Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to amount of one hundred or (in case of agricultural produce) ten rupees
Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage to amount of one hundred or (in case of agricultural produce) ten rupees. Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, damage to any property to the amount of one hundred rupees or upwards [or (where the property is agricultural produce) ten rupees or upwards], shall be punished with 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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 commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, damage to any property to the amount of one hundred rupees or upwards [or (where the property is agricultural produce) ten rupees or upwards], shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 435, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 326 Mischief by injury, inundation, fire or explosive substance, etc Distant match 62%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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.
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.
-
Chandra Prakash vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of criminal conspiracy, the prosecution need not prove express agreement between conspirators; the agreement may be proved by necessary implication from circumstances. When assessing approver evidence, courts must first apply a reliability test to determine if the approver is a trustworthy witness on the evidence itself, independent of corroboration. Only if the approver passes the reliability test does the second test apply, requiring corroboration in material particulars that connects the accused with the offense. Such corroboration must come from independent sources and may be direct or circumstantial in nature. Under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, discovery of facts in consequence of information from an accused in custody is admissible if the information is credible and material discovery is effected; formal arrest is not necessary, only that the person be accused of an offense and in custody of a police officer. The broad definition of 'explosive substance' under the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and 'explosive' under the Explosive Act, 1884 encompasses materials for making explosives; when such materials are possessed in conjunction with other explosive articles and components in large quantities, possession constitutes a criminal offense even without direct evidence of criminal intent if the circumstances demonstrate conscious possession for use in explosions. Sanction under Section 7 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908 requires only 'consent' for subjective appreciation and can be granted by District Magistrate pursuant to delegation from Central Government; the sanctioning authority need not be examined as a witness if the sanction document is properly proven and shows application of mind.
On this section: Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house or property
-
Vyas Ram @ Vyas Kahar vs State of Bihar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused is convicted of heinous crimes in a case involving defective investigation, absence of Test Identification Parade, and delayed witness statements, even if conviction is upheld based on oral testimony, the death sentence should be commuted to life imprisonment applying the principle of prudence established in Swamy Shraddananda and Santosh Kumar Bariyar, unless the circumstances of the case are so exceptional and grave that they override the investigative deficiencies. Further, mere presence in an unlawful assembly without attribution of specific role or overt act does not justify conviction or death sentence - the standard laid down in Baladin must be applied.
On this section: Mischief by fire with intent to cause loss; Charge applied to appellants for setting village on fire
-
Hazara Singh vs Raj Kumar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In determining appropriate sentence for offences under Section 307 IPC (Attempt to Murder), courts must apply the principle of proportionality between the crime and punishment. Trial pendency and potential social enmity between parties cannot be valid grounds for reducing sentences, as such considerations would undermine the deterrent effect of criminal law, undermine public confidence in the justice system, and ignore society's collective cry for justice. The nature, gravity, and manner of commission of the offence, including the nature of weapons used, injuries inflicted, and factual circumstances, must be paramount considerations. High Court's appellate power to alter sentences must be exercised based on sound judicial principles and cannot be used to impose meager sentences based on irrelevant or untenable grounds.
On this section: Mischief by fire - applied for burning the tractor in furtherance of unlawful assembly's common object
-
Bheru Lal vs State of Rajasthan
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an eyewitness witness is interested and has exaggerated parts of their account, the evidence cannot be wholesale rejected if there is a ring of truth to the core version. The appreciation of evidence requires courts to carefully separate the chaff from the grain. Provided the court of facts recognizes the interested nature of the witness, the exaggerations can be disregarded while accepting the truthful core. Additionally, when injuries on an accused are simple and minor in nature (not serious or severe), the prosecution has no obligation under law to explain such injuries, and the witness's failure to mention minor injuries does not undermine the credibility of the entire prosecution narrative, particularly when the witness had limited opportunity to observe such minor wounds and was focused on the main events.
On this section: Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage - destruction of property by setting fire
-
Arsh @ Mohammad Kaif Khan vs The State of Madhya Pradesh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
When an accused in a serious case (involving communal violence and explosive substances) has already spent considerable time in pre-trial custody (approximately 22 months), and the trial is still ongoing with no imminent conclusion, continued judicial custody ceases to serve any legitimate purpose. Bail may be granted with conditions ensuring regular court appearance and prohibition of activities disrupting communal harmony, striking a balance between individual liberty and public order. The gravity of charges alone does not justify indefinite pre-trial detention if the detention itself is no longer proportionate to trial progress and the period already spent.
On this section: Covers destruction of property during the communal violence
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 435
What have the courts held on Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code?
Chandra Prakash vs State of Rajasthan (09 May 2014) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house or property. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2009 to 2024.
How do I find court cases under Section 435 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 435, section 435 IPC, section 435 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 435 case and ipc 435 means. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Chandra Prakash vs State of Rajasthan (09 May 2014).
What should I read with Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 326 (Mischief by injury, inundation, fire or explosive substance, etc), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 435 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 435, 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.