1. Crime. Differences between crime and torts.

It is true that both crime and criminal are looked upon with greatest hatred
by all sections of the people in society. In fact, the law of crimes has been as
old as civilisation itself. Wherever people organised themselves into groups or
associations the need for some sort of rules to regulate the behaviour of the
members of that group inter se has been felt. There lies the necessity of
devising some ways and means to curb such tendencies in the society that lead
to violation of its rules. In every organised society certain act are forbidden on
the pain of punishment. Where one person injured another and the injury
could adequately be compensated by money value, the wrong-doer was
required to pay damages or compensation to the wronged individual. But in
certain cases, in addition to the liability to pay compensation the state imposes
certain penalties upon the wrong-doer with the object of preserving peace in
the society and promoting good behaviour towards each other and towards
the community at large.
However, the problem arises to what acts should be forbidden or what acts
should be selected for punishment by the society or the state. In other words,
what acts should be declared as crime. The concept of crime has always been
dependent on public opinion. As we already know law reflects the public
opinion of the time. More than any other branch of law, criminal law is mirror
of public opinion.
Thus, law prescribes certain standards of conduct to be observed by the
people in society. These standards have the approval of the society in general.
Any deviation from the standards of behaviour fixed by the society is punished.
Therefore, such conduct as does not accord with the prescribed standard is
loosely known as crime.
The legal meaning of crime is an act or omission punishable by law. Crime is
an act which is forbidden by law and revolting to the moral sentiments of the
society.
Sir William Blackstone:
Crime is a violation of the public right and duties due to the whole
community, considered as a community.
Stephen:
A crime is an act or omission in respect of which legal punishment may
be inflicted on the person who is in default, either by acting or omitting to act.

Crime and torts

 Both crimes and torts directly affect the community.
They overreach other and many crimes include torts within them.
However, some torts do not amount to crimes and similarly some crimes
do not include torts.
For eg.: Tortious conspiracy, conversion, malicious prosecution, nervous
shock, private nuisance, passing off, slander of goods etc. are merely torts.
But assault, battery, false imprisonment, deceit both crimes and torts,
but offences like forgery, perjury, bigamy, culpable homicide, rape etc. are
only crimes and not torts.
 Crime is a criminal wrong against society while tort is a civil wrong arising
from a breach of duty to a particular individual fixed by the law.
 Regarding crime, the presence of Mens Rea must be proved against the
offender for punishing him, while in tort there is no such proof necessary
against the defendant for claiming compensation.
 The accused in a criminal case is given the benefit of doubt, though he may
be the offender, but in the case of tort, the defendant is not entitled to
such benefit of doubt.
 In case of tort, the parties are allowed to compromise in all cases, while in
crimes, the offences can be compounded only in certain cases.
 Crime is not generally a pardonable offence. It is pardoned under certain
circumstances by the sovereign power only, but in tort only the plaintiff can
release the defendant by withdrawing his claim or compromising with him.
 Crimes are tried is criminal courts while torts are tried in civil courts.
 In criminal cases, the ‘onus propandi’ (burden of proof) is always on the
prosecution, whereas in torts, it shifts from plaintiff to defendant and vice
versa depending on the nature of evidence.
 The sanction for crime is punishment, whereas the remedy for tort is
damages (compensation in terms of money)
 State through police generally initiates action in crimes, but in torts, private
party files the suit for remedy. (refer pg. 7, guide)
2. Elements of Crime.
a) Human Being:
The first element requires that the wrongful act must be committed by a
human being. In ancient times, when criminal law was largely dominated by
the idea of retribution, punishments were inflicted on animals also for the
injury caused by them, for example, a pig was burnt in Paris for having
devoured a child, a horse was killed for having kicked a man. But now, if an
animal causes an injury we hold not the animal liable but its owner liable for
such injury.
So, the first element of crime is a human being who- must be under the
legal obligation to act in a particular manner and should be a fit subject for
awarding appropriate punishment.
Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code provides that word ‘person’ includes a
company or association or body of persons whether incorporated or not. The
word ‘person’ includes artificial or juridical persons.
b) Mens Rea-
The second important essential element of a crime is mens rea or evil intent
or guilty mind. There can be no crime of any nature without mens rea or an
evil mind. Every crime requires a mental element and that is considered as the
fundamental principle of criminal liability. The basic requirement of the
principle mens rea is that the accused must have been aware of those
elements in his act which make the crime with which he is charged.
There is a well-known maxim in this regard, i.e. “actus non facit reum nisi
mens sit rea” which means that, the guilty intention and guilty act together
constitute a crime. It comes from the maxim that no person can be punished in
a proceeding of criminal nature unless it can be showed that he had a guilty
mind.
c) Actus Reus [Guilty Act or Omission]:
The third essential element of a crime is actus reus. In other words, some
overt act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of the guilty
intention. Actus reus is the manifestation of mens rea in the external world.
Prof. Kenny was the first writer to use the term ‘actus reus’. He has defined the
term thus- “such result of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent”.
d) Injury-
The fourth requirement of a crime is injury to another person or to the
society at large. The injury should be illegally caused to any person in body,
mind, reputation or property as according to Section 44 of IPC, 1860 the injury
denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body, mind,
reputation or property.

3. “Mens rea in statutory offences.” Or “The intent and the act must concur
to constitute a crime. Comment.” Or “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit
rea”
Mens Rea is the second essential ingredient in the crime i.e., guilty mind, an
evil intention or a knowledge of the wrongful act, intentional omission to do a
lawful act, intentional recklessness in doing an act. There can be no crime of
any nature without mens rea or an evil mind. Every crime requires a mental
element and that is considered as the fundamental principle of criminal
liability. The basic requirement of the principle mens rea is that the accused
must have been aware of those elements in his act which make the crime with
which he is charged.
There is a well-known maxim in this regard, i.e. “actus non facit reum nisi
mens sit rea” which means that, the guilty intention and guilty act together
constitute a crime. It comes from the maxim that no person can be punished in
a proceeding of criminal nature unless it can be showed that he had a guilty
mind.
There must be a mind at fault before there can be a crime. It is merely the
intention to commit an act prohibited by law.
Glanville Williams defines Mens Rea as the mental element necessary for
the particular crime and this intention may be to do an act or a recklessness
from doing a lawful act.
Characteristics of mens rea:
 Mens rea includes both intentions to do a positive act and recklessness by
abstaining from doing an act.
 Intention is different from knowledge: Intention is the desire to do an act.
Knowledge means personal information of the person doing the act.
Intention is punishable, whereas knowledge is not always.
 A doctor performing an operation may have the knowledge of the death
of the patient but he has no intention to cause his death. Here the doctor is
not punishable.
 Intention is different from motive: Intention is the immediate result,
whereas motive is the ulterior result of the act.
For eg. ‘A’ commits theft of some biscuits to satisfy his hunger. Here the
motive is for a good purpose of satisfying his hunger but his immediate act
of theft being with bad intention, is punishable.
Thus, if a man follows illegal means to achieve a good and legal purpose,
even then he is punishable. Motive has emotions like love, fear, hatred etc.
whereas intention has no emotion.
Mens Rea in English Law:
Under the common law of England, the court held an individual liable only if
his guilty act was accompanied by a guilty mind. This principle is known by the
Latin maxim “actus no facit reum, nisi mens sit rea”.
It means that the act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a
guilty mind. The element of ‘Mens Rea’ in English Law is indicated by the use of
the words like intention, knowledge, negligence, recklessness, dishonestly and
fraudulently.
Thus, the requirement of mens rea for assessing the criminal liability has
changed the objective standard of criminality to that of subjective.
Application of Mens Rea in IPC:
The doctrine of mens rea is applicable to all acts which are declared
offences in the IPC. However, there are certain exceptions to the rule, where
the offences are public welfare offences.
Exceptions to the Doctrine of Mens Rea:
a) Vicarious Liability: (master’s liability for servant’s act)
Usually a man is held liable for his own acts only. But under the principle of
vicarious liability, he is liable for the acts of others also.
Thus, an individual who has not done the offensive act is held responsible
for the result of an act done by the offender. For majority of offences under
the IPC, the principle of vicarious liability does not apply.
 However, in the following cases, the principle of Vicarious liability is
applied:
 Sec. 154: The landowner is responsible for the offences of rioting, if it is
committed or has been committed on his land and if he does not report the
matter to the Police Authorities.
 Sec. 155: Provides for cases where rioting is committed for the benefit of
the land owner.
 Sec. 156: Agent or Managers are responsible for rioting in the absence of
their Masters.
 Statutory liability: A statute may impose criminal liability upon the master
as regards the acts or omissions of his servants. In all license cases, the
master is generally held responsible.
 Public nuisance: If public nuisance is caused by acts of the servants while
carrying on the works of the master, the master is liable for the offence.
 Neglect of duty: If a master entrusts a work to unskilful labourers which
involves dangerous operations, then for any injury caused to third persons
by the negligence of such labourer, the master is criminally liable.
b) Strict Liability:
Crimes of strict liability are those in which the necessity of Mens Rea is
wholly excluded. The person is held responsible for his act even though he has
no intention to do the act and there is no negligence on his part.
The following are the instances:
 Offences against the state like waging war against the Government of India
(Sec. 121)
 Sedition (Sec. 124 A)
 Assaulting high officers (Sec. 125)
 Counterfeiting Indian Coin (Sec. 232)
 Abduction (Sec. 362)
 Kidnapping (Sec. 359)
Public welfare offences and Mens Rea:
As under the doctrine of strict liability, mens rea does not apply to public
welfare offences i.e., offences under the Food Adulteration Act, Essential
Commodities Act, Foreign Exchange Act, Customs Act etc.
 Further the public welfare offences include socio-economic offences
relating to food, drugs, weights and measures, hoarding and black-marketing
licensing revenue, environment pollution etc., where mens rea is not
applicable.
c) Cases of absence of Mens Rea:
Special circumstances relieve the offender from criminal liability. They
favour infants, lunatics and persons under the influence of delirium. In all these
cases, the element of mens rea is absent.
 Accident
 Necessity
 Infancy
 Intoxication against will

4. Kinds and the of punishments.

In olden days, ‘deodand’ was a form of punishment which was later
abolished in Britain.
Variation in Punishment Under IPC:
IPC provides various punishment for various offences. In fixing the nature
and quantum of punishment, the Court takes into consideration the nature
and gravity of offence, the degree of mental intention, means and modes of
committing an offence, the circumstances, age and antecedents of the
offender etc.
Sec. 53 provides five kinds of punishments which can be inflicted on the
offender.
The following are the kinds of punishment:
a) Death penalty (Capital Punishment):
It is the extreme penalty under the Indian penal code. In the earlier days, it
was known as death sentence and even for offences like theft and forgery the
punishment of death sentence was awarded.
Now, the death sentence is almost abolished and awarded for offences
against the State and in rarest of rare cases, i.e., in cases of murder executed in
the cruellest manner.
 A death sentence may be awarded under the Indian Penal Code in the
following cases -
i) Waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against the
Government of India. (Section. 121)
ii) Abetting of mutiny, if mutiny is committed. (Section 132)
iii) Giving or fabricating false evidence upon which an innocent person suffers
death (Section. 194)
iv) Murder (Section 302)
v) Abetment of suicide of a minor, or insane or intoxicated person (305)
vi) Attempt to Murder by a person under sentence of imprisonment for life, if
hurt is caused (Section 307).
vii) Kidnapping for ransom etc. (Section 364A)
viii) Dacoity with murder (Section 369)
Bachan Singh v/s State of Punjab:
Principles held in this case are:
i) Unbearable mental pressure and mental disturbance cannot be given
death sentence.
ii) Accused is too young or too old death sentence should not be given.
iii) Only if there is threat to society it can be awarded.
iv) If there is a chance of rehabilitation and reformation.
v) If the accused can be given moral jurisdiction.
vi) Under compulsion if he killed.
vii) When the person is mentally affected.
Machhi Singh v/s state of Punjab:
Principles held in this case are:
i) Extreme culpability
ii) Circumstances of offender
iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence are an exception.
iv) They should be a balance between aggravating and mitigating
circumstances.
b) Life imprisonment:
Life Imprisonment means a sentence of imprisonment running throughout
the remaining period of a convict's natural life (till death). But in practice it is
not so.
 According to Section 55 of Indian Penal Code, in every case in which
sentence of imprisonment for life shall have been passed, the appropriate
Government may, without the consent of the offender, commute the
punishment for imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding
fourteen years. Section 57 states that in calculating fractions of terms of
punishment, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to
imprisonment for twenty years.
Sections for the life imprisonment under CrPC are:
Sec. 432(1), Sec. 432(2), Sec. 432(3), Sec. 432(4), Sec. 433
K.M. Nanavati v/s State of Maharashtra
In this case supreme court held that imprisonment for life means rigorous
imprisonment for life and not simple Imprisonment.
c) Imprisonment:
Imprisonment is of two types:
i. Rigorous Imprisonment -
Imprisonment may be rigorous with hard labour such as digging earth,
cutting wood etc.
According to Section 60 of I.P.C in every case in which an offender is
punishable with imprisonment which may be of either description, it shall be
competent to the Court which sentences such offender to direct in the
sentence that such imprisonment shall be wholly rigorous, or that such
imprisonment shall be wholly simple or that any part of such imprisonment
shall be rigorous and the rest simple.
The Indian Penal Code prescribes imprisonment as punishment for:
*Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of
capital offence (Section 194)
* House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death (Section
449)
ii. Simple Imprisonment:
Simple imprisonment is imposed for small offences like wrongful
restraint, defamation etc. In case of simple imprisonment, the convict will not
be forced to do any hard-manual labour. There are some offences which are
punishable with simple imprisonment are as follows :
* Refusing to take oath (Section 178)
* Defamation (Section 500)
* Wrongful restraint
* Misconduct by a drunken person, etc (Section 510)
d) Forfeiture of Property:
Forfeiture of property means taking away the property of the criminal by
the State. Forfeiture of property is now abolished except in the case of
following offences:
* Committing depredation on territories of Power at peace with the
Government of India (Section 126).
* Receiving property taken by war or depredation mentioned in sections 125
and 126 (Section 127).
e) Fine:
It is a financial penalty imposed on the offender, in the case of less serious
offences. Sec. 63 lays down that in case where no specific amount of fine is
fixed, the amount of the fine is unlimited but should not be excessive. The
imprisonment is default of payment of fine is simple and as follows:
Fine Imprisonment
i) Rs. 50/- or less 2months or less
ii) Rs. 100/- or less 4months or less
iii) Above Rs. 100/- 6months or less
Fine may be imposed along with imprisonment for offences like assault,
theft, bribery in election etc.
f) Solitary confinement:
Solitary Confinement means keeping a prisoner thoroughly isolated from
any kind of contact with the outside. A harsh and hardened convict may be
confined in a separate cell to correct his conduct. Court can award this
punishment only when the offence is punishable with rigorous imprisonment.
Solitary confinement may be imposed subject to the following restrictions:
*Solitary confinement should not exceed three months of the Substantive term
of imprisonment
*It cannot be awarded where imprisonment is not part of the substantive
sentence.
*It cannot be awarded for the whole of term of imprisonment
*It cannot also be awarded where imprisonment is in lieu of fine.
According to Section 74 of I.P.C in no case the sentence of solitary
confinement be awarded more than fourteen days at a time and it must be
imposed at intervals.

5. Possible parties to the crime.

It is true that both crime and criminal are looked upon with greatest hatred
by all sections of the people in society. In fact, the law of crimes has been as
old as civilisation itself. Wherever people organised themselves into groups or
associations the need for some sort of rules to regulate the behaviour of the
members of that group inter se has been felt. There lies the necessity of
devising some ways and means to curb such tendencies in the society that lead
to violation of its rules. In every organised society certain act are forbidden on
the pain of punishment. Where one person injured another and the injury
could adequately be compensated by money value, the wrong-doer was
required to pay damages or compensation to the wronged individual. But in
certain cases, in addition to the liability to pay compensation the state imposes
certain penalties upon the wrong-doer with the object of preserving peace in
the society and promoting good behaviour towards each other and towards
the community at large.
However, the problem arises to what acts should be forbidden or what acts
should be selected for punishment by the society or the state. In other words,
what acts should be declared as crime. The concept of crime has always been
dependent on public opinion. As we already know law reflects the public
opinion of the time. More than any other branch of law, criminal law is mirror
of public opinion.
Thus, law prescribes certain standards of conduct to be observed by the
people in society. These standards have the approval of the society in general.
Any deviation from the standards of behaviour fixed by the society is punished.
Therefore, such conduct as does not accord with the prescribed standard is
loosely known as crime.
 The legal meaning of crime is an act or omission punishable by law. Crime is
an act which is forbidden by law and revolting to the moral sentiments of the
society.
Sir William Blackstone:
Crime is a violation of the public right and duties due to the whole
community, considered as a community.
Stephen:
A crime is an act or omission in respect of which legal punishment may be
inflicted on the person who is in default, either by acting or omitting to act.
According to English law, parties to a crime are classified into Principal in
the I and II degree and Accessories before and after the fact.
A crime may not always be committed by a single person. It may be
committed by several persons and persons who participate in a crime are
referred as Parties to a Crime.
a. Principal in the I Degree:
The person who actually commits/committed or participate in the
commission of the crime is called the Principal in the degree. He id the actual
offender. He is awarded the prescribed punishment as per the Criminal Law.
b. Principal in the II Degree:
He is a party who aids, assists, encourage or instigates the Principal in the I
Degree during the commission of the crime. He may or may not be physically
present at the location of the crime, but indirectly instigates, encourages or
aids in the commission of the offence. He is otherwise called ‘Accomplice’.
Principal in the II Degree is punished to the same degree as the Principal in the
I Degree.
c. Accessory Before the Fact:
A person who is not actually or constructively present but contributes as an
assistant or instigator to the commission of an offence is called ‘accessory
before the fact’.
The offence of abetment under Sec. 108 of IPC corresponds with the
offence of ‘accessory before the fact’ under English law.
 Here, the abettor is not actually or constructively present at the time of
commission of offence, but has been contributing as an assistant or instigator
to the commission of an offence and hence he is called ‘accessory before the
fact’.
Thus, the ‘accessory before the fact’ directly or indirectly procures, counsels
or orders another to commit the offence. It is because of his absence, he is
called only an accessory.
d. Accessory After the Fact:
Here the accessory knows that an offence has been committed by an
offender, but still after the fact of commission of offence, he receives, relieves,
comfort, harbours or assists in concealing the offender or handles the
apprehension, trial or punishment of that offender.
Thus, any person knowing that an offender has been committed by an
offender, aids or shelters such offender with intent to defeat justice is called
‘accessory after the fact’.
Harbouring an offender or deserter of army, receiving stolen property
knowing that is a stolen property are examples of ‘accessory after fact’.
Both accessory before the fact and accessory after the fact are punishable
under IPC.
Illustration:
 ‘A’ and ‘B’ plan to commit robbery in a house – Both are Accessories before
the fact.
 ‘A’ alone break into the house and commits robbery – Principal in the I
Degree.
 ‘B’ waits outside the house and keeps a watch for any unexpected situation
– Principal in II Degree.
 After warrant is issued for their arrests, ‘A’ and ‘B’ go to their friend ‘C’s’
house. ‘C’ knowing about the crime committed by ‘A’ and ‘B’, allows them
to hide in his go down – ‘C’ is Accessory after the fact.
6. Unlawful assembly. When it becomes rioting?
Unlawful assembly (Sec. 141) consists of five or more persons assembled to
execute the common object of the assembly as specified in this Section.
Essentials:
 The assembly should have five or more persons
 They should have a common object for execution of which they have
assembled.
 The Common Object must be one among the five given below:
 To overawe by criminal force the Central or State Govt. or the Legislature or
any public servant.
 To resist the execution of law or legal process. Eg.: Resistance offered to a
Court Amin in the execution of a Court decree.
 Commission of any mischief, criminal trespass or other offence.
 To take of any property or to deprive any person of any incorporeal right or
to enforce any right by criminal force.
 To compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do or to omit
what he is legally entitled to do, by criminal force.
For eg.: An assembly may be lawful when it is assembled, but may
subsequently become an unlawful assembly.
The term ‘assembly’ implies a meeting of five or more persons in pursuance
of a common unlawful object.
The mere presence of a person at the place where the members of an
unlawful assembly have gathered for carrying out their illegal object, does not
make such person as a member of the assembly.
Only if he did something or omitted to do something which would make
him a member of an unlawful assembly, he is considered as member of the
unlawful assembly and punishable.
It is combination of men for any one of the common objects which may
lead to breach of peace or disorder, which is sought to be prevented for
maintaining public peace.
Chikkaranga Gowda v/s St. of Mysore:
Two brothers who were sleeping in the house of a concubine were killed
when a mob attacked and set fire to the building, thereby injuring the
brothers. All the members of the Unlawful Assembly were convicted under
Sec. 302 read with Sec.149 and Sec. 34.
If in an assembly of persons with a lawful purpose, some of the members
commit some offences or unlawful acts, it is not considered as an “Unlawful
Assembly”.
Common objects must be one of the objects given in the Section. If an
assembly exercises right of private defence, it is not unlawful.
Sec. 142: deals with the liability of a person who is a member of an unlawful
assembly.
If any person joins or continues to be a member of unlawful assembly with
knowledge of the facts making the assembly unlawful, he is liable for the acts
or the unlawful assembly as if he alone had done such acts.
There must be more than 4 persons having the common object. If a fifth
person is present, but he had no common object of the others, he will not be
guilty of just remaining in an unlawful assembly.
If out of an Unlawful Assembly of seven persons, four are acquitted, the
other three cannot be convicted of Rioting.
The punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly is
imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6months or fine or with both
(Sec. 143).
Dispute Regarding Possession of Land
Peary Monun Sircar Case:
There was a dispute between the accused and other parties regarding
certain land. The accused went to sow the land along with men armed with
sticks to keep off the opposite party. The accused was held to be guilty under
this Section.
Sec. 144: if any person armed with deadly weapon or anything which used
as a weapon of offence likely to cause death, is a member of an unlawful
assembly. He is punishable with imprisonment up to two years or fine or both.
Rioting (Sec. 146)
The offence of rioting is committed when force or violence is used by
member of an Unlawful Assembly.
 Unlawful Assembly + Violence = Rioting
Essentials:
 They must be 5 or more persons forming an unlawful assembly.
 They must have a common object.
 Any member or all of them must have started using force or violence in
persecution of the common object.
If a number of persons assembled for any lawful purpose suddenly quarrel
without any previous design, they do not commit the offence of rioting.
If the common object of an assembly is not illegal, it is not rioting, even if
force is used by a member of assembly.
The punishment for rioting is imprisonment for a term of two years of fine
or both.
Field v/s Metropolitan Police Receiver:
More than three young boys were demolishing a wall, but when the
caretaker of the building appeared, they ran away. As there was no evidence of
violence, they were not convicted of the offence of rioting.
Raghunathi Raj Case:
Several Hindus forcibly removed an ox and two cows form the possession of
a Mahomedan, in order to prevent the killing of the cows. If any person
commits Rioting with a deadly weapon likely to cause death, he shall be liable
for imprisonment for three years or fine or both.

7. Abetment. Provisions relating to it.

Many offences are committed mainly with the support and encouragement
received from others. Such others, though do not take active part in the
commission of offence are at the back ground of the offence and their support
and encouragement facilitate the commission of offence.
So, the framers of IPC have thought it fit to punish such persons who have
lent their support and assistance in one form or the other in the commission of
the offence.
 Thus, though a person is absent at the time when the offence is committed,
if he counsels, procures or commands another to commit the offence, then he
is punishable, as if he himself has committed such offence.
The act of counselling, procuring, assisting or commanding another person
to commit an offence is called abetment of the offence.
 “To abet” is to encourage, instigate, incite or set another to commit a
crime.
 Abetment (Sec. 107): A person is guilty of abetment of a thing.
o If he instigates any person to do that thing.
o If he engages with one or more person in any conspiracy for the doing of
that thing and an act of illegal omission takes place in furtherance of that
conspiracy.
o If he intentionally aids the doing of that thing by wilful misrepresentation or
by wilful concealment of a material fact.
 Abettor (Sec.108):
An abettor is a person who abets either the commission of an offence or of
an act which would become an offence if committed by a person capable by
law of committing an offence and having the same intention or knowledge as
that of the abettor.
If the abettor engages himself in the conspiracy for commission of the
offence and if the offence is committed in pursuance of such conspiracy, then
the abettor is punishable as if he himself has committed the offence.
Rules of abetment:
a. It is also an offence to abet the illegal omission of an act, though the
abettor may not himself be bound to do that act.
b. To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act
abetted should be committed, or the effect be caused.
Eg.: ‘A’ instigates ‘B’ to murder ‘C’. ‘B’ refuses to do so. ‘A’ is guilty of abetting
‘B’ to commit murder.
c. It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of
committing an offence or that he should have the same guilty intention or
knowledge as that of the abettor.
Eg.: ‘A’ with a guilty intention abets a child or a lunatic to commit murder.
Here, whether the act be committing or not, ‘A’ is guilty of abetment to
murder.
d. As the abetment of an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is also
an offence.
Eg.: ‘A’ conspires with ‘B’ a plan for poisoning ‘Z’. It is agreed that ‘A’ must
administer the poison. ‘B’ then explains the plan to ‘C’, but without mentioning
‘A’s’ name. ‘C’ procures and delivers the poison to ‘B’ for the purpose of ‘A’
administering the poison to ‘Z’. Now, ‘A’ administers the poison to ‘Z’ and ‘Z’
dies in consequence.
Here, ‘A’ and ‘C’ has not conspired together. But ‘C’ has been engaged in
the conspiracy to procure the poison. Therefore, ‘C’ also has committed the
offence of murder and accordingly punishable for murder.
e. When a person in India abets the commission of an act outside India, it is
also an offence, if that act is punishable if committed in India (Sec. 108 – A).
Eg.: ‘A’, in India instigates ‘B’, a foreigner in London to commit a murder in
London. ‘A’ is guilty of abetting murder.
f. When one act is abetted, but a different act is done, even then the abettor
is liable for the probable consequence (Sec. 111).
Eg.: ‘A’ instigates a child to put poison into the food of ‘Z’, and give him poison
for that purpose. The child by mistake puts the poison into the food of ‘Y’,
which is by the side of that of ‘Z’.
Here, ‘A’ is liable in the same manner and to the same extent as if he
had instigated the child to put the poison into the food of ‘Y’.
g. When an act is abetted with the intention by the abettor to cause a
particular effect, but a different effect is caused, even then the abettor is
liable for the effect (Sec. 113).
Eg.: ‘A’ instigates ‘B’ to cause grievous hurt to ‘Z’, ‘B’ consequence of the
instigation, caused grievous hurt of ‘Z’. ‘Z’ dies in consequence. Here, if ‘A’
knew that the grievous hurt abetted was likely to cause death, ‘A’ is liable to be
punished for murder.
h. If the abettor is present when the offence is committed, then he shall be
deemed to have committed such act or offence.
 Punishment for Abetment
a. Punishment for abetment where no express provision is made (Sec. 109):
If the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment, and if no
express provisions has been made for the punishment of such abetment, then
the abettor will be held liable for punishment to the same extent as provided
for the particular offence abetted.
Here, there is no variation between the abetment and the act i.e., both the
abettor and abettee have committed the offence with the same intention and
knowledge.
Eg.: ‘A’ offers a bribery to ‘B’, a pubic servant, as a reward for showing ‘A’
some favour in the exercise of ‘B’ official function. Now, ‘B’ accepts the bribe.
‘A’ has abetted the offence of bribery as under Prevention of Corruption
Act and hence he is equally liable as of abettee to punishment up to 5yrs with
fine.
b. Punishment of abetment when person abetted does act with different
intention from that of abettor (Sec. 110):
As per this Section, even if there is variation between the abettor and the
person abetted both in intention and knowledge, the punishment is the same
for both the abettor and the person abetted.
In other words, the variation in the intention or knowledge of the persons
abetted does not reduce or increase the liability of the abettor.
c. Liability of abettor to cumulative punishment (Sec. 112):
The abettor is liable to punishment both for the offence abetted as well as
for the offence which is the probable consequence of the abetment. However,
cumulative sentence could be passed in that particular case.
Ghanshyam Singh v/s Emperor:
‘A’, by putting ‘B’ in fear of death, compels ‘B’ to join him in burning a stock
of corn belonging to ‘Z’. The Court held that ‘A’ is liable both for abetting ‘B’ to
burn the stock of corn of ‘Z’ and also for putting ‘B’ under fear of death.
d. Abetment of offence punishable with death or life imprisonment, when
the abetted act is not committed (Sec. 115):
 If any person abets the commission of an offence punishable with death or
life imprisonment and if the offence is not committed and if in the absence of
any punishment provision in the IPC for such abetment, then the punishment
is imprisonment up to 7yrs and also fine.
Eg.: ‘X’ instigates ‘Y’ to murder ‘Z’, but the offence is not committed. ‘X’ is
liable to be punished for abetment with imprisonment up to 7yrs and fine.
e. Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment, when the abetted
act is not committed (Sec. 116):
If any person abets the commission of an offence punishable with
imprisonment and if the offence is not committed then the abettor is
punishable with imprisonment up to ¼ of the maximum term prescribed for
the offence or fine or both.
f. Sec. 117:
Abetment of an offence committed by the general public or more than
10persons is punishable with imprisonment for 3yrs or fine or both.
g. Sec. 118:
If any person voluntarily conceals the existence of a design to commit an
offence punishable with death or life imprisonment or makes any fake
representation regarding such design, then he is punishable with
imprisonment up to 7yrs and fine if the offence is committed and for 3yrs and
fine if the offence is not committed.
h. Sec. 119:
If any pubic servant who has duty to prevent the commission of an offence,
conceals by any act or illegal omission the existence of a design to commit such
offence, then he is punishable with:
 ½ of the term of imprisonment prescribed for the offence if it is committed.
 Imprisonment for 10yrs if the offence is punishable with death or life
imprisonment.
 Imprisonment for ¼ of the term prescribed for the offence, if it is not
committed
i. Sec. 120:
If any person voluntarily conceals the existence of a design to commit an
offence punishable with imprisonment, then he is punishable with:
 ¼ of the term of imprisonment prescribed for the offence, if the offence is
committed.
 1/8 of the term and fine, if the offence is not committed.

8. Criminal Conspiracy.
Criminal conspiracy is studied as a substantive offence under Sec. 120 – A of
the IPC.
When two or more persons agree to commit an offence punishable with
death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of two years or above or to
cause such an offence to be committed, the agreement is designated as a
criminal conspiracy.
The commission of the offence may be the ultimate object of such
agreement or is merely incidental to the object.
To constitute the offence of criminal conspiracy, it is not necessary that any
act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of the agreement.
 When a person is guilty of Criminal Conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a
term of 2yrs or above, if there is no special provision for the punishment of
such a Conspiracy, he shall be punished in the manner, as if he abetted such
offence.
 When a person is a party to a Criminal Conspiracy other than a Criminal
Conspiracy to commit an offence mentioned in point (1) he shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term not more than 6months or fine or
both.
Essentials:
a. Agreement between two or more persons:
One person alone cannot be convicted for the offence of criminal
conspiracy. There should be more than one person to agree to commit are
illegal act.
If one person is acquitted then all the others should be acquitted. There
must be an agreement between the accused to commit the illegal act.
b. To do an illegal act or legal act by illegal means:
 An agreement to do legal act by legal means is not punishable. The
conspiracy should be to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means.
Assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi case:
One of the two actual killers and two conspirators were tried. One of the
conspirators away from the scene of the crime was acquitted as his
movements showed that there was no agreement between him and the other
accused.
But the other conspirators were associated with the actual killers and were
planning something secret. This constituted prima facie evidence of
conspiracy. All of them were punished for the crime.
State (CBI/SIT) v/s Nalini (Rajiv Gandhi murder case):
The Supreme Court held that an agreement between two or more persons
to do an illegal act amounts to criminal conspiracy.
The illegal act may or may not be done in pursuance of agreement but the
very agreement is an offence and is punishable.
Everyone of the conspirators need not have taken active part in the
commission of each and every one of the conspiratorial acts to constitute the
offence of conspiracy.
Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy (Sec. 120 – B)
a. When a person is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable with death or imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment of
two years or upwards and if no express provision is made in the IPC for the
punishment of such a conspiracy, then he is punished in the same manner
as if he had abetted such offence.
b. When a person is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal
conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid, then he is
punished with imprisonment up to 6months or fine or both.

9. Sedition (Sec. 124 – A).

Essentials:
a. Bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt or exciting or
attempting to excite disaffection towards the Govt. of India.
b. Such act must be done by spoken words or written words or signs or visible
representations.
The punishment for this offence is imprisonment up to 4yrs or fine or both.
Explanation:
a. Disaffection means disloyalty and all feelings of enmity. Enmity include ill
will, hostility etc.
b. Disapproved of the measures of the Govt. with a view to obtain their
alteration by lawful means without exciting or attempting to excite hatred,
contempt or disaffection, does not constitute sedition.
c. Also comments of disapproval of the Administrative or other of the Govt.
without exciting or attempting to excite hatred do not constitute an offence
of Sedition.
d. The offence under this Section does not require an intention to incite
violence or public disorder.
e. An attempt to Sedition is also treated as Sedition and punishable.
f. The Govt. established by law in India includes the executive power in action
and not merely the constitutional frame work.
Govt. means the person or persons collectively in succession, who are
authorised to administer Govt. A general criticism of certain officers cannot
be considered as criticism of Govt. established by law in India.
g. Disaffection may be by writing poem, drama, story or essays. There should
be some kind of publication, and so, if the seditious matter remains with
the author it is not an offence.
Not only the authors, but the printer, publisher, the editor or the owner
or proprietor of the press of a seditious publication is also liable like the
author. Not only written words, but wood cutting, engraving, etc., also
constitute sedition.
h. The hatred and contempt must relate to the State or the established form
of Govt.
Further, the hatred and the contempt towards the State may be by
writing, imputing the Govt. with base, dishonourable, contemptuous
malicious motives in discharge of its duties. It may also be unjustly accusing
the Govt. of hostility or indifference to the welfare of the people.
Kedarnath Singh v/s State of Bihar:
 The Supreme Court held that Sec. 124 – A – Sedition is not unconstitutional,
because it affects the fundamental right of freedom of speech and expression
guaranteed under Art. 19(1)(a) of the constitution.
It further added any criticism of public measures or comment on
Governmental action, however strongly worded, if it is within reasonable limits
and consistent with the fundamental right of freedom of speech and
expression, then it is valid. Only when the words have the tendency of creating
public disorder or disturbance of law and order, then it becomes punishable.
Bal Gangadhar Tilak v/s The Queen Empress:
The Privy Council held that the offence committed by the accused did not
consist in exciting or attempting to excite mutiny or rebellion or any sort of
actual disturbance whether small or big.
In Sedition, publication of seditious materials itself is sufficient to constitute
the offence and it is absolutely immaterial whether any disturbance or
outbreak was caused by the publication of seditious articles or not.
If accused intended by the articles to excite rebellion or disturbance, then
his act would definitely fall within Sec. 124 – A of the Penal Code. If the
accused has tired to excite feelings of hatred or contempt towards the Govt.,
then that is sufficient to make him guilty under this Section.
Both the writer of seditious articles and persons whoever use in any way
words or printed matter for the purpose of exciting feelings of disaffection to
the Govt., then they are liable under the Section whether he is the actual
author or not. The expression “Government established by law in India” means
ruling authority and its representatives.

10.Common intention (Sec.34).

When an act punishable by laws is committed jointly by two or more
persons, all of them are punishable for such act. It is because the act is done in
furtherance of common intention.
If a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common
intention, then each person is liable for the criminal act. It is considered as if
the criminal act was done only by him.
 Even if one person does the criminal act, and other only assist him in doing
it, they are all held liable, as they have acted with a common intention.
This is known as “Constructive Criminality”. It means that all are
responsible for the criminal act, even if it is done by one or a few of them. It is
difficult to prove the part played by each of them in doing the act.
Moreover, the presence of other gives encouragement, support and
protection to the person actually committing the offence.
Thus, every person engaged in the commission of a crime is held liable by
his participation in the criminal act, even if the particular act was not wholly
performed by the one or the other member of the group.
Doctrine of Joint Liability
Sec. 34 incorporates the principle of joint liability laid down in the case of
Reg v/s Cruze.
A police head constable along with other constables went to ‘A’s’ house to
arrest him. On seeing the police constables, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and others came out of
the house and beat the police head constable and drove him off along with his
assistants.
The Court held that each of the members of the group ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ was
equally liable for the beating, even though only one of the them actually gave
the beating.
Act in furtherance of Common Intention
The following are the essentials:
a. A criminal act must be done by several persons.
As per Sec. 33, the term ‘act’ includes both single act and series of acts.
Thus, the term ‘act’ used under Sec. 34 means and includes a series of acts,
which are considered as a single act.
Thus, the words ‘when a criminal act is done by several persons’ as
mentioned in Sec. 34 – equally means ‘when criminal acts are done by several
persons’.
 As per this meaning, the acts committed by different persons in a group in
the criminal action may be different, but all must in one way or the other
participate and engage in the commission of the criminal offence.
For eg.: One person in a group may only stand as a guard to prevent other
persons coming to save the victim. In a way he facilitates the execution of the
common intention. So, such a person also commits an ‘act’ as much as his co-
participants actually committing the crime.
b. Common intention:
The word ‘common intention’ implies a prior consensus of minds and
participation of all the person in the group in the execution of offence.
The acts committed by each of the participants may be different. It may
vary in character and magnitude, but they must be committed with the same
common intention.
Absence of Common intention:
In the absence of common intention, the criminal liability of the persons in
the group differ according to the degree and extent of the individual’s
participation in the act. The plan or consensus of mind to execute a crime need
not be elaborate.
Further, there need not be any particular interval of time required for the
purpose of committing the act. The plan may be decided suddenly, but it is
essential that all the persons in the group must have consented to such plan.
In other words, each of the persons in the group must be aware of the act
to be committed and must have given his consent.
c. The criminal act must be done in furtherance of a common intention.
The criminal act must be done in furtherance of a common intention. The
common intention may be developed in the course of events and there need
not be a strict pre-arranged plan. There should be a common intention
followed by a criminal act in furtherance of such common intention.
Further, the participation of the persons in the group in the criminal act is
an essential condition for joint liability. In addition, there must be some
external act to indicate the common intention to commit the offence.
 In other words, the accused must share the common intention to commit a
crime with others in the group and he must also have participated in the
commission.
The accused must also be present on the spot at the time of the occurrence
of the offence and must also take part in its commission.
Test for conviction under Sec. 34:
A person can be convicted under Sec. 34 only if it is proved either by direct
evidence or inference that the accused and others have committed an offence
in furtherance of the common intention of the group.
Constructive Liability (Sec. 149)
In constructive liability, the offenders need not have common intention but
only common object.
Sec. 149 says “if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful
assembly, in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, every person
who at time of committing that offence is a member of this same assembly,
guilty of that offence”.
A. Unlawful Assembly (Sec. 141):
It consists of five or more persons assembled to execute the common
object of the assembly as specified in this Section.
Essentials:
 The assembly should have five or more persons
 They should have a common object for execution of which they have
assembled.
 The Common Object must be one among the five given below:
 To overawe by criminal force the Central or State Govt. or the Legislature or
any public servant.
 To resist the execution of law or legal process. Eg.: Resistance offered to a
Court Amin in the execution of a Court decree.
 Commission of any mischief, criminal trespass or other offence.
 To take of any property or to deprive any person of any incorporeal right or
to enforce any right by criminal force.
 To compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do or to omit
what he is legally entitled to criminal do, by criminal force.
For eg.: An assembly may be lawful when it is assembled, but may
subsequently become an unlawful assembly.
Chikkaranga Gowda v/s St. of Mysore:
Two brothers who were sleeping in the house of a concubine were killed
when a mob attached and set fire to the building, thereby injuring the
brothers. All the members of the Unlawful Assembly were convicted under
Sec. 302 read with Sec.149 and Sec. 34.
B. Dacoity (Sec 396):
This section also deals with Constructive Liability. When five or more
persons commit dacoity, even if one person commits murder, all of them are
liable for it.

11.Culpable Homicide (Sec. 299). When it amounts to murder and when it

doesn’t amount to murder.
“Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death
or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or
with this knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the
offence of culpable homicide”.
Essentials:
a. Causing of death:
To hold a person liable for culpable homicide, there must be causing of
death of a human being as per Sec. 46 of IPC.
The causing of death of a child in the mother’s womb is not homicide as
stated in Sec. 299 (3) of IPC.
The causing of death must be of a living human being. It includes a living a
living man, a living woman, a living child, an infant under the process of
delivery or a just delivered infant.
 It is sufficient if the death of the human being is caused whether such
person was intended to be killed or not i.e., death may be attempted at one
person, but the result may be death of a different person. Still it amounts to
offence of culpable homicide.
Eg.: ‘A’ abets ‘B’ to poison ‘A’s’ mother. ‘B’ obtain poison from ‘A’ and gives
it to ‘A’s’ mother by mixing it in milk. ‘A’s’ mother gives the milk to the child of
‘B’, not knowing that it contains poison. The child drinks the milk and dies.
Now, the act of ‘A’ amounts to culpable homicide by ‘B’, though both ‘A’ and
‘B’ never intended to kill ‘B’s’ child.
b. By doing an act:
Death must be caused by doing or committing an act. Thus, death may be
caused by many ways like poisoning, starving, striking, drowning or
communicating some shocking news etc. The term ‘doing an act’ includes
‘illegal omission’ also.
For eg.: If a child who has a claim over his parents is starved to death by
omission to supply him food, then it amounts to the commission of the offence
of culpable homicide.
R v/s Smith
A mistress has omitted to supply her servant with proper food and lodging
and so caused her death.
The court held that the mistress was not liable for the death of the servant,
as she was having the control of her actions and was able to take care of
herself.
c. Intention of causing death:
The term ‘intention’ used in Sec. 299 connotes that it is used in the ordinary
sense. It means that every sane man is ‘presumed to intend’ the necessary,
natural or probable consequences of his acts.
For eg.: If a man throws a child from the top of a tower of hundred feet,
then his act is intended to cause the child’s death.
However, the burden of proving the guilty intention of the accused lies on
the prosecution.
d. Intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death:
 Here, the intention of the offender is not to cause death, but if he intends
to cause bodily injury which is likely to cause death and if death results by such
bodily injury, then it amounts to the offence of culpable homicide. There must
be direct and distinct connection between the ‘act’ and the ‘death’ caused by
such act.
Eg.: ‘A’ intentionally gives ‘Z’ a sword cut or club-wound in the vital part of
his body which is likely to cause his death. ‘A’ has committed culpable
homicide.
e. With the knowledge that such act is likely to cause death:
The knowledge that death is the likely result make the act more certain
than a mere probability. Here, the term ‘knowledge’ refers to the personal
knowledge of the person who is committing the act.
Eg.: ‘A’ known that ‘Z’ is behind a bush. ‘B’ does not know it. ‘A’ knowing it
to be likely to cause ‘Z’s’ death induces ‘B’ to fire at the bush. ‘A’ has
committed culpable homicide.
Punishment for Culpable Homicide (Sec. 304)
Any person committing the offence of culpable homicide shall be
punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10yrs and fine – in
the case of death caused with intention of causing death or causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death.
With imprisonment for 10yrs or fine or bot if death is caused with the
knowledge that his act is likely to cause death or to cause such bodily injury as
is likely to cause death.
Proof of Culpable Homicide
The following proofs are required for convicting a person for the offence of
culpable homicide:
a. There should be the death of the victim
b. Such death must have been by the act of the accused
c. The accused must have caused death in any of the three ways: -
 Intentional causing of death
 Intentional causing of such bodily injury as is likely to cause death
 With knowledge that his act would cause death.
 Culpable Homicide Amounting to Murder
Murder is dealt with under Sec. 300 of the IPC. The section lays down the
circumstances under which culpable homicide amounts to murder.
Culpable homicide amounts to murder because of relatively higher degree
of mental intention to cause the death of the victim. The punishment for
murder is death or life imprisonment and fine.
Thus, there must be intention to cause death and there must be actual
death to constitute either culpable homicide or murder. If death is likely result,
then it is culpable homicide, but if it is the most probable result, then it is
murder.
The offence is culpable homicide, if the bodily injury intended to be inflicted
is likely to cause death and it is murder, if such injury is sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Thus, the distinction between Sec. 299 (c) and Sec. 300 (4) is the degree of
knowledge of the consequences expressed in the following words – likely to
cause death in Sec. 299 (c) and must in all probability cause death.
Thus, whether the offence is culpable homicide or murder depends upon
the degree of risk to human life.
Repetition:
In the case of bodily injury, the offence is culpable homicide, if the bodily
injury is likely to cause death; and the offence is murder if the injury is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
For an offence to be classified as ‘murder’ or ‘culpable homicide’ the
problem must be approached in three stages:
a. Whether death is caused by the act done by the person
b. Whether the act amounts to culpable homicide {Sec. 299} or murder {Sec.
300) is the next stage.
c. If the offence can be brought under any of the clauses of Sec. 300, then it is
murder and not culpable homicide.
Culpable Homicide not Amounting to Murder
Sec. 200 has got 5 exceptions. In these exceptions, murder is reduced to
culpable homicide. It is otherwise called ‘culpable homicide not amounting to
murder’. These are not total defences like general defences namely insanity,
consent etc., wherein the person causing death is totally excused and
exonerated from punishment.
Exceptions:
a. Grave and sudden provocation
R v/s Dattu Genu:
The deceased attempted to outrage the modestly of the wife of the
accused. After one month, the accused killed the deceased. As there was
months’ time between the provocation and his act, the Court held that the
accused was not entitled to exception under this clause and he was
punishable.
b. Exceeding the right of private defence
Laxman Kisan Naare v/s State of Maharashtra:
The deceased and the accused were quarrelling. The deceased was a stout
and strong man, and he sat on the accused. Though he was without arms, the
accused, in defending himself, gave three blows with a knife, thereby killing
him.
c. Public servant exceeding his power
Illustration:
‘A’, a Police officer arrests ‘Z’, for the offence of theft. ‘Z’ escapes and runs.
‘A’ chases and kills him, by shooting thereby exceeding his legal power. ‘A’ is
punishable for acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
d. Death caused by sudden fight
Mathew v/s State of Kerala:
The accused and his wife were separated. The wife was living with her
father. The accused was having his youngest child with someone. The wife took
away the youngest child from his custody one day, which enraged the accused
very much. He went to his father in law’s house and quarrelled.
e. Consent
In Re Anunto Rurnagat:
 A woman was much grieved at the death of her child. She was repeatedly
requesting her husband to kill her. The accused killed her one night due to her
repeated requests. The Court held that the accused was guilty of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder.
Conclusion:
In all these cases, though the offence committed is actually ‘murder’,
because of the presence of certain extenuating circumstances in the
commission of the offence, the law takes a lenient view and convicts the
accused with a reduced punishment.
It reduces the offence of murder to ‘culpable homicide not amounting to
murder’ and accordingly the punishment for the offender is proportionately
reduced from death sentence to imprisonment for life or imprisonment up to
10yrs and fine.
If the offence has been committed with the knowledge that it is likely to
cause death or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death under Sec.
299 (3), the punishment is up to 10yrs.

12.Murder (Sec. 300). Ingredients or essentials of it.

Murder is dealt with under Sec. 300 of the IPC. The section lays down the
circumstances under which culpable homicide amounts to murder.
Culpable homicide amounts to murder because of relatively higher degree
of mental intention to cause the death of the victim. The punishment for
murder is death or life imprisonment and fine.
Essentials:
Death must be caused with the following requirements to constitute the
offence of murder:
a. Causing death with intention to cause death:
In murder, the intention of causing death is more than the intention of
causing death in culpable homicide. It is inferred when the other three clauses
of Sec. 300 are read together along with this clause. Further, the act and
manner of causing death has higher degree of probability or likelihood in
causing death.
Illustration:
‘A’ shoots ‘Z’ through his head, with the intention of killing him. ‘Z’ dies in
consequence. ‘A’ has committed murder.
‘A’ under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by ‘Z’,
intentionally kills ‘Y’, ‘Z’s’ child. This is murder.
Jaspal Singh v/s State:
The accused inflicted a blow with a knife on groin and black of the
deceased, when the brother of the deceased intervened, the accused inflicted
similar blows to him also. The Court held that the accused is guilty of murder
and convicted him under Sec. 302.
b. Causing bodily injury which the offender knows to be likely to cause
death:
It applies to case where the injured person is in such condition or state of
health that his death would be likely to be caused by an injury which would not
ordinarily cause the death of a person in sound health.
Illustration:
‘A’ is suffering from an enlarged spleen. ‘Z’, knowing that ‘A’ is labouring
under such a disease and a kick is likely to cause his death, strikes him in the
stomach, as a result of which, the spleen is ruptures and ‘A’ dies. ‘Z’ is guilty of
murder.
R v/s hokum Singh:
Dacoits fired indiscriminately at people who tried to catch them. One of
them died from the gunshot. The dacoits were guilty of murder.
c. Inflicting bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death:
Death will be the ordinary course of nature under Sec. 300. Further, it
implies that even if the accused has no intention to cause death, if the bodily
injury caused is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, then
the accused is punishable for murder.
Illustration:
 ‘A’ intentionally gives ‘Z’ a sword cut or club wound sufficient to cause the
death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. ‘Z’ dies in consequence. Here,
‘A’ is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause ‘Z’s’ death.
R v/s Dasser Bhooyant:
Two drunken men were quarrelling with each other for half an hour. One of
them ran to his house and brought a heavy pestle and struck a blow on his
temple causing instant death. The Court held that the accused was guilty of
murder.
d. With the knowledge of doing an act which is so imminently dangerous
that it must, in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely
to cause death:
Here, if the knowledge that his act is imminently dangerous that it must, in
all probability, cause death, then the accused is punishable for the offence of
murder.
In other words, death is a practical certainty. The accused has knowledge
that his act bears the highest degree of probability of causing death.
Illustration:
‘A’, without any excuse, fires a loaded gun into a crowd of persons and kills
one of them. ‘A’ is guilty of murder although he had no preplant to kill anyone
particularly.
R v/s Kanhai:
The deceased who was defenceless was attacked by four persons who were
armed with heavy sticks. They gave severe blows to the accused for a very long
time, thereby completely smashing the skull. The Court held that all of them
were guilty of murder under this clause.
Punishment for the Murder
The punishment for murder is death sentence or imprisonment for life and
fine.
13.Kidnapping. Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship (Sec. 361). Distinguish
it Abduction.
Kidnapping means carrying away or stealing away a person, especially a
child by illegal force. The object of this provision is to protect children from
being kidnapped.
The offence of kidnapping is an aggravated form of wrongful confinement
and hence all the ingredients of wrongful confinement must be present to
constitute the offence of kidnapping.
Kidnapping is not confined only to child – stealing, but it includes carrying
away a human against his or her consent or without the consent of some
person legally authorised to accord consent on behalf of such person.
The consent of guardian is necessary for taking away a male below 16yrs
and female below 18yrs or an insane person.
Mere conveying of a person from one place to another place does not
constitute the offence of kidnapping. It becomes kidnapping only if a person is
conveyed without his consent.
Further, a person may be conveyed by obtaining his consent by using force
or putting a person under fear or duress or by inducing him to give his consent
by fraud and deception – this also constitutes the offence of kidnapping.
Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship (Sec. 361)
If a person takes or entices away a minor male under 16yrs of age or minor
female under 18yrs of age or a person of unsound mind out of the lawful
custody of a guardian, without the consent of such guardian, then he commits
the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship.
The lawful guardian must have care and custody of the minor or insane
person.
If a person takes away an illegitimate child in good faith believing himself to
be its father or who in good faith believes himself, to be entitled to the lawful
custody of such child, he is not punishable for kidnapping.
However, such taking must not be for any immoral or unlawful purpose.
 Minor
The word ‘minor’ is defined as male child under 16 and female child under
18yrs of age. A female child may be married as well as unmarried.
If the minor kidnapped is a girl under 18yrs, then it is no defence that the
accused did not know the girl to be under 18, or that from her appearance, the
accused though her to be above 18yrs of age.
Essentials:
a. Taking or Enticing:
 Actual or constructive force need not be used taking away the minor and
girl’s consent immaterial.
 Taking of a person is complete as soon as the minor is actually taken from
lawful guardianship. Generally, there is no abetment for this offence, but if
there is a conspiracy before the kidnapping takes place, action can be taken
for abetment of kidnapping.
If the accused so persuades a minor to be taken out of the keeping of lawful
guardian, then the accused commits the offence of abetment of kidnapping.
The term ‘takes’ need not be taking by force. further, the term ‘takes’ is not
confined only to use of force, actual or constructive. It merely means to cause
to go, to escort or to get into possession.
The word ‘entice’ is inducement or allurement by giving rise to hope or
desire in the other.
b. Under 16yrs if male, under 18yrs if female:
When a girl under the age of 18 is kidnapped, the defence that the girl’s
appearance was misleading and the accused thought that she was more than
18yrs is not valid and hence he will be guilty of kidnapping from lawful
guardianship.
R v/s Prince:
The appellant was charged with taking an unmarried girl under the age of
16yrs out of the custody of her father, believed on reasonable grounds that the
girl was aged 18. The Appellate Court upheld the conviction as valid. The
offence was one of strict liability his reasonable belief about age of te girl was
no defence.
c. Person of unsound mind:
If the person kidnapped is of sound mind normally buy made unconscious
due to poisoning, he is not to be classified as a person of unsound mind.
Eg.: A person under anesthetic or unconscious due to datura poisoning etc.
d. Out of the keeping of the unlawful guardian:
The word ‘keeping’ means maintenance, protection and control and not
detention. Thus, the person need not be in physical possession of the guardian,
but under a continuous control which should have been terminated for the
first time due to the taking away of the person from the keeping of the lawful
guardian.
Consent of the minor is completely immaterial and if there is guardian’s
consent, the offence is not committed. If the minor is not in the custody of any
lawful guardian, the offence cannot be committed.
Deepchand v/s State:
Two girl friends of 17yrs of age has gone voluntarily with the accused. In the
examination before the Court, both the girls deposed that they only had
persuaded the accused to take them for sight-seeing. The Court held that the
accused did not commit the offence of kidnapping.
e. Without the consent of the guardian:
The taking of the minor of the lawful guardian must be without his consent
and the minor’s consent is not material. But if a person fraudulently induces
the parents of a girl to give consent, such amounts to kidnapping.
Jaganadha Rao v/s Kamaraju:
A girl was under the temporary guardianship of a person. She was taken
away with such person’s consent and was married to a boy without the
consent of girl’s father. The Court held that the temporary guardian was
punishable for kidnapping as he had no authority to give consent for the girl
being taken away and get married.
Abduction (Sec. 362)
If any person by force compels, or by deceit means induces another to
go from any place, he is said to abduct that person.
 Abduction person and simple, by itself it is not an offence. It is an
auxiliary act not punishable in itself. Only when it is accompanied by an
intention to commit another offence, it becomes punishable as an offence.
Illustration:
‘A’ forcibly carries or entices ‘B’ away from his home in order that ‘B’
may be murdered. ‘A’ has committed the offence of abduction.
Differences between Abduction and Kidnapping
Refer pg. 346 – B

14.Rape (Sec. 375). Essential ingredients of it with recent development and

provisions relating to it.
Rape is forcible sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent or
against her will.
In April 3013, Indian Parliament introduced amendments to the IPC making
various changes in the ani-rape laws in India. The old section was dealing with
the definition of “Rape” and new definition of rape was added which includes
both penile or non-penile insertion into bodily orifice of woman by a man as
rape, punishable under this section.
Ingredients of the Offence of Rape (Sec. 375)
a. Penetration to any extent, by penis.
b. Any object or any part of body to any extent, into the vagina, mouth,
urethra or anus of a woman or making her to do with another person
c. Applying of mouth to vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or
making her to do so with him or with another person without the consent
or will of the woman constitutes the offence of rape.
d. With her consent, obtained by putting her or any other person in whom she
is interested under fear of death or hurt
e. When her consent given under misconception that the man was her
husband. In other words, consent is obtained by deceiving her that he is her
lawful husband.
f. Consent given by reason of unsoundness of mins or under influence of
intoxication or any stupefying or unwholesome substance, administered by
 him or through any other person, when she is not in a position to
understand the nature of the act for which she is giving her consent.
g. When she is unable to communicate consent.
h. Sexual intercourse by a man with a girl below 18yrs of age with or without
her consent amounts to rape.
i. Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife is rape if she is below 15yrs
of age.
The definition has also clarified that penetration means “penetration to any
extent”, and lack of physical resistance is immaterial for constituting an
offence. If a woman does not resist physically for the penetration it does not
amount to consent.
Proof of Rape
a. In case of a charge for rape, the burden lies upon the prosecution to prove
that the sexual intercourse was without the consent or against the will of
the woman.
b. If there is proof that there was sexual intercourse with the woman by the
accused and if the woman states that she did not give her consent, then the
Court shall presume that she did not consent and thereby the burden of
proof shifts to the accused who has to prove that the sexual intercourse
was with the consent of the woman.
c. Presence of sperms is not necessary to constitute rape. Penetration is
sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of
rape.
d. It is not always necessary that the oral testimony of the victim be
corroborated by some other evidence for the accused to be convicted.
However, the following are taken as corroboratory evidence: -
 The human psychology and behavioural probability of the raped victim
while assessing her testimony.
 The evidence of the victim corroborated by circumstantial evidence. For
eg., the victim’s immediate complaint to her parents.
 The injury on the person of the victim especially on her private parts has
corroborative value. For eg, the presence of blood on her clothes etc.
Corroboration can be dispensed with by a Judge if in the particular
circumstances of a case he is justified to do so. It is because when a woman is
raped, she is inflicted with not merely physical injury but also a deep sense of
shame in public. The basic human rights cannot be curtailed and blunted by
strict rules of evidence.
Punishment for Rape
a. Rape {Sec. 376 (1)}:
The punishment for Rape is imprisonment not less than 7yrs but which may
extend to imprisonment for life and shall also be liable to fine.
b. Aggravated form of Rape {Sec. 376 (2)}:
If the rape is committed the police officer, public servant, armed force, jail
staff, remand home or any children’s or women institution established,
management or staff in hospital, relative guardian teacher or person of trust
to woman, on pregnant woman, woman under the age of 16yrs, unsound
mind woman etc. the punishment is rigorous imprisonment of not less than
10yrs, which may extend to imprisonment for life and shall be liable to fine.
Other Important Sections Amended in 2013
a. Causing death or resulting in persistent vegetative state of victim {Sec.
376 A}
If any person mentioned in Sec. 376 (1) and Sec. 376 (2) of IPC commits
rape and in committing such rape, inflicts an injury which causes death or
makes her to be in a persistent vegetative state, shall be punished with
rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than 20yrs which shall extend to life
or with death.
b. Sexual intercourse by husband upon his wife during separation {Sec. 376
B):
Any person who has sexual intercourse with his own wife living separately
under a decree of separation, without her consent, shall be punished with
imprisonment for not less than 2yrs which may extend to 7yrs and also liable
to fine.
c. Sexual intercourse by one in authority {Sec. 376 C}:
If any person in a position of authority or in a fiduciary relationship or
public servant or superintendent or manager of a jail, remand home or other
place of custody or women or children institution, or on the management of a
hospital or the staff of the induce or seduce any woman in his custody or
present in the premises to have sexual intercourse does not amount to rape,
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment of not less than 5yrs but which
may extend to 10yrs and also liable to fine.
d. Gang rape {Sec. 376 D}:
Gang rape means rape of a victim by several attackers in rapid succession.
It is an occasion when several men attack a woman and force her to have sex
with them. If the woman is gang raped, it means that several men forced her
to have sex with them successively.
If a woman is raped by one or more-person constitution=ng a group or
acting furtherance of common intention, each person of the group shall be
deemed to have committed the offence of rape, each shall be punished with
rigorous imprisonment for not less than 20yrs, extending to life imprisonment
and with fine.
Such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the
victim and her rehabilitation. Any fine imposed under this section shall be paid
to the victim. The object of introducing the offence of gang rape in IPC is to
effectively curb the increasing rate of the offence of gang rape.
In proving the gang rape, it not necessary that the prosecution must
adduce clear proof of rape by each one of the accused on the victim for
punishment under Sec. 376 of IPC. Further, in gang rape, the mere absence on
the back or private parts of the victim alone is not a valid defence to the
accused to escape conviction.
Pramod Mehto v/s State of Bihar:
Four persons forcibly entered into a house and raped a young unmarried
girl. The medical evidence proved the fact of rape. The Supreme Court held
that it is not necessary to prove that all of them had participated in the rape
for punishment under Sec. 376.
Arun Kumar v/s State of U.P:
A young widow accompanied by her father was gang raped by three men.
All the three of them were held liable for gang rape. Thus, the object of
dealing sternly with gang rape is to deal effectively with the growing menace
of gang rape.
e. Repeat Offenders {Sec. 376 E}:
 Any person who committed offence of rape under Sec. 376 or Sec. 376 A or
Sec. 376 and subsequently convicted of an offence punishable under any such
Sections, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, extending for the
remainder of that person’s natural life, or with death.

15.Robbery {Sec.390}. When it becomes dacoity. In all robbery there is either

theft of extortion. Explain.
According to Sec. 390, robbery includes either theft or extortion. In other
words, it is either an aggravated form of theft or extortion.
The punishment for robbery is rigorous imprisonment up to 10yrs and fine.
Robbery by Theft
In order to the committing of theft or in committing theft or in attempting
to carry away property obtained by theft, the offender voluntarily causes or
attempts to cause to any person, death, or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of
the above offences.
Essentials:
a. Theft must be committed by the offence.
b. The offender must voluntarily cause or attempt to cause to any person
death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear pf death or instant hurt or
wrongful restraint.
Illustration:
‘A’ holds ‘Z’ down and fraudulently takes ‘Z’s’ money and jewels from ‘Z’s’
clothes, without ‘Z’s’ consent. Here ‘A’ has committed theft and in order to the
committing of theft, has voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to ‘Z’. ‘A’ has
therefore committed robbery.
Rameshwar Soni v/s State of Punjab:
The accused through chilli powder in the eyes of certain victims and stole
the cash in their packets and bags. The Court held that the accused was guilty
of robbery as there was theft accompanied by causing hurt.
Robbery by Extortion
 If the offender at the time of committing extortion puts the other person in
fear of instant death, instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint to that person
or to some other person and there by induces the person then and there to
deliver up to deliver up the extorted property to accused or any other person,
then he commits robbery by extortion.
Essentials:
a. Extortion must be committed by that offender.
b. The offender must be in the presence of the person put in fear.
c. The offender must communicate the fear of instant death or hurt wrongful
restraint.
d. The other person is induced to deliver up the property then and there.
Illustration:
‘A’ meets ‘Z’ on the highway, shows a pistol and demands ‘Z’s’ purse. ‘Z’, in
consequence, surrender his purse. Here, ‘A’ has extorted the purse from ‘Z’ by
putting him in fear of instant hurt. ‘A’ has therefore committed robbery.
Thus, the offence of Extortion becomes Robbery by the following elements:
a. Simple extortion
b. Presence of the offender
c. Fear of instant violence
d. Immediate delivery of property
Harish Chandra v/s State of U.P:
The accused snatched the watch of the victim. The accused’s friend forcibly
stopped the victim. The Court held that the offence of robbery was made out
because there was extortion coupled with violence namely causing hurt to the
victim.
Punishment for Robbery (Robbery by theft and extortion)
(Sec. 392)
The punishment for robbery is rigorous imprisonment up to 10yrs and fine. If
the robbery is committed on high way between sunset and sunrise, then the
punishment is imprisonment up to 14yrs.
Robbery when becomes to Dacoity
 When five or more persons jointly commits or attempt to commits
robbery, every person so committing or attempted to commit or aiding the
commission of robbery is punishable for dacoity.
There is no difference between robbery and dacoity except in the
number of offenders. Robbery is dacoity, if the persons committing robbery
are 5 or more in number.
Explanation:
a. 5 or more persons attempting to commit robbery is dacoity
b. 5 or more persons actually committing robbery is dacoity
c. 1 person committing robbery and 4 persons aiding the commission or its
attempt is dacoity.
Punishment for Dacoity:
The punishment for dacoity is life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment
up to 10yrs and fine.

16.Theft (Sec. 378 to Sec. 382). Essentials.

If any person intends to take dishonestly any movable property out of the
possession of another person without that person’s consent and moves that
property in order to such taking, then he is said to commit the offence of theft.
Essentials:
a. Without the consent of the owner or possessor:
The taking of the movable property be without the consent of the person in
possession. If there is implied or express consent, then there can be no theft.
Illustration:
‘A’ being on friendly terms with ‘Z’, goes into ‘Z’ library in ‘Z’ absence
and takes away a book without express consent for the purpose of merely
reading it and with intention of returning it.
Here, it is probable that ‘A’ may have assumed that he had implied
consent to use ‘Z’ book. If this was ‘A’s’ impression, ‘A’ has not committed
theft.
b. Dishonest intention:
 This is the most important element for the offender of theft. Dishonest
intention means the intention to cause wrongful gain to one person and
wrongful loss to another. The intention to take dishonestly must exist at the
time of taking the property. There can be no theft where there is no dishonest
intention.
Illustration:
‘A’ sees a ring belonging to ‘Z’ lying on a table in ‘Z’ house. ‘A’ hides the ring
in a place not easily found out by ‘Z’. ‘A’ does this act with the intention to sell
it later. Here, ‘A’ is punishable for theft, because ‘A’ has dishonest intention at
the time of taking the ring.
If the owner is kept out of possession temporarily without dishonest
intention, then it is not theft because there is no intention to cause wrongful
loss to the owner.
R v/s Afran Ali:
The court held that if a property is removed by a person in the assertion of
a contested claim right, however ill-founded that claim may be, then the
removal does not constitute theft and the person cannot be held guilty of
theft.
c. Movable Property:
Theft can be committed only to movable properties. Movable property
includes all properties except those which are attached to earth permanently.
If the immovable property is served from the ground, it becomes movable and
theft can be committed to such severed property.
Illustration:
‘A’ owed money to ‘Z’ for repairing his watch. ‘Z’ retains the watch lawfully
as a security for the debt. ‘A’ takes the watch out of ‘Z’s’ possession. Now ‘A’
commits theft because he deprives ‘Z’ of the possession of the security.
d. Out of possession:
The property stolen must be in some one possession. Such property must
have been taken out of such possession. Ownership of the property is not
necessary.
 Thus, the offence of theft is an offence against possession and not against
title.
Illustration:
 If ‘X’ steals the goods of ‘A’ and ‘Z’ steals them from ‘X’. Both ‘X’ and ‘Z’
have committed theft.
 When a servant entrusted by the owner of the box of ornaments
dishonestly runs away with the box, she commits theft.
e. Movement or removal of property:
In order to constitute the offence of theft, there must be some movement
of the property for the purpose of taking it. If there is no movement of the
property then there is no theft.
Illustration:
‘A’ puts a bait for dogs in his pocket and this induced ‘Z’s’ dog to follow
it. Here, if ‘A’s’ intention is dishonestly to take the dog out of ‘Z’s’ possession
without consent, ‘A’ has committed theft as soon as ‘Z’s’ dog begun to follow
‘A’.
Bisakhi’s Case:
The accused cut the string from the necklace of the complainant and
forced the ends apart in order to remove it from her neck but as a quarrel took
place at that time between the accused and the complainant, the necklace fell
on her bed and was found out after some time.
The Court held that since the cutting of the string etc., constituted
sufficient movement of property, the accused was guilty of theft.
Punishment for Theft (Sec. 379)
The punishment for theft is imprisonment up to 3yrs or fine or both.

17.Extortion. Essentials. When does extortion become robbery.

If a person intentionally puts another in fear of injury and dishonestly
induces that person to deliver any valuable security to him or to any other
person, he commits the offence of extortion.
Essentials:
a. Putting a person in fear of injury:
It is intentionally putting any person in fear of injury by the other person.
The fear must be of such a nature that it takes away his free will or consent.
The fear of injury must be of a real nature. The injury that a person may be put
in fear is not necessarily physical injury. Injury to the character may also be an
injury.
For eg.: A threat to expose a bishop of his illegal relation with a woman was
held to be extortion.
b. Dishonestly inducing the person:
The person put in fear of injury must have been forced to incur a wrongful
loss and the accused to make wrongful gain.
Chander Kala v/s Ram Kishan:
The School Head Master induced a lady teacher to sign three blank papers,
by threatening to attack on her modesty. The Headmaster was held guilty of
extortion.
c. To deliver to any person any property or valuable security:
There must be dishonest inducement to deliver a property or valuable
security. Thus, to constitute the offence of extortion, there must be fear and it
should be followed by delivery of property. The term ‘property’ means both
movable and immovable property.
d. There must be no violence:
There must be only fear of injury and there should not be any actual
violence inflicted on the victim. If there is injury, then the offence of extortion
becomes robbery.
e. Valuable securities or properties convertible into valuable securities must
be taken with the owner’s consent:
If there is consent voluntarily given by the owner of the property, then the
offence of extortion is not made out.
Illustration:
a. ‘A’ threatens ‘Z’ to publish a defamatory libel concerning ‘Z’ unless ‘Z’ gives
him money. He induces ‘Z’ to give him money. ‘A’ has committed extortion.
b. ‘A’ threatens ‘Z’ that he will keep ‘Z’s’ child in wrongful confinement unless
‘Z’ will sign and deliver to ‘A’ a promissory note binding ‘Z’ to pay certain
money to ‘Z’ signs and delivers the note. ‘A’ has committed extortion.
Thus, the offence of extortion is committed by overpowering the will of the
other person. The property obtained by extortion may be both movable and
immovable.
Punishment for Extortion
The punishment for extortion is imprisonment up to 3yrs, or fine or
both. The offence is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and triable
by any Magistrate.

18.False evidence. Provisions relating to fabricating false evidence.

If a person who is bound by oath to speak the truth gives false statement
which he knows or belies to be false, then it is termed as giving false evidence.
Essentials:
a. The person must be legally bound by oath or any express provision of law to
speak the truth or to make a declaration upon any subject.
b. He must make a false statement
c. Such statement is one, which he believed to be false or does not believe to
be true.
The punishment is imprisonment for 3yrs and fine. To punish an accused
under Sec. 191, it is sufficient if he gives a false statement contrary to the oath
to state the truth. If the Court has no authority to administer an oath, a
prosecution for false evidence will not stand. The false statement made need
not be material upon the matter. Abetment of the offence of false evidence is
also punishable.
Baban Singh v/s Jagadish Singh:
The Supreme Court held that when a false affidavit is sworn by a witness in
any proceeding before a Court, then it amounts to giving false evidence or of
fabricating false evidence for the purpose of being used in a judicial
proceeding.
Illustration:
‘B’ has a just claim against ‘Z’ for ₹1000/-, ‘A’ in support of ‘B’, falsely
swears on a trial that he heard ‘Z’ admit the ‘B’s’ claim. Now, ‘A’ has given false
evidence.
Decided case laws regarding giving false evidence:
a. The false evidence need not be material to the case in which it is given.
b. The accused must have sworn a false statement or if true the accused must
not have known it to be true.
c. The accused giving false evidence recklessly without knowing whether the
subject matter of statement is false or not.
d. A false verification of a plaint is also giving false evidence.
e. A false written of service of summons is giving false evidence under Sec.
191.
Punishment for giving false evidence (Sec. 193)
If any person gives false evidence in a judicial proceeding, then he is
punishable with imprisonment up to 7yrs and fine.
If any person gives false evidence in any other case other than judicial
proceeding, then he is punishable with imprisonment up to 3yrs and fine.
Fabricating false Evidence
Essentials:
a. Causing any circumstance to exist or making any document containing false
statement.
b. With intention that if may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding or
legal proceeding before a public servant or an arbitration.
c. There by to cause the authority to arrive at an erroneous opinion on any
relevant point.
So, Sec. 192 applies not only to a Judicial and Quasi-Judicial proceeding but
also in non-judicial proceeding before public officer.
Abramayi v/s Joseph:
He accused executed a false deed for the purpose of obtaining a licence to
construct a workshop. He was held guilt of his offence. The fabrication of
evidence must be on a material point.
 Punishment for Fabricating false evidence (Sec. 193)
If any person fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in a
judicial proceeding, then he is punishable with imprisonment up to 7yrs and
fine.
If any person fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any
other case other than judicial proceeding, then he is punishable with
imprisonment up to 3yrs and fine.
Provisions relating to false evidence
Sec. 194: Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure
conviction of capital offence shall be punished with imprisonment for life or
with rigorous imprisonment for 10yrs and also fine.
Sec. 196: consequences of such fabrication of false evidence if an innocent
person be convicted and executed the offender shall be punished with death.
Sec. 196: Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true or genuine
evidence which he knows to be false, shall be punished as if he fabricated false
evidence.
Sec. 197: Issuing or signing false certificates is punishable as giving false
evidence.
Sec. 198: Corruptly using a certificate known to be false is punished as if he
gave false evidence
Sec. 199: false statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as
evidence is punished as if he gave false evidence.
Sec. 200: Using as true any declaration knowing it to be false shall be
punished in the manner as if he gave false evidence.
Sec. 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence or giving false
information of screen offender shall be punishable.
Sec. 202: Any person who knows or has reason to believe that an offence
has been committed omits to give any information regarding that offence
which he is legally bound to give, he shall be punished with imprisonment for 6
months or fine or both.
19.Dowry death (Sec. 304 – B).
If the death of women is caused by any burn or bodily injury or occurs any
abnormal circumstances within 7yrs of her marriage and if it is shown that
soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any relative of her husband in connection with demand for dowry,
such death is called “Dowry Death”.
Such husband or relative is deemed to have caused her death. The
punishment for causing dowry is imprisonment for 7yrs which may extend to
life.
Essentials:
Conviction under this section requires the following essentials, where the
Court presumes that the husband or his relative have caused the dowry death
of a women.
a. Death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury otherwise
than under normal circumstances.
b. Such death should have occurred within 7yrs of her marriage
c. There should be cruelty to the woman by the husband or any relative of the
husband.
d. Cruelty or harassment must be in connection with demand for dowry.
If death has been caused under the above circumstances, then the Court
presumes that the dowry death has been caused by the husband or his
relatives.
Cruelty:
The term ‘cruelty’ means any wilful and intentional conduct. It is of such a
nature as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury
or danger to her life, body etc. It is a harassment to coerce her or any other
person related to her to meet the unlawful demands of the accused.
For eg. Demands like scooter, fridge, jewels, money etc. made soon after
the marriage by the husband and relatives to the wife or parents.
Dowry:
The term ‘dowry’ is defined in Sec. 2 (1) of the Dowry Prohibition Act.
 It states that ‘dowry’ means any property or valuable security given or
agreed to be given either directly or indirectly:
a. By one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage
b. By the parent of either part to a marriage or by any other person, to the
either party to the marriage or to any other person at before or any time
after the marriage, but it does not include dower or mahar under the
Muslim Personal Laws.
Public Prosecutor v/s T. Basabapunnia:
Cruelty and harassment by the in laws and husband for dowry was proved
in this case and so even suicide by the wide within 3years of marriage was held
to be dowry death.
Pad Maben Shamalbhal Patel v/s State:
The deceased expressed in her dying declaration that her husband’s sister
had burnt her. This was admitted as evidence as the deceased was able to
speak and give the statement, before she died.

20.Hurt. When does it become grievous hurt?

Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to
cause hurt. The word ‘pain’ signifies only ‘bodily pain’ and not ‘mental pain’.
The hurt caused must be the direct result of the act. The term ‘infirmity’ used
in the definition is the inability of an organ to perform its normal function
temporarily or permanently.
The hurt must be caused voluntarily and not accidentally. The person who
causes hurt must have intention or knowledge that his act is likely to cause
hurt.
Voluntarily causing hurt (Sec. 321):
If any person does any act with intention of causing hurt to or with the
knowledge he is likely to cause hurt to another, then he voluntarily causes to
hurt to such person.
The punishment for voluntarily causing hurt is imprisonment up to one year
or fine up to ₹1000/- or both (Sec. 323)
 To commit the offence of hurt, there need not be any direct physical
contact.
If the bodily pain is the direct result of an act, then it is causing of hurt. The
method and means employed to cause pain have no relevance.
For eg.: if a person, knowing the other person has a weak heart,
intentionally tells the shocking news by which the other person develops chest
pain, he commits the offence of hurt to the other person.
Thus, bodily pain is necessary to constitute hurt.
R v/s Beshor Bewa:
The mother gave a kick in her daughter’s back and two slaps on her face for
correcting her impertinence. But the child died unexpectedly. The mother was
held liable for ‘voluntarily causing hurt’.
Grievous Hurt (Sec. 320)
All kinds of hurt are not grievous hurt. Only the following kinds of hurt are
designated as grievous:
a. Emasculation:
It is deprivation of masculine vigour of man. This offence can be applied
only against men. Sometimes emasculation may also amount to death.
b. Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
c. Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
d. Privation of any member or joint.
e. Destruction or permanent impairing of the person of any member or joint.
f. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. ‘Disfiguration’ means causing
such injury to a man which detracts from his personal appearance, but does
not weaken him physically.
Eg.: Cutting off a man’s nose or ear, branding a girl’s cheeks with red hot
iron leaving permanent scar, are all disfiguration.
g. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
h. Any hurt which endangers life or which cause the sufferer to be in severe
bodily pain for 20days or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
Voluntarily causing grievous hurt (Sec. 322)
 A person is said to voluntarily cause grievous hurt if he intends to cause or
known himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt.
The punishment for causing grievous hurt is imprisonment up to 7yrs and
fine.
Saha Rao v/s State:
The accused, while beating a woman several times, accidentally hit the
head of the child held in the woman’s hand. The child died as a result of the
blow. The Court held the accused guilty of causing grievous hurt.
R v/s Gangaram:
The accused went to a danger’s house and cut her nose with a razor blade.
This was permanent disfiguration of her face and the accused was held guilty
under Sec. 320 i.e., causing grievous hurt.

21.Force (Sec. 349). When becomes criminal force.

A person is said to use ‘force’ to another in following two ways:
a. By causing change of motion of another.
b. By causing change of motion to any substance so as to bring it into contract
with any part of the other body or anything he wears or carries.
Criminal Force (Sec. 350)
A person is said to use ‘criminal force’ to another in the following two way:
a. By using ‘force’ intentionally without that person’s consent, to commit any
offence
b. By using force intentionally without that person’s consent to cause injury or
annoyance to that person.
Illustration:
 'Z’ is sitting in a moored boat on a river. A unfastens the mooring and thus
intentionally causes the coat to drift down the stream. Here, ‘A’
intentionally causes motion to ‘Z’. ‘A’ has, therefore, intentionally used
criminal force to 'Z’
 ‘Z’ is riding in a palanquin. ‘A’, intending to rob ‘Z’, seizes the pole and stops
the palanquin. Here, ‘A’ has caused cessation of motion to ‘Z’ and he has
done this by own bodily power. So, he has used criminal force to ‘Z’.
Essentials:
a. Intentional use of force to another.
b. Such force is used without the other person’s consent.
c. Such force is used
 In order to commit an offence
 With intention or knowledge that he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to
the person to whom it is used.
Punishment for Criminal force otherwise than grave provocation (Sec. 352)
The punishment for criminal force other wise than grave and sudden
provocation is imprisonment up to 3months or fine up to ₹500 or both.
Explanation:
Grave and sudden provocation will not mitigate the punishment for the
offence criminal force in the following cases:
a. If the provocation is voluntary by the offender as an excuse for the offender
b. If the provocation is given by any person who has acted in obedience to the
law or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of his power of such public
servant
c. If the provocation is given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the
right of private defence of the other person.
Whether the provocation was grave and sudden so as to mitigate the
offence is question of fact and has to be decided depending on the nature and
circumstance of each case.

22.Criminal misappropriation (Sec. 403). Criminal breach of trust (Sec. 405).

Criminal misappropriation
If any person dishonestly misappropriation or converts to his own use any
movable property, he is guilty of criminal misappropriation. The punishment
for this offence is imprisonment up to 2yrs or fine or both.
Explanation:
The offence of misappropriation consists in dishonest misappropriation
or conversion either permanently or temporarily of movable property which is
already in the possession of the offender or which has come to the possession
of the offender. No entrustment is required to constitute the offence of
criminal misappropriation.
When the property of another person comes into possession of the
offender and if it is dishonestly converted or misappropriation by the offender
to his own use, then the offence of criminal misappropriation is committed.
A dishonest misappropriation ‘for a time only’ is also criminal
misappropriation.
Illustration:
a. ‘A’ finds a rupee on the road. Not knowledge to whom it is belongs, ‘A’ picks
it up. Here ‘A’ has not committed any offence.
b. ‘A’ sees ‘Z’ drop his purse with money in it. ‘A’ picks up the purse with the
intention of restoring it to ’Z’, but afterwards appropriation it to his own
use. ‘A’ has committed an offence under this Section.
Essentials:
a. Dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property to his own use.
b. Such property must be movable.
If a person finds a thing innocently, he does not commit the offence of
criminal misappropriation.
But, if the person after finding the thing knows to whom it belongs and yet
keeps it for himself, then the retaining becomes wrongful and thus, guilty of
criminal misappropriation.
He must also make earnest attempts to locate the real owner. Only when
he is unable to locate the real owner, he can appropriate the thing for his own
use or dispose of the same, which is not an offence.
So, criminal misappropriation consists in dishonest retention or conversion
of property. If any servant or clerk takes the property of master, he is guilty of
misappropriation.
 If property of an idol or a temple is not used ‘only for the purpose of that
idol or temple dishonestly’, then it is misappropriation.
Similarly, if money is received by a person mistakenly and he knowingly
decides to keep the money, it is criminal misappropriation.
R v/s Obayya:
The standing crops on the judgement debtor’s land were attached. But he
harvested them, while the attachment was in force. Held he was guilty of
criminal misappropriation.
Aggravated forms of Criminal Misappropriation
Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at
the time of his death (Sec. 404)
Criminal Breach Trust (Sec. 405)
If any person is entrusted with property or with any dominion over property
and if he dishonestly misappropriation or converts to his own use that
property, then be commits criminal breach of trust.
Thus, to constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust, the accused must
have been entrusted with the property or the accused must have dominion or
power over the property of another and that he dishonestly misappropriated it
or converted it to his own use.
To constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust, there must be a
relationship between the transferor and transferee, where under the
transferor remains the legal owner of the property and the transferee has only
the custody of the property for the benefit of the transferor or himself or
someone else.
The punishment for this offence is imprisonment up to 3yrs or fine or both.
Essentials:
a. The accused must be entrusted with property or with dominion over it.
The term ‘entrustment’ means any arrangement by which one person is
authorised to deal with the property for the benefit of another.
For eg.: If a person authorised to collect money or valuable delegates his
authority to another person it is entrustment.
b. He must dishonestly misappropriate or convert such property to his own
use.
c. The accused must dishonestly use or dispose of such property or wilfully
make any other person to do so, in violation of: -
 Any direction of the law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to
be dishonestly.
 Any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust.
Illustration:
‘A’, a carrier, is entrusted by ‘Z’, with property to be carried by land or by
water. ‘A’ dishonestly misappropriation the property. ‘A’ has committed
criminal breach of trust.
R v/s Kundan Tillumal:
A person got some utensils from the complainant, pretending that he was a
tinner and promised to return them after repairs. But he did not return the
utensils and he was also not a tinner. The Court held that it is a case of
cheating and not criminal breach of trust.
Other offences relating to criminal breach of trust:
 Criminal breach of trust by carrier etc. punishment – imprisonment up to
7yrs and fine (Sec. 407)
 Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant – punishment – imprisonment
upto 7yrs and fine (Sec. 408).
 Criminal breach of trust by public servant or by banker, merchant or agent –
punishment – life imprisonment or imprisonment up to 10yrs year and fine
(Sec. 409).