Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc
Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy house, etc. Whoever commits mischief by fire or any explosive substance, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause. 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 Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and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. the destruction of any building which is ordinarily used as a place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property, shall be punished with [imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
437.
Mischief with intent to destroy or make unsafe a decked vessel or one
Section 436, 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 Close, with changes 68%
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 The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force.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 6
- Code of Criminal Procedure Act s. 82 Proclamation for person absconding
- Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act s. 12 Amendment of section 82
- Crpc 1973 s. 82 Proclamation for person absconding
- Crpc 1973 s. 439 Special powers of High Court or Court of Session regarding bail
- Tribunals Of Criminal Jurisdiction Act s. 13
- Tripura Tribunals of Criminal Jurisdiction Act s. 15
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.
-
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 death or personal injury; Charge applied to appellants
-
C. Muniappan vs State of Tamil Nadu
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
The ratio decidendi of this judgment is multi-faceted: (1) Charges under Section 188 IPC cannot be framed without written complaint by competent public servant as mandated by Section 195 CrPC, and absence of such complaint renders those charges void ab initio. However, such procedural defect does not vitiate the entire prosecution case or other charges if sufficient evidence exists for those charges. (2) Test identification parade is primarily an investigative tool and corroborative evidence, not substantive evidence. Actual evidence is the court testimony of witnesses. Identification parade is reliable when conducted properly without prior exposure of accused to witnesses, and when witnesses have direct observation opportunity. (3) Evidence of hostile witnesses cannot be rejected in toto; relevant parts consistent with prosecution or defence case can be relied upon after close scrutiny. (4) Defective investigation does not automatically lead to acquittal; court must examine evidence independently of investigation lapses to determine reliability. (5) Death sentence is warranted in rarest of rare cases involving planned, brutal crimes with exceptional depravity targeting helpless victims, where collective conscience is shocked, and no mitigating circumstances exist. Life imprisonment is the rule; death penalty is exception. (6) Two separate FIRs arising from same incident can be clubbed into one charge sheet if they are part of continuous sequence of events.
On this section: Mischief by fire or explosive substance - applied for setting bus on fire
-
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 destroy house or building - arson with aggravated intent
-
State of M. P vs Giriraj Dubey
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
High Courts are obligated to provide cogent and reasoned orders when declining to grant leave to appeal against acquittals under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the leave stage, the High Court must apply its mind to determine whether a prima facie case or arguable points have been raised, not whether the acquittal judgment would ultimately be set aside. Cryptic or readymade observations that merely restate the trial court's findings without explanation constitute improper disposal that denies proper judicial scrutiny and are unsustainable. The requirement for reasoned orders is mandatory, reflecting constitutional mandate for judicial discipline and the rule that reasons are the heartbeat of every judicial conclusion.
On this section: Charge against Giriraj Dubey for alleged attempted damage to property; section provides for offense of mischief by fire or explosive substance
-
State of U. P vs Shyam Veer
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving retaliatory acts committed in the immediate aftermath of a grave provocation (such as the death of a family member), a time gap of 15 minutes between the initial provocation and the retaliatory act may be insufficient to establish that the accused had regained self-control. Where the provocation is both grave and sudden, and the retaliatory act follows within a very short time frame without intervening cooling-off period, Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC (sudden grave provocation) can apply, reducing culpability from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part-I IPC. Additionally, criminal liability under abetment provisions (Section 109 IPC) requires proof that the alleged accomplice was present and aided or encouraged the principal offender; mere alleged prevention of others from extinguishing a fire is insufficient to establish accomplice liability if the person was not present when the offence was committed or the conspiracy was formed.
On this section: Punishment for mischief by fire; applied to the act of setting fire to the house resulting in deaths
-
State of U. P vs Rajeshwar
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving group violence rooted in communal or longstanding enmity, where eyewitnesses are interested parties (family members of victims) and where despite naming all accused in their depositions, the witnesses fail to attribute any specific role, weapon, or act to any individual accused, a conviction cannot be sustained solely on such eyewitness testimony. The vagueness of attribution combined with the credibility issues arising from interested witnesses and demonstrated inconsistencies between their police statements and court testimony makes the evidence unsafe for conviction, particularly in capital offense cases. The principle requires that each accused must be individually and specifically identified with participation in the alleged offense, not merely grouped together as part of a collective act without differentiation.
On this section: Mischief by fire or explosive substance with common intention - burning of houses in furtherance of common object. Applied against all 14 accused.
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.
Judgments citing this section
These may be obiter dicta or a precedent, for you to study. These are the judgments where this section is quoted.
-
… He also failed to explain his presence in Delhi where he stayed at Satyam Hotel. He was a party to the conspiracy. Thus, prosecution fully established against him the commission of offence under Section 302, 307, 436 and 120B of the IPC. High Court - 13. Vide judgment and order dated 22.11.2012, the High Court upheld convictions of A3 & A9. However, conviction of A3 under Section 411 Indian Penal Code ('IPC) was set aside. The conviction of A5 and A6 was set aside on all counts. - Accused No. 3: Out of the ten …
-
… He also failed to explain his presence in Delhi where he stayed at Satyam Hotel. He was a party to the conspiracy. Thus, prosecution fully established against him the commission of offence under Section 302, 307, 436 and 120B of the IPC. High Court - 13. Vide judgment and order dated 22.11.2012, the High Court upheld convictions of A3 & A9. However, conviction of A3 under Section 411 Indian Penal Code ('IPC) was set aside. The conviction of A5 and A6 was set aside on all counts. - Accused No. 3: Out of the ten …
-
… The Police registered FIR No.19/2002 alleging offence punishable under Section 436 IPC against the accused. 5. After completion of the investigation, the final report was submitted against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Ponani. 6. The case was committed to the Sessions Court, Manjeri, from where it was made over to the Trial Court. On the appearance of the accused charge under Section 436 IPC was framed against him. The accused pleaded not guilty and …
Questions about Section 436
What have the courts held on Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code?
Vyas Ram @ Vyas Kahar vs State of Bihar (20 Sep 2013) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Mischief by fire with intent to cause death or personal injury; Charge applied to appellants. Another 5 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2005 to 2013.
How do I find court cases under Section 436 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 436, section 436 IPC, section 436 of the Indian Penal Code. People searching for it also type ipc 436 in bns and ipc 436 punishment. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 6 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Vyas Ram @ Vyas Kahar vs State of Bihar (20 Sep 2013).
What should I read with Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
6 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. 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 436 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 436 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 436, 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.