Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death
Section 315 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 deals with dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death. Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any property, knowing that such property was in the possession of a deceased person at the time of that person’s decease, and has not since been in the possession of any person legally entitled to such possession, shall be punished with The Act came into force on 01 Jul 2024.
Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any property, knowing that such property was in the possession of a deceased person at the time of that person’s decease, and has not since been in the possession of any person legally entitled to such possession, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and if the offender at the time of such person’s decease was employed by him as a clerk or servant, the imprisonment may extend to seven years.
Illustration.
Z dies in possession of furniture and money. His servant A, before the money comes into the possession of any person entitled to such possession, dishonestly misappropriates it. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
Section 315, The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (Act 45 of 2023).
Replaces a provision of the Indian Penal Code
IPC 404 Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death Text carried over almost unchanged 98%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
How this offence is classified
From the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which classifies every offence under the Sanhita. Cognizable means a police officer may arrest without warrant; bailable means bail is a matter of right rather than of the court's discretion. This section is classified 2 ways.
| Offence | Punishment | Cognizable | Bailable | Triable by |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death. | Imprisonment for 3 years and fine. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
| If by clerk or person employed by deceased. | Imprisonment for 7 years. | Non-cognizable. | Bailable. | Magistrate of the first class. |
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal vs State of U. P.
Decided under Indian Penal Code 404, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where a case rests on circumstantial evidence, conviction is justified when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found incompatible with the innocence of the accused or guilt of any other person, and a complete chain of events is established linking the accused to the crime. Confessional statements made to police, while inadmissible under Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, may be used as source of information to discover facts under Section 27, and such discoveries based on the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events can support conviction when combined with other credible evidence. In evaluating concurrent findings of fact by Trial Court and High Court, the Supreme Court will not interfere unless findings are vitiated by grave error of law or lead to serious and substantial miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Dishonestly receiving stolen property - applied for receiving stolen goods/property of deceased
-
Shiv Kesh Giri @ Lalla vs State of U. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 404, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a criminal case based on circumstantial evidence without direct eyewitnesses, when confessions to police lead to discovery of incriminating materials (weapons, cartridges, stolen items) through Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and when multiple pieces of circumstantial evidence form a complete and unbroken chain of events establishing motive, opportunity, and participation in the crime, the conviction of the accused can be sustained. The Supreme Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial and appellate courts unless such findings are vitiated by grave error of law, procedure, or misreading of evidence resulting in serious miscarriage of justice. Minor discrepancies and gaps in eyewitness testimony do not vitiate an otherwise strong and consistent chain of circumstantial evidence when the totality points conclusively to guilt.
On this section: Dealing with stolen property - charged against Pawan Kumar for possession of articles obtained through crime
-
Rohtash Kumar vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 404, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In a case of circumstantial evidence involving murder, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence that is conclusive in nature and excludes all possible hypotheses except the guilt of the accused. When an accused is last seen with the deceased victim shortly before the death and fails to furnish any explanation for the death, coupled with other incriminating circumstances such as possession of the victim's property after death, making confessions to relatives, and adopting suspicious conduct (such as using a fictitious name and attempting suicide), the totality of such circumstances forms a sufficiently complete chain to sustain a conviction beyond reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the absence of eyewitnesses and minor discrepancies in witness testimonies on trivial matters. The prosecution is not obligated to examine all cited witnesses; it may exercise prosecutorial discretion in selecting witnesses, provided the core narrative is established through reliable evidence that has been carefully scrutinized for credibility and truthfulness.
On this section: Conviction for criminal breach of trust; applied in context of the accused's possession and unauthorized use of the deceased's mobile phone
-
Kusti Mallaiah vs State of A. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 404, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A conviction for murder and theft can be lawfully sustained on the sole testimony of a single eyewitness, provided his evidence is found to be cogent, trustworthy, and reliable, and is corroborated in material particulars by independent evidence such as medical findings and recovery of stolen property. Minor variations and discrepancies in the accounts of multiple witnesses, particularly regarding trivial matters, are natural and do not constitute material contradictions that would discredit the prosecution case. A delay in lodging the FIR, when adequately explained by the circumstances of discovery and identification of the deceased, does not vitiate the prosecution case. The court must adopt a holistic approach to evaluate evidence and examine whether the evidence, read as a whole, bears the ring of truth.
On this section: Applied to establish the charge of theft in connection with the stealing of gold and silver ornaments from the deceased. The recovery of these items from the accused persons provided concrete evidence.
-
Rakesh Anand vs State of up
Decided under Indian Penal Code 404, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, where a complete chain of circumstances is established linking the accused to the commission of the offence, such circumstantial evidence is sufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and is as reliable as direct eyewitness evidence. The doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act permits evidence of facts discovered as a consequence of information given by the accused, notwithstanding that the information itself may constitute a confession barred under Section 25. Appellate courts should not interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by trial courts and confirmed by high courts unless such findings are vitiated by grave error of law, error of procedure, misreading of evidence, or would result in serious and substantial miscarriage of justice.
On this section: Applied for dishonestly receiving stolen property (deceased's belongings).
-
Gajraj vs State(nct) of Delhi
Decided under Indian Penal Code 404, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Every mobile handset possesses an exclusive and unchangeable IEMI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) number. When a mobile handset is used for making calls, service providers record both the caller's number and the called number, along with the IEMI numbers of the handsets used. This IEMI data constitutes scientific and irrefutable evidence. When an accused person is identified as using the deceased victim's mobile handset (identified by its unique IEMI number) with the accused's own registered SIM number immediately after the commission of the murder, and when the same handset and the murder weapon are recovered from the accused's custody, such digital forensic evidence, combined with recovery of stolen property and evidence of temporal nexus to the crime, conclusively establishes the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Even minor or serious discrepancies in oral testimony cannot diminish the evidentiary value of such conclusive scientific evidence. Therefore, conviction based on such digital forensic evidence, physical recovery, and circumstantial evidence meeting the standard of proof is legally sound and must be upheld.
On this section: Applied for criminal charge of criminal breach of trust regarding unauthorized possession of deceased's mobile phone and revolver
-
Prem Singh vs State of Haryana
Decided under Indian Penal Code 404, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A complete and unequivocal chain of circumstantial evidence, even without eyewitness testimony, is sufficient to conclusively establish the guilt of an accused person in a criminal case beyond reasonable doubt. The circumstances must be such that they lead to no other reasonable inference except the guilt of the accused, and minor contradictions in witness testimony on peripheral matters do not vitiate the credibility of witnesses on core facts if they are consistent on the essential aspects of the case. Recovery of the murder weapon and stolen property at the instance of the accused following a disclosure statement, coupled with medical and forensic evidence and last-seen evidence, forms a clinching chain of circumstantial evidence.
On this section: Dishonest misappropriation of property - Applied to the theft and unauthorized possession of the deceased's gold ornaments (earrings and dhol) that the appellant concealed after the crime.
-
Shiv Singh vs State of U. P
Decided under Indian Penal Code 404, which this section replaces. The court did not have this Act before it.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving criminal convictions based on eyewitness testimony, minor inconsistencies in the basic substratum of the witnesses' accounts do not warrant complete rejection of their evidence if the core facts are consistently stated and are corroborated by independent medical and scientific evidence. Ballistic expert opinions linking recovered firearms to cartridges found at the crime scene constitute conclusive evidence of the use of those specific weapons in the commission of the offense. The benefit of doubt in cases of over-implication due to possibility of false implication must be extended to accused persons where the evidence does not directly and conclusively establish their participation in the specific criminal act, even if they were present at the scene or were part of an unlawful assembly. The doctrine of common intention under Section 149 IPC can be invoked only when the direct participation of each accused in the criminal act is established or when the evidence clearly shows that all accused acted with a shared criminal objective.
On this section: Dishonest misappropriation of property - applied for the charge of taking away the licensed rifle of the deceased
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 315
What have the courts held on Section 315 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal vs State of U. P. (11 Mar 2015) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below, though it was decided under IPC 404, which this section replaced -- the court never mentioned this Act: Dishonestly receiving stolen property - applied for receiving stolen goods/property of deceased. Another 7 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2011 to 2015.
Is Section 315 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita bailable?
Bailable, under the First Schedule to the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Is Section 315 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita cognizable?
Non-cognizable. "Cognizable" means a police officer may arrest without warrant; "non-cognizable" that they may not. An offence under this section is triable by Magistrate of the first class.
How do I find court cases under Section 315 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: BNS 315, section 315 BNS, section 315 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. People searching for it also type bns 315(2) and bns 315 3. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 8 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Pawan Kumar @ Monu Mittal vs State of U. P. (11 Mar 2015).
What should I read with Section 315 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and has it changed?
It carries forward IPC 404 (Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death), so the judgments decided under that provision are the case law on this one.
When did Section 315 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita come into force?
Section 315 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, cited as BNS 315, came into force on 01 Jul 2024, having been enacted on 25 Dec 2023. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
- 2. Definitions2199 words
- 356. Defamation1543 words
- 335. Making a false document1318 words
- 101. Murder1177 words
- 303. Theft1104 words
- 3. General explanations858 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 15 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.