Maximum punishment for waging a war against the Government of India under IPC is
Show Hint
- Rigorous imprisonment up to 5 years
- Rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years
- Rigorous imprisonment for life term
- Death sentence
The Correct Option is D
Solution and Explanation
Step 1: Understanding the Punishment for Waging War.
Under Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code, waging war against the Government of India is a serious offence and can result in the death sentence. The punishment for waging war includes rigorous imprisonment for life or death.
Step 2: Explanation of Other Options.
- (a), (b), and (c) do not carry the death sentence, which is the maximum penalty for this offence.
Step 3: Conclusion.
The maximum punishment for waging a war against the Government of India under IPC is the death sentence.
Top Questions on Indian Penal Code (IPC)
A glance over all the Sections related to extortion would reveal a clear distinction being carried out between the actual commission of extortion and the process of putting a person in fear for the purpose of committing extortion. Section 383 defines extortion, the punishment therefor is given in Section 384. Sections 386 and 388 provide for an aggravated form of extortion. These sections deal with the actual commission of an act of extortion, whereas Sections 385, 387 and 389 IPC seek to punish for an act committed for the purpose of extortion even though the act of extortion may not be complete and property not delivered. It is in the process of committing an offence that a person is put in fear of injury, death or grievous hurt. Section 387 IPC provides for a stage prior to committing extortion, which is putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt ’in order to commit extortion’, similar to Section 385 IPC. Hence, Section 387 IPC is an aggravated form of 385 IPC, not 384 IPC. Having deliberated upon the offence of extortion and its forms, we proceed to analyze the essentials of both Sections, i.e.,383 and 387 IPC, the High Court dealt with.
(Extracted from Balaji Traders v. State of UP, 2025 INSC 806)- CLAT PG - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Indian Penal Code (IPC)
- Statement 1: Under the Indian Penal Code, if a person harbours an offender who has escaped custody for an offence punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years, he shall be punished with imprisonment up to 7 years.
Statement 2: The law provides an exception for harbouring or concealing by the husband or wife of the offender.- AIBE - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Indian Penal Code (IPC)
- If a bailiff executes an eviction based on a civil court order later declared void for lack of jurisdiction, what protection does Section 78 of the Indian Penal Code provide?
- AIBE - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Indian Penal Code (IPC)
- If a convict sentenced to life imprisonment is being considered for remission under Section 57 of the Indian Penal Code, what equivalent term of years is applied by the Court?
- AIBE - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Indian Penal Code (IPC)
- If multiple offences carry different punishments but it is unclear which one has been committed, how does Section 72 of the Indian Penal Code ensure proportional justice?
- AIBE - 2025
- Legal Studies
- Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Questions Asked in AIBE exam
- In which of the following cases did the Supreme Court of India hold that the rule of nemo judex in causa sua is subject to the doctrine of necessity?
- AIBE - 2025
- Administrative Law
- According to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, what is the fixed amount of compensation payable in the event of death caused by a motor vehicle accident under no-fault liability?
- AIBE - 2025
- General Law
- The grounds for decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 2 of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 are:
I. whereabouts of the husband have not been known for two years.
II. husband has been sentenced to imprisonment for a period of five years.
III. husband has failed to perform marital obligations for two years without reasonable cause.
IV. husband has neglected or failed to maintain his wife for one year.
Select the correct answer.- AIBE - 2025
- Family Laws
- A Statement is followed by two Conclusions, I and II.
Statement: According to the Child and Adolescent Labour (Prohibition and Regulation) Act, 1986, the Government credits ₹15,000 to the Rehabilitation Fund for each child or adolescent for whom fine has been recovered from the employer. This amount may be deposited or invested, and the interest is also payable to the child or adolescent.
Conclusions:
I. The child or adolescent is entitled not only to the credited amount but also to the interest accrued on it.
II. The Government is not required to deposit any money other than what is collected as fines from the employer.
Which one is correct?- AIBE - 2025
- Labour & Industrial Law
- Consider the following statements about Article 32 of the Constitution and select the correct answer:
I. The Article is silent about the locus standi regarding who may approach the Court.
II. The Article is silent about the opposite party against whom relief may be granted.
III. The Article creates scope for even a sixth type of writ.- AIBE - 2025
- Constitutional Laws