while Sections 122 and 123 address special instances of estoppel, including those related to tenants and licensees.

The essential ingredients are:-
One party makes a factual representation (by words, conduct, or omission).
The representation is intended to be acted upon.
The other party believes and acts upon it.
There is reliance causing a change of position or actual loss.

Yes, estoppel cannot be used against statutes, sovereign/government acts, or ultra vires orders. It also does not operate against minors who misrepresented their age or in matters where all parties know the true facts.

No, Section 122 BSA specifically prevents a tenant or licensee from denying that their landlord or licensor had title at the beginning of the tenancy or license.

The object is to ensure fairness and prevent fraud, by holding people accountable for previous claims and preventing inconsistent conduct in legal proceedings. Estoppel maintains justice by ensuring parties act in good faith and cannot mislead others to their disadvantage.

Any person is competent to testify unless the court considers them incapable of understanding questions or giving rational answers due to tender years, old age, disease, or similar cause.

Yes, as per Section 124, a child can testify if the court finds the child able to understand and answer questions rationally.

Yes. Section 125 allows those unable to speak to give evidence in writing, signs, or other modes; such statements are treated as oral evidence.

Yes. Section 126 provides that spouses are competent and compellable witnesses for or against each other in civil and criminal proceedings, except for privileged communications and certain exceptions.

Sections 127–128 protect communications between spouses and certain professional communications (like advocate-client) from disclosure as evidence unless consented to or specifically excepted.

A hostile witness is one who gives adverse testimony to the party that called them, possibly deviating from previous statements.

An accomplice is someone involved in the commission of an offence who testifies against a co-accused; their evidence can suffice for conviction if deemed credible and reliable.

Section 134 states no particular number of witnesses is required to prove a fact; even a single wholly reliable witness can suffice.

Witnesses are examined in-chief by the party calling them, cross-examined by the opposite party, then re-examined to clarify new matters.

It is the questioning of a witness by the opposing party, primarily to test their credibility and challenge their testimony.

As a rule, leading questions are not allowed except for matters not in dispute or with court permission (Section 142 BSA).

Yes, leading questions are generally allowed in cross-examination.

The court may compel them to answer unless legally privileged or irrelevant; refusal may result in legal consequences.

Yes, Sections 151–152 empower courts to bar indecent, scandalous, or offensive questions that aren’t relevant.

Yes, parties to a suit or proceeding may testify as witnesses if competent.

No. mere relationship does not disqualify a witness; courts scrutinize for possible bias but do not exclude solely for kinship.

No. Courts can rely upon the credible part of their statement, disregarding only the unreliable portions.

Contradictions may weaken credibility but do not automatically make the whole testimony false.

Expert witnesses testify on specialized areas (medical, technical, scientific), aiding the court’s understanding; courts are not bound by their opinions.

Yes, BSA 2023 recognizes and allows testimony via electronic means for accessibility.

This is the first questioning of a witness by the party that called them, aimed at eliciting their evidence in support of that party’s case.

After cross-examination, the original party may re-examine a witness to clarify points raised during cross-examination.

Yes, there are procedural and protective measures for children, sexual offence survivors, and those with disabilities, including in-camera proceedings and appointed support persons.

A witness who stands to benefit materially from the outcome. Their evidence is admissible but must be scrutinized for bias.

Such witnesses (present at the scene by coincidence) are accepted if their presence is satisfactorily explained and testimony credible.

Courts may permit additional examination of a witness at any stage if necessary for justice.

Yes, judges have the power to question witnesses for clarification or to elicit relevant facts.

To tell the truth, attend court when summoned, and answer questions unless protected by lawful privilege.

Yes, if the document is relevant and not privileged, the court can direct a witness to produce it.

Only incompetency (incapacity to understand/answer) disqualifies a witness. Bias, relationship, or hostile attitude do not automatically disqualify; such factors go to value, not admissibility.

It refers to the process of questioning witnesses in court to elicit facts relevant to the case.

The party who calls the witness conducts the examination-in-chief to present evidence supporting their case.

Cross-examination is the questioning of the opposing party’s witness to test reliability and credibility.

After cross-examination, re-examination is conducted by the original party to clarify or explain matters raised during cross-examination.

BSA 2023 does not specify strict limits but courts regulate time to ensure trial fairness and efficiency.

Generally no, unless the court permits or the matter is undisputed.

Yes, leading questions are generally permitted in cross-examination.

Witnesses must be treated with respect; court can protect vulnerable witnesses from distress or harassment.

The court may compel answers unless the question is irrelevant, privileged, or self-incriminatory.

Yes, the court can disallow questions and answers irrelevant to the case.

Yes, judges may question witnesses at any stage to elicit relevant facts or clarify unclear testimony.

A witness who contradicts the party calling them or appears adverse may be declared hostile and cross-examined accordingly.

On application from a party, the court may allow cross-examination as if from the opposite party.

Generally no; only direct facts known to the witness are admissible.

Their expert opinion may be challenged during cross-examination about their qualifications or findings.

Yes, BSA allows oral evidence via electronic means like video conferencing.

First examination-in-chief, then cross-examination, followed by re-examination (if any).

Yes, witnesses can be recalled to clarify or add evidence if the court permits.

Corroborative evidence strengthens the credibility of testimony given by witnesses.

Yes, for impeaching credibility or as evidence in certain cases.

Special procedures and protections, including in-camera proceedings, support persons, and limited direct questioning.

Yes, interpreters help witnesses understand questions and testify clearly when language barriers exist.

Legal actions include perjury charges or contempt proceedings.

Courts can adjourn examination for legitimate reasons such as witness unavailability or medical grounds.

Witnesses may have legal counsel, especially expert witnesses, during testimony.

Yes, a witness can refuse answers that would incriminate themselves.

Yes, demeanor, conduct, and mannerisms during examination may impact credibility.

Irrelevant, scandalous, insulting, or repetitive questions may be disallowed.

Yes, documents can be used to refresh memory or confirm facts during testimony.

Yes, fairness, opportunity to be heard, and unbiased questioning are mandatory.

Yes, audio-video recordings of examinations may be admissible under BSA's digital provisions.

Yes, procedures may differ for expert, child, hostile, or interested witnesses.

Yes, portions of evidence can be elicited gradually depending on relevance and court directions.

The prosecutor leads examination-in-chief and cross-examines defense witnesses to establish facts.

Yes, courts can admonish or penalize lawyers for bad faith or improper questions during examination.

In limited circumstances, a court may infer adverse conclusions if a witness refuses to testify or answer relevant questions.

Eye-witness accounts are important but subject to scrutiny, cross-examination, and corroborative evidence.

Yes, they may use models, charts, or photographs to explain medical conditions to the court.

Yes, courts increasingly employ audio recordings for accuracy and records under BSA digital protocols.

The party calling the witness can apply for the hostile declaration and proceed with cross-examination as if by the opposing party.

Improper admission of evidence occurs when a court allows evidence that does not comply with statutory requirements, is irrelevant, illegally obtained, or prejudicial, thereby potentially affecting the fairness of the trial. Such admission may constitute a ground for appeal or revision if it materially affects the outcome of the case.

Improper rejection of evidence happens when a court excludes relevant, admissible, or material evidence without valid legal reasons. This may lead to miscarriage of justice as important facts cannot be considered. Such rejection is grounds for appellate court intervention if it prejudices the party entitled to present the evidence.

The BSA, 2023 repeals the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, along with any inconsistent provisions in other laws relating to evidence. This repeal becomes effective from the date the BSA comes into operation, consolidating and modernizing the law of evidence in India under one statute.

Savings ensure that any proceedings, acts done, or evidence lawfully admitted or recorded under the repealed Indian Evidence Act, 1872, before the commencement of BSA, continue to be valid and effective. Any rights or liabilities accrued before BSA's commencement are preserved to prevent legal discontinuity or injustice.

It is India’s new criminal law that replaced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) from July 1, 2024.

To modernize criminal laws, remove colonial legacy, and address new crimes.

On 1 July 2024.

358 sections.

511 sections.

It was repealed and replaced by BNS.

Yes, if the offence is committed in India.

To ensure justice, safety, and faster trial of crimes.

Yes, it focuses more on victim rights and speedy justice.

Among other changes, Sedition is removed and replaced with “acts endangering sovereignty of India.”

Yes, mob lynching is punishable with life imprisonment or death.

Yes, for the first time terrorism is defined and punished.

Yes, organised crime is defined and punishable.

Yes, for minor offences.

Yes, with stronger punishments for rape, gang rape, harassment.

Yes, with strict punishments.

Yes, with up to 10 years jail for not reporting accidents.

Yes, cyber fraud and identity theft are included.

Yes, because many overlapping and outdated sections were removed.

Death penalty or life imprisonment.

Up to 10 years jail, or life if weapon used.

Jail up to 5 years.

Serious injury like loss of limb, sight, or permanent damage.

Up to 7 years jail.

Minor injury without lasting damage.

Up to 1 year jail or fine.

Yes, strict punishment up to life imprisonment.

No, attempt to suicide is decriminalized.

Yes, with jail up to 10 years.

10 years to life imprisonment.

20 years to life-or-death penalty.

Minimum 20 years, up to death.

No, marital rape is not fully criminalized.

Yes, up to 3 years jail.

Yes, strict punishment for recording women without consent.

Yes, through criminal intimidation and harassment provisions.

Yes, free treatment and compensation ensured.

Yes, punishable.

Yes, with imprisonment up to life.

Yes, strict punishment for exploitation of children.

Yes, with severe punishments.

Yes, with imprisonment up to life.

Yes, those promoting child marriage can be punished.

Yes, with imprisonment up to 10 years.

Yes, under certain conditions.

Yes, strictly punishable.

Yes, strict punishment.

Yes, punishable as hurt/assault.

Yes, stricter punishments for crimes against girls.

Up to 3 years jail.

10 years to life.

Life or death penalty if murder committed.

Yes, strict punishment.

Yes, up to 7 years jail.

Yes, punishable with up to 10 years jail.

Yes, up to 7 years jail.

Yes, with punishment up to 7 years.

Yes, with life imprisonment.

Yes, punishable.

No, replaced by “endangering sovereignty of India.”

Imprisonment up to life.

Death penalty or life imprisonment.