Elements Of Crime

By: Prof. Anil Thakur

Lloyd Law College
anil.thakur@lloydlawcollege.edu.in
 Fundamental Elements Of Crime
There are four elements which go to constitute
a crime, these are:-
• Human being
• Mens rea or guilty intention
• Actus reus or illegal act or omission
• Injury to another human being
 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.
 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.
 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”.
 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.
Stages of A Crime
 Stages of A Crime
• If a person commits a crime voluntarily or after
preparation the doing of it involves four different
stages.
• In every crime, there is-
• first intention to commit it,
• secondly, preparation to commit it,
• thirdly, attempt to commit it and
• fourthly the accomplishment.
Exceptional Circumstances when Intention
& Preparation alone are punishable
 1. Intention-
• Intention is the first stage in the commission of an offence and
known as mental stage.
• Intention is the direction of conduct towards the object chosen
upon considering the motives which suggest the choice.
• But the law does not take notice of an intention, mere intention
to commit an offence not followed by any act, cannot constitute
an offence (exceptions are there as already discussed).
• The obvious reason for not prosecuting the accused at this stage
is that it is very difficult for the prosecution to prove the guilty
mind of a person.
 2. Preparation-
• Preparation is the second stage in the commission of a crime.
• It means to arrange the necessary measures for the commission
of the intended criminal act.
• Intention alone or the intention followed by a preparation is not
enough to constitute the crime.
• Preparation has not been made punishable (exceptions are there
as already discussed)because in most of the cases the
prosecution has failed to prove that the preparations in the
question were made for the commission of the particular crime.
 instances
• If A purchases a pistol and keeps the same in his pocket duly loaded in order to kill his
bitter enemy B, but does nothing more. A has not committed any offence as still he is at
the stage of preparation and it will be impossible for the prosecution to prove that A was
carrying the loaded pistol only for the purpose of killing B.

• Preparation When Punishable- Generally, preparation to commit any offence is not

punishable but in some exceptional cases preparation is punishable, following are some
examples of such exceptional circumstances-

• · Preparation to wage war against the Government - Section 122, IPC 1860;

• · Preparation to commit depredation on territories of a power at peace with Government

of India- Section 126, IPC 1860;

• · Preparation to commit dacoity- Section 399, IPC 1860;

• · Preparation for counterfeiting of coins or Government stamps- Sections 233-235, S. 255

and S. 257;

• · Possessing counterfeit coins, false weight or measurement and forged documents. Mere
possession of these is a crime and no possessor can plead that he is still at the stage of
preparation- Sections 242, 243, 259, 266 and 474.
 3. Attempt-
• Attempt is the direct movement towards the commission of a
crime after the preparation is made.
• According to English law, a person may be guilty of an
attempt to commit an offence if he does an act which is more
than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence;
and a person will be guilty of attempting to commit an
offence even though the facts are such that the commission
of the offence is impossible.

• There are three essentials of an attempt:-

1. Guilty intention to commit an offence;

2. Some act done towards the commission of the offence;
3. The act must fall short of the completed offence.
 Attempt Under The Indian Penal Code, 1860-
The Indian Penal Code has dealt with attempt in the following four different ways-
• Completed offences and attempts have been dealt with in the same section and
same punishment is prescribed for both. Such provisions are contained in Sections
121, 124, 124-A, 125, 130, 131, 152, 153-A, 161, 162, 163, 165, 196, 198, 200, 213,
240, 241, 251, 385, 387, 389, 391, 394, 395, 397, 459 and 460.

• Secondly, attempts to commit offences and commission of specific offences have

been dealt with separately and separate punishments have been provided for
attempt to commit such offences from those of the offences committed. Examples
are- murder is punished under section 302 and attempt to murder to murder under
section 307; culpable homicide is punished under section 304 and attempt to
commit culpable homicide under section 308; Robbery is punished under section
392 and attempt to commit robbery under section 393.

• Thirdly, attempt to commit suicide is punished under section 309;

• Fourthly, all other cases [where no specific provisions regarding attempt are made]
are covered under section 511 which provides that the accused shall be punished
with one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence or with
prescribed fine or with both.
 4. Accomplishment Or Completion-
• The last stage in the commission of an offence is
its accomplishment or completion.
• If the accused succeeds in his attempt to
commit the crime, he will be guilty of the
complete offence and
• if his attempt is unsuccessful he will be guilty of
an attempt only.
• For example, A fires at B with the intention to
kill him, if B dies, A will be guilty for committing
the offence of murder and if B is only injured, it
will be a case of attempt to murder.
Joint Criminal liability
Section 34: Acts Done By Several Persons In
Furtherance Of Common Intention-
According to Section 34, when a criminal act is
done by several persons in furtherance of
common intention of all, each of such persons
is liable for that act in the same manner as if it
were done by him alone.
 Object Of Section 34:-
• Section 34 lays down only a rule of evidence and does
not create a substantive offence.
• This section is intended to meet cases in which it may
be difficult to distinguish between the acts of the
individual members of a party or to prove exactly what
part was taken by each of them in furtherance of the
common intention of all.
• This section really means that if two or more persons
intentionally do a thing jointly, it is just the same as if
each of them has done it individually.
• The reason why all are deemed guilty in such cases is
that the presence of accomplices gives
encouragement, support and protection to the person
actually committing an act.
 Elements Of Section 34:
To attract the application of Section 34, the
following conditions must be satisfied:-
1. Some Criminal Act
2. Criminal Act Done By Several Persons
3. Common Intention
4. Participation In The Criminal Act
 1. Some Criminal Act: -
• ‘Criminal act’ used in section 34 does not refer to
individual acts where a crime is committed by a
group of persons.
• Where a crime is committed by several persons in
furtherance of common intention of all of them,
each of them doing some act, similar or diverse,
big or small shall be liable for that act.
• ‘That act’ refers to the ‘criminal act’ used in
section 34 which means the unity of criminal
behavior which results in something for which an
individual would be punishable if it were all done
by himself alone in an offence.
2. Criminal Act Done By Several Persons: -
• The criminal act in question must have been
done by several persons i.e. by more than one
person.
• The number of wrong doers should be at least
two.
• Most importantly, if the criminal act was fresh
and independent act springing wholly from
the mind of the doer, the others are not liable
merely because when it was done they were
intending to be partakers with the doer in a
different criminal act.
 3. Common Intention:-
• The words “in furtherance of the common intention
of all” were added to section 34 after words
‘persons’ in 1870 the idea for which, possibly, was
derived from the following passage of the Privy
Council’s judgment:
“Where parties go with a common purpose to
execute a common intention, each and everyone
becomes responsible for the acts of each and every
other in execution and furtherance of their common
purpose, as the purpose is common so must be the
responsibility.” [Ref. Ganesh Singh v. Ram Raja,
(1869) 3 Beng LR (PC) 44, 45]
• The expression ‘common intention’ means unity of purpose or a pre-arranged plan; it has
been given various meanings which are as follows-
· Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan, prior meeting of minds, prior
consultation in between all the persons constituting the group [Ref. Mahboob Shah v.
Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 118].
· Common intention means the mens rea necessary to constitute the offence that has been
committed [Ref. As per DAS, J., in Ibra Akanda v. Emperor, AIR 1944 Cal. 339].
· It also means evil intent to commit some criminal act, but not necessarily the same
offence which is committed [Ref. As per WANCHOO, J., in Saidu Khan v. The State, AIR 1951
All 21 (F.B.)].
· Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan. Pre-arranged plan means prior concert or
prior meeting of minds. Criminal act must be done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged
plan. Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of the act in point of
time.
· Where there is no indication of premeditation or of a pre-arranged plan, the mere fact
that the two accused were seen at the spot or that the two accused fired as a result of
which one person died and two others received simple injuries could not be held sufficient
to infer common intention [Ref. Ramachander v. State of Rajasthan, 1970 Cr.L.J. 653].
· However, common intention may develop on the spot as between a number of persons
and this has to be inferred from the act and conduct of the accused, and facts and
circumstances of the case [Ref. Kripal Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 706].
 4. Participation In The Criminal Act:-
The participation in a criminal act of a group is a condition precedent in
order to fix joint liability and there must be some overt act indicative of
a common intention to commit an offence. The law requires that the
accused must be present on the spot during the occurrence of the crime
and take part in its commission; it is enough if he is present somewhere
nearby.
The Supreme Court has held that it is the essence of the section that the
person must be physically present at the actual commission of the
crime. He need not be present in the actual room; he can for instance,
stand guard by a gate outside ready to warn his companions about any
approach of danger or wait in a car on a nearby road ready to facilitate
their escape, but he must be physically present at the scene of the
occurrence and must actually participate in the commission of the
offence some way or other at the time crime is actually being
committed.
The first leading case on the point is Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, AIR
1925 PC 1 (also known as Shankari Tola Post Office Murder Case). In this case
several persons appeared before the sub-post master who was counting the
money on the table and demanded the money. In the mean time they opened
fire killed the sub-post master and ran away without taking any money.
Barendra Kumar was, however, caught with a pistol in his hand and was handed
over to the police.
The accused was tried under sections 302/34 as according to the prosecution he
was one of the three men who fired at the sub-post master. The accused denied
his charge on the ground that he was simply standing outside and had not fired
at the deceased. The trial court, on being satisfied that the sub-post master was
killed in furtherance of the common intention of all, convicted the accused even
if he had not fired the fatal shot.
The High Court of Calcutta and the Privy Council both agreed with the findings
of the trial court and held the accused guilty of murder. Giving his judgment
LORD SUMNER quoting a line from Milton’s famous poem, “ON HIS BLINDNESS”
said. “even if the appellant did nothing as he stood outside the door, it is to be
remembered that in crimes as in other things they also serve who only stand
and wait….. Section 34 deals with doing of separate act, similar or diverse by
several persons; if all are done in furtherance of a common intention, each
person is liable for the result of them all as if he had done them himself”.
• Common Object:- Section 149, like Section 34, is
the other instance of constructive joint liability.
Section 149 creates a specific offence. It runs as
under:
“If an offence is committed by any member of an
unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common
object of that assembly, or such as the members
of that assembly knew to be likely to be
committed in prosecution of that object, every
person who, at the time of the committing of that
offence, is a member of the assembly, is guilty of
that offence.”
 Elements Of Section 149:-

• The essence of offence under Section 149 is

assembly of several (five or more) persons having
one or more of the common objects mentioned
in Section 141 and it could be gathered from the
nature of the assembly, arms used by them and
the behaviour of the assembly at or before scene
of occurrence. Section 149 creates joint liability
of all members of an unlawful assembly for
criminal act done by any member in prosecution
of the common object of the said assembly.
the essential ingredients of Section
149 are:
1. There must be an unlawful assembly, as defined in Section 141;
2. Criminal act must be done by any member of such assembly;
3. Act done is for prosecution of the common object of the assembly or
such which was likely to be committed in prosecution of the common
object;
4. Members have voluntarily joined the unlawful assembly and knew the
common object of the assembly.
5. Mere presence and sharing of common object of the assembly makes a
person liable for the offence committed even if he had no intention to
commit that offence.
 Scope Of Section 149:-
The Section is divided into two parts-
1.In Prosecution Of The Common Object:- The words “in prosecution of the
common object” show that the offence committed was immediately
connected with the common object of the unlawful assembly of which
accused were members. The act must have been done with a view to
accomplish the common object of the unlawful assembly.
In Queen v. Sabid Ali, 11 BLR 347 the words “in prosecution of the common
object” were construed as meaning “with a view to achievement of the
common object”.
2. Members Knew To Be Likely:- The second part relates to a situation
where the members of the assembly knew that the offence is likely to be
committed in prosecution of the common object. A thing is likely to happen
only when the situation is like “it will probably happen” or “may very well
happen”. The word ‘knew’ indicates a state of mind at the time of
commission of an offence, knowledge in this regard must be proved. The
word ‘likely’ means some clear evidence that the unlawful assembly had
such a knowledge.
 Difference Between Common
Intention And Common Object:-
1. Under Section 34 number of persons must be more than one. Under
Section 149 number of persons must be five or more.
2. Section 34 does not create any specific offence but only states a rule of
evidence. Section 149 creates a specific offence.
3. Common intention required under Section 34 may be of any type.
Common object under Section 149 must be one of the objects mentioned in
Section 141.
4. Common intention under Section 34 requires prior meeting of minds or
pre-arranged plan, i.e. all the accused persons must meet together before
the actual attack participated by all takes place. Under Section 149, prior
meeting of minds is not necessary. Mere membership of an unlawful
assembly at the time of commission of the offence is sufficient.
5. Under Section 34 some active participation is necessary, especially in a
crime involving physical violence. Section 149 does not require active
participation and the liability arises by reason of mere membership of the
unlawful assembly with a common object.
Common Intention May Also Develop On
The Spot: Exception To The General Rule-
Generally, it is said that, “a common object may
develop on the spot but a common intention
cannot”. But, in certain circumstances common
intention also may develop suddenly on the
spot and such common intention may be
inferred from the facts and circumstances of the
case and conduct of the accused persons.
 Following cases are illustrative on this point-
In Kripal Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 706; the Supreme Court held that a common
intention may develop on the spot after the offenders have gathered there. A previous
plan is not necessary. Common intention may be inferred from the conduct of the
accused and the circumstances of the case.
In Rishi Deo Pandey v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 331; ‘A’ and ‘B’ two brothers were seen
standing near the cot of the victim who was sleeping. One of them was armed with a
‘gandasa’ and another with a ‘lathi’, when a hue and cry was raised by the two brothers
ran together, and both of them were seen running from the bed room of the victim. The
victim died of an incised wound on the neck, which according to medical evidence was
necessarily fatal. The court found that the two brothers shared the common intention to
cause death. It was held that common intention may develop on the spot also.
In Khacheru Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1956 SC 546; several persons attacked a man with
lathis when he was passing through a field. The man eluded them and they gave chase,
on overtaking him they once again attacked him. It was held that, these facts were
sufficient to prove that the accused persons had been actuated with the common
intention to assault the victim. Conviction under Section 326 read with Section 34 was
sustained.
In Sheoram Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1972 SC 2555; the Supreme Court held that
common intention may develop suddenly during the course of an occurrence, but still
unless there is cogent evidence and clear proof of such common intention.
G ENERAL E XCEPTIONS UNDER
THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
Sections 76-106 of IPC
 SECTION 6, IPC
Every definition of an offence, every penal
provision, and illustration should be
understood subject to the exceptions
contained in the Chapter titled “General
Exceptions”
 G ENERAL E XCEPTIONS
Mistake of fact (S.76, 79)

Judicial acts (S.77 and S. 78)

Accident (S.80)

Absence of criminal intent (Ss.81-86 & 92-94)

Consent (Ss.87- 90)

Trifling acts (S.95)

Private defence (Ss.96-106)

 O NUS O F P ROOF
S.105, INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT:
A person accused of an offence bears the
burden of proving the existence of circumstances
to bring the case within any of the General
Exceptions. The court shall presume the absence
of such circumstances.
 M ISTAKE O F F ACT
‘Ignorantia facti doth excusat’- Mistake of fact is
excusable
 Mistake as an honest and reasonable belief
 In the existence of circumstances,
 Which, if true,
 Would make the act an innocent one

Not applicable if the fact itself is illegal-

R. v. Prince, 1875- Man was held guilty
for abducting a girl below 16 under the
belief that she was above 18.
 M ISTAKE O F LAW
‘Ignorantia juris non excusat’- Mistake of law
is not excusable
Legal presumption that everyone knows the law
of the land
Often untrue as a matter of fact
But needed for the purpose of expediency of
the law
Applicable even for recent statutes
Not necessary that law should be
published
 M ISTAKE O F F ACT, B OUND B Y LAW
S.76
 If by reason of mistake of fact;and not mistake of law
In good faith believes
To be bound by law, in doing an act
Eg: If a soldier fires on a mob by the rational order of his superior,
no offence is committed

 Bound by law- Respondeat Superior- Act done by the order of a

superior
Only obedience to legal orders comes within the ambit
Obedience of illegal orders is not justified
The servant should exercise his own
judgment***
 M ISTAKE OF FACT, JUSTIFIED BY LAW

S.79
• If justified by law, or
• By reason of a mistake of fact and not mistake of law
• In good faith believes
• To be justified by law, in doing an act.
 MISTAKE OF FACT AS A DEFENCE
 If the state of things as claimed is actually true, it
would justify the act done

 Mistake must be reasonable, and

 Mistake must relate to factand not to law

 IN GOOD FAITH
S.52
 Done with due care and attention
 The question is considered with reference to the
position of the accused and the circumstances
under which he acted.
 JUDICIAL ACTS
S. 7 7
•If a Judge does an act
•In the exercise of power given by law
•Which in good faith he believes to be Eg:
Judge sentencing a prisoner, even wrongly

S.78
• Act done
• By virtue of a judgment or order of a Court
• While in force
• Even if Court had no jurisdiction, but person in good faith
believes Court had jurisdiction
 ACCIDENT
S.80
Act done by accident or misfortune
Without any criminal intention or knowledge
While doing a lawful act in a lawful manner by
lawful means
With proper care and caution

“Accident”- Happens out of the

ordinary course of things
and is unexpected

Neither wilfully nor negligently caused.

A CT D ONE T O A VOID O THER
GREATER HARM
S.81
Act done with knowledge to cause harm
In good faith
Without any criminal intention to cause harm
To prevent or avoid OTHER harm(BIGGER) to person or
property

- In a sudden and extreme emergency, if two evils are

inevitable, direct events so that the smaller one occurs.
- A crime cannot be committed in order to avoid a greater
harm
R v Dudley and Stephens, 1884- A man to
save himself from starvation kills
another person for the purpose of
feeding on his flesh.
Benefit of S.81 is not given.
ACT OF CHILD
 ACT O F C HILD (Infancy)
S.82
Act done by a child
Under seven years of age

- Absolute incapacity for crime under

seven years of age.

Presumption of law- Doli Incapax-

A child has no discretion to distinguish right
from wrong, thus criminal intention does not arise
 ACT O F C HILD
S.83
Act done by a child
Between 7-12 years of age
Has no sufficient maturity of understanding
To judge the nature and consequences of his
conduct

- Malitia Supplet Oetatem- Malice Supplies Age

If proven to have sufficient maturity of
understanding, liability arises
 INSANITY-84 IPC

Underlying principle of Sec. 84 is that “Every man is presumed to

be sane.”

This presumption does not apply to a man whose case is

governed by Section-84.

The exemption under this Section is based on the principle that

in order to constitute crime the act should have been committed
with a guilty intention, the doer of the act not knowing the nature
of the act or the wrongfulness of the act or illegality of the act.
•Section 84 mentions the legal test of responsibility in case of
alleged unsoundness of mind.

•It is by this act as distinguished from medical test, that the

criminality of the act is to be determined.

•This section, in substance, is same as the M’Naghten Rules.

•These rules in spite of long passage of time are still regarded as

the authoritative statement of the law as to criminal
responsibility.
 WHAT IS UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND

“Unsound mind” is not a medical but a legal expression, denoting

an incapacity to manage affairs.

It would seem to answer to old legal term non-compos mentis

which is equivalent to “of no sound memory” and is of four sorts:

(1) An idiot

(2) one made non-compos by illness

(3) a lunatic or a madman

(4) one who is drunk.

 four sorts of insanity explained

(1) An idiot is one who is of non-sane memory from his birth, by

a perpetual infirmity, without lucid intervals and those are
said to be idiots who cannot count twenty or tell the days of
the week, or who do not know their father’s or mother’s or the
like.

(2) A person made non-compos mentis by illness is excused in

criminal cases from such acts as are committed while under
the influence of his disorder.
 3.
A lunatic is one who is afflicted by mental
disorder only at certain periods, having
intervals of reason. Madness is permanent.
Lunacy and madness are spoken of as
acquired insanity, and idiocy as natural
insanity.
Lucid interval: - A temporary cessation of
insanity or a restoration to reason in the
person of unsound mind at interval is called
lucid interval. Any act done by a lunatic in a
lucid interval as in the period between two
attacks of insanity will be legal and binding
on him.
 4.

•As to persons who are drunk or insanity brought on by drunken

is no excuse, but delirium tremens caused by drinking and
differing from drunken, if it produces such a degree of madness,
even for a time, as to render a person incapable of distinguishing
right from wrong, relieves him from criminal responsibility.

• If habitual drunken has created fixed insanity whether

permanent or intermittent, it is the same as if insanity had been
produced by any other cause and the act is excused.
 ACT O F AN INSANE PERSON
S.84
Act done
Due to unsoundness of mind- no free will- born idiot,
temporary failure, mad man, unconscious, intoxicated
Incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that it is
wrong or contrary to law
The history of "not guilty by reason of insanity"

 In the 18th century, the legal standards for the insanity defense
were varied.

Some courts looked to whether the defendant could distinguish

between good and evil, while others asked whether the defendant
"did not know what he did."

By the 19th century, it was generally accepted that insanity was a
question of fact, which was left to the jury to decide.
The McNaughton rule -- not knowing right
from wrong
The first famous legal test for insanity came in 1843, in the
McNaughton case.

Englishman Daniel McNaughton shot and killed the secretary of

the British Prime Minister, believing that the Prime Minister
was conspiring against him.

The court acquitted McNaughton "by reason of insanity," and he

was placed in a mental institution for the rest of his life.

However, the case caused a public uproar, and Queen Victoria

ordered the court to develop a stricter test for insanity.
 McNaughton rule

The "McNaughton rule" was a standard to be applied by the jury,

after hearing medical testimony from prosecution and defense
experts.

The rule created a presumption of sanity, unless the defense

proved "at the time of committing the act, the accused was
laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind,
as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or,
if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was
wrong."

The McNaughton rule became the standard for insanity in the

United States and the United Kingdom, and is still the standard
for insanity.
The Durham rule -- "irresistible impulse"

•Monte Durham was a 23-year-old who had been in and out of

prison and mental institutions since he was 17.

• He was convicted for housebreaking in 1953, and his attorney

appealed.

•Although the district court judge had ruled that Durham's

attorneys had failed to prove he didn't know the difference
between right and wrong, the federal appellate judge chose to use
the case to reform the McNaughton rule.
 The Durham rule

Citing leading psychiatrists and jurists of the day, the appellate

judge stated that the McNaughton rule was based on "an entirely
obsolete and misleading conception of the nature of insanity.

" He overturned Durham's conviction and established a new rule.

The Durham rule states "that an accused is not criminally

responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease
or mental defect."

The Durham rule was eventually rejected by the federal courts,

because it cast too broad a net. Alcoholics, compulsive gamblers,
and drug addicts had successfully used the defense to defeat a wide
variety of crimes.
Requirements to succeed in a plea of defence of insanity
•In order to succeed in a plea of defence of insanity it is not enough to
prove that the accused person was having certain abnormal personality
traits or imbalance in his behaviour or that he was a mal-adjusted person.

•He might have been suffering from depression or exhibiting neurotic

behaviour and may be a maladjusted individual.

•It is not every imbalance in behaviour of maladjustment in the

personality that will entitle him to claim exemption under section 84 IPC,
from the penal consequences of his acts.

•The language and message of section 84 is clear and definite as to the

requirements of law.

•At the time of committing the offence charged the accused, by reason of
unsound mind, must, be incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that
he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law
 ESSENTIALS OF SECTION-84 TO BE PROVED

•UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND MUST EXIST AT THE TIME OF

COMMISSION OF THE ACT

•INCAPACITY TO KNOW THE NATURE OF THE ACT

•INCAPACITY TO KNOW RIGHT AND WRONG

Distinction between ‘medical’ insanity and ‘legal’ insanity

•There is a clear distinction between ‘medical’ insanity and ‘legal’

insanity and the courts are concerned with the legal and not with
the medical view of the question.

•An accused person may be suffering from some form of insanity

in the sense in which the term is used by a medical man, but may
not be suffering from unsoundness of mind as contemplated
under section 84.

•There can be no legal insanity unless the cognitive faculty of the

mind to such an extent as to render the accused incapable of
knowing the nature of the act or that what he is doing is wrong or
contrary to law.
 Distinction between ‘medical’ insanity and
‘legal’ insanity
According to medical science insanity is another name or term
for mental abnormality due to various causes and existing in
various degrees and even an uncontrollable impulse driving a
man to kill or wound comes within its scope.

But the doctrine of uncontrollable impulse and impulsive insanity

is not a valid defence in India from the legal point of view as it
affects the ‘will’ and ‘emotions’ ofthe offenders leaving the
cognitive faculties ofthe mind unimpaired and freedom ofwill has
no place in section 84.

Every person who is thus mentally diseased is not ipso facto

exempted from criminal responsibility.
A CT O F A N I NTOXICATED PERSON
S. 85 & 86 IPC
S.85-Involuntary Intoxication

Act of a person
Incapable of judgment
Due to intoxication
Caused without his knowledge or against his will***
 The Rationale Behind the Defence of
Intoxication
•The laws in the early nineteenth century concerning intoxication
were very stringent.

• In fact, according to a statement made by Earl of Birkenhead,

voluntary intoxication was considered an aggravation rather than
a defence.

•If a person was consuming alcohol, knowing fully well that it

would impair his ability to think clearly, then he will be situated
in no better condition than a sober man in the judgment of his
criminal conduct.
•
Thankfully, the rule has been mercifully relaxed and a person’s
punishment, though cannot be eradicated completely, can be
reduced in severity.
 S.86- -Voluntary Intoxication
Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge

Committed by an intoxicated person

Presumption of knowledge, unless proves intoxicated

without his knowledge or against his will

Voluntarily intoxicated man is presumed to have the

same knowledge as that of a sober man but not the
same intention(explained later)

Self Induced Intoxication normally is– No defence

 The Dutch Courage Rule

Sometimes an individual takes to drink to provide him with courage.

Drinking causes an individual to become aggressive and lose his sense

of self-restraint.

It deprives him of his sense of reason to such an extent that he may

not even realize that what he is doing is against the law.

He may plan or decide what he has to do before he starts drinking,

and he may use the drink to provide him with the ‘Dutch courage’ to
commit the deed.
 Northern Ireland vs. Gallagher [1963] AC 349
•Facts: The accused had a grievance against his wife. She had
obtained a maintenance order against him and she had got him
detained in a mental hospital.

•The husband decided to kill his wife, and hence having made up
his mind, he purchased a knife and a bottle of whiskey to acquire
the courage to commit the deed or to be able to put his
conscience to rest after the deed had been committed.

•He committed the deed and consumed much of the whiskey,

before or after the commission is yet to be ascertained.

Judgment: The accused was held to be guilty as charged because

he had formed the intention before getting intoxicated.
 ACT OF AN INTOXICATED PERSON
Basdev v. State of Pepsu, 1956
Facts: The intoxicated appellant was seated next to a
boy during a meal served at a wedding. He asked the
boy to move a little to so that he would occupy a more
convenient seat. The boy refused. He shot him in the
abdomen and killed him on the spot.
SC- So far as attributing knowledge is concerned, the
intoxicated man is treated as if he was sober. So far as
intention is concerned, it is gathered from the general
circumstances of the case and the degree of
intoxication.
 not a very strong defence

After much research on the topic, it can be said that intoxication

is not a very strong defence, and even if it serves to mitigate the
severity of a punishment, it cannot exculpate a person from
liability.

This is essential because absolute and cold logic cannot be

applied to human affairs, as they require certain flexibility in
their dealing.

A common man will not have much regard for the law if a
drunken man batters him, and the man gets away with his
conduct merely because he was too intoxicated to think clearly.
Venkappa Kannappa Chowdhari v. State of
Karnataka 1996 Cri LJ 15 (Kant)
•The accused, quarrelsome by nature, was addicted to liquor. The
son of the accused died in a motor accident.
•The accused wanted the compensation amount of 10000, which
was in the name of the accused’s wife.
•On the day of the decision, he came home drunk and asked his
wife to withdraw the fixed deposit amount.
•When his wife refused to comply, he beat her, took a tin of
kerosene oil, sprinkled it on her and set her on fire. His wife
screamed and the neighbors took her to the hospital.
• A dying declaration was recorded.
•The accused took the plea of incapacity due to intoxication u/s
85 IPC.
•His plea was rejected because he had voluntarily consumed
alcohol. He was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Mavari Surya Sathya Narayan v. State of AP 1994 AP
•The accused and the deceased were married for 11 years. He was
an alcoholic and quarreled often with her.

•One day he came home drunk and asked her to sign on some
blank papers.

• When she refused, he pulled her by her hair and dragged her
into the room and attempted to set fire on her.

• The deceased put out the flames and tried to run away.

•The accused again pulled her, poured kerosene and set fire to
her. The deceased died of the burns.

•The Andhra Pradesh High Court, relying on the SC decision in

Basudev v. State of Pepsu, held that having regard to the facts, it
couldn’t be said that the accused was in total loss of mental power
and hence the provisions of s.85 will not apply.
 BONA FIDE ACT FOR ANOTHER‟S
BENEFIT
S.92
Act causing harm to person for whose benefit is
done
In good faith
 Even without person's consent
Under emergent circumstances

Eg: A is carried off by tiger. D fires at tiger

knowing it might hit A, but not intending the
same. D bullet gives A a mortal wound.***
 COMMUNICATION MADE IN GOOD FAITH

S.93
Communication made to a person
In good faith
For his benefit
Even if it causes harm
 ACT D ONE U NDER COMPULSION OR THREAT

S.94
Act done under compulsion
or threat
Of instant death
Eg: If threatened with a dagger
in hand to cause hurt to another
person

- Cannot cause murder or offence against State punishable

with death
- Did not put on his own accord into such constraint
 ACT DONE BY CONSENT

Ss. 87-91
Acts done with the consent of the
victim which do not amount
to an offence

S.90- What is not consent?

 Given under fear of injury or misconception of fact
 Given from unsoundness of mind or intoxication
 Given by person under 12 years of age
 ACT D ONE BY CONSENT
S.87
Act intended or known
To cause death or grievous hurt
Causes harm to person above 18 years
On consent, to suffer

Proceeds from volenti nonfit injuria- he who

consents cannot complain
 ACT D ONE BY CONSENT
S.88
Act done
With no intention to cause death
In good faith
 For victim's benefit
 With victim's consent
Surgeons, Fireman etc.
 ACT D ONE BY CONSENT
S.89
Act done
In good faith
For benefit of child or insane person
By or by consent of guardian
 T RIFLING A CTS, C AUSING SLIGHT H ARM

S.95
- ‘De minimis non curat lex’-
The law takes no account of mere trifles

 A harm
 is so slight that a person of ordinary sense and
temper would not complain
 RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE
S.96
Nothing is an offence which is done in the
exercise of the right of private
defence.

Private defence-
Right inherent in man, which is the duty to
help himself.
RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE
Right is exercised when there is real and immediate
threat
If life is threatened by grave danger, need not wait for
State aid, unless aid is available
Right is protective or preventive and not punitive
Not for self-gratification
Should not be deliberate or for retaliation of past injury
Right commences as soon as reasonable apprehension
of danger arises and continues till the apprehension
continues
It should be exercised proportionately i.e. not more
than necessary.
RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE
The protective measures must be proportionate to injury or
threat
The right ends with the necessity for it
Stateof UP v. Ram Swarup, 1974- The person
exercising the right need not chase the feeling
attacker and then beat him.
Need not weigh the arguments for and against an attack in
golden scales
The aggressor cannot claim the right to self-defence
No private defence against private defence
Deo Narain v. State of UP, 1973- One who goes to
beat the other cannot claim the right
Even if private defence is not claimed, court may consider the
plea based on material on record
RIGHT OF PRIVATE D EFENCE OF BODY
S. 97
Every person has a right
To defend his own body or
Of any other person
Against an offence affecting the human body
- Thus even a stranger may defend the person or property
of another person

S.98
To exercise the right, the physical or mental capacity of
the attacker is no bar (whether with or without mens
rea)***
RIGHT OF PRIVATE D EFENCE OF BODY
S.99- General restrictions
No right if there is no apprehension of death or grievous
hurt
- If done by public servant under office or if acting
under the direction of a public servant
- In good faith
- Even if not strictly justified by law

No right if there is time to have recourse to protection of

public authorities

Right does not extend to inflicting more harm than

necessary for the purpose of defence
RIGHT OF PRIVATE D EFENCE OF BODY
S.100
When right extends to causing death
- Assault causing apprehension of death
- Assault causing apprehension of grievous hurt
- Assault with intention of committing rape
- Assault with intention to gratify unnatural lust
- Assault with intention of kidnapping or abducting
- Assault with intention of wrongfully confining a
person
- Act of acid throwing

S.101
In other circumstances the defender may cause any harm
except death
RIGHT OF PRIVATE D EFENCE OF BODY
S.102
Right commences as soon as reasonable apprehension of
danger to body arises and continues till the apprehension
continues

S.106
In case of reasonable apprehension of death if defender
cannot exercise the right without risk of harm to innocent
person, he may even run that risk
RIGHT O F P RIVATE D EFENCE O F PROPERTY

S.97
The right to defend the property (moveable or
immoveable) of himself or of any other person

Against offence
of or attempt of
- theft,
- robbery,
- mischief, or
- criminal trespass
RIGHT O F P RIVATE D EFENCE O F PROPERTY
S.105- Continuation of right-
Theft
- Offender has effected his retreat with property, or
- Assistance of public authority is obtained, or
- Property is recovered

Robbery
- Offender causes/attempts to cause death/ hurt/ wrongful
restraint, or
- As long as fear of instant death/ instant hurt/ instant personal
restraint continues

Criminal trespass or mischief

- As long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal
trespass or mischief.

House breaking by night

- As long as house trespass which has begun by such house-
breaking continues.
RIGHT O F P RIVATE D EFENCE O F PROPERTY

S.103
Right extends to causing death if
- Robbery
- House breaking by night
- Mischief by fire to any building, tent or vessel used
as human dwelling or as place of custody of property
- Theft, mischief or house trespass under
circumstances causing reasonable apprehension of
death/grievous hurt

S.104
In other cases, right extends to any harm other than
death
Thank You!
 Law of Crimes-
Indian Penal Code
Extent and Operation of Indian Penal
Code
• The Indian Penal Code was passed in the year
1860. However, it came into effect from
January 1, 1862.
• The Indian Penal Code applies to the whole of
India except for the state of Jammu & Kashmir.
It contains 23 Chapters and 511 Sections.
Before the Indian Penal Code came into effect,
the Mohammedan Criminal Law was applied
to both Mohammedans and Hindus in India.
 Crime-Meaning
• The Indian Penal Code, 1860 uses the word 'Offence' in
place of crime. Section 40 of the IPC defines Offence as
an act punishable by the Code. An Offence takes place
in two ways, either by commission of an act or by
omission of an act.
• When a Crime is done, any member of the public can
institute proceedings against the person accused of the
offence. Only in certain exceptional cases, the persons
concerned alone can institute the criminal
proceedings. Example of such crimes include
Matrimonial cases, dowry cases, defamation etc.
 Elements of Crime
Four main Elements :-
• 1. Human Being
The first essential element of a Crime is that it must be committed by a human
being. In case, the crime is committed by an animal, its owner is subject to
Civil/Tortious liability.
• 2. mens rea
A crime is done with a criminal intent. Mens rea is the mental intention, ill
intention, or fudge the defendant's state at the time of offense, sometimes called
the guilty mind. In the IPC, 1860, Mens rea is expressed as "ACTUS NON FACIT
REUM NISI MENS SIT REA" as a fundamental principle for penal liability. Intent and
Act, both must concur to constitute a crime. An act itself is no crime, unless it is
coupled with an evil / criminal intent.
• 3. actus reus
There should be an external act. The Act and the mens rea should be concurrent
and related.
• 4. Injury
There should be some injury or the act should be prohibited under the existing
law. The act should carry some kind of punishment.
 Various stages of crime
• (i) Conceiving the idea of performing a legally defined
harm or Mens Rea :- At this stages, a person
consolidates his devious ideas and identifies ways of
doing it. There is no action taken and there is no harm
done to anybody nor is there any intention to cause
injury to anybody. So, it is not a crime in itself. But this
an essential ingredient of crime because without bad
intention to cause harm or do wrong, there can be no
crime. Also, even a thoughtless act, without any
deliberation, can be crime if there is an intention to
cause crime.
• Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea :- a guilty act
together with a guilty mind.
 Various stages of crime
• (ii) Preparation for crime :- Preparation consists
of arranging or building things that are needed to
commit the crime. At this stage, the intention to
cause harm starts manifesting itself in the form of
physical actions. At this stage, it is however
possible for the person to abandon his course of
action without causing any harm to anyone.
Generally, preparation is itself alone not a crime
because it cannot be proved beyond doubt the
goal of preparation.
 Various stages of crime
• (iii) Attempt to commit an offence :- This
stage is attained by performing physical
actions that, if left unstopped, cause or are
bound to cause injury to someone. Since the
intention of the person can be determined
without doubt from his actions, an attempt to
commit a crime is bound to happen and
prevention of crime is equally important for
healthy society.
 Differences between Preparation &
Attempt
• Both preparation and attempt are the physical
manifestations of the criminal intention.
• An attempt goes a lot farther than preparation towards
the actual happening of crime.
• In preparation, there is a possibility that the person
may abandon his plan, but attempt leaves no room for
that.
• In general, preparation involves collecting material
resources, and planning for committing an act while
attempt signifies a direct movement towards
commission after the preparations are made.
 Tests to distinguish Attempt and
Preparation
• (i) Proximity Rule or Last step Test : As per this test, anything short
of last step is preparation and not attempt. This is because as long
as there is a step remaining for completion of the crime, the person
can abandon it.
• Case laws :- R Vs. Riyasat Ali, 1881 Abhayanand Mishra Vs. State of
Bihar, AIR 1961.

• (ii) Theory of Impossibility or Indispensable Element Test : As per

this test, all of indispensable elements must be present to equal
attempt. If there is something a person needs to commit the crime
but it is not present, then there is not an attempt.
• Case laws:- Queen Vs. Collins R Vs. king 1892 ) Rule Bypassed
 Tests to distinguish Attempt and
Preparation
• (iii) Interruption Test:- If the action proves that the person would
have gone through with the plan if not for the interruption such as
arrest, then it is an attempt. At means if a person has not been
interrupted, he would have committed the crime, he is guilty of
attempt even though the past step of the crime has not been
performed.
• (iv) On the Job or Unequivocality Test:- If a person does something
that shows his commitment to follow through and commit the
crime then it is an attempt. So, attempt is done when the offender
takes deliberate and overt steps that show an unequivocal intention
to commit the offence even if the step is not the penultimate one.
• Case law:- State of Maharashtra vs. Mohd. Yakub 1980.
 Types of Punishments according to
IPC
• Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
prescribes five kinds of punishments.
• Death Penalty
• Life imprisonment
• Imprisonment
– Rigorous
– Simple
• Forfeiture of property
• Fine
 Theories of Punishment
• (1) Deterrent Theory
The aim of this theory is to inflict various penalties on the
offenders with a view to deterring them from committing
crime. This theory also seeks to create a sense of fear in the
mind of others with a view to keep them away from
committing such crime. The rigor of the punishment acts as
a warning to others.
• (2) Retributive Theory
'Retributive' means 'punitive; to re-compensate; to payback'.
Retribution is by way of punishment. This theory says that the
wrong doer should be given the same punishment as that
will be suffered by the victim.
'a tooth for a tooth' and 'an eye for an eye'
 Theories of Punishment
• (3) Protective or Preventive Theory
This theory says that all criminals should be imprisoned
and kept them far away from the normal society
without any connection to it. Thus, the society will be
protected from the criminals.
This theory feels that protecting the society from
criminals is better that curing the minds of the
criminals.
• (4) Reformative Theory
This theory uses social, economic, physical and
psychological methods in bringing about change in the
minds of the criminals.
 Offences punishable with death
sentence
• Section 121 of Indian Penal Code, 1860: Waging War against the
Government
• Section 132 of Indian Penal Code, 1860: Abetment of Mutiny
• Section 194 of Indian Penal Code, 1860: Giving or fabricating false
evidence leading to procure one's conviction for capital offense.
• Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860: Murder
• Section 305 of Indian Penal Code, 1860: Abetment of suicide by
child or insane person
• Section 307 of Indian Penal Code, 1860: Attempt to murder by a life
convict, if hurt is caused
• Section 396 of Indian Penal Code, 1860: Dacoity with murder
• Section 364A of Indian Penal Code, 1860: Kidnapping for ransom
 Abetment 107-120 IPC
• When the Abetment succeeds, both the abettor
and the doer are liable for the same offence.
 Abetment under the Indian Penal Code
• Law keeps a check on human behaviour.
• It categorizes them into criminal and non-criminal
behaviours.
• However, every non-criminal behaviour even
something as simple as buying a knife for your kitchen
becomes criminal when there are criminal intentions
behind it.
• The concept of abetment widens the horizons of
criminal law to incorporate these criminal intentions
and penalize them even when the person who bought
the knife did not actually kill anyone but handed it over
to someone else to do it.
• To explain the concept of abetment, the word ‘abet’
should be given a deep scrutiny. In general use, it
means to aid, advance, assist, help and promote.
Sanju vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2002) 5 SCC 371
• In the case of Sanju v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (2002) 5 SCC 371 the honorable
Supreme court defined ‘abet’ as meaning to
aid, to assist or to give aid, to command, to
procure, or to counsel, to countenance, to
encourage, or encourage or to set another
one to commit.
Kartar Singh v. State of Punjab, 1994 Cri LJ 3319

• The definition of ‘abet’ as laid down,

makes it clear that abetment only occurs
when there are at least two person
involved, which further directs us towards
the arrangement and operation of the act.
 Meaning
• A person abets the doing of a thing when-
• (1) he instigates any person to do that thing;
or
• (2) engages with one or more other persons
in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing;
or
• (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing,
 three strategies
• Broadly it can be said that the three
strategies of committing the crime
of Abetment are by

• Instigating
• Engaging
• Intentional Aiding
 Instigating
• Instigating someone literally means to incite, provoke, urge or
bring about by persuasion to do anything.
• The word ‘instigate’ has been interpreted in the case of Sanju
v. State of M.P (2002) 5 SCC 371-
• One might argue that the actus reus and the mens reus do not
merge to a single person, therefore, abetment to do a thing
should not be an offence.
• In abetment by instigation, there has to be some active
involvement of the abettor towards the preparatory phase of
the crime.
• This is broadly considered as the actus reus in the crime of
abetment, combined with the intention of getting something
done or illegally omitted would constitute a complete criminal
offence.
• However, there needs to be sufficient proof that the individual
has willfully influenced and coerced the individual to commit a
crime but at the same time, it is not necessary for the person
abetted to have the same guilty intention or knowledge.
 Instigating
• The person abetted can totally have a different set
of intention and knowledge, still, the offence is
committed because the preparatory phase is being
dealt with in isolation to the execution phase. The
entire liability of the abettor is decided within the first
two stages of the crime.

• Now even if the execution gets a different result, the

crime has been committed. Advice amounts to
instigation only when intended to actively suggest or
stimulate the commission of an offence. Mere
acquiescence does not amount to instigation.
Commission of the offence is not necessary for the
first two clauses of Section 107
• Commission of the offence is not necessary for
the first two clauses of Section 107
• Faguna Kanto v. State of Assam, AIR 1959 SC
673-It is immaterial whether the person instigated
goes ahead to commit the crime or a group
conspiring together executes the object of the
conspiracy.
• Jamuna Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 553-
When the alleged abettor has instigated another or
engaged with another in a conspiracy to commit an
offence, it is not necessary for the offence of
abetment that the act abetted must be committed.
Mere verbal permission or silent assent
would not constitute instigation
• If A tells B that he intends to loot a bank C, B
says do as you like, A succeeds in looting the bank
C, here B cannot be said to have instigated.
 Willful misrepresentation or Concealment is
sufficient to constitute abetment

• A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant

from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B,
knowing that fact and also that C is not Z,
wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and
thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend
C. Here B abets by instigation the
apprehension of C
 Direct or Indirect Instigation
• Where a person gives to an unlawful
assembly a general order to beat, it is a case
of a direct instigation.
• The instigation would be indirect when
instead of such an order a person raises a
slogan “Cowards die many times before their
death, the valiant die but once” will intend to
provoke. This is direct instigation whereas
indirect instigation would be A instigating B to
commit a crime not by saying so but by
harping upon the wrongs he has suffered.
 Abetment By Engaging in a Conspiracy

• Engaging-Means being actively involved in

the suggestion or stimulation of the
commission of the crime such as in a
conspiracy.
• The sections 120A and 107 of the Indian Penal
Code dealing with the offences of conspiracy
have clearly stated the difference between the
two.
 Ingredients of Abetment by Conspiracy

• A conspiracy between two or more person.

• An act or illegal omission may take place in furtherance
of that conspiracy.
• The case of Noor Mohammad Momin v. State of
Maharashtra AIR 1971 SC 885 shows the difference
between criminal conspiracy and abetment by
conspiracy. Criminal conspiracy has a wider jurisdiction
than abetment by a conspiracy.
• An individual is guilty of conspiracy with the mere
agreement between a group of people to commit an
offence.
 Abetment by Conspiracy
• Under chapter-V of IPC a mere combination of person or
agreement is not enough, an act or illegal omission must
also take place in pursuance of the conspiracy and the act
or illegal omission must also be in order to the doing of the
thing agreed upon between them.

• Explanation 2 of Section 107 has to be read together with

Explanation 5 of section 108, which provides that it is not
necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment
by conspiracy that the abettor should concert the offence
with the person who commits it. It would be sufficient if he
engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which the
offence is committed.
 107 vs. 120-A IPC
• It has been held in State Of Bihar vs Srilal Kejriwal And
Ors AIR 1960 Pat 459 that where a criminal conspiracy
amounts to an abetment under Section 107, it is
unnecessary to invoke the provisions of Section 120A and
120B, as the Indian Penal Code makes specific provision
for the punishment of such a conspiracy.

• A, a servant enters into an agreement with thieves to

keep the door of his master’s house open in the night so
that they might commit theft. A, according to the agreed
plan keeps the doors open and the thieves take away the
master’s property. A is guilty of abetment by the
conspiracy for the offence of theft. But should the thieves
not come; A will not be liable under this section.
 Intentional Aiding
• A person is said to abet the commission of an offence if he
intentionally renders assistance or gives aid by doing an act or
omitting to do an act. Mere intention to render assistance is not
sufficient.
• Ingredients
1. Doing an act that directly assists the commission of the crime, or
2. Illegal omission of a duty you are bound to do, or
3. Doing any act facilitates the commission of a crime.

• For instance, two factory workers begin quarrelling and the

owner in a fit of anger shouts that if he had a weapon he would
teach them a lesson. Now, if another labourer in the factory on
hearing this hands him a weapon and the owner subsequently
injures them with it, the labourer who supplied the weapon which
facilitated the act is guilty of abetment through assistance.
Merely being present at the crime scene
does not amount to aiding
• Unless the intention was to have an effect by
being present or the person was aware that an
offence is about to be committed or he
actively supports or holds some position, rank
in committing of the offence.
 Abetment to Suicide Cases
• Section 306, IPC reads as if any person
commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term, which may extend to
ten years, and shall be liable to fine.
• The definition of abetment in section 306
needs to conform with the definition given
under section 107 of the IPC.
• If A persuades B to kill himself and he does it,
then according to this section, A would be
liable as an abettor.
 Recent Developments
• M. Mohan v. State 2011(3) SCC 626 - Proving
the direct involvement by the accused in such
abetment to suicide cases is necessary.

• However, abetment of suicide is a long mental

process and rarely easy to prove. A conviction
cannot be handed over under 306 unless clear
mens rea is proved. The elements that need to
be satisfied in order for an offence to come
under section 306 IPC are suicidal death, and
abetment thereof held in Sangarabonia Sreenu
v. State of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1997 SC 3233
 Recent Developments
• Let us look at some of the recent developments
regarding Abetment to Suicide which put forth the
ingredients of the offence as well.
• Clear mens rea to commit the offence is a sine qua non
for conviction under Section 306 IPC
• Channu v. State of Chattisgarh, 2017 SCC OnLine
Chh. 1234 -Merely because wife committed suicide in
matrimonial house, husband and in-laws can’t be
charged for abetment to suicide.
• Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab, 2016 SCC
OnLine SC 1415-In order to convict a person for
abetment of suicide, there has to be a clear mens rea to
commit an offence.
 Scheme of Sections
• Sec. 107 defines the word Abetment.
• Sec. 108 defines Abettor.
• Sec. 108-A provides for abetment in India of offences
committed outside India.
• Sec. 109 is the first penal provision under the code. It is
residuary. It provides for punishment for such of the
successful abetments which as not punishable under
any other section of the code.
• Sec.110-120 provide for specific cases of abetment.

• These all sections are only amplification of Sec. 107 &

Sec. 108
 Section 108

• Who is an Abettor?
 Abettor:
• The first thing which comes to mind about this
section is why at all a definition of ‘abettor’
because the Indian Penal Code gives
definitions of various crimes only and the
definitions of perpetrators of those crimes are
not needed.
• For instance, definitions of theft, murder etc.
are given but definitions of theft, murderer,
etc. are not needed because one who
commits theft is a thief or one who commits
murder is a murderer, and so on.
 Abettor
• Therefore, when definition of abetment has
been given where is the need to define
abettor because one who abets should be an
abettor.
• At the outset, therefore, it seems that a
definition of ‘abettor’ should be unnecessary.
• But a careful reading of section 107 leads to
the conclusion that such is not the case.
• The reason is that section 107 defines
‘abetment of a thing’ and not ‘abetment of an
offence’
 Why A Separate Definition ?
• There may be many abetments of things which
cannot lead to criminal liability because criminal
liability accrues only when a crime is committed
and all abetments of things can obviously not be
abetments of crimes.
• Therefore, whenever an abetment of a thing will
lead to criminal liability had to be stated.
• What kind of abetment will bear liability has been
done with incorporating the definition of
‘abettor’ who is criminally liable.
• That is the reason as to why a separate definition
of ‘abettor’ had to be given in the form of a
separate section 108.
 two ways
• There can be two ways by which a person can
become an abettor according to this section
• firstly, when he abets the commission of an
offence, or
• secondly, when he abets the commission of
an act which would be an offence, if
committed by a person capable by law of
committing an offence with the same
intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.
 Explanation 1
• According to the first explanation the abetment of the
illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence
although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that
act. For instance, a husband is legally bound to provide
food to his wife. He fails to do so and, therefore, it is an
illegal omission on his part. If a person abets the husband
for committing such illegal omission, he is liable as an
abettor even though he, not being the husband of that
woman, is not bound to provide food to her.

• Similarly, a public servant has certain duty to perform. He

makes a breach of the same which naturally is an illegal
omission on his part. Where a person abets him to commit
such an illegal omission, he becomes liable as an abettor
even though not being a public servant he is not bound to
do that act.
 Explanation 2
• The second explanation states that to
constitute the offence of abetment it is not
necessary that the act abetted should be
committed or that the effect requisite to
constitute the offence should be caused. This
explanation shows that the effect of an
abetment is immaterial. In other words,
abetment in itself is a crime. The two
illustrations given under this explanation
explain the point clearly.
 Explanation 3
• According to the third explanation 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 of
knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or
knowledge. The legal status of the person abetted has no
bearing on the liability of the abettor.
• Therefore, even if the person abetted is incapable by law of
committing an offence, the abettor is liable for the abetment
of the offence. Similarly, it is not necessary that the abettor
and the person abetted must have same guilty intention or
knowledge, or the person abetted may have any guilty
intention or knowledge at all. For instance, the person abetted
may not be guilty at all for the act he does in furtherance of
the abetment because some defence like mistake of fact,
unsoundness of mind or infancy etc. is available to him, but
that does not change the liability of the abettor. The four
illustrations under this explanation explain the point clearly but
they are not meant to be exhaustive.
 Explanation 4
• This explanation says that the abetment of an offence
being an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is
also an offence. Since it is not necessary that the offence
abetted must be committed before the abettor can be held
guilty of abetment, it is clear that abetment is an offence
by itself. Therefore, it is an offence like any other offence
such as murder, theft etc., and since abetment of an
offence is an offence, abetment of such an abetment is
also an offence.
• Where A instigated B, a bench clerk in a court of a
presidency magistrate, to instigate the magistrate to accept
a bribe with a view to a acquit an accused in a case before
him, and В received the gratification as a police-spy with
the intention of getting A arrested; and did in fact instigate
as a policy-spy with the money, it was held that A was
guilty of abetment of an offence under section 161 read
with section 116 of the Code.
 Explanation 5
• This fifth explanation is applicable only to the offence of
abetment by conspiracy. It states that it is not necessary to
the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy
that the abettor should concert the offence with the person
who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy
in pursuance of which the offence is committed. The
explanation emphasises that for abetment by conspiracy the
important thing is engagement between persons and not
concert between them.

• The illustration very aptly points out as to what is meant by

engagement. In it С procures the poison and delivers it to В
with full knowledge that the same would be used for an
unlawful purpose. Even though С does not know the full
details to be liable for the offence of criminal conspiracy, he
is liable for abetment by conspiracy to murder as he has
sufficiently engaged himself in this crime.
Is attempt of abetment of an offence possible?

• Since abetment of an offence is an offence, an attempt of

abetment of an offence is also possible.
• For instance, A instigates В by a letter to commit murder of X.
The letter never reaches B, or if it does reach В but В does
not read it. A is guilty of attempt to commit abetment of
murder.
• Similarly, A instigates В by telephone to commit murder of X”
but the telephone becomes dead at B’s side without A
knowing about it, A is guilty of attempt to commit abetment of
murder.
• Yet again, if A instigates B, a deaf person, to commit murder
of X without A knowing that В cannot hear, A is guilty of
attempt to commit abetment of murder.
• In R v Ransford (1874) 13 Cox 9, the accused wrote a letter
to X to commit a crime. X did not read the letter. The accused
was held guilty of attempting to incite X to commit the crime.
 Object
 The provisions of Section 120-A and 120-B, of
The I.P.C have brought the law of conspiracy in
India in line with the English Law by making the
overt act unessential when the conspiracy is to
commit any punishable offence.
 The object with which this provision of law was
brought to the statue books was to stuck down
the intentions and plans to commit crimes.
 The intention behind the provision was to
provide deterrence to persons agreeing or
planning to commit offence.
 Criminal conspiracy therefore is an independent
offence. It is punishable separately.
 Meaning :
 A criminal conspiracy may be termed
as a partnership in crime inasmuch as
any act done by any of the conspirators
pursuant to the agreement is, in
contemplation of law, the act of each of
them and they are jointly responsible
therefore
 Section 120A in The Indian
Penal Code
 Definition of criminal conspiracy.—
When two or more persons agree to do, or cause
to be done-
 an illegal act, or
 an act which is not illegal by illegal means,
 such an agreement is designated a criminal
conspiracy:
 Provided that no agreement except an agreement to
commit an offence shall amount to a criminal
conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is
done by one or more parties to such agreement in
pursuance thereof.
 Explanation.—It is immaterial whether the illegal act
is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is
merely incidental to that object.
The Explanation to 120 A
 The explanation provided under this
section states that it is immaterial
whether the illegal act is the ultimate
object of such agreement, or is merely
incidental to that object.
 In other words, the conspirators are
guilty of criminal conspiracy whether the
illegal act is the ultimate object of the
agreement or it is merely incidental to
the object of the agreement.
act besides the agreement
 in cases of agreement to commit an act
which is prohibited by law, or an act
which furnishes ground for a civil action,
some act besides the agreement must be
done by one or more parties to such
agreement in pursuance thereof, and only
then will the conspirators be held guilty
of criminal conspiracy.
For example,
 if the agreement is to commit murder, the
conspirators are guilty of criminal conspiracy
whether they do something or not in
pursuance of the agreement.
 But if the agreement is to commit a breach of a
duty, or the agreement is to effectuate a breach
of contract/tort between two persons which
furnishes ground for a civil action, agreement
alone will not make the conspirators guilty of
criminal conspiracy, and in such a case some
act besides the agreement, also known as overt
act, is required to be done in pursuance
thereof to make the conspirators guilty for the
offence of criminal conspiracy.
 Scope
 The punishment for a criminal conspiracy is
more severe if the agreement is one to
commit a serious offence, it is less severe if
the agreement is to commit an act, which
although illegal, is not an offence punishable
with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous
imprisonment for more than two years.

 Offence of criminal conspiracy is an exception

to the general law where intent alone does
not constitute crime.
Offence of Conspiracy how
proved :
 There is no difference between the mode of
proof of the offence of conspiracy and that
of any other offence,
 it can be established by direct or
circumstantial evidence
 State of NCT of Delhi Vs. Navjot Sandhu
@ Afsan Guru, MANU/SC/0465/2005
Parliament House Attack Case-
 There cannot always be much direct evidence about conspiracy, Offence of
conspiracy can be proved by either direct or circumstantial evidence.
 However, conspiracies are not hatched in the open, by their nature, they are
secretly planned.
 Privacy and secrecy are more characteristics of a conspiracy, than of a loud
discussion in an elevated place open to public view. Direct evidence in proof
of a conspiracy is therefore seldom available.
 It is not always possible to give affirmative evidence about the date of the
formation of the criminal conspiracy, about the persons who took part in
the formation of the conspiracy, about the object, which the objections set
before themselves as the object of conspiracy, and about the manner in
which the object of conspiracy is to be carried out, all that is necessarily a
matter of inference.
 Therefore, the circumstances proved before, during and after the
occurrence have to be considered to decide about the complicity of the
accused.
State of J & K Vs. Wasim Ahmed
Malik MANU/SC/0696/2015
 it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme
Court that Confession by an accused is
substantive piece of evidence against the
conspirator also, but for using it against
the co-accused i.e. the conspirator, the
rule of prudence would require the Court
not to rely thereon unless corroborated
generally by other evidence on record.
Please note-
 This means that out of the three kinds of
agreement as mentioned above,
 the first kind has been given a different
treatment than the other two kinds,
 that is to say, that agreement to commit an
offence, will be treated differently than
agreement to commit an act which is
prohibited by law or agreement to commit an
act which furnishes ground for a civil action.
 In case of an agreement to commit an offence
mere agreement makes the conspirators guilty
and no act in pursuance of the agreement need
be done.
Sections 34 and 120-A
 Sections 34 and 120-A of the Code lay
down different principles of law and there is
substantial difference between the two.
 The former lays down a principle when a
crime is committed by several persons in
furtherance of common intention of all,
while in the latter the liability is based on
agreement between two or more persons
to do or cause to be done an illegal act or
an act which is not illegal, by illegal means.
 Abetment by conspiracy and
criminal conspiracy
 Under the second clause of section 107 a person commits
abetment by conspiracy.
 In criminal conspiracy, there had to be an agreement between two
or more persons to do an illegal act.
 The basis of liability of abetment by conspiracy is ‘engagement’
whereas that for criminal conspiracy is ‘agreement’ between two
or more persons.
 ‘Engagement’ may exist even if the more important details of a
conspiracy are not known as is clear from the fifth explanation of
section 108, but ‘agreement’ presupposes that at least the more
important details of a conspiracy are known to the conspirators.
 Again, in abetment by conspiracy an act must take place in
pursuance of the conspiracy and in order to the doing of the thing,
whereas an agreement to commit an offence in case of criminal
conspiracy does not require anything to be done in pursuance of
the conspiracy and mere agreement to commit an offence makes
one guilty even if nothing is done in addition.
CULPABLE HOMICIDE
&
MURDER
 DECIDED CASE
• Ruliram v. State of Haryana 2002 Cr LJ 4337 (SC)
“An accused threw in water two young boys
playing by the side of a pond because of a family
members refused to vote in favor of the candidate
of the accused.
The intention of the accused was not to kill those boys
but to create some sort of disturbance to divert the
attention at the polling booth in order to capture it”.

HELD : - Act was likely to cause death and

punished under Section 304, Part II
 R v.GOVINDA (1876) 1 Bom. 342
Accused 18 years old (Husband)
Deceased 15 years old (Wife)
Accused gave blow on her body
Accused put his knee on her chest and few more
blows on her face
Trial Court convicted him for murder
Difference of opinion amongst judges
Referred the matter to the third judge
HELD:- Culpable homicide under 299(2) and was
convicted under 304 Part I
 DECIDED CASE
Namdeo v. State of Maharashtra 2007 Cr LJ 1819 (SC)
The accused believed that Nanaji (deceased)
was involved in a witch craft which in turn caused
death of the cattle animals of village.

On 25thnight of October 2000 the accused was seen

stabbing the deceased with axe blow which
resulted in death.

HELD:- Murder and sentenced under Section 304

Part II
 GRAVE AND SUDDEN PROVOCATION
K.M Nanavati v. State of Bombay AIR 1962 SC 605

Navy Officer married with children

Wife confessing her relation with another man
Hearing this there was no reaction by thehusband
He dropped his wife and children to a cinema hall
Went to his ship and took his revolver
Went to the accused after span of three hours
and shot him

HELD:- Murder and was sentenced to LIP

 RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE
Bhagwan Swarup v. State of M.P. AIR 1992 SC 675
Accused opened fire to rescue his father who was
beaten up by lathis
The bullet hit a person who was wielding a lathi
resulting his death

HELD:- Justified action of the accused and

sentenced him under Section 304
 ACT OF PUBLIC SERVANT
• Dakhi Singh v. State of U.P AIR 1955 All. 379
• Accused a constable was taking a suspected thief
by train
• Thief tried to escape from running train
• Constable chased him and fired at him
• The bullet missed the suspected thief and hit
another person

• HELD:- Guilty for Culpable homicide not for

murder
 SUDDEN FIGHT

DECIDED CASE
• Muthu v. State of T.N. AIR 2008 SC 1.
– Deceased threw garbage into accused shop
– Fight started between them
– Accused took a knife and stabbed on the deceased
chest which resulted in death
– Trial Court and High Court sentenced him for
murder
• HELD:- The SC convicted him under 304 Part II
 DEATH CAUSED BY CONSENT

• Dashrat Paswan v. State of Bihar AIR 1985 PAT.

190
• Accused failed in x class exam and decided to die
• The wife of the accused told him to kill her first
and then die
• The accused on the request of wife killed her and
he tried to kill himself
• He was arrested before he could kill himself

• HELD:- Convicted under 304 Part I

 Latest Law

• Surain Singh Vs State of Punjab, April 2017

• Supreme Court explained the differences between two exceptions
of Murder under Section 302 IPC
• A fight is a combat between two and more persons whether with or
without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as
to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of
fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must must necessarily
depend upon the proved facts of each case
• Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the
passions to cool down and in this case, the parties had worked
themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the
beginning
• A “Sudden Fight” Implies Mutual Provocation And Blows On Each
Side: SC Explains...
Theft (Sec. 378 IPC)
 Meaning
• Theft is an offence in which moveable property of
a person is taken away without his consent.
• Such property must be taken away dishonesty.
Thus in theft there would be a moveable property.
• It should be taken dishonestly and without the
consent of the possessor(may or may not be
owner). Theft has been defined in Section 378 of
IPC.
• Simultaneously the punishment for the
commitment of act of theft has also been
prescribed in Section 379 of IPC.
 DEFINITION OF THEFT U/S 378 OF
IPC
Section 378 IPC-

Whoever intending to take dishonestly any

moveable property out of the possession of any
person without that person’s consent, moves
that property in order to such taking is said to
commit theft.
 INGREDIENTS OF THEFT
Based on this definition, the following are the
essential constituents of Theft -

1. Dishonest intention to take property

2. Property must be movable
3. Property must be taken out of possession of
another
4. Property must be taken without consent
5. Physical movement of the property is must
 Dishonest intention to take property
• There must be dishonest intention on the part of the offender.
• As defined in Section 24 of IPC, dishonestly means that there
must be a wrongful loss to one or wrongful gain to another.
• For example, A quietly takes money from B's purse for his
spending. Here, A causes wrongful loss to B and is thus guilty of
theft.
• However, if the intention of the offender is not to cause a
wrongful loss or wrongful gain, he does not commit theft even
if he takes the property without consent.
• For example, A gives his watch to B for repairing. B takes the
watch to his shop. A, who does not owe any debt to B for which
B has the right to retain the watch, follows B and forcibly takes
back the watch. Here, A does not commit theft because he has
no dishonest intention.
• Similarly, when A, believing, in good faith, a property in
possession of B, to be his, takes it from B, it is not theft.
 Cases-
• In K. N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1957 SC
369, SC held that proof of intention to cause
permanent deprivation of property to the owner, or
to obtain a personal gain is not necessary for the
purpose of establishing dishonest intention.
• Thus, In Pyarelal Bhargava vs State AIR 1963 SC
1094, a govt. employee took a file from the govt.
office, presented it to B, and brought it back to the
office after two days. It was held that permanent
taking of the property is not required, even a
temporary movement of the property with
dishonest intention is enough and thus this was
theft.
 Property must be movable
• An immovable property cannot be stolen or moved from
the possession so a theft cannot happen in respect of an
immovable property.
• However, as per Explanation 1 of section 378, as long
as a thing is attached to earth, not being movable, is not
subject of theft. However, as soon as it is severed from
the earth, it is capable of being the subject of theft.
• Further, Explanation 2 says that a moving affected by
the same act that causes severance, may be theft. For
example, a tree on A's land is not capable of being the
subject of theft. However, if B, with an intention to take
the tree, cuts the tree, he commits theft as soon as the
tree is severed from the earth.
• In White's case, 1853, a person introduced another
pipe in a gas pipeline and consumed the gas bypassing
the meter. Gas was held to be a movable property and he
was held guilty of theft.
 Property must be taken out of
possession of another
• The property must be in possession of someone.
• A property that is not in possession of anybody cannot be a subject of
theft. For example, wild dogs cannot be a subject of theft and so if
someone takes a wild dog, it will not be theft. It is not important
whether the person who possess the thing is the rightful owner of that
thing or not. If the thing is moved out of mere possession of someone,
it will be theft.
• For example, A, a coin collector, steals some coins from B, a fellow
coin collector. A finds out that they were his coins that were stolen
earlier. Here, even though B was not the rightful owner of the coins, he
was still in possession of them and so A is guilty of theft.
• In HJ Ransom vs Triloki Nath 1942, A had taken a bus on hire
purchase from B under the agreement that in case of default B has the
right to take back the possession of the bus. A defaulted, and
thereupon, B forcibly took the bus from C, who was the driver of the
bus. It was held that the C was the employee of A and thus, the bus
was in possession of A. Therefore, taking the bus out of his possession
was theft.
 Property must be taken without consent
• In order to constitute theft, property must be taken without the consent of
person possessing it.
• As per Explanation 5, consent can be express or implied. For example, A, a
good friend of B, goes to B's library and takes a book without express
consent of B, with the intention of reading it and returning it. Here, A might
have conceived that he had B's implied consent to take the book and so he is
not guilty of theft.
• Similarly, when A asks for charity from B's wife, and when she gives A some
clothes belonging to B, A may conceive that she has the authority to give B's
clothes and so A is not guilty of theft.
• In Chandler's case, 1913, A and B were both servants of C. A suggested B to
rob C's store. B agreed to this and procured keys to the store and gave them
to A, who then made duplicate copies. At the time of the robbery, they were
caught because B had already informed C and to catch A red handed, C had
allowed B to accompany A on the theft. Here, B had the consent of C to move
C's things but A did not and so A was held guilty of theft.
 Physical movement of the property is must
• The property must be physically moved. It is not necessary
that it must be moved directly.
• As per Explanation 3, moving the support or obstacle that
keeps the property from moving is also theft. For
example, removing the pegs to which bullocks are tied, is
theft.
• Further, as per Explanation 4, causing an animal to move, is
also considered as moving the things that move in
consequence. For example, A moves the bullock cart
carrying a box of treasure. Here, A is guilty of moving the
box of treasure.
• In Bishaki's case 1917, the accused cut the string that tied
the necklace in the neck of a woman, because of which the
necklace fell. It was held that he caused sufficient movement
of the property as needed for theft.
 Theft of one's own property
•
As per the definition of theft given in section 378, it is not the
ownership but the possession of the property that is important. A
person may be a legal owner of a property but if that property is in
possession, legally valid or invalid, of another, it is possible for the
owner to commit theft of his own property.
• This is explained in illustration j of section 378 - A gives his watch to B
for repairs. B repairs the watch but A does not pay the repairing
charges, because of which B does not return the watch as a security. A
forcibly takes his watch from B. Here, A is guilty of theft of his own
watch.
• Further, in illustration k, A pawns his watch to B. He takes it out of B's
possession, having not payed to B what he borrowed by pawning it,
without B's consent. Thus, he commits theft of his own property in as
much as he takes it dishonestly.
• In Rama's Case 1956, (State vs Rama AIR 1956 Raj 190) a person's
cattle was attached by the court and entrusted with another. He
took the cattle out of the trustee's possession without recourse of the
court. He was held guilty of theft.
Extortion (Sec.383 IPC)
 Section 383 of IPC

• According to Section 383 of IPC-

Whoever intentionally puts any person in
fear of any injury* to that person, or to any
other, and thereby dishonestly induces the
person so put in fear to deliver to any
person any property* or valuable security
or anything signed or sealed, which may be
converted into a valuable security, commits
extortion.
 Ingredients of Extortion -

The following are the constituents of extortion –

1. Intentionally puts any person in fear of

injury*
2. Dishonestly induces a person so put in fear
to deliver to any person any property*
 Injury*

Defined in Section 44 of The Indian Penal Code:

“Injury”.—The word “injury” denotes any harm

whatever illegally caused to any person, in
body, mind, reputation or property.

important- injury to that person, or to any

other person
 Property
• any property ,
• valuable security*(Sec 30 IPC) or
• anything signed or sealed which may
be converted into valuable security .
 For example-
• A threatens to publish a defamatory
libel about B unless B gives him money.
A has committed extortion.
• A threatens B that he will keep B's child
in wrongful confinement, unless B will
sign and deliver to A, a promissory note
binding B to pay certain moneys to A. B
signs and delivers such noted. A has
committed extortion.
1. Intentionally puts any person in fear of injury
• To be an offence under this section, putting a
person in fear of injury intentionally is a
must. The fear of injury must be such that is
capable of unsettling the mind of the person
threatened and cause him to part with his
property.

• So fear must precede the delivery of property

1. Intentionally puts any person in fear of injury

• Thus, it should take away the element of

freeness and voluntariness from his consent.
The truth of the threat under this section is
immaterial.

• For example, A's child is missing and B, who does

not have A's child, threatens A that he will kill A's
child unless A pay's him 1 lac Rs., will amount to
extortion.
 Case Laws
• In Walton's case 1863, the accused
threatened to expose a clergyman, who had
criminal intercourse with a woman of ill
repute, unless the clergyman paid certain
amount to him. He was held guilty of
extortion.

• However, in Nizamuddin's case 1923, a

refusal by A to perform marriage and to enter
it in the register unless he is paid Rs 5, was
not held to be extortion.
2.Dishonestly induces a person so put in fear to
deliver to any person any property
• The second critical element of extortion is that
the person who has been put to fear, must
deliver his property to any person.
• Dishonest inducement means that the
person would not have otherwise agreed to
part with his property and such parting causes
him a wrongful loss.
• Further, the property must be delivered by the
person who is threatened.
• Though, it is not necessary to deliver the
property to the person threatening.
2. Dishonestly induces a person so put in fear to
deliver to any person any property

• For example, if A threatens B to deliver

property to C, which B does, A will be guilty of
extortion.

• The delivery of the property by the person

threatened is necessary. The offence of
extortion is not complete until delivery of the
property by the person put in fear is done.
 Dishonestly induces a person so put in
fear to deliver to any person any property

• Extortion can also happen in respect of

valuable security or anything signed that can
become a valuable security.

• For example, A threatens B to sign a

promissory note without the amount or date
filled in. This is extortion because the note can
be converted to valuable security.
 Case Laws
• Duleelooddeen Sheikh's case 1866, where a
person offers no resistance to the carrying off
of his property on account of fear and does not
himself deliver it, it was held not to be
extortion but robbery.
• In Romesh Chandra Arora's case 1960,
the accused took a photograph of a naked
boy and a girl by compelling them to take off
their clothes and extorted money from them
by threatening to publish the photograph.
He was held guilty of extortion.
 Case Laws

• In R S Nayak vs. A R Antuley and another

AIR 1986, it was held that for extortion, fear
or threat must be used.

• In this case, chief minister A R Antuley asked

the sugar cooperatives, whose cases were
pending before the govt. for consideration, to
donate money and promised to look into their
cases. It was held that there was no fear of
injury or threat and so it was not extortion.
 Difference between Theft & Extortion
Theft Extortion
1. The property is taken by 1. The property is
the offender without delivered to the offender
consent. by consent although the
consent is not free.
2. There is an element of
2. There is no element of
threat or instilment of
threat.
fear because of which
the consent is given.
3. Only movable property 3. Any kind of property can
is subject to theft. be subjected to
extortion.
4. Offender takes the 4. Property is delivered to
property himself. offender.
Robbery (S.390) & Dacoity (S.391)
Robbery (S.390) & Dacoity (S.391)

• Robbery is a severe form of either –

1. theft or
2. extortion
• In certain circumstances-
1. a theft or
2. an extortion
aggravates to robbery.
 Robbery

Section 390 –In all robbery there is

either theft or extortion.
• So every robbery is, primarily,
either theft or extortion.
• Robbery is an aggravated form of
theft or extortion.
 When theft is robbery ?
Section 390: Part-I:"Theft is robbery, if:
1. a) In order to the committing of the theft; or
b) In committing the theft; or
c) In carrying away or attempting to carry away
property obtained by theft.
2. The offender for that end,
3. Voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person
- Death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or
- fear of instant death or fear of instant hurt or fear of
instant wrongful restraint.
- hurt includes both simple hurt and grievous hurt.
 For example
A holds Z down, and fraudulently
takes Z's money from Z's clothes,
without Z's consent. A has
committed theft and in order to
commit that theft, he voluntarily
caused wrongful restraint to Z.
Thus, A has committed robbery.
 When theft is robbery ?
• Robbery can be committed even after the theft is
committed if in order to carrying away the property
acquired after theft, death, hurt, or wrongful restraint or
an instant fear of them is caused.

• The expression "for that end" implies that death, hurt, or

wrongful restraint or an instant fear of them is caused
directly to complete the act of theft or carrying away the
property.

• In Hushrut Sheik's case 1866, C and D were stealing

mangoes from tree and were surprised by B. C knocked
down B and B became senseless. It was held to be a case
of robbery.
 Case Laws

• Further, the action causing death, hurt, or

wrongful restraint or an instant fear of them
must be voluntary.
• Thus, in Edward's case 1843, a person, while
cutting a string tied to a basket accidentally
cut the wrist of the owner who tried to seize
it. He was held guilty of only theft.
 When extortion is robbery ?
Section- 390: Part-II: "Extortion is robbery, if :
1. The offender, at the time of committing the extortion,
is in the presence* of the person put in fear; and
2. Commits the extortion by putting in fear of instant
death, or instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint
and to that person or to some other person.
3. By so putting in fear, induces the person to deliver up
then and there the things extorted.
(explanation)-*Present means-the offender is said to be
present which is sufficiently near to put the other
person in fear of instant death, instant hurt or instant
wrongful restraint.
 In presence of the person -
• The offender must be present where a person is
put in fear of injury to commit the offence of
robbery.

• By present, it means that the person should be

sufficiently near to cause the fear. By his presence,
the offender is capable of carrying out his threat
immediately.

• Thus the person put in such fear delivers the

property in order to avoid the danger of instant
death, hurt or wrongful restraint.
 For example
• A meets Z on high road, shows a pistol, and demands Z's
purse. Z in consequence surrenders his purse. Here, A has
extorted the purse from Z by putting him in fear of instant
hurt and being present at the time of committing the
extortion in his presence, A has committed robbery.

In another example,
• A meets Z and Z's child on the high road. A takes the child
and threatens to kill the child, unless Z delivers his purse. Z
in consequence, delivers the purse. Here, A has extorted
the purse from Z by causing Z to be in fear of instant death
of his child who is present there. Thus, A has committed
robbery.
 Examples
• For extortion to become robbery, the fear of
instant death, hurt, or wrongful restraint is must.

• Thus, when A obtains property from Z by saying,

"Your child is with my gang and will be put to
death unless you send us ten lac rupees", this is
extortion but not robbery because the person is
not put in fear of instant death of his child.
 Case Law
In Shikandar vs State 1984, the accused
attacked his victim by knife many times and
succeeded in acquiring the ear rings and key
from her. He was held guilty of robbery.
 Punishment for Robbery
Section- 392:
• Rigorous Imprisonment up to 10 yrs and also fine
• If robbery committed at night (after sunset and
before sunrise) on the highway- Rigorous
imprisonment up to 14yrs and also fine.
 Dacoity - Section- 391
• Section 391 - When five or more persons
conjointly commit or attempt to commit robbery,
or
where the whole number of persons conjointly
committing or attempting to commit a robbery,
and persons present and aiding such commission
or attempt, amount to five or more, every person
so committing, attempting, or aiding is said to
commit dacoity.
 Conjointly

• Conjointly implies a collective effort to commit

or attempting to commit the action.

• It is not necessary that all the persons must be

at the same place but they should be united in
their efforts with respect to the offence.

• Thus, persons who are aiding the offence are

also counted and all are guilty of dacoity.
 Conjointly
• It is necessary that all the persons involved
must have common intention to commit the
robbery.

• Thus, dacoity is different from robbery only in

the respect of number of people committing it
and is treated separately because it is
considered to be a more grave crime.
Whether less than five persons
may be convicted of Dacoity?
 Whether less than five persons may
be convicted of Dacoity : Case Laws

• Lingayya’s Case, 1958, A.P.:

Where there were only five named accused who
committed the dacoity and out of five two were
acquitted holding that only three took part in the
offence, it was held that the remaining three
could not be convicted of dacoity, as the offence
of dacoity could not be committed by less than
five persons.
 Ghamandi’s Case, 1970:
• Where in spite of the acquittal of a number of
persons, it is found as a fact that along with
the persons convicted there were other
unidentified persons who participated in the
offence, bringing the total number of
participants to five or more, it was held that
the conviction of the identified persons,
though less than five, was perfectly correct.

• Because it was established that total accused

were 5 or more but only less then 5 could be
caught, they can be convicted. Conviction is
not bad.
 Ram Chand's case 1932,

• it was held that the resistance of the victim is

not necessary. The victims, seeing a large
number of offenders, did not resist and no
force or threat was used but the offenders
were still held guilty of dacoity.
 Punishment for Dacoity -

Section- 395:

Life imprisonment or rigorous

imprisonment up to 10yrs and also fine.
Dishonestly receiving stolen property-
Sec. 410 & 411 IPC
 Object behind such a law
• It is a crime to receive any property that you
know or believe to be stolen

• The crime is separate from theft, robbery,

extortion, or dacoity etc.

• Receiving stolen property is a crime in order to

deter people from aiding or rewarding thieves by
buying stolen property, concealing stolen property,
and to deter theft in general
 What If I Did Not Know That the Property Was Stolen?

• The key factor between receiving and possessing stolen

property is the timing of the knowledge that it was stolen.

• If the person receiving the property knew it was stolen at the

time of acquisition, then the person is guilty of receiving
stolen property.

• If the person discovered the property was stolen after

accepting it, but still intends to keep it or use it for a
dishonest purpose (such as selling it to someone else), then
the person is guilty of possessing stolen property.
 SECTION 411 IPC states:
• Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any
stolen property,

• knowing or having reason to believe the same

to be stolen property,

• shall be punished with imprisonment of either

description for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both.
 The essential of the offence u/s 411 :

1. That the property in question was stolen property;

2. That the stolen property was in the possession of
the accused;
3. That it was dishonestly received or retained; and
4. The accused knew or had reason to believe that
the, property was stolen property.
 What is stolen property u/s 410 IPC?
• Property, the possession whereof has been transferred
by -
• theft, or
• by extortion, or
• by robbery, and
• property which has been criminally misappropriated
or
• in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been
committed,
• is designed as "stolen property".
 Re Gaune Vithu Ghode (1942) Cri.
Appeal No. 187 of 1942 (Bom.)
• In this case it was observed that if a gold
necklace is stolen and exchanged for another
necklace or melted down and converted into an
ingot,
• it does not cease to be the same golden
necklace that was stolen.
• What was stolen was gold in the form of a
necklace, and what is produced is the same
necklace in the form of an ingot.
• So offence u/this section is complete.
 Receive or Retain?
• The court in order to convict for an offence under
section 411 must be satisfied that the property was
stolen by some other person to the knowledge of
the accused and

• there must be some evidence to show this, and

• that in relation to the property, the accused either

received it dishonestly or having received it
honestly he retained it dishonestly
 Burden of Proof-Evidence Act
• Section 114-Indian Evidence Act 1872-Court may
presume existence of certain facts. —
• The Court may presume the existence of any fact which
it thinks likely to have happened,
• regard being had to the common course of natural
events, human conduct and public and private business,
in their relation to the facts of the particular case.
• Illustrations:
The Court may presume—(a) That a man who is in
possession of stolen goods soon after the theft is either
the thief or has received the goods knowing them to be
stolen, unless he can account for his possession;
 Dishonest retention & receiving
• The dishonest ‘reception’ is different from dishonest
‘retention’.

• in dishonest retention, the dishonesty supervenes

after the act of acquisition of possession

• while in dishonest reception, the dishonesty is

contemporaneous with the act of acquisition.
 Possession
• This second element of the offence is established by
the recovery of the stolen articles from the
possession of the accused
• Possession must be conscious and intelligent
possession and not merely the physical presence of
the accused in proximity or even close proximity to
the object
• The prosecution has to establish that there is
possession of the stolen goods.
• The mere fact of the presence of the accused in a
house where the stolen goods was found cannot
amount to possession.
 Trimbak v. State AIR 1954 SC 39
• It was observed that- the field from which the
ornaments were recovered is an open one and
accessible to all and sundry,

• it is difficult to hold positively that the accused was

in possession of those articles.

• That being so that fact of discovery could not be

regarded as conclusive proof that the accused was in
possession of those articles.
 Receiving or retaining
stolen property with knowledge
• The accused must have known or must have had reason to ‘believe’
the property to be stolen.
• The word ‘believe’ is a much stronger word than ‘suspect’ and it
involves the necessity of showing that the circumstances were such
that a reasonable man must have felt convinced in his mind that the
property with which he was dealing must be stolen property.
• It is immaterial whether the receiver knows or not who stole it.
• Initial receipt of property may be innocent but its retention
becomes dishonest if he continues to possess it even after he comes
to know that property is stolen.
 Bhanwarlal v. State of Rajasthan(1995)
CrLJ 625 (Raj)
• The accused purchased 9 kgs silver for a paltry sum
deliberately knowing to be stolen property, it could
not be said of him that he was a bona fide purchaser.

• Silver ingots were recovered at his instance from

several persons.

• His conviction was held to be sustainable

Nagappa Dhondiba v. State AIR 1980 SC 1753
• it was observed that where stolen ornaments of
the deceased which she had been wearing
when she was last seen alive are discovered
within three days of the murder in pursuance
of an information given by the accused and
there is no other evidence, the accused can be
convicted only under Section 411 and not
under Section 302, IPC or Section 394, IPC as
there is nothing to connect him with the
murder or the robbery.
 State of Karnataka v. Abdul Gaffar
2000 CrLJ 4456 (Kant)

• a copper pot with Rs. 200 in it was stolen from

a temple,

• the presumption was raised against the person

in whose possession it was found

• Considering the fact that it was stolen from a

temple, a fine of Rs. 2000 was imposed under
Section 411.
 Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the
commission of a dacoity
Section 412 IPC-
• Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen
property,
• the possession whereof he knows or has reason to
believe to have been transferred by the commission of
dacoity, or
• dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or
has reason to believe to belong or to have belonged to a
gang of dacoits, property which he knows or has reason
to believe to have been stolen,
• shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Habitually dealing in stolen property
• Section 413 of Indian Penal Code
Whoever habitually receives or deals in
property which he knows or has reason to
believe to be stolen property, shall be punished
with [imprisonment for life], or with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine.
 Ajay Sethi vs State on 30 August, 2017
• Delhi High Court held that-
• Something more is required to establish that the offender is
in the habit of dealing with or receiving stolen property.
• Since the offence under Section 413 IPC is inter-related
with and is an aggravated form of Section 411 IPC, the
State would have to prove and establish that the offender
was convicted repeatedly, twice or more than twice, for
offence under Section 411 IPC so as to establish beyond a
reasonable doubt that he is in the habit of dealing with or
receiving stolen property.
• Therefore, the conviction under Section 413 IPC is based
on repeated convictions for offence under Section 411 IPC.
• Due to previous conviction, a punishment of different kind
is prescribed in Section 413 IPC which the accused is
required to undergo.
 Ajay Sethi vs State on 30 August, 2017
• Hence, while prosecuting a person for offence under Section
413 IPC, the prosecution has to prove the following factors:

• Firstly, the property in question has been stolen from a place.

Thus, the prosecution must bring the property within the ambit
of Section 410 IPC within the definition of stolen property.
• Secondly, the offender has been dealing with or receiving stolen
property.
• Thirdly, the offender knew or had a reason to believe the
property to be stolen.
• Fourthly, he has been repeatedly convicted, i.e twice or more
than twice, of offence under Section 411 IPC.
• It is only after the prosecution establishes these factors that the
court would be legally justified in concluding that the offender
is habitually dealing with or receiving stolen property and in
imposing the punishment as prescribed by Section 413 IPC.
Assisting in concealment of stolen
property – Section 414 of IPC
• Whoever voluntarily assists in concealing or
disposing of or making away with property
which he knows or has reason to believe to be
stolen property, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine,
or with both.
Never Receive Stolen Property

Thank you
CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION
Section 403 IPC
 Section 403 IPC
Section 403 says that-

• whoever dishonestly
• misappropriates or converts to his own use
• any movable property,
• shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine, or with both.
 Essential Ingredients of the offence

• Essential Ingredient of Criminal

misappropriation are:

i) The property must be a movable one.

ii) There should be a dishonest
misappropriation or conversion of a property
for a person's own use.
 Explanations
Explanation1: A dishonest misappropriation for a time only is a
misappropriation within the meaning of this section.
Illustration : A finds a Government promissory note belonging to Z,
bearing a blank endorsement. A, knowing that the note belongs to Z,
pledges it with a banker as a security for a loan, intending at a future
time to restore it to Z. A has committed an offence under this section.
Explanation 2: A person who finds property not in the possession of any
other person, and takes such property for the purpose of protecting it
for, or of restoring it to, the owner, does not take or misappropriate it
dishonestly, and is not guilty of an offence;
but he is guilty of the offence above defined, if he appropriates it to his
own use, when he knows or has the means of discovering the owner,
or before he has used reasonable means to discover and give notice
to the owner and has kept the property a reasonable time to enable
the owner to claim it.
It is not necessary that the finder should know who is the owner of the
property, or that any particular person is the owner of it: it is
sufficient if, at the time of appropriating it, he does not believe it to
be his own property, or in good faith believes that the real owner
cannot be found
 Dishonestly misappropriates or converts
to his own use

• There are two things necessary before an offence

under section 403, IPC can be established.
• Firstly that the property must be misappropriated
or converted to the use of the accused, and
• secondly that he must misappropriate or convert it
dishonestly.
 Criminal misappropriation means-

• Dishonest misappropriation or conversion of

movable property
• which is already in the possession of the offender.
• In the case of criminal misappropriation the
offender gets the possession of the movable
property innocently
• but subsequently uses the property dishonestly for
his own benefit.
 Conversion to one’s own use

• the words ‘converts to his own use’ necessarily

connotes the use or dealing with the property in
derogation of the rights of the owner.

• In other words, it means, dealing with property of

another in a way as if it’s his property. The of
fender converts to his own use the property which
he knows isn’t his own, not believinghimself to be
authorized to do so.
 For example:
• X, a student, finds a premium watch lying on the floor of his
college washroom. He picks it up and puts it in his pocket. Till
now, he has not committed any offence. But when he instead
of submitting the watch in the college’s lost and found room
(so that it may reach its rightful owner), he goes and pawns
the watch as he was in urgent need of money. Now, here it
can be said that by pawning the watch, the finder is dealing
with it, as if the watch was his own property; he thereby
converted property belonging to someone else to his own
use, and has committed the offence of criminal
misappropriation under Section 403, IPC.
• His intention was absolutely dishonest, because by doing that
act he caused wrongful gain to himself and also wrongful loss
to the owner. The essence of Section 403 lies in putting to
one’s own use or converting to own use another’s property.
 For Example
• A takes property belonging to Z out of Z's
possession in good faith, believing, at the time
when he takes it, that property belongs to
himself. A is not guilty of theft ;

• but if A, after discovering his mistake,

dishonestly appropriates the property to his
own use he is guilty of an offence under this
section
Bhagiram Dome v. Abar Dome (1965) Cr LJ 562

• Criminal misappropriation takes place when

the possession has been innocently come by,
but where, by a subsequent change of
intention, or from the knowledge of some
new fact with which the party was not
previously acquainted, the retaining becomes
wrongful and fraudulent
Ram Bais Rai v. Emperor, AIR 1918 Pat 489

• The chief element for a conviction under

section 403 is the dishonest misappropriation
or conversion to one's own use.
•
• In the absence of any overt act on the part of
the accused no dishonest motive can be
imputed to him simply because he has
detained certain documents in his custody
Gadgayya v. Guru Siddeshvar,(1897)CrC
919
• Temple property
The property of an idol or a temple must be
used for the purpose of that idol or temple;
• any other use would be a malversation of that
property, and if dishonest, would amount to
criminal misappropriation
 Sham Soondur’s case (1870)

• Retention of money paid by mistake

Where a money is paid by mistake to a person,

and such person, either at the time of receipt
or at anytime subsequently, discovers the
mistake, and determines to appropriate the
money, that person is guilty of criminal
misappropriation
 DISHONEST MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY
POSSESSED BY DECEASED PERSON AT THE TIME OF
HIS DEATH (SEC.404)
• Section 404 deals with dishonest misappropriation of
property possessed by deceased person at the time of his
death.
• Section 404 says that, whoever dishonestly misappropriates
or converts to his own use property, knowing that such
property was in the possession of a deceased person at the
time of that person's death and has not since been in the
possession of any person legally entitled to such possession,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be
liable to fine
• and if the offender at the time of such person's decease was
employed by him as a clerk or servant, the imprisonment
may extend to seven years.
 Object of 404-
• This section relates to a description of property*
needing protection.
• The essential ingredient of offence under section
404, was the knowledge on the part of the accused
that the property in question as in possession of the
deceased person at the time of that person's death
and had not since been in the possession of any
person legally entitled to such possession.

• *There was a controversy relating to interpretation of

property explained in subsequent cases.
 Dhulji vs Kanchan 1956 CriLJ MP 224
• Section 404 deals with dishonest misappropriation or dishonest
conversion of property peculiarly needing protection particularly
when the previous owner, who was possessed of it, is dead and
the subsequent legal owner has not obtained possession thereof.
• The Section prescribes different sentences where the offence is
committed by strangers and when the offence is committed by
persons who occupy position of confidence.
• Thus if the word property in Section 404, I.P.C. is read as movable
property it will mean that offence under Section 404, I.P.C. is an
aggravated form of an offence under Section 403, I.P.C.It is for
this reason that a provision is made by which dishonest
misappropriation or conversion under these circumstances is
made specially punishable with a higher sentence.
• It is clear that in the case of immovable property no such risk is
involved except where the immovable property is first
demolished and converted into moveable property and
thereafter it is dishonestly misappropriated or converted.
• It is therefore clear that the word property in Section 404, I.P.C.
can mean no other property
 Calcutta and Bombay High Courts’ view

Both Calcutta and Bombay High Courts have taken

the view in-
• 'Jugdown Sinha v. Queen Empress' 23 Cal 372 (A)
• 'Reg v. Girdhar' 6 Bom HCR Cr 33 (B)

that the word property in Section 404, I.P.C. does

not include immovable property
'Daud Khan v. Emperor' AIR 1925 All 675

• In 'Daud Khan v. Emperor' AIR 1925 All 675

• Allahabad High Court differed from this view
mainly on the ground that the word used in
Section 404, I.P.C., is 'Property' and not
'movable property' as in Section 403, I.P.C.
• The case law, therefore, is more in favour of
the wider meaning being given to the word
'property' in sections where the word is not
qualified by any other expression like
movable'.
CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST
(SECTION 405)
 S.405 defines Criminal Breach of Trust
• whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property,
or with any dominion over property-
• dishonestly misappropriated or converts to his own use
that property, or
• dishonestly uses or disposes of that property -
in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode
in which such trust is to be discharged,
or
any legal contract, express or implied, which he has
made touching the discharge of such trust or willfully
suffers any other person so to do, commits 'criminal
breach of trust'.
 Example
• A, being executer to the will of a deceased
person, dishonestly disobeys the law which
directs him to divide the effects according to
the will, and appropriated them to his own use.

• A has committed criminal breach of trust.

 Explanation- I & II

I-Deductions made for Provident Funds

II-Deductions for Employees State Insurance

Fund
 Ingredients of the offence-
(a)The accused must be entrusted with property or
dominion over the property; and
(b) The person so entrusted (i.e., the accused) must-
(i) dishonestly misappropriate, or convert to his
own use, that property, or
(ii) dishonestly use or dispose of that property or
willfully suffer any other person to do so in violation
of any-
(1) direction of law, prescribing the mode, in which
such trust is to be discharged, or
(2) any legal contract made touching the discharge
of such trust.
 Entrustment of property
• As the title to the offence itself suggests,
entrustment of property is an essential requirement
before any offence under this section takes place.
• The language of the section is very wide. The words
used are ‘in any manner entrusted with property’.
• Entrustment means that the person handing over any
property, or on whose behalf that property is handed
over to another, must have confidence in the person,
taking the property, so as to create a fiduciary
relationship between them (K Lakshman Das v K
Krishno Murthy, 1981 CLR 60).
 Entrustment of property
• So, it extends to entrustments of all kinds- whether to clerks, servants,
business partners or other persons, provided they are holding a
position of trust.

• The word entrust implies all cases in which a thing handed over by
one person to another for specific purpose.

• It not only covers the relationship of a trustee and beneficiary

between the complainant and the accused, like master and servant,
guardian and ward, and the pledgor and pledgee.

• It connotes that the accused holds the property for, and on behalf of
another. Hence in all such transactions like that of a consignor and
consignee, bailor and bailee and hirer and hiree, there is an element of
trust implied in the transaction because in all such relation, the
property entrusted to the accused is ‘property of another person’.
 ‘dominion’ over property

• The word ‘dominion’ connotes control over the

property.

• In Shivnarayan Laxminarayan Joshi vs State

Of Maharashtra AIR 1980 SC 439 it was held
that a director of a company was in the position of
a trustee and being a trustee of the assets, which
has come into his hand, he had dominion and
control over the same.
 Krishan Kumar V UOI AIR 1959 SC 1390
• In Krishan Kumar V UOI AIR 1959 SC 1390 the accurse was
employed as an assistant storekeeper in the Central Tractor Organisation
(CTO) at Delhi.
• Amongst other duties, his duty was the taking of delivery of consignment
of goods received by rail for CTO.
• The accused has taken delivery of a particular wagonload of iron and steel
from Tata Iron and Steel Co, Tatanagar, and the goods were removed from
the railway depot but did not reach the CTO.
• When questioned, the accused gave a false explanation that the goods had
been cleared, but later stated that he had removed the goods to another
railway siding, but the goods were not there.
• The defence version of the accused was rejected as false. However, the
prosecution was unable to establish how exactly the goods were
misappropriated and what was the exact use they were put to.
• In this context, the Supreme Court held that it was not necessary in every
case to prove in what precise manner the accused person had dealt with or
appropriated the goods of his master. The question is one of intention and
not direct proof of misappropriation.
 PUNISHMENT

• Section 406 defines punishment i.e.

• Whoever commits criminal breach of trust

shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
three years or with fine, or with both.
Surendra Prasad Verma v State of Bihar AIR 1973 SC 488

• the accused was in possession of the keys to a

safe.
• It was held that the accused was liable because he
alone had the keys and nobody could have the
access to the safe, unless he could establish that
he parted with the keys to the safe.
Shiv Sagar Tiwari v Union of India(1996) 6 SCC 558
• In the case of Shiv Sagar Tiwari v Union of India, the apex court
levied a fine of 60 lakhs on Mrs. Sheila Kaul, former Union
Minister for Housing and Urban Development and former governor
of Himachal Pradesh and cancelled the allotment of 52 shops and
kiosks (stalls) for arbitrarily, oppressively and un-constitutionally
allotting the shops to her relatives, friends and staff members
during her tenure as Minister.
• The court directed the Government to formulate an allotment
policy within two months and complete the process of allotment
within four months.
• Justice Kuldeep Singh and Justice Hansaria, while imposing the
fine said
• “Since the properties she was dealing with were Government
properties, the government by the people has to be compensated for
breach of public trust. Mrs. Kaul should pay for causing pecuniary
loss to the exchequer for action in an “oppressive and mala fide
manner”, while making shop allotments.
Karanavir v. State of H.P. AIR 2006 SC 2211

• In this case, Supreme Court ruled that

once entrustment of money is proved,
prosecution need not prove further and it
is for the accused to prove how the
property entrusted to him was dealt with.
 Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of India
(1996) 2 SCC 752
• In this case, the apex court imposed a fine of Rs 50 lakh on
Captain Satish Sharma, former petroleum minister in the
P. V. Narsimha Rao’s government for arbitrary exercise of
discretionary power of minister in allotment and distribution
of petrol pumps and cooking gas agencies; and ordered the
central Bureau of Investigation.

• To probe into the allotment scam and institute criminal

proceedings for committing breach of trust against Captain
Satish Sharma for abuse of office during his tenure as
minister.
 Common Cause, A Registered Society v. Union of
India(1996) 2 SCC 752
• The bench consisting of justices Kuldeep Singh and Faizanuddin, setting
aside order of allotment of petrol pumps said,-
• “Not only the relatives of most of the officials working for Captain
Satish Sharma but even his own driver and the driver
of his additional Private Secretary have been allotted a petrol pump and
a gas agency respectively……………. There is nothing on the record to
indicate that the Minister kept any criteria
in view while making the allotments………….. no criteria was fixed, no
guidelines were kept in view, none knew how many petrol pumps were
available for allotment, applications were not invite and the allotments of
petrol pumps were made in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner.”
• The court explained that in a welfare state the Government provides a large
number of benefits to the citizens and held:-
• “A Minister who is the executive head of the department concerned
distributed these benefits and largesse (generosity)s. He is elected by the
people and is elevated to a position where he holds a trust on behalf of the
people. He has to deal with the peoples’ property in a fair and just manner.
He cannot commit breach of the trust reposed in him by the people.”
 Cheating
Sections 415-420 IPC
 Legal Provisions Regarding “Cheating”
• Sections 415 to 420 IPC explain about cheating.
• S.415 defines “Cheating”.
• S.416 explains about “Cheating by personation”.
• S.417 explains the punishment for cheating.
• S.418 explains cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may
ensue to person whose interest offender is bound to protect.
• S.419 explains the punishment for cheating by personation.
• S.420 explains cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property.
 Sec. 415. Cheating:
• Section requires deception of any person dishonestly or
fraudulently
• (a) inducing that person to :
(i) to deliver any property to any person, or
(ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property
or
• (b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so
deceived and
• which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or
harm to that person, anybody's mind, reputation or property
• Explanation : A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception
within the meaning of this Section.
 Illustrations:
• A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, intentionally
deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on
credit goods for which he does not mean to pay. A cheats.

• A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally

deceives Z into a belief that this article was made by a certain
celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy
and pay for the article. A cheats

• A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article, intentionally

deceives Z into believing that the article corresponds with the
sample, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the
article. A cheats.

• A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has performed A’s

part of a contract made with Z, which he has not performed and
thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A cheats.
 Ingredients of Cheating:
The ingredients of Section 415 are as follows:

• The accused must have induced fraudulently or dishonestly a

person.
• The deceived should be induced to deliver any property to
any person or to consent that any person shall retain any
property.
• If the person deceived, must be intentionally induced by the
wrong-doer to do or omit to do anything which he would not
do or omit if such deceived person was not so deceived.
• The deceived should suffer any damage or harm in body,
mind, reputation or property by the deceitful act of the
wrong doer.
• A dishonest concealment of facts is also treated as a
cheating (explanation to section 415).
 various ways of cheating
• Cheating can be done by various ways. Some of them are given
here:-
• Misrepresentation as to caste- A offence of cheating is deemed
to be done if a person is represented as a person of some other
caste then the caste to which that person belongs actually
(Ratanlal & Dhirajlal, Indian Penal Code, Nagpur. Wadhwa & Co .
2002 at 601).
• Making false entries in book of accounts:- if some person make
some false entries in books of accounts of some other person or
himself to give effect to any debt or its repayment then it would
amount to offence of cheating.
• Attempt to create false evidence:- If accused gives false evidence
regarding some event then he can be held guilt of the offence of
cheating as it is taken as to induce the court to believe that event.
• Showing False professional qualifications:- if some person gives
some false representation with regard to any professional
qualification which he actually does not posses the it amounts to
cheating.
 CHEATING – A CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS
• In cheating, there should be first of all deception.
• By means of this deception, a man is deceived or
cheated in two ways as indicated in code itself.
• In first* case victim is induced to deliver property.
This delivery is indeed brought about as the result
of fraudulent and dishonest means used by the
accused.
• In second* part there is no delivery of property,
but victim is intentionally induced to do or omit to
do anything which he would not do or omit if he
was not induced. In short he is induced to do
something to his own prejudice.
 Main ingredients for the first part.
1.The accused deceived some person.

2.By deception he induced that person.

3. The above inducement was fraudulent and

dishonest.

4.The person so induced delivered some property to

or consented to the retention of some property by
any person.
 Main ingredients for the second part
1. The accused deceived some person

2. The accused thereby induced him

3. Such inducement was intentional

4. The person so induced did or omitted to do something

5. Such act or omission caused or was likely to cause

damage or harm to the person induced in body,
mind, reputation or property.
 DECEPTION
• One of the initial ingredients of Cheating which has to be
provided to establish the offence of cheating is deception,
which must precede and thereby induce the other person
to either
(a) deliver or retain property ; or
(b) to commit the act or omission as referred in sec 415 of
the code.
• Deceiving can be said as making a person believe what is
false or not letting him believe what is true, and either
words or actions may represent such deception.
• As to what constitutes deception has been held by the
courts to be a matter of evidence in each case and
dependent upon the facts and circumstance of each case.
• But nevertheless it is the first stage of cheating. So it can
be said that if the deception is not proved then it becomes
hard for the prosecution to prove the offence of cheating
 INDUCEMENT
• The second essential ingredient of cheating can be said
as inducement which leads to either delivery of the
property or any act or omission.

• Mere deceit is not sufficient to prove the offence of guilt

but also its effect on the person is also to be take care of.

• Similarly just defrauding or doing something dishonestly

does not in itself suffice the offence but also the its after
effects has to be seen while framing the charges.
 Case Laws
• In Chinthamani vs. Dyaneshwar (1974 CrLJ 542
Bombay) case, the accused sold the property to
the complainant.
• In fact, they said property was already mortgaged
to some other person.
• The accused concealed the mortgage and
registered it in favour of the complainant and
received full consideration.
• The High Court held that it was a clear cheating
offence.
 Bhola Nath v. State 1982 Cr. L J 1482 (Delhi)
• This case is regard to deception being done by the petitioner
regarding the payment of a cheque given by them to complainant
for the purpose of inducing them to deliver certain property to the
petitioner.
• The Cheques given were post dated and were not cleared by the
bank for lack of funds in the particular account on which cheques
were drawn.
• That bank account was opened by the petitioner for that business
deal only which clearly shows their intention to deceive the
complainant.
• The court emphasize on harmonious construction of the various
statues to derive the true meaning out of them. Also the matter of
jurisdiction was being looked into by the court.
• Judgment the question of proving the cheating on the basis of
dishonour of cheques was established as the facts clearly said that
at no time any effort was done by the accused to pay the necessary
amount in the bank to clear the cheque.
 Cheating by Personation S. 416
Section 416 lays down that-

• a person is said to “Cheat by personation” if he cheats by pretending to be some

other person, or
• by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any
other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.
• the offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or
imaginary person.

Illustrations:
• (a) A cheats by pretending to be a certain rich banker of the same name. A
cheats by personation
• (b) A cheats by pretending to be B, a person who is deceased. A cheats by
personation

• In Baboo Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1961 All 639), the accused
misrepresented himself to be a certain well known surgeon and induced the
complainant to let him perform an operation on the eye of the complainant’s 12
year old son. The accused was held guilty of cheating by impersonation.
 re R.Matameswara Rao, AIR 1957 AP 4.

• Usage of someone else’s ticket is a crime

• Using a railway ticket issued in the name of a

different person by pretending to be that
person is an offence under Section 416 of the
IPC.
 M.N.A. Aachar vs. Dr. D.L. Raja Gopal
(1977 CrLJ 228 Karnataka)
• In this case, the accused was already married.

• He represented himself to be a bachelor and

married with the complainant’s daughter.

• The accused was held guilty of offence of cheating

by personation and also under Section 494
(Bigamy)
 Punishment for Cheating:

• Section 417 imposes the punishment for

cheating with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
one year, or with fine, or with both.
 Section 418
• Section 418 provides that whoever cheats
with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to
cause wrongful loss to a person whose
interest in the transaction to which the
cheating relates, he was bound, either by law
or by a legal contract, to protect, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both.
 Punishment for cheating by personation:

• Section 419 imposes punishment for the

offence of cheating by personation with
imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine,
or with both.
 Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property:
Section-420
• Section 420 provides-
• that whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly
induces the person deceived
• to deliver any property to any person, or
• to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a
valuable security, or anything which is signed or
filed, and which is capable of being converted into a
valuable security,
• shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 420 is an aggravated form of cheating:
• In Section 417 a general provision is made
defining the cheating.
• For the cases in which property is transferred, the
specific provision is made in Section 420.
• However the offence of cheating of any person by
delivery of property is punishable under either of
the two Sections.
• But where the case appears to be of a serious
nature, then the prosecution may be conducted
under Section 420.
 Mobarik Ali Ahmed vs. the State of Bombay (Air 1957 SC 857)
• Brief Facts: The appellant/Mobarik Ali Ahmed was doing business in the name of
“Atlas Industrial and Trading Corporation” and “Ifthiar Ahmed & Co.” in Karachi.
• The complainant/Luis Antonio Correa was a businessman, doing business in Goa. In
the year 1951, there was scarcity of rice in Goa.
• The complainant contacted the accused/appellant for the supply of 2,000 tons of
rice, which was agreed by the accused subject to the condition that 50% of the value
payable in advance, before the shipping and remaining after the documents of
shipping received.
• Accordingly the complainant paid Rs. 81,000/ – (on 23-7-1951) Rs. 2,30,000/- (on 28-
8-1951) and Rs. 2,36,900/- (on 29-8-1951) to the appellant/ accused through his
agent. The appellant received the above mentioned cash but did not supply the rice.
• The complainant waited for one year and then initiated criminal proceedings against
the four directors of the appellant company, i.e., MobarikAli, Santran, A.A. Rowji and
S.A. Rowji.
• The last three accused absconded.
• The appellant fled to England.
• The Indian Authorities made an application to the Metropolitan Magistrate, Bow
Street, London, who ordered the arrest of the appellant.
• He was brought to Bombay and then was tried.
• The trial Court proceeded against the appellant and found him guilty under Section
420, and imposed penalty and imprisonment for three years and ten months.
• On appeal Bombay High Court confirmed the conviction. The appellant appealed to
the Supreme Court.
 Judgment:
• The Supreme Court held: “The appellant ceased to be an Indian citizen and was
a Pakistani national at the time of the commission of the offence, he must be
held guilty and punished under IPC notwithstanding he is not being corporeally
present in India at that time.”
• Principles:
• 1. A conviction of an accused person under Sec. 420 would be valid though the
charges under Sec. 420 read with Sec. 34 unless prejudice is shown to have
occurred.
• 2. That all the ingredients necessary for finding the offences of cheating under
Sec. 420 read with Sec. 415 occurred at Bombay. In that sense the entire offence
was committed at Bombay and not merely the consequence, viz., delivery of
money which was one of the ingredients of the offence.
• 3. Though the appellant was a Pakistani national at the time of the commission
of the offence, he must be held guilty and punished under the Penal Code
notwithstanding his not being corporeally present in India at the time because
on a plain reading of Section. Section 2 of the Penal Code applied to him.
• 4. That the fastening of criminal liability on the appellant, who was a foreigner,
was not to give any extra-territorial operation to the law, in as much as the
exercise of criminal jurisdiction in the case. Where all the ingredients of the
offence occurred within the municipal territory was exercise of municipal
jurisdiction.
 John McIver vs. Emperor (AIR 1936 FB Mad. 353)
• Brief Facts: J. McIver (A-1) was a Stock Broker under the name “Huson
Tud & Co.” in Madras. K.S. Narasimha Chari (A-2) was an employee of
accused-1. A-1 met one Rao Bahadur Boora Lakshmaiah Chetty on 14-
3-1935 representing that their company had entered into a contract
with the Imperial Bank of India under which they were under an
obligation to sell and to deliver them 6 1/2% interests. 1935 Bombay
Development Loan Bonds of the face value of Rs. 3,50,000/- and that
the last date was 27-3-1935. Believing the words of A-1, the
complainant/Rao Bahadur handed over the cash.
• Accused-1 did not hand over the Bonds and postponed under one
pretext or the other. The complainant filed a complaint in the Court of
the Presidency, Egnore against the accused-1 & 2, under Sec. 403 &
420 of the I.P.C. (Cheating and Criminal Breach of Trust)
• The accused compromised with the complainant and as a result he
was acquitted from the charges. At this junction the State interfered
and appealed to the Madras High Court contending that the
Magistrate had no powers to compound the case, when once he
issued summons. The accused pleaded “autrefois acquit”, (the accused
once acquitted cannot be punished or tried on the same charge). The
question of law arose.
 Judgment:
• The Madras High Court Full Bench gave the judgment in favour of the accused.

Principles:
• 1. There can be no consent by a person who is cheated and of there is deceit
which prevented any true consent arising there could be no entrusting; the terms
are mutually exclusive.
• 2. The word “entrusted” should be construed as it access in the Section headed
“criminal breach of trust”. The notion of a trust in the ordinary sense of that word
is that there is a person the transferee or the entrusted, in which confidence is
reported by another who commits property to him; and this again supposes that
the confidence is freely given.
• A person who tricks another into delivering property to him bears no resemblance
to a trustee in the ordinary acceptation of that term and Sec. 405 given no
sanction to regarding him as a trustee. The essence of the criminal breach of trust
is the dishonest conversion of property entrusted, but the act of cheating itself
involves a conversion.
• Conversion signifies the depriving of the owner of the use and possession of his
property. When the cheat afterward sells or consumes or otherwise uses the fruit
of his cheating he is not committing an act of conversion for the conversion is
already done, but he is furnishing evidence of the fraud he practised to get hold of
the property. Therefore, cheating is a complete offence by itself.
 Abhayanand Mishra vs. State of Bihar (AIR 1961 SC 1698)
• Brief Facts:
• The appellant sought the permission of Patna University for appearing
M.A. examinations (English) in 1954. He enclosed the attested copies
of B.A. Degree and permission letter from the Head Master of the
school in which he was working.
• Permission was granted by the University. Before commencing the
examinations, the University authorities received the information that
the appellant did not pass B.A., and was not working as a teacher, and
that he was debarred from the University.
• They reported the matter to the police, who investigated and filed the
charge, sheet against the appellant under Section 420, and 511. The
trial Court convicted him.
• On appeal the High Court upheld the conviction. He appealed to the
Supreme Court contending that an admission card to sit for M.A.
examination had no pecuniary value and therefore the provision of
Sec. 420 would not be attracted.
• Further he contended that he applied to the University for the
permission, and it was a mere preparation and it could not be treated
as an attempt under Sec. 511.
 Judgment:
• The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It upheld the judgments of
the Lower Court and the High Court.
Principles:
• 1. An admission card to sit for an examination of a University is
property within the meaning of Sec. 420. Though the admission card as
such has no pecuniary value it has immense value to the candidate for
the examination.
• 2. There is a thin line between the preparation for and an attempt to
commit an offence. Undoubtedly a culprit first intends to commit the
offence, then makes preparation for committing it and therefore,
attempts to commit the offence.
• If the attempt succeeds, he has committed the offence; if it fails due to
reasons beyond his control, he is said to have attempted to commit the
offence.
• Therefore, attempted to commit the offence can be said to begin when
the preparations are complete and the culprit commences to do
something with the intention of committing the offence and which is a
step towards the commission of the offence. The moment he
commences to do an act with the necessary intention, he commences
his attempt to commit the offence.
 Breach of contract & Cheating:
Dr.Vimala vs Delhi Administration
(AIR1963 SC 1572)

• There is a clear distinction between mere breach of

contract and the offence of cheating.
• It depends upon the intention of the wrong-doer at
the time of the inducement and his subsequent
conduct.
• If at the time of entering into contract one did not
intend to perform it, its cheating otherwise not
• Mere breach of contract cannot give rise a criminal
prosecution under cheating.
 Nageshwar Prasad Singh vs. Narayan Singh and
others (1998 (5) SCC 694)
Brief Facts:
• Nageshwar Prasad Singh the appellant herein has certain property in Patna.
Narayan Singh and others, the respondents herein, contracted Nageshwar Prasad
Singh to purchase a plot for certain consideration. Sale deed was concluded.
Narayan Singh paid earnest money to the appellant and agreed to pay the
balance at a future date. Nageshwar Prasad handed over the site to Narayan
Singh.
• Narayan Singh started construction. Narayan Singh filed a civil case for specific
performance of the contract in a civil Court against Nageshwar Prasad. Besides it,
Narayan Singh being an advocate also filed a cheating case against Nageshwar
Prasad alleging that Nageshwar did not fulfil the contract.
• Nageshwar Prasad contended that being it was a breach of contract from the
respondent Narayan Singh the provisions of Section 420 would not attract in this
case. The High Court dismissed his appeal.
On appeal, the Supreme Court held that it was purely a breach of contract and the
tricks played by Narayan Singh to delay the payment and harass the land owner. It
quashed the trial Court’s judgment under Section 420, and also the decision of
the High Court’s decision, and ordered Narayan Singh to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the
appellant/Nageshwar Prasad for the vexatious proceedings.
 Ram Prakash Singh vs. State of Bihar
(1998 (1) SCC 173)

• Brief Facts: The accused/appellant was a development officer in LIC.

• He introduced some false and fake insurance proposals in the name of
LIC with a view to earn promotion on the basis of inflated business.
• Contents of proposals were in the handwriting of accused.
• The trial Court punished the accused under Sections 420.
• He appealed to the High Court.
• The High Court upheld the conviction.
• He appealed to the Supreme Court contending that on the basis of the
proposals the policies were not issued and no loss occurred to LIC, and
his acts should be treated as preparation.
• The Supreme Court held that the accused was rightly convicted by the
Courts below.
Mischief
S.425 IPC
INSTANCES
INSTANCES
INSTANCES
INSTANCES
INSTANCES
INSTANCES
INSTANCES
INSTANCES
INSTANCES
 S. 425-Mischief

• Sec. 425 defines “Mischief-Whoever with intent to

cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause,
wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any
person, causes the destruction of any property, or
any such change in any property or in the situation
thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility,
or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief".
• e.g. A voluntarily throws into a river a ring
belonging to Z, with the intention of thereby causing
wrongful loss to Z A has committed mischief.
 Explanation 1.
• Explanation 1.-It is not essential to the offence of
mischief that the offender should intend to cause
loss or damage to the owner of the property injured
or destroyed. It is sufficient if he intends to cause, or
knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or
damage to any person by injuring any property,
whether it belongs to that person or not.
• e.g. if A, a student destroys any mobile phone lying
on any bench without knowing to whom it belongs
but causes wrongful loss to some person.
 Explanation 2
• Explanation 2.-Mischief may be committed by an
act affecting property belonging to the person who
commits the act, or to that person and others
jointly.
• e.g. A, having insured a ship, voluntarily causes
the same to be cast away, with the intention of
causing damage to the insurance co. A has
committed mischief.
• A, having joint property with Z in a horse, shoots
the horse, intending thereby to cause wrongful loss
to Z. A has committed mischief.
 Ingredients:
• The accused shall have intention or knowledge of
likelihood to cause wrongful loss or damage to
the public or to any person.

• He caused destruction or damage or changed

the shape/situation of the property.

• Due to his acts, the value of the property is

decreased

• By doing the wrongful acts of mischief, the

accused need not personally benefitted.
 Case Laws
• In Gopi Naik vs. Somnath (1977 CrLJ
1665 Goa) case, the accused had cut the
water pipe connection of the complainant.

• The Court held that the accused was guilty

of the offence of Mischief, as he had
diminished the value of the property, i.e.,
water supply.
 Case Laws
• In Arjuna vs. State (AIR 1969 Ori
200) case, the accused damaged the
standing crops grown by the
complainant. The Court held that the
accused was guilty under Sec. 425.
 Shriram vs. Thakurdas
• In Shriram vs. Thakurdas (1978 CrLJ 715 Bom.)
case, the accused was an officer of Municipal
Corporation. He gave notices to the
complainant/house owner for the unauthorized
construction.
• After giving notices, the accused demolished the
unauthorized construction. The complainant
contended that it would attract the offence of
“Mischief”.
• The Bombay High Court held that it was not an
offence, as the accused demolished the unauthorized
construction as per law.
 Punishment
• Punishment for mischief: Section 426 prescribes
punishment for mischief.

• It says that whoever commits mischief shall

punish with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three months, or
with fine, or with both.
 Different Between Theft and Mischief
• When a person commits mischief he only causes loss
to another but does not gain any thing himself.
• But in case of theft the offender make dishonest
gain at the expense of the victim.
• Theft is committed in respect of movable property
only whereas , mischief may be committed in
respect of both movable and property .
 Different Between Theft and Mischief

• In Sippattar Singh And Ors. vs Krishna AIR 1957

All 405 case, the accused had cut the sugar cane from
the field of the complainant, and taken away it.

• The Court held that the accused was not the guilty of
mischief, but he was guilty of theft, because no damage
was caused to remaining field of the sugar cane, and the
accused moved certain quantity of sugar cane from the
field with a dishonest intention to misappropriate it.
Criminal Trespass
s
 Trespass

• Trespass (Transgressio) ordinarily is a civil wrong

for which the defendant can sue for damages.

• Trespass signifies a passing over or beyond our

right, i.e., a transgression or wrongful act.

• The object behind making trespass a criminal

wrong seems to be to keep the trespasser away
from the property of private persons or public
property and thereby to enable them to enjoy their
property without any interruptions.
 Draft Penal Code (Note N.P. 168)
• Regarding the object of making criminal trespass an
offence:
“We have given the name of trespass to every usurpation,
however slight, of domination over property. We do not
propose to make trespass, as such an offence, except when it
is committed in order to commission of some offence
injurious to some person interested in the property on which
the trespass is committed, or for the purpose of causing
annoyance to such a person. Even then we propose to visit it
with light punishment, unless it be attended with
aggravating circumstances”.
• The essence of the offence of criminal trespass lies in an
unauthorized entry or an unlawfully retention of the lawful
entry with intention to commit an offence or to intimidate,
insult or annoy the person in possession of the property.
Criminal Trespass under section 441 of Indian Penal Code
• Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code states that:
“Whoever enters into or upon
property in the possession of another with intent
to commit an offence or
to intimidate, insult or annoy any person
in possession of such property, or,
• having lawfully entered into or upon such
property, unlawfully remains there with intent
thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such
person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said
to commit ‘criminal trespass’.”
 Ingredients Of Criminal Trespass
1. Entry into or upon property in the possession of
another;

2. If such entry is lawful, then unlawfully remaining

upon such property;

3. Such entry or unlawful remaining must be with

intent-
a) To commit an offence; or
b) To intimidate, insult or annoy the person in
possession of the property.
 ‘whoever enters’ means
• The words ‘whoever enters’ means that in order
to constitute an offence under Section 441, there
must be an actual personal entry, but not
constructive entry, upon property by the accused.

• The entry need not necessarily be by use of force.

It is sufficient if the entry is unauthorized and
against the will or without the consent of the
person in possession of the property.
 ‘Property’
• ‘Property’ in Section 441 means immovable corporeal
property, and not incorporeal property such as a right
of fishery or a right of ferry.
•
• Section 411 uses the term ‘property’ in a wide way to
cover both movable and immovable property. The
accused should enter into or upon property with the
intention stated in the provision, to constitute the
offence of criminal trespass.

• Hence, there can be criminal trespass to a motor car,

aeroplane, railway carriage or a boat.
 Possession means here
• The possession must be actual possession of some person
other than the alleged trespasser.

• The offence can only be committed against a person who is

in actual physical possession of the property in question.

• Section 441 contemplates actual physical possession to the

exclusion of all other persons and the object of the provision
is to protect possession and not ownership.
•
• It is not essential that the person who is in possession of the
property should be present in the property when the trespass
takes place.
 ‘intent’ means
• Entry into property of another with intention to commit
an offence or intimidate, insult or annoy the person is
the essence of the offence of criminal trespass.

• The word ‘intent’ implies ‘aim’ and connotes an ability

to carry on an offence with the dominant motive,
without which the action would not have been taken.

• In order to commit an offence under Section 441, it is

not necessary that the person concerned should actually
commit an offence, or intimidate or annoy or insult the
person in possession upon trespass.
 ‘intimidate’, ‘annoyance’, ‘Insult’
• The word ‘intimidate’ must be understood in its ordinary sense
‘to overawe, to put in fear, by a show of force or threats of
violence.

• The word ‘annoyance’ must be taken to mean annoyance that

would generally and reasonably affect an ordinary person, not
what would specially and exclusively annoy a particular short
tempered individual.

• ‘Insult’ means ‘speak or act in a way that hurts or is intended to

hurt a person’s feelings or dignity’.

• It is sufficient that he has the intention to do so.

• No overt act is required to complete the offence, though the
overt act may sometimes be part of intention.
 ‘remaining unlawfully after lawful entry’
• The second mode of criminal trespass is ‘remaining unlawfully after lawful
entry’. The entry of a person into or upon the property is lawful, but his
continuing presence there becomes unlawful. Not only should the continuing
presence become unlawful, but it should be with the intent to intimidate,
insult or annoy any such person or with intent to commit an offence.

• If a person enters on land to the possession of another in the exercise of a

bona fide claim of right but without any intention to intimidate, insult, or
annoy the person in possession, or to commit an offence, then although he
may have no right to the land, he cannot be convicted of criminal trespass,
because the entry was not made with any such intent as constitute the
offence.

• When a person enters lawfully and if his remaining is unlawful, but not with
the requisite intention to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy
the person in possession, then it will not amount to an offence under Section
441.
House-trespass under S.442 IPC
 Section 442 House-trespass
• Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into
or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a
human dwelling or any building used as a place for
worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is
said to commit “house-trespass”.

• Explanation.—The introduction of any part of the

criminal trespasser’s body is entering sufficient to
constitute house-trespass.
 Difference bet. S. 441 & 442
• The difference between criminal trespass as defined in Section 441 and
house-trespass, as defined under Section 442 is that the offence of criminal
trespass is committed when a person enters into or upon any ‘property’ of
any one with intent to commit an offence or to intimate or to insult or to
annoy him,

• while house trespass can only be used as a human dwelling or any place
used for worshipping or as a place for the custody of property. The offence
of house-trespass must have all the ingredients of a criminal trespass,
including the intention to commit an offence, annoy, intimidate or insult the
possessor of the property.

• In addition to that, the only other essential ingredient required is that the
property (building, tent or vessel) entered into or entered upon must be
used as a human dwelling or a place of worship or a place for the custody
of property.
 Meaning of word ‘building’

• Building is defined as a structure intended for affording some sort of

protection to the persons dwelling inside it or for the property placed
therein for custody.

• The mere surrounding of an open space or ground by a wall or fence of

any kind cannot be deemed to convert the open space itself into a building
and trespass thereon does not amount to house trespass.

• To consider a building used as human dwelling, building need not be used

as a place of permanent residence.

• Hence, school is a building used as human dwelling

• Similarly, a Railway waiting room is also a building used as a human

dwelling.
Meaning of lurking house trespass (S.443 of IPC)
 S. 443 IPC

• Whoever commits house-trespass having taken

precautions to conceal such house-trespass from
some person who has a right to exclude or eject
the trespasser from the building, tent or vessel
which is the subject of the trespass, is said to
commit “lurking house-trespass”.
 Meaning of lurking house-trespass:
• Lurking house-trespass is an aggravated form of house- trespass.

• Lurking house- trespass means that the accused took some active
means to conceal his presence.

• It requires the accused to have taken some steps to escape notice.

• The essential difference between house-trespass and lurking

house-trespass is that the person should take some active
precautions or effective steps to conceal his identity or presence
from the person who has a right to prevent that person from entry
or who has a right to throw him out upon entry.
 why “exclude or eject” are used

• These two words are used deliberately

• The collocation of the words “exclude or eject” is intended to

convey a sense more or less similar, but one word is intended
to supplement any defect discovered in the sense conveyed by
the other.

• Primarily, however, the word ‘exclude’ would suggest

unlawfulness of the initial entry, while the word ‘eject’ should
apply to the expulsion of a person whose previous possession
was not unlawful.

• A person having no right to exclude may acquire the right to

eject, as in the case of a lessee ejected on breach of condition.
S. 444 Lurking house trespass by night
 S.444 Lurking house-trespass by night.—

Whoever commits lurking house-trespass

after sunset and before sunrise,
is said to commit “lurking house-trespass by night”.
House-breaking (S. 445 of IPC)
 House-breaking S. 445
• A person is said to commit “house-breaking”
who commits house-trespass if he effects his
entrance into the house or any part of it
in any of the six ways hereinafter described;

• or if, being in the house or any part of it for the

purpose of committing an offence, or having
committed an offence therein, he quits the house or
any part of it in any of such six ways, that is to
say-
 Enters or Quits any of such six ways
• Firstly:- If he enters or quits through a passage made by himself, or by any abettor
of the house-trespass, in order to the committing of the house-trespass.
• Secondly:- If he enters or quits through any passage not intended by any person,
other than himself or an abettor of the offence, for human entrance, or through any
passage to which he has obtained access by scaling or climbing over any wall or
building,
• Thirdly:- If he enters or quits through any passage which he or any abettor of the
house-trespass has opened, in order to the committing of the house-trespass by any
means by which that passage was not intended by the occupier of the house to be
opened,
• Fourthly:- If he enters or quits by opening any lock in order to the committing of the
house-trespass, or in order to the quitting of the house after a house-trespass.
• Fifthly:- If he effects his entrance or departure by using criminal force or committing
an assault, or by threatening any person with assault.
• Sixthly:- If he enters or quits by any passage which he knows to have been fastened
against such entrance or departure, and to have been unfastened by himself or by an
abettor of the house-trespass.
Explanation:-Any out-house or building occupied with a house, and between which and
such house there is an immediate internal communication, is part of the house within
the meaning of this section.
 ‘house-breaking’
• The term ‘house-breaking’ implies a forcible entry
into a house
• ‘to break a house’ used to mean the removal or
setting aside with violence and a felonious intent
any part of a house or of the fastening provided to
secure it.
• Section 445 describes six ways in which the offence
of house-breaking may be committed.
• Clauses 1 to 3 deal with entry which is effected by
means of a passage which is not ordinary.
• Clauses 4 to 6 deal with entry which is effected by
force.
 term ‘house’ means
• Where a hole was made by burglars in the wall of a house but
their way was blocked by the presence of beams on the other
side of the wall, it would be considered that the offence
committed was one of attempt to commit house-breaking and
not actual house-breaking.

• The term ‘house’ in Section 445 has been used in the same
sense as a ‘building used as a human dwelling or any
building used as a place for worship or as a place for the
custody of property within the meaning of Section 442.

• The explanation extends the meaning of the term ‘house’ by

including therein any out-house or building if it is connected
therewith by an immediate internal communication.
Housebreaking by Night S.446 IPC
 Section 446:- House-breaking by night

• Whoever commits house-breaking after sunset and

before sunrise, is said to commit “house-breaking
by night”.
Case Laws
 Kishore Jain v. State of Delhi 2002 CriLJ 1154

• In Kishore Jain v. State of Delhi, the premises of the

petitioner were sealed by the officer of Municipal Corporation
in exercise of power envisaged under section 345-A, Delhi
Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.

• After sealing the de facto control over the property stood

transferred to the municipal corporation.

• The petitioner made unauthorized construction in the premises

after breaking the seal put upon that by the corporation
without seeking order of removal of seal. The Delhi High
Court held him guilty under section 441 of the Code even
though he himself was the owner of the property.
 Mathri vs. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 986

• In Mathri v State of Punjab , the accused along with

others, entered the property with warrants.

• However, at the time they entered the property, the

warrants had ceased to be executable in law.

• The Supreme Court held that since the accused only

entered with the intention of executing the warrant,
this act did not constitute the offence of criminal
trespass.
 Punjab National Bank Ltd v. All India Punjab National Bank
Employee’ Federation AIR 1960 SC 160

• In Punjab National Bank Ltd v All India Punjab National Bank Employee’
Federation , the employees went on a strike in which they occupied their
seats but refused to work or vacate the premises. The bank contended that
the employees’ entry was only lawful on the condition of them working.
They also contended that the employees had entered the property with the
intention of insulting and annoying their superior officers and hence it
amounted to criminal trespass.

• The Court held that even if the strikers had knowledge that their strike might
annoy their seniors, such knowledge cannot amount to intention. Thus, the
acts of the employees did not amount to criminal trespass.

• In order to constitute the offence of criminal trespass, it is not necessary that

the accused actually commits an offence or actually intimidates, annoys or
insults the person in possession of the property. Mere intention to do so will
amount to criminal trespass. This intention can be inferred from the
circumstances but it must be actual and not a probable one.
Maharashtra v Tanba Sadadhio Kumbi AIR 1964 Bom. 82
• In State of Maharashtra v Tanba Sadadhio Kumbi the
accused, the vice chairman of the school committee, entered
the school and beat up two boys who had a fight with his
nephew.

• On being reprimanded by the headmaster, the accused

abused and threatened him.

• The Court held that this would be covered by S. 441, IPC.

• If the accused enters the property lawfully but subsequently

remains on it unlawfully, it would amount to criminal
trespass if the above mentioned intention is present.
 .
No trespassing please

-----Thanks.
Forgery S.463 IPC
 Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code
 “Whoever makes any false documents or
 false electronic record or part of a document or
electronic record,
 with intent
to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any
person, or
to support any claim or title, or
to cause any person to part with property, or
to enter into any express or implied contract, or with
intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed,
commits forgery.”
 ELEMENTS OF FORGERY

The elements of forgery under Section 463 are:

1. The document or electronic record or the part of it must be false in fact;

2. It must have been made dishonestly or fraudulently within the meaning of
the words used in Section 464, IPC; and
3. The making of false document or electronic record should be with intent
to:

a) Cause danger or injury to:(i) the public, or (ii) to any person

b) Support any claim or title; or
c) Cause any person to part with property; or
d) Enter into any express or implied contract; or
e) Commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.
 term ‘fraud’
• The term ‘fraud’ in Section 463 implies an infringement of someone’s legal right
though not necessarily connected with deprivation of property.

• Intent to defraud implies (a) an intention to deceive and (b) such deception
involving the causing of legal injury.

• Unless there is an element of fraud, the making of a false document would not
amount to a forgery.

• It should be noted that intention to cause injury is not an essential ingredient of the
offence of forgery.
• As per Section 463, intention to cause damage or injury to the public or person is
only one of the five situations. The other situations being: (i) to support any claim
or title (ii) cause any person to part with property; (iii) enter into any implied or
express contract; or (iv) with intent to commit fraud.

• The first component, namely, intention to cause damage is intent complete in itself.
 Making a false document (Section 464 of IPC)

Section 464 of the Indian Penal Code provides that: “A person is said to make a
false document or false electronic record-

Firstly
-Who dishonestly or fraudulently-
(a) Makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b) Makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c) Affixes any digital signature on any electronic record;
(d) Makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of
the digital signature,
with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of
document, electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed,
executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom
or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed,
executed or affixed; or
 Secondly
Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or
fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise,
alters a document or an electronic record in
any material part thereof, after it has been
made, executed or affixed with digital
signature either by himself or by any other
persons, whether such person be living or dead
at the time of such alteration; or
 Thirdly
Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any
person to sign, seal, execute or alter a
document or an electronic record or to affix his
digital signature on any electronic record
knowing that such person by reason of
unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or
that by reason of deception practised upon
him, he does not know the contents of the
document or electronic record or the nature of
the alteration”
 Explanation-I

A man’s signature of his own name may amount to

forgery.

• Illustration-A signs his own name to a bill of

exchange, intending that it may be believed that the
bill was drawn by another person of the same name.
A has committed forgery.
 Explanation 2
The making of a false document in the name of
fictitious person, intending it to be believed that
the document was made by a real person, or in the
name of a deceased person, intending it to be
believed that the document was made by the
person in his lifetime, may amount to forgery.

• Illustration: A draws a bill of exchange upon a

fictitious person, and fraudulently accepts the bill
in the name of such fictitious person with intent to
negotiate it. A commits forgery.
 Explanation 3
• Explanation 3:-For the purposes of this
section, the expression “affixing digital
signature” shall have the meaning assigned to
it in clause (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 2
of the Information Technology Act, 2000.”
 false document

• According to Section 464, making a false document or false

electronic record means creating of a document or an
electronic record or part thereof, execution of the document
or the electronic record, or signing of the document or the
electronic record fraudulently or dishonestly.

• A false document is also said to be made when the signature,

seal or date is false.

• It covers also the cases when the document or electronic

record is signed by the accused.
 Ways in which a false document can be made:

1. By making, sealing, signing or executing a document or a part

thereof, or by making or transmitting any electronic record or
a part thereof, or by affixing any digital signature on any
electronic record.
2. By alteration of a document or an electronic record; or
3. By causing a person, who is innocent of the contents or nature
of the alteration done to a document or an electronic record, to
sign, seal or execute.
Some illustrations of making false documents are:
i) Alteration of birth of dates to deprive other eligible persons;
ii) Forged document comprehends creating a new document;
iii) Making documents through mechanical means;
iv) Additions and alterations to documents.
 Words ‘claim’ & ‘defraud’
• The word ‘claim’ is not intended to mean to a claim of property
only, it includes claim to the custody of children or wife or a
claim to be admitted as a student to any course of study or to any
examination.
• The offence of forgery requires two things, an intention to defraud
and the possibility of some person being defrauded, although
there may not be any person who could actually defrauded.
• The expression ‘defraud’ involves two elements, namely, deceit
and injury to the person deceived.
• ‘Injury’ is something other than economic loss, that is, deprivation
of property, whether movable or immovable, or of money, and it
will include a harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind,
reputation or such others. It is noneconomic or non-pecuniary
loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver will almost always
cause loss or detriment to the deceived.
 ‘makes’ means
• The word ‘makes’ means creates or brings into existence. Making of a
document does not mean writing out of the form of the instrument, but the
sealing or signing it as a deed or note.

• A false document does not mean the writing of any of words which in
themselves are innocent, but the affixing of seal or signature of some person
to the document, knowing that the seal or signature is not his and that that he
gave no authority to affix it.

• Falsity consists in the document, or part of it, being signed or sealed with the
name or seal of a person who did not in fact sign or seal it.

• Signing or sealing a document completes its execution.

• Putting a seal to genuine signature to a document which is invalid without a

seal is a forgery..
 Fraudulent Alteration or cancellation of document

• Clause second of Section 464 deals with fraudulent alteration. A

fraudulent alteration of a deed, whether it is a deed executed by
himself or by another, amounts to the alterations, for instance, as
are contemplated in illustrations (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g)
given in Section 464 which are also clear instances of forgeries.

• The five material elements common to all such cases are:-

i) Completion of the deed before its alteration;

ii) Its alteration;
iii) In a material part;
iv) The said alteration being made without lawful authority;
v) Dishonestly and fraudulently.
 Alteration means
• The alteration must be made after the deed has been completed, for before
a deed is executed, there may be nothing wrong to alter any portion or
clause.

• However, once a deed or document has been executed, if, it is altered at the
instance of the accused, so as to gain some benefit by the alteration for
himself or others, and which would affect the rights of the other party, then
it would certainly amount to a forgery by alteration.

• The alteration has to be of a material aspect of the deed or document. A

material alteration is one which alters or attempts to alter the character of
the instrument itself, which affects or may affect the contract which the
instrument contains or of which it furnished the evidence.

• Any alteration which does not affect the liability of the parties would be
deemed to be immaterial as not to wholly vitiate the deed.
 Procuring signature of person incompetent or not properly informed

• S.464 Clause 3- deals with the cases where the person

making the document is not supposed to know its contents
owing to unsoundness of mind or intoxication or deception.
 Cases
Noor Ahemad vs. Jagadish Chandra Sen
(AIR 1934 Cal. 839)

• Brief Facts: The accused tampered the electoral

rolls. Thus he caused injury to the public.
• Voting rights of some of the voters were affected.
• He was held guilty under this Section.
 Cases
• In L.K. Siddappa v. Lalithamma [1954
CrLJ 1235 Mysore)
• the accused printed marriage invitation cards
and distributed with an intention to defame the
complainant.
• The accused was convicted of the offence of
forgery under Section 463
.
 Cases
• In G.S. Bansal v. Delhi Administration [AIR
1963 SC 439]
• the accused encashed the post office national
saving certificates after making necessary
endorsements and signature of the deceased.
• He also attested them.
• It was held that the accused was guilty of the
offence of forgery under Section 463.
 BIGAMY (Section-494)
Marrying again during lifetime of
husband or wife:
 What is bigamy?
• Bigamy is the act of entering into a marriage with someone, while
still being legally married to another.
• In other words, it is a condition of having two spouses at the same
time; a man may have two wives or a woman may have two
husbands. Either way when this happens, the second marriage is
considered null and void and is therefore annulled.
• The person who knowingly enters into the second marriage, that
is, the bigamous marriage is guilty of the crime of bigamy. Most
often the act of bigamy takes place accidentally.
• For instance, if one thinks that their divorce has been finalized, but
in reality it isn’t and they go ahead with their second marriage,
then the second marriage is considered the bigamous marriage.
However, there are some cases where it is done intentionally so as
to acquire another’s property and wealth. The person accused of
this fraudulent scheme is then prosecuted for bigamy.
 Sec.494 of IPC says:
• Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case
in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place
during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• Exception.—This section does not extend to any person whose
marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void
by a Court of competent jurisdiction,
• nor to any person who contracts a marriage during the life of
a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife, at the time
of the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually
absent from such person for the space of seven years, and
shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive
within that time provided the person contracting such
subsequent marriage shall, before such marriage takes place,
inform the person with whom such marriage is contracted of
the real state of facts so far as the same are within his or her
knowledge.
 Ingredients-Section 494
Ingredients of offence of Bigamy-
For an offence of bigamy to have been committed
the following ingredients are required
(i) the accused must have contracted first marriage
(ii) he/she must have married again
(iii) the first marriage must be subsisting (that is no
divorce has taken place)
(iv) the first spouse must be living
 Exception
• In other words, this section is inapplicable to two
cases.
• First, it does not apply to a person whose marriage
with such husband or wife, as the case may be, has
been declared void by a competent court.
• Secondly, it does not apply to a person who marries
when the husband or the wife, as the case may be,
is alive but has been continually absent from such
person for at least seven years and has not been
heard of by him as being alive during that time.
 Note-
• This section does not apply to Mohammedan men.
• But it does apply to Mohammedan women.
• By virtue of section 17, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 it
does apply to all Hindus whose marriage has been
solemnized after the coming into existence of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
• It is applicable to Christians by virtue of Act XV of
1872,
• to Parsis by virtue of Act III of 1936, and to all
whose marriages have been solemnized under the
Special Marriage Act, 1954.
 Note-
• The mere admission of the second marriage by an
accused is not enough, it must be established that the
essential conditions of a valid marriage had been gone
through.
• Where the complainant produced oral evidence that
‘saptapadi’ and ‘kusundika’ (i.e., applying vermilon at
the place of parting of hair on the head of the bride)
had been gone through along with ‘homa’ in respect of
the first marriage, and certain documentary evidence in
the form of letters by the husband to his wife and by
the husband’s father to the wife’s mother were also
adduced, there could be no doubt as to the validity of
the first marriage.
 Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995 AIR 1531 SC)

In Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India (1995 AIR 1531 SC),

the Supreme Court held that:

•If a man after renouncing Hindu religion has

adopted Muslim religion and he without taking
divorce from his wife has married again, then this
marriage is not legal.
•He will be punished for committing bigamy under
section 494 IPC
 •C S. Nagalingam v. Sivagami, (2001) 7 SCC
487.
• To prove the offence of Bigamy, the prosecution
must prove that the second marriage was valid
Kashiram Rajaram Ahir And Ors. vs Sonvati W/O
Kashiram Ahir And Anr. 1992 (0) MPLJ 610 in
Kashiram v. Sonvati, the High Court observed that
previous marriage must be properly proved. If it is
not proved properly, the offence of bigamy could
not be established.
 Note
• It is obvious that to hold a person guilty under this section it
is necessary to prove that the previous marriage of the
accused was valid and subsisting.
• Naturally, in the event of the previous marriage being illegal
and thus non-existent, contracting another marriage would
not bring the accused within the purview of this section.
• This is clear from the words ‘whoever marries’ which means
whoever marries validly or whoever marries and whose
marriage is a valid one.
• If there is no valid marriage there is no marriage in the eye
of law. Where the essential conditions of a valid marriage
have not been fulfilled, such as ‘homa’ and ‘saptapadi’ in the
case of Hindus the second marriage is not a valid marriage,
and consequently the charge of bigamy against the accused
must fail.
Section 498A -Indian Penal Code
Domestic Violence
 Necessity for Section 498A
• During the 1980s, dowry deaths were steadily rising in India.
• With the increasing number of dowry deaths in India, need arose to address the
matter in an effective way.
• Organizations across the country pressurized and urged the government to provide
legislative protection to women against domestic violence and dowry.
• The objective was to allow the state to intervene rapidly and prevent the murders of
young girls who were unable to meet the dowry demands of their in-laws.
• With this object, the Government of India amended the Indian Penal Code, 1860
(IPC) by way of the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 and inserted a
new section 498 (A) under Chapter XX-A, Of Cruelty By Husband Or Relatives Of
Husband on 26th December, 1983.
• The offence of dowry death has been inserted in the IPC as Section 304-B by the
Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1986. Section 304- B has been inserted with a
view to curb the growing atrocities against women, where thousands of young
women were done to death due to failure to pay up the dowry demanded.
• The amendment focuses not only on dowry deaths but also cases of cruelty to
married women by their in-laws.
• Section 498 (A) IPC is the only section in the IPC that recognizes domestic violence
against women as a crime.
 Section 498A
Sec. 498A- Husband or relative of husband of a woman
subjecting her to cruelty–Whoever, being the husband or the
relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to
cruelty shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to
fine.
Explanation.-For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means-
(a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to
drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or
danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of
woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a
view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any
unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is
on account of failure by her or any person related to her to
meet such demand.”
 The basic essentials to attract this section are:
a) The woman must be married
b) She must be subjected to cruelty or harassment; and
c) Such cruelty or harassment must have been shown either by
husband of the woman or by the relative of her husband

A bare glance of the section shows that the word ‘cruelty’ covers
any or all of the following elements:

(i) Any ‘willful’ conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to

drive the woman to commit suicide; or
(ii) any ‘willful’ conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to
the woman; or
(iii) any ‘willful’ act which is likely to cause danger to life, limb
or health whether physical or mental of the woman
 Cruelty & Dowry Death
• It was held in ‘Kaliyaperumal vs. State of Tamil Nadu
2004 (9) SCC 157’, that cruelty is a common essential in
offences under both the sections 304B and 498A of IPC.
• The two sections are not mutually inclusive but both are
distinct offences and persons acquitted under section 304B
for the offence of dowry death can be convicted for an
offence under sec.498A of IPC.
• The meaning of cruelty is given in explanation to section
498A. Section 304B does not contain its meaning but the
meaning of cruelty or harassment as given in section 498-
A applies in section 304-B as well.
• Under section 498-A of IPC cruelty by itself amounts to
an offence whereas under section 304-B the offence is of
dowry death and the death must have occurred during the
course of seven years of marriage. But no such period is
mentioned in section 498-A.
Kinds of cruelty covered under this section
• In the case of ‘Inder Raj Malik vs. Sunita Malik 1986 (92) CRLJ 1510 , it
was held that the word ‘cruelty’ is defined in the explanation which inter alia
says that harassment of a woman with a view to coerce her or any related
persons to meet any unlawful demand for any property or any valuable
security is cruelty.
• Kinds of cruelty covered under this section includes following:-
(a) Cruelty by vexatious litigation
(b) Cruelty by deprivation and wasteful habits
(c) Cruelty by persistent demand
(d) Cruelty by extra-marital relations
(e) Harassment for non-dowry demand
(f) Cruelty by non-acceptance of baby girl
(g) Cruelty by false attacks on chastity
(h) Taking away children

• The presumption of cruelty within the meaning of section 113-A, Evidence

Act,1872 also arose making the husband guilty of abetment of suicide within
the meaning of section 306 where the husband had illicit relationship with
another woman and used to beat his wife making it a persistent cruelty
within the meaning of Explanation (a) of section 498-A.
 CRIMINALITY ATTACHED TO WORD
Also, criminality attached ‘HARASSMENT’
to word ‘harassment’ is free of (even without)
‘cruelty’ and punishable in the following instances:
(i) Where the harassment of the woman is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or
valuable security or
(ii) Where the harassment is on account of failure by her or any persons related
to her to meet such demand

It is evident that neither every cruelty nor harassment has criminal culpability
for the purposes of Section 498-A.

So, we can see that, this law deals with four types of cruelty:
(i) Any conduct that is likely to drive a woman to suicide,
(ii) Any conduct which is likely to cause grave injury to the life, limb or health
of the woman,
(iii)Harassment with the purpose of forcing the woman or her relatives to give
some property, or
(iv)Harassment because the woman or her relatives are either unable to yield to
the demand for more money or do not give some share of the property.
 Working of Section 498A- Developments
The Supreme Court in Suvetha v. State By Insp.Of Police & Anr. [2009] INSC 981 (6
May 2009) held that: Clause (a) deals with aggravated forms of cruelty which
cause grave injury.
Firstly, wilful conduct of such a grave nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide falls within the ambit of clause (a).
The second limb of clause (a) lays down that willful conduct which causes grave injury
or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman is to be
regarded as ‘cruelty’.

Dowry related harassment is within clause (b) of the Explanation.

When the FIR coupled with the statement of the victim woman discloses cruelty of
grave nature falling within clause (a), the police officer has to act swiftly and
promptly especially if there is evidence of physical violence. In the first instance,
proper medical aid and the assistance of counsellors shall be provided to the
aggrieved woman and the process of investigation should start without any loss of
time. A punishment extending to 3 years and fine has been prescribed.
The expression ‘cruelty’ has been defined in wide terms so as to include inflicting
physical or mental harm to the body or health of the woman and indulging in acts of
harassment with a view to coerce her or her relations to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security. Harassment for dowry falls within the sweep
of latter limb of the section. Creating a situation driving the woman to commit
suicide is also one of the ingredients of ‘cruelty’
 mental cruelty

• In the case of Ramesh Dalaji Godad v. Sate of

Gujrat 2003 CriLJ 2445 the Supreme Court held
that to prove that cruelty was caused under
Explanation (a) of S.498A IPC it is not important to
show or put forth that the woman was beaten up-
abusing her verbally, denying her conjugal rights or
even not speaking to her properly would fall into the
ambit of mental cruelty.
 BASIC DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO SECTION I.E.
SECTION 306 AND SECTION 498A
• The Supreme Court in Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India And Ors
19 July, 2005 said that: The basic difference between the two Section i.e.
Section 306 and Section 498A is that of intention.
• Under the latter, Cruelty committed by the husband or his relations drag the
women concerned to commit suicide, while under the former provision
suicide is abetted and intended. Consequences of cruelty which are likely to
drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,
limb or health, whether mental or physical of the woman is required to be
established in order to bring home the application of Section 498A IPC.
Cruelty has been defined in the explanation for the purpose of Section 498A.
• It is to be noted that Sections 304-B and 498A, IPC cannot be held to be
mutually inclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is
true that cruelty is a common essential to both the Sections and that has to be
proved.
• The explanation to Section 498A gives the meaning of `cruelty’. In Section
304- B there is no such explanation about the meaning of `cruelty’. But
having regard to common background to these offences it has to be taken
that the meaning of `cruelty’ or `harassment’ is the same as prescribed in the
Explanation to Section 498A under which `cruelty’ by itself amounts to an
offence.
 Misuse of Sec. 498 A
• The section was enacted with the aim to protect
women from dowry harassment and domestic
violence. However, more recently, its misuse has
become an everyday affair.
• The Supreme Court, hence, in the landmark case
of Sushil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India (2005
(6) SC 266) condemned this section as ‘Legal
Terrorism’. Since cruelty is a ground for divorce
under section 13 (1) (ia) of Hindu marriage Act,
1955. Wives often use this provision in order to
threaten husbands.
 Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand,AIR 2010 SC 3363
• In another case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2010
SC 3363 the Supreme Court observed that “serious relook of the
entire provision is warranted by the Legislature. It is a matter of
common knowledge that exaggerated versions of the incident are
reflected in a large number of complaints. The tendency of over-
implication is also reflected in a very large number of cases”.
• Even an innocent person accused under S.498A IPC, does not get
the chance of getting quick justice owing to the offence being non-
bailable and cognizable. We well know that ‘justice delayed is
justice denied’, hence came the 243rd report of Law commission on
section 498A of IPC laying down various changes ought to be
made in order to remove the flaws of this section and its misuse.
• A strict law in this regard needs to be passed by the parliament in
order to punish those who act malafidely and tries to misguide the
system of law. Law commission in its 243rd report opined
that the Section along with its alliedCr.PC provisions shall no
t act as an instrument of oppression and counter-harassment.
 Latest Guidelines of SC
Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr (2014) 8 SCC 273
• It was held that there will be no Automatic Arrest in 498-A Cases,
SC Issues Strict guidelines to Police and Magistrates, Non
Compliance will Attract Disciplinary & Contempt Proceedings
• Arnesh Kumar was arrested under Section 4 of the Dowry
Prohibition Act, 1961 after his wife alleged that he demanded
dowry from her. Denying the allegations, Kumamr requested
anticipatory bail, but his request was denied. This led him to file a
Special Leave Petition, which was granted by the court.
• In order to ensure that an arrest or detention is necessary and legal,
the police and the Magistrate are required to follow certain
protocol. The protocol is often ignored, as was the case here. In this
judgment, the court outlined certain measures and internal reforms
to curb these kinds of unnecessary and illegal arrests and
detentions.
Defamation
 Defamation S.499
• Every man is entitled to have his reputation.

• Reputation is the state of being held in high esteem and honor or the
general estimation that the public has for a person.

• Reputation depends on opinion, and opinion is the main basis of

communication of thoughts and Information amongst humans.

• In simpler words, reputation is nothing but enjoyment of good opinion on

the part of others. So, the right to have reputation involves right to have
reputation inviolate or intact.

• There is a need to balance the public right to free speech & expression
with the private right to reputation.

• Legislation about defamation is an attempt to do the same.

 Defamation & its definition:

• The word defamation is driven from Latin word ‘Diffamare’.

• Semantics or Etymology of the Latin word ‘Diffamare’ provides

that it means 'Spreading evil report about someone'.

• Thus, defamation is nothing but causing damage to reputation

of another.

• Thus the question of defamation is primarily linked up with

one’s reputation.
 Section 499
• defines defamation as –
• Whoever-
by words either spoken or intended to be read, or
by signs, or
by visible representations,
• makes or publishes any imputation
• concerning any person
• intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe
that such imputation will harm,
• the reputation of such person, is said,
• except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that
person.
 Essentials-499
• Under Criminal Law three essentials are to be proved
to establish wrong of Defamation –

• There should be existence/publication of an imputation

made by a person

• Such imputation may be words spoken or written signs,

or visible representation

• It should be made to injure or having knowledge to

believe that it will injure reputation of a person.
 Explanations
Explanation 1- It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a
deceased person, if the imputation would harm the reputation of that
person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his family or
other near relatives.

Explanation 2- It may amount to defamation to make an imputation

concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3- An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed

ironically, may amount to defamation.

Explanation 4- No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that

imputation directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the
moral or intellectual character of that person, or lowers the character of
that person in respect of his caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of
that person, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is in a
loath some state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.
 Explanation-II
Vishwa Nath vs Shambhu Nath Pandeya 1995 CriLJ 277

• it was held that where in an article of a magazine imputations

were made against a certain community in general and not any
particular group,

• and nor were the said imputations related to the complainant,

and the said community was also not found to be a definite
identifiable body of people,

• continuance of the case after the death of the complainant

under the representation of his advocate would not be proper.
 Explanation 3
MKT Subramanium v. State 1970 Mad.

• Where the accused author through imaginary conversation

between two parliamentarians of a political party brought
out, through satirical and ironical expressions, confessions
out of them about the misdeeds of the ministers belonging
to that political party
• it was held to be defamation,
• because, even though the whole situation was imaginary,
the imputation against the chief minister was very real and
intended to harm the reputation of the complainant who
had been shown to have amassed wealth by cheating the
public and abusing political power.
 Explanation 4

• Mere vulgar abuse does not amount to defamation.

• Where, for instance, a woman had uttered the word ‘chhinal’ against
another woman meaning thereby that she was a woman of easy virtue, no
case was held to be maintainable as the use of such kind of a language in
villages by women fighting with one another is not uncommon.

• But describing as being the keep of a named man is obviously defamatory.

• Or, imputing a woman with having paramours wherever she goes amounts
to defamation.

• Where a photograph was published showing certain persons as soldiers of a

goonda war, it was held to be defamatory.
 Exceptions:
There are ten exception under which a person can escape his liability from an action of
Defamation:
1. True Imputation made / published for the public good

2. Public conduct of public servants

3. Public Question of a Person

4. Publication of true reports of proceedings of Courts

5. Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned

6. Merits of public performance

7. Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority

8. Accusation preferred in good faith to authorized person

9. Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests

10. Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good
 1. True Imputation made / published for the public good

• It is not defamation to impute anything which is

true concerning any person

• if it be for the public good that the imputation

should be made or published.

• Whether or not it is for the public good is a

question of fact.
 Exception 1-instances
• For instance the competent authority of a bank
suspended a branch manager on the ground of
gross misconduct
• all his powers were withdrawn
• the bank management forewarned the public by
issuing a public notice to this effect in newspapers
with a view to protect the interest of the general
public
• it could not amount to defamation in view of
exception 1 to section 499 of the Code.
 2. Public conduct of public servants

• It is not defamation to express in a good faith

• any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of
a public servant
• in the discharge of his public functions,
• or respecting his character, so far as his
character appears in that conduct and no
further.
 Sasikumar B. Menon vs S. Vijayan And Anr 1998 CriLJ 3973

• In this case, a news was broadcasted about

Kerala Police.

• Kerala Police complaint against it u/s 499,500.

• the Kerala High Court held that where the

allegation in the complaint was that Kerala Police
had been defamed, the complaint is not
maintainable as the Kerala Police is not a definite
and determinable body and the complainant, a
member of the Kerala Police, is not a person
affected by the alleged defamatory statement.
Jawaharlal Darda v. Manoharrao Ganpatrao Kapsikar(1998) 4 SCC 112

• In this case a minister when he was questioned about

misappropriation of government funds.

• He replied that preliminary inquiry by the government disclosed

that some misappropriation had taken place and he stated the
names of persons involved including the complainant.

• The accused published in his newspaper an accurate and true

report of these proceedings in good faith.

• The Supreme Court ruled that the offence of defamation was not
made out and the accused had not intended to harm the
reputation of the complainant
 3. Public Question of a Person
• Conduct of any person touching any public question

• It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion

whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any
public question, and respecting his character, so far as his
character appears in that conduct, and no further

Illustrations:
• It is not defamation by A to express in good faith any opinion
whatever respecting Z’s conduct in petitioning Government
on a public question
• in presiding or attending a meeting
• in forming or joining any society which invites the public
support
 Instances of Exception 3
• Suppose the death of a married woman gave rise to much
suspicion and rumors and the public was keen to know as to
whether her husband and some others including some family
members were involved in it or not

• a news item to this effect was published in the newspaper of

the accused which brought the appellant within the area of
suspicion

• the whole matter having become a public question in the

town, the accused was entitled to the benefit of the third
exception.
 4. Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts-

• It is not defamation to publish substantially true report

of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result
of any such proceedings.
• It's essential that it be just a report and no further
expression of statements on conduct of persons or
proceedings and further it must be substantially true.
• Explanation:-
• A Justice of the Peace or other officer holding an
enquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court
of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above
section.
 5. Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of
witnesses and others concerned-
• It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever
respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided
by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party,
witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such
person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Illustrations:
• a) A says – “I think Z’s evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must
be stupid or dishonest”. A is within this exception if he says this in good
faith, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses respects Z’s character as
it appears in Z’s conduct as a witness, and no further.

• b) But if A says – “I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because I

know him to be a man without veracity”. A is not within this exception,
inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z’s character, is an opinion
not founded on Z’s conduct as a witness.
 6. Merits of public performance-
• It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion
respecting the merits of any performance which its author
has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting
the character of the author so far as his character appears in
such performance, and no further

• A public performance can be work like a book, drama, movie

etc, and statement made should be an opinion and that too
expressed in good faith

• Explanation:-A performance may be submitted to the

judgment of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the
author which imply such submission to the judgment of the
public.
 Illustrations
• A person who publishes a book submits that book
to the judgment of the public.

• A person who makes a speech in public submits

that speech to the judgment of the public.

• An actor or singer who appears on a public stage

submits his acting or singing to the judgment of the
public.
 7.Censure passed in good faith by person
having lawful authority-
• It is not defamation in a person having over another
any authority, either conferred by law or arising out
of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in
good faith any censure on the conduct of that other
in matters to which such lawful authority relates.
• Censure cannot be considered to be defamation if
it's passed in course of exercising authority like the
authority of a father over son, a teacher's over
student.
 Illustration:
• A Judge censuring in good faith the conduct of a witness, or
• of an officer of the Court; a head of a department censuring
in good faith those who are under his orders
• a parent censuring in good faith a child in the presence of
other children ;
• a schoolmaster, whose authority is derived from a parent,
censuring in good faith a pupil in the presence of other pupils;
• a master censuring a servant in good faith for remissness in
service
• a banker censuring in good faith the cashier of his bank for
the conduct of such cashier as such cashier- are within this
exception.
8. Accusation preferred in good faith to authorized person-

• It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an

accusation against any person to any of those who have
lawful authority over that person with respect to the
subject-matter of accusation.
• The accusation should be made in good faith and that
too within extent of lawful authority over the other
person.
• Illustration: If A in good faith accuses Z before a
Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct
of Z, a servant, to Z’s master; if A in good faith
complains of the conduct of Z, child to Z’s father-A is
within this exception.
P.M. Kathiresan vs Shanmugham, Retired Captain
1995 CriLJ 2508

• In P. M. Kathiresan v. Shanmugham a complaint

allegedly having defamatory remarks filed by the
accused before the Superintendent of Police to
take necessary action against the respondents
resulted into conviction.
• It was held that the case squarely comes under
exception 8 of section 499, and the proceedings
were quashed.
9. Imputation made in good faith by person for protection
of his or other's interests-
• It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another
provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of
the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the
public good.
• Though it is a vague exception but the Imputation should be made in good
faith and for interest of own or some other person concerned.

Illustrations:
• a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business- “Sell nothing to Z
unless he pays you ready money, for I have no opinion of his honesty.” A is
within the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for
the protection of his own interests.
• b) A, a Magistrate, in making a report of his own superior officer, casts an
imputation on the character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good
faith, and for the public good, A is within the exception.
 Vedurumudi Rama Rao vs Chennuri Venkat Rao And Anr.
1997 CrLJ 3851
• In V. Rama Rao v. C. Venkat Rao, the accused who was the Regional
Manager of a Bank issued a confidential circular to the Branch
Managers of his region to the effect that they should be vigilant
while dealing with the complainant and others mentioned therein
in their business transactions.

• The circular was issued in his official capacity, in public interest and
as per instructions of the Central and Zonal Office.

• The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the case would be
covered by exception 9 to section 499 and that truth of imputation
need not be proved by the accused while claiming privilege under
exception 9 and so even if the allegations made in the complaint
are true no offence under section 500 is made out against the
complainant.
 10. Caution intended for good of person to whom
conveyed or for public good-

• It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good

faith, to one person against another, provided that
such caution be intended for the good of the
person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person
in whom that person is interested, or for the public
good
• It is generally a warning to someone for protection
of his/public good about another person’s
character in good faith.
 K.V. Ramesh And Ors. vs H.C. Ramesh2001 CriLJ 3556
• In K. V. Ramesh v. H. C. Ramesh, a newspaper published extracts from a
book written about a former Prime Minister of India alleging corruption by
him. The extracts also contained imputations against his other family
members including sons, daughter and wife.

• The Karnataka High Court observed that sons could thus be said to be
persons aggrieved and so complaint filed by a son cannot be quashed.

• The editor of the newspaper is liable for prosecution and his plea that he
was merely a publisher and not an author of the matter is not tenable.
•
• The court held that application for quashing of proceedings on the ground
that only the editor was responsible for the said publication cannot be
allowed.

• Publication of extracts of the book in the newspaper gives a fresh cause of

action for prosecution against the publisher of the newspaper.
PROVOCATION & INSULT
S. 504 & S. 509
 PROVOCATION AND INSULT- S. 504 AND S. 509
The Indian Penal Code contains two provisions relating to insults aimed at
people other than public servants. These are S. 504, which deals with
provocation of offences, and S. 509, which defines a specific crime against
women, and deals with insults to the modesty of women.

SECTION 504 of the IPC reads: Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives
provocation to any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that such
provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or to commit any
other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

The purpose of this section is to punish those who intentionally use insulting
language, with the object of provoking a breach of the peace.

The section has three essential ingredients-

1. The offender must intentionally insult the complainant.
2. The insult must be such as to provoke the complainant.
3. The offender must intend, or know it to be likely, that this provocation will
cause the complainant to break the public peace, or commit any other
offence.
 Interpretation of S. 504
1. ‘Intentional Insult’
• The first ingredient of the offence is that there must be
an ‘intentional insult’.
• The insult referred to in the section need not be in the
form of spoken words-
a. it may be written, or
b. it may arise from the conduct and actions of the
accused.
• However, irrespective of its form, not every kind of
abusive language can be classed as an ‘intentional
insult’. Insult must be provocative.
 2. Insult must be provocative
• The second essential ingredient of S. 504 is that the insult
must be provocative- it must be “likely to incite the person
insulted to commit a breach of the peace” There is a
requirement that the intentional insult should be “such as to
give provocation to the person insulted, and the provocation
given should be of the nature as would cause the person to
break the public peace or commit any other offence”
• In Sisir Kumar Roy v. Udayanath Malik AIR 1959 Ori 155, a
graduate student abused his companion using words like
‘Chhokara’ and ‘Badmash’, during a dispute between the two
over a criminal case between them. It was held that the
words, in the context of the quarrel, were not provocative,
and unlikely to cause a breach of the public peace.
• Therefore, to satisfy the second ingredient, the complainant
must show “that the abusive language was such as would
ordinarily provoke the man or woman of his or her position
to commit a breach of the peace.
 3. Intention to Provoke
• The third requirement under S. 504 is that the accused must either intend
to provoke a breach of peace, or some other offence, or must know that his
insult is likely to have this result. A “hurling of mere insulting words does
not satisfy the ingredients of the offence under Section 504 of IPC.”
• Therefore, it is immaterial whether the complainant was actually provoked
or not, if the mental element required by the section is proved.
• In Muhammad Sabed Ali v. Thulesver Borah AIR 1955 Assam 211, the facts
were that the complainant had been asked by a constable to take certain
witnesses in a murder case to a neighbouring village, as the Inspector of
Police was coming to investigate. The complainant was unable to do so, as
the witnesses were too frightened to go. When the Inspector came, he
abused the complainant and called him a dog. Although the complainant
did not react by breaking the peace, it was held that his reaction was
irrelevant to the question of the Inspector’s guilt under S. 504. The Orissa
High Court has held that “the defence (sic) of intentional insult punishable
under S. 504 derives its criminality from the fact that it is intentional and
gives provocation which is likely to lead to retaliation. It is the likelihood of
the complainant’s reaction to the insult leading to breach of the public
peace and not the complainant’s actual reaction which is material.”
• In gauging whether the requisite mental element was present in the
offender, the Court considers the actual words used, or their gist, along with
the circumstances of the case.
 Section-509
INSULTING THE MODESTY OF A WOMAN
Also called
Eve Teasing Section
 SECTION 509 –
• This section says that- Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of
any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or
exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be
heard, of that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such
woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be
punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend
to one year, or with fine, or with both.
• This section is referred as the Eve Teasing Section. The object of
the section is to protect the modesty and chastity of a woman.

• The essential elements of the section are:

i. Accused uttered any word, made any sound or made a gesture

or exhibits any object or intrude the privacy.
ii. Accused intended that words uttered, sound made or gesture
shown or object exhibited seen or heard by the woman.
iii. It has to be directed towards a woman or group of women
 Interpretation of S. 509
1. Intention to insult the modesty of a woman

• The first requirement under the section is an intention, on the part of the
accused, to insult the modesty of a woman.
• In the case of State of Punjab v. Major Singh MANU/SC/0295/1966, the
Supreme Court went into the question of what ‘modesty’ means. The
accused had caused injuries to the vagina of a seven and a half month old
female child, and was prosecuted under S. 354 of the IPC. The trial court
held that the offence under the section had not been committed as an
infant child was not possessed of a sense of modesty. On appeal to the High
Court, this verdict was upheld, by a majority of two judges to one.
• The matter reached the Supreme Court, on appeal by the State. By a
majority of two to one, the Court reversed the trial court and High Court
verdict, and held that the accused had committed the offence defined in S.
354. SC held that “the essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex…Young or
old, intelligent or imbecile, awake or sleeping, the woman possesses a
modesty capable of being outraged”. This interpretation of ‘modesty’, which
leads to the conclusion that the “modesty of a woman…has very little to do
with the physique of the woman”
 Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill
• Supreme Court in Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill AIR 1996 SC
309 held that “if intention or knowledge is one of the
ingredients of the offence, it has got to be proved like other
ingredients for convicting a person, But, it is also equally true
that those ingredients being states of mind may not be
proved by direct evidence and may have to be inferred from
the attending circumstances of a given case
• In Rupan Deol Bajaj’s Case , it was held that to establish
intention, the question that requires answering is “Is the
action of the offender such as could be perceived as one
which is capable of shocking the sense of decency of a
woman”. In the case before the Supreme Court, the accused
was a high-ranking police officer who had slapped the
complainant on her buttocks at a party, in the presence of
other ladies and guests. The Court held that, given the facts
of the case, the accused must be inferred to have had the
requisite intention under both S. 354, and S. 509.
 2. The Manner of Insult
• The manner of insult covered in the section extends to words, sounds,
gestures, the exhibition of objects and the intrusion upon the woman’s
privacy.
• Of these, the two types of insult that will be considered here are the
exhibition of objects, and the intrusion upon privacy.
• The words ‘exhibits any object’ do not imply that the object must be
displayed to the complainant, in the presence of the accused.
• The meaning of this phrase was gone into by the Bombay High Court in
Emperor v. Tarak Das Gupta AIR 1926 Bom 159. The accused had been
convicted by the trial court under S. 509 for sending a letter containing
indecent overtures to an English nurse. On appeal to the High Court, he
pleaded that his act did not come under the words ‘exhibits any object’. The
Court rejected this argument, and held that just because the accused had
not personally shown the nurse the letter did not mean he had not
exhibited it to her, also held that, while “the word ‘exhibit’ does ordinarily
express the idea of actually showing a thing to a person…such showing
need not be immediate…a thing can be exposed or exhibited to a person,
although at first sight it may be wrapped in something which prevents that
person from actually seeing the object contained in the wrapper.
 2013 Amendment in Sec. 509

• Recently the criminal law (amendment) Act, 2013

was passed in which section 509 of the Penal Code,
for the words “shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one
year, or with fine, or with both”, the words “shall be
punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years and shall also be
liable to fine” shall be substituted.
Be A Gentleman Because-
Otherwise
 CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION- S. 503
• The offence of criminal intimidation is defined in S. 503, and
the punishment for its commission is provided in S. 506, of the
IPC. Furthermore, S. 507 acts as a corollary for S. 506, by
providing for an additional punishment when the person
committing criminal intimidation does so via an anonymous
communication, or otherwise conceals his identity. This is in
view of the greater alarm caused by such a communication.
• Section 503 reads: Criminal Intimidation– Whoever threatens
another with any injury to his person, reputation or property,
or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person
is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to
cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound
to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally
entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such
threat, commits criminal intimidation.
 This definition has two parts-
• “The first part refers to the act of threatening
another with injury to his person, reputation or
property or to the person or reputation of anyone
in whom that person is interested;
• the second part refers to the intent with which the
threatening is done and it is of two categories:
i. one is intent to cause alarm to the person
threatened, and
ii. the second is to cause that person to do any act
which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to
do any act which that person is legally entitled to
do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such
threat.”
This implies that there are two essential ingredients
to the section.
This implies that there are two essential ingredients to
the section.
There must be a threat of injury to a person, either
i) To his person, reputation or property; or
ii)To the person, reputation or property of anyone in
whom that person is interested.
The threat must be made with the intent
i) To cause alarm to that person; or
ii) To cause that person to do an act which he is not
legally bound to do or
iii) To cause that person to omit to do any act which he
is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat.
 Interpretation of S. 503
1. Targetting of the Threat-

• As implied by the words ‘whoever threatens another’, the section requires

that a threat, in order to constitute criminal intimidation, must be
communicated by one party to another. This is also necessary given that the
basis of the offence is the effect of the threat on the mind of the person
threatened, which presupposes that “it must be either made to him by the
person threatening or communicated to him in some way. Communication
of the threat need not be direct, and in the presence of the complainant- it
is sufficient even if addressed to a third party, so long as it is intended to
reach the victim.
• This was the case in Romesh Chandra v. State AIR 1960 SC 154, where the
accused had sent letters to a person X, threatening to make public nude
photographs of his daughter, and thereby injure the reputations of both of
them, unless he was paid ‘hush money’. He was charged and found guilty of
criminal intimidation against both X and his daughter, although the threat
had been directly communicated only to X.
• In addition, the threat made need not be targeted at any one person in
particular. The offence under this section is made out if the threat is
addressed to a class or group of persons. However, it must be aimed at a
“defined and ascertained body of individuals”
 Targetting of the Threat-
• In Re A.K. Gopalan AIR 1949 Mad 233, at 234, the accused delivered a
speech at a cinema shed, wherein he made several vulgar comments,
strongly critical of the police force. His defence was that these comments
pertained to the police force in general, and were not threats towards any
particular group. This argument was not accepted, and the Court convicted
him of criminal intimidation, holding that he had intended to frighten by
threats members of the police force of Malabar, and especially those
stationed at Badagara, where he had made the speech.
• In a case before the Bombay High Court Anuradha R. Kshirsagar v. State of
Maharashtra 1991 CRI L.J. 410. the facts were that a meeting of lady
teachers was interrupted by the accused shouting that the teachers should
leave the hall, and that they should be caught by the hair, kicked on the
waist, and pulled out. To the charge of criminal intimidation, the defence he
adopted was that these words were general, and not targeted at a specific
individual or group. The Court struck down this argument, holding that the
threats had been addressed to all the ladies in the hall.
• To conclude, the section envisages that the threat be targeted at either a
particular person, or a definite group of persons, and that it be
communicated, either directly or indirectly, to such person or group.
2. Injury to person, reputation or property
i) ‘Injury’

• The section requires that the threat be of injury to person, reputation or

property. The term ‘injury’ is defined in S. 44 of the IPC as denoting “any
harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or
property”
• Therefore, to attract liability under S. 503, the harm threatened must be
illegal. In Priyanath Gupta v. Lal Jhi Chowkidar AIR 1923 Cal 590., the
President of a self-constituted Arbitration Court served a notice to the
complainant requesting him to be present at a certain time and place for
the settlement of a claim, and stating that if he did not attend, the suit
would be decreed ex parte. It was held that the threat of decree so made
was covered by the section, since “by no legal process or means could [the
Arbitration Court] make or give effect to such a decree”
• This point was also upheld in Jowahir Pattak v. Parbhoo Ahir (1902) 30 Cal
418, where the accused had threatened to ruin the complainant by filing
cases against him. The Court reversed his conviction on the grounds that
although a threat to file false cases would amount to a threat of illegal
harm, it was not clear whether by ‘cases’, the accused meant ‘false cases’.
 ii) Person, Reputation, Property
• As laid down in the section, the threat in the offence of criminal intimidation must be
directed against ‘person, reputation or property’. These terms have not been precisely
defined by the Courts, but their meaning can be gauged through the following examples.
• In Muhammad Ahmad Khan v. Emperor AIR 1936 All 171a constable served a notice on the
accused and asked him to make an endorsement at the back of the notice, acknowledging its
receipt. The accused proceeded to write something on the back of the notice, and when the
constable told him that nothing but a signature in acknowledgement was to be written, he
reacted by throwing the notice at the constable, and shouting “Go away, otherwise I will
break your hands and feet.” This was held to be an offence under S. 503, as it involved a
threat to the person of the officer.
• The case of Romesh Chandra v. State AIR 1960 SC 154, mentioned earlier, is a clear instance
of threat to reputation. ‘Reputation’ can therefore be understood as “credit, honour,
character, good name”; it is the “estimation in which one is held…that by which we are
known… the total sum of how we are seen by others.
• As to ‘property’, the Supreme Court in R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Admn. AIR 1962 SC 1821 opined
that “whether the offence defined in a particular section of the Indian Penal Code can be
committed in respect of any particular kind of property will depend, not on the
interpretation of the word ‘property’ but on the fact whether that particular kind of
property can be subject to the act covered in that section…It is not therefore necessary to
consider in detail what types of property will be included in the various sections of the IPC.
• In Raghubar Dayal Misra and another v. Emperor AIR 1931 All 263, losses caused to a
business were regarded as harm to ‘property’. Therefore, it can at least be concluded that a
threat of injury to the material possessions or to the economic interests of a person, is a
threat to ‘property’.
 3.Threats to persons in whom target is interested
• According to S. 503, a threat of injury to the person or reputation of
anyone in whom the target of the threat is interested can amount to
criminal intimidation, provided that the rest of the ingredients are
satisfied. This portion of the definition excludes ‘property’, so a threat
to the property of a third party is not within the purview of the
section. A threat to the reputation of a deceased person is specifically
included in the section, under the Explanation, provided that the
deceased be someone in whom the target of the threat is interested.

• In Q.E. v. Mangesh Jivaji (1887) I.L.R. 11 Bom 377, an ex-clerk of the

Forest Department sent a petition to the Revenue Commissioner,
purportedly written by the inhabitants of certain villages, threatening
to kill a Forest Officer unless he was transferred to another area. It
was held that this was not an offence under S. 503, as the Revenue
Commissioner had neither personal nor official interest in the Forest
Officer.

• A threat of suicide is also not within the section, unless the target of
the threat is interested in the person making it.
 4. Intention of the Offender
• Another essential ingredient of the section is that the threat must be made
with intent, either to cause alarm, or to cause the victim to do an act which
he is not legally bound to do, or to abstain from an act he is entitled to
perform. The question of whether or not the target of the threat was in fact
alarmed, or whether he or she actually performed or abstained from
performing any act, to avoid the execution of the threat, is immaterial.
• It is “the intention of the speaker [accused] that has to be considered in
deciding whether what he stated [threatened] comes within the mischief of
S. 503”

• The Orissa High Court in Amulya Kumar Behera v. Nabhagana Behera 1995
CRI L.J. 3559 has held that the gist of the offence is “the effect, which the
threat is intended to have upon the mind of the person threatened.” In the
case before it, the Court also stated that “intention is a mental contention,
which has to be gathered from the circumstances of the case.” If the threat
is such as would overcome the ordinary free will of a firm and prudent man,
or if, irrespective of the nature of the threat, it is made with the intention
mentioned in the section, then the offence will be made out. Practically,
however, the intention must be gauged from the facts of the case.
 4. Intention of the Offender
• In Amulya Kumar Behera v. Nabhagana Behera the accused was acquitted
on the grounds that a mere expression of words without any intent to cause
alarm would not invite punishment under the section.
• An example of how intent is determined from surrounding circumstances is
the case of S.S. Sanyal and another v. K.V.R Nair and others 1987 CRI L.J.
2074, where the President of a company threatened his employee, saying
“your days are numbered” The Calcutta High Court decided that there was
no criminal intimidation here, as the “words are to be understood in the
context of the circumstances in which they were uttered”, and under such
an interpretation the President’s words meant simply that the service of the
complainant under the company may be terminated.

• Although the meaning of the expressions ‘any act which he is not legally
bound to do’ and ‘any act which that person is legally entitled to do’ is clear,
the meaning of ‘alarm’ was investigated in Amulya Kumar’s Case, where
the Court held that though the degree of alarm could vary, its essential
nature was to “unsettle the mind of the person on whom it operates and
take away from his acts the elements of free voluntary action which alone
constitute consent”
 5. ‘Avoiding the execution of such threat’
• In In Re Doraiswamy Aiyar AIR 1925 Mad 480, the Madras High Court took the view
that the words ‘as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat’ in S. 503
implied that “the threat must be one, which can be put into execution by the
person threatening.” In that case, the accused was sought to be punished under S.
507 of the IPC, which imposes an additional punishment for criminal intimidation
by an anonymous communication, for sending anonymous letters to the
complainant which read “if you don’t pay me the money demanded from you, God
is going to punish you and your family with ruin and death.” Since a punishment by
God was not one which the accused could inflict, or cause to be inflicted, he was
not convicted. It is submitted that this decision is incorrect, as S. 503 does not
require that the accused have the capacity to fulfil his threat.
•
• It only requires that there be a threat of a particular kind, backed by a particular
intention. If capacity to execute the threat were a requisite for the offence, then a
person who forced another to do something, by pointing an unloaded gun at him,
would not be guilty of criminal intimidation.

• Therefore, it is submitted that S. 503 does not require a capacity to execute the
threat on the part of the person making it, just as it does not require that the
threat be successful. The words ‘as a means of avoiding the execution of such
threat’ only constitute part of the required intention of the offender- i.e. he must
intend that the victim act, or abstain from acting, so as to avoid the threat.