Section 430 IPC: Mischief by Injury to Works of Irrigation or by Wrongfully Diverting Water
Section 430 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 dealt with aggravated mischief affecting the supply of water used for agriculture and specified human, animal, domestic and manufacturing purposes. This page explains the law as it stood immediately before the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 came into force.
Text of Section 430 IPC
Whoever commits mischief by doing any act which causes, or which he knows to be likely to cause, a diminution of the supply of water for agricultural purposes, or for food or drink for human beings or for animals which are property, or for cleanliness or for carrying on any manufacture, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.
Meaning and Scope of Section 430 IPC
Section 430 was a specific form of the offence of mischief. Its application therefore depended first on the requirements of Section 425 IPC. Under Section 425, a person commits mischief when, with intent to cause or with knowledge that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person, he destroys property or changes property or its situation so as to destroy or diminish its value or utility, or otherwise affect it injuriously.
Section 430 applied where such mischief caused, or was known to be likely to cause, a diminution in the supply of water for one or more purposes specifically listed in the section. The provision was not confined to physically destroying an irrigation structure. Wrongfully interfering with, obstructing or diverting a water supply could fall within the provision when the statutory ingredients were proved.
Essential Ingredients of the Offence
For Section 430 IPC to apply, the prosecution had to establish the ingredients of mischief and the additional consequence concerning water supply. In substance, the relevant elements were:
- there was an act amounting to mischief within the meaning of Section 425 IPC;
- the act caused, or the accused knew it was likely to cause, diminution of a supply of water; and
- the affected water supply was used for agriculture, food or drink for human beings, animals which are property, cleanliness, or carrying on a manufacture.
The required mental element is important. Mere accidental interference with water supply does not by itself establish mischief. The facts must satisfy the intention or knowledge required by Section 425 and the knowledge or consequence contemplated by Section 430.
Purposes of Water Supply Protected by Section 430
| Protected use | Water used for agricultural purposes. |
|---|---|
| Human consumption | Water used for food or drink for human beings. |
| Animals | Water used for food or drink for animals which are property. |
| Cleanliness | Water supply used for cleanliness. |
| Manufacture | Water used for carrying on any manufacture. |
Punishment under Section 430 IPC
A person convicted under Section 430 IPC could be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term extending up to five years, or with fine, or with both.
Nature of Offence under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Immediately before the new criminal codes came into force, the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 classified an offence under Section 430 IPC as follows:
| Cognizable | Yes |
|---|---|
| Bailable | Yes |
| Court competent to try | Magistrate of the first class |
| Maximum punishment | Imprisonment up to five years, or fine, or both |
Compounding in a Private-Loss Case
Under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the specified form of Section 430 concerning injury to a work of irrigation or wrongful diversion of water could be compounded, with the permission of the Court, by the person to whom the loss or damage was caused when the only loss or damage was to a private person. Whether compounding was legally available depended on the precise facts and the statutory conditions.
Section 425 and Section 430 IPC Read Together
Section 425 supplied the basic definition of mischief, while Section 430 prescribed a more serious punishment where the mischief affected specified water supplies. Accordingly, proof that water flow was reduced was not, standing alone, a substitute for proving the ingredients of mischief. The nature of the act, the property affected, the resulting or likely wrongful loss or damage, and the accused's intention or knowledge remained relevant.
Practical Examples
Depending on the evidence and circumstances, conduct potentially engaging Section 430 could include deliberately damaging an irrigation channel so that agricultural land receives less water, intentionally blocking a watercourse supplying drinking water, or wrongfully altering a channel with the required knowledge so that water needed for manufacture is diminished. These are illustrations only; criminal liability depends on proof of every statutory ingredient in the individual case.
Important Note on the Change from IPC to BNS
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was replaced for new offences by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 from 1 July 2024. This page intentionally explains the law immediately before that change. The date of the alleged act is therefore important when identifying the applicable substantive criminal law, and procedural questions may also require consideration of the statutory saving and transition provisions.
This article is a general legal information resource and is not a substitute for advice on the facts of a particular case.