Trespassing on burial places, etc
Section 297 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with trespassing on burial places, etc. Whoever, with the intention of wounding the feelings of any person, or of insulting the religion of any person, or with the knowledge that the feelings of any person are likely to be wounded, or that the religion of any person is likely to be insulted thereby, commits any trespass in any place of wo The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Whoever, with the intention of wounding the feelings of any person, or of insulting the religion of any person, or with the knowledge that the feelings of any person are likely to be wounded, or that the religion of any person is likely to be insulted thereby,
commits any trespass in any place of worship or on any place of sepulture, or any place set apart for the performance of funeral rites or as a depository for the remains of the dead, or offers any indignity to any human corpse, or causes disturbance to any persons assembled for the performance of funeral ceremonies,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Section 297, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 301 Trespassing on burial places, etc Text carried over almost unchanged 97%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
Referred to by 18
- Andhra Pradesh Corneal Grafting Act s. 8 Saving
- Chhattisgarh Kaneenika Upropan (Corneal Grafting) Adhiniyam s. 8
- Goa (Authority for Use of Eyes for Therapeutic Purposes) Act s. 8 Savings
- Gujarat Corneal Grafting Act s. 6
- Haryana Corneal Grafting Act, 1974 (25 of 1974) s. 7
- Himachal Pradesh Corneal Grafting Act s. 7 Saving
- Human organ transplantation act 1994 s. 8
- Human organ transplantation act 1994 s. 8
- Human transplant act 1994 s. 8 Savings
- Maharashtra Anatomy Act s. 10B Saving
- Odisha Corneal Grafting Act s. 8
- Puducherry Eyes (Authority for Use for Therapeutic Purposes) Act s. 9
and 6 more
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.
-
State(tr)central Bureau of Investigation vs Shri Kalyan Singh(former Cm of Up)
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has the power under Article 142 of the Constitution to transfer criminal proceedings from one Special Court to another Special Court under the same High Court jurisdiction to achieve complete justice and remedy procedural defects, provided such transfer does not violate mandatory substantive provisions of law. In cases involving crimes that shake the secular fabric of the Constitution and where procedural defects have prevented a unified trial of accused persons charged with criminal conspiracy in the course of the same transaction, the Supreme Court can exercise this power to consolidate fragmented proceedings and ensure that all accused are tried together for the conspiracy charge, even if some had been previously discharged from separate proceedings. The absence of a non-obstante clause in the relevant statutory provision (Section 11(1) proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code) distinguishes this case from situations where such a clause exists, and therefore the transfer does not violate the fundamental right to appeal under Article 21 of the Constitution.
On this section: Trespass on burial places - Applied to charges.
-
Haji Mahboob Ahmad vs Kalyan Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The Supreme Court of India has the constitutional power under Article 142 to transfer criminal proceedings from one court to another to remedy procedural defects and ensure complete justice, even when the High Court has statutory power under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code to do so. This power can be exercised when crimes that shake the secular fabric of the Constitution have allegedly been committed and the accused persons have not been brought to book largely because of procedural defects and the conduct of the investigating agency. The transfer does not violate Article 21 of the Constitution because the procedure established by law itself contemplates such transfers under Section 407 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and the absence of a non-obstante clause in Section 11(1) proviso of the Criminal Procedure Code distinguishes this case from cases where substantive rights are infringed. Additionally, criminal conspiracy charges already contained in a joint charge sheet cannot be separated from the accused persons by discharging them, and all offences committed in the course of the same transaction to accomplish a conspiracy must be tried jointly.
On this section: Trespassing on burial places - applied to charges against Kar Sewaks
-
Mohd.rafiq vs State
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When a petitioner himself files an application under sections 173 and 242 CrPC seeking reinvestigation and specifically prays that cognizance should not be taken till the decision of such application, any delay in taking cognizance caused by the pendency of such application cannot be attributed to the prosecution or the court's inaction. Therefore, such delay does not constitute a violation of the limitation period prescribed under section 468 CrPC, and cognizance taken after the rejection of such application is not illegal merely on the ground that it was taken after the expiry of the limitation period calculated from the date of the charge-sheet filing.
On this section: Trespass on burial place; initially charged but later changed to sections 279 and 337
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 297
What have the courts held on Section 297 of the Indian Penal Code?
State(tr)central Bureau of Investigation vs Shri Kalyan Singh(former Cm of Up) (19 Apr 2017) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Trespass on burial places - Applied to charges. Another 2 judgments on this section are set out below, 2 of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2013 to 2017.
How do I find court cases under Section 297 of the Indian Penal Code?
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: IPC 297, section 297 IPC, section 297 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 297 in bns and ipc 297 337. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 3 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with State(tr)central Bureau of Investigation vs Shri Kalyan Singh(former Cm of Up) (19 Apr 2017).
What should I read with Section 297 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
18 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 301 (Trespassing on burial places, etc), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 297 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 297 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 297, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 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. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.