This article has been written by Ms. Akanksha Choudhary, a 3rd year BA.LLB (Hons.) Student from CMR University, School of Legal Studies, Bengaluru.

INTRODUCTION
A common definition of mischief is something that is mildly destructive but not intended to create significant harm or damage. To understand the idea, Mayank, a man who is eating supper at home. A cow unexpectedly barges into his (his neighbour’s cow) room. Mayank becomes enraged by this unanticipated commotion and starts angrily abusing his neighbour. Both sides start their arguments. As a result, Mayank is furious and throws a brick at his neighbour. But the brick accidentally hits the neighbour’s cow, killing it by tying its nose. Meanwhile, Mayank is consulting with his lawyer on legal matters. The nature of the offense is the subject of the legal issues raised by this case. Would that be seen as cruelty to animals? Or are all the elements necessary for mischief present? Will the fact that there was no deliberate intent to harm the cow significantly affect how the case turned out? We must first understand the IPC’s Law of Mischief and how it might put someone in danger legally before we can address these difficulties.
What is Mischief?
Mischief may be defined as someone acting with the aim or knowledge that doing so will prohibit someone else from using their property to its fullest potential. Nonetheless, this infraction could be committed against a single person or the general public. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) contains a definition of mischief in Section 425 and a penalty in Section 426. In addition, the precise punishments for severe cases of criminal mischief are outlined in Articles 427 to 440 dependent on the type and cost of the property damage. According to Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, mischief is defined as doing something with the intent to cause, or knowing that his action is likely to cause, destruction or damage to any property, thereby destroying or lessening its value and utility, causing a disproportionate loss to the community, or harm to any individual (hereinafter referred to as the IPC).

Illustrations
B suffers an unlawful loss when “A” totals a car that both “A” and “B” possess.
To limit the value of the test, a student brings a duplicate of the questions with them.
Essentials of Mischief:
The law on mischief clearly states that it is not always necessary to demonstrate that the accused wilfully injured property without consent in order to establish an act of mischief. The defendant’s knowledge that his conduct would harm the property and result in unjustified loss or damage, however, is also adequate evidence. Krishna Gopal Singh and Others, etc. vs. the State of U. P., it was determined that the absence of the “Mens rea” criterion precluded mischief for a conduct performed by the accused without a specific intent or knowledge that it would cause illegal loss or injury to a particular person or the general public. According to this, an act carried out under duress or coercion, that is, without free permission, does not qualify as mischief. According to this court, in order to prove mischief, “the prosecution must demonstrate that the accused intended or had knowledge of the capacity to inflict illegal harm or injury to the public or any individual.” This was said in Arjun Singh vs. The State .
Actus Rea: The activity must have resulted in an illegal loss or injury that prevented the property owner from using or enjoying his property, which is the second essential element. The actions taken must have caused hurt, injury, or destruction in order for them to have an adverse effect on the property’s value or operation. The property itself can count as property because of the “actus reus” offense. Consider modernizing a student’s study guide as an illustration. Also, the harm must be a genuine result of the alleged act; it cannot be predicated on a fictitious or hypothetical relationship. The court held the defendant accountable in Arjuna vs. State for inflicting an unauthorized loss to the plaintiff’s standing crops on government-owned property. According to the respondent in Gopi Naik vs. Somnath, the defendant cut off their connection to their water line, causing them to suffer excessive loss and harm. After conducting an inquiry, the court found that the accused had broken the law by engaging in actions that reduced the value of the property—in this case, the water supply—and so had caused mischief.
A test paper leak or the purposeful loss of important files and folders at a time when they are required are both examples of mischief that lowers something’s value or usefulness. The owner, not the accused, should decide whether the item is useful. The aircraft’s engines were taken out in Indian Oil Company v. NEPC India Ltd. and Others by the defendant, which reduced the aircraft’s usefulness and rendered it useless. It was ruled that the damage was sufficient to constitute mischief, making it a mischief-related offense.
Goals of Mischief:
Mischief is defined by IPC section 425 as any action that causes property to be destroyed or damaged, causing unjustified loss or harm. This clause offers protection from both public and private losses in a number of circumstances. The most crucial aspect, however, is that if the element of purpose is absent, it will not apply (which is addressed in greater detail on this page under the heading Components of mischief). As a result, there is no need that the defendant has a legitimate reason for the “mischief” or that they had benefited from it.
Punishment
According to Section 426 of the Penal Code, mischief is punished by up to three months in imprisonment, a fine, or both, at the judge’s discretion.
CONCLUSION
New concerns and problems arise as civilization develops. Similar to how the mischief offense encompasses all fifteen articles of the Indian Penal Code, it looks to be extremely wide and all-inclusive. By establishing different consequences for each one dependent on the severity of the violation, it aims to address all potential forms of bad behaviour. Despite this, it does not offer enough penalties for many other common types of wrongdoing. Because it does not expressly state the different situations that may fall under the concept of mischief, it also leaves it entirely up to the judge’s discretion to identify it as an act of mischief, characterize it as such, and establish the appropriate penalty. As a result, there have been occasions where offenses of the same nature and seriousness received disparate punishments. Choosing and enforcing an appropriate punishment for the crime of mischief is essential to ensuring that the offender receives the proper sentence and that further deterrent is created.