INDIAN PENAL

CODE
Notes for Competitive Exams

www.rostrumlegal.com
All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed,

or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical
methods, without the prior written permission of the
publisher, except in certain noncommercial uses permitted
by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the
publisher.
www.rostrumlegal.com
INTRODUCTION

• The first law commission was established in 1833.

• The Second law commission was established on 1855 whose chief was Lord
Macaulay, with three other commissioners Macleod, Anderson and Millet.
• The bill was passed on 6TH October 1860 and was made applicable to the
princely states through there governor general in Calcutta, Bombay and Madras.
• On 1ST January 1862, when the act was successfully operational in the provincial
states, it was extended to the whole of India.
• Bill passed: 6th October 1860.
• Enforced on: 1st January 1862.
• Old IPC had some 488 Sections and now it has 511 Sections and a total of 23
chapters.

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABLITY

Elements Of Crime: Mens Rea (Mental aspect)

Actus Reus (Physical aspect)
Actus Reus

• Latin for ‘Guilty Act’ also referred as the ‘voluntary act’.

• “Actus me invito factus non est mens actus” - An Act done by me against my
will is not my act at all.
• Actus reus is the physical component of the crime. It includes acts contrary to
the law.
• The human conduct may consist of commission or omission of certain acts.
[Section-32 of the IPC the term ‘act’ includes illegal omission also]
• The term ‘act’ includes a single act as well as a series of acts and the term
‘omission’ includes a single omission as well as a series of omissions [Section 33
of IPC].

Mens Rea
• “Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea” - Act is not criminal unless
accompanied by a guilty mind.
It is a loose term which includes wide variety of mental states and conditions.
• Intention
• knowledge
• Recklessness
• Negligence

• Intention
Highest Degree of Mens Rea, There is always the presence of knowledge with the
presence of intention.
• Knowledge
Second Highest Degree of Mens Rea, Knowledge attracts lesser culpability if
there is absence of intention.
• Recklessness
Recklessness signifies a state of being mentally indifferent to obvious risk;
Higher degree than negligence because there is a certain risk for which the
individual decides to remain indifferent.
• Negligence
When there is required a certain degree of due care or caution and the individual
lacks in the aspect of care and precaution is termed to be behaving negligently.

B. Nathulal vs. State of M.P. (1986)

In this case the accused/ a food grain dealer applied for a licence and deposited the
requisite licence lee. He without knowledge of rejection of his application, purchased
food grain and sent returns to the Licencing Authority, who on checking, found that
it was in excess in quantity permitted by Section 7 of MP Food Granis Dealers
Licensing Order, 1958. The accused was proSecuted. However he was acquitted on
the ground that he had no guilty mind.

C. Mahan Ka vs Kora Bibi Kutti (1996)

The accused was a financier. He seized a vehicle for which he financed but did not
receive the instalments. The person from whom the vehicle was seized complained
to Police alleging that the accused had stolen his vehicle.
The Supreme Court held that the element of mens rea is totally wanting in this case
and the accused cannot be convicted for the offence of theft under Section 378.
Sherras V. De Rutzen
The court held that in every statute mens rea is to be implied unless the contrary in
shown.

R v. Prince Henry Prince was prosecuted for exactly a girl below the age of 16 years
years under the belief that she was above 18 years decode you a distinction between
act that were themselves innocent but were made punishable by statue(malum
prohibitum) And that was intrinsically wrong (malum in se).

In cases of malum prohibitum it could be held that there can be no conviction in

absence of mens rea but in cases of malum in se person can be convicted even in
absence of mens rea unless the Statue has made provided otherwise.

Queen v. Tolson
It was held by the court that as a general rule there must be a guilty mind before
there can be a crime but a statue may make an act Criminal whether there has been
any intention to break the law or not.

Exceptions to mens rea include public nuisance, criminal libel, contempt of court,
strict liability offences.

MOTIVE AND INTENTION

• Motive prompts a man to form an intention.
• Motive relates to ends & intention to means. Example: A thief has a MOTIVE to
get money so he forms an INTENTION to steal.

Why Motive is important?

• If direct evidence is there then it is not important, but when only circumstantial
evidence is there motive plays important role to establish intention.
Mens Rea not required in following cases:
1. When you don’t know it is illegal because of ignorance of law;
- Ignorantia jurist non excusat ignorance of law is no excuse.

State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George (1965)

A pilot was transporting way more than the allowed limit of gold and when caught
he gave the defence that he didn’t know of the newly made regulation prohibiting
such transporting. He was held liable.
2. Cases, which are not criminal in nature, but are prohibited in the interest of
public at large, ex. Damaging environment, liability under consumer protection.

3. Strict Liability offences.

4. Absolute Liability offences.
In the following offences Under IPC - Mens Rea is not required:
Waging war Section 121
Sedition Section 124A
Public Nuisance Section 268
Kidnapping Section 359
Abduction Section 363
Counterfeiting Coins Section 232
 CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION

Section 1: Indian Penal Code, 1860 extends to whole of India with J & K
Reorganisation Act, 2019 with effect from 31.10.2019 [Section 95 (1) Table 1 of the
Fifth Schedule S.no. 48]
Section 2: Punishments for offences committed w/n India: Intra-territorial
jurisdiction of the courts
“Every Person”- Includes citizens, non-citizens and foreigners and relates to all
persons without limitation and irrespective of his nationality, allegiance, caste,
creed, rank, status and colour.
Certain persons though have been exempted from criminal proceedings and
punishment under the constitution vide Article 361(2) example: President,
Governor, ambassadors, foreign sovereign, diplomatic agents.
Section 2: determines liability and punishment for the (O) committed w/n India.
Section 3 & 4: (O) committed outside India, it deals with the extra-territorial
jurisdiction of the IPC.
Section 3: Provides that any person liable, by any Indian law, to be tried for an
offence committed beyond India shall be dealt with according to the provisions of
this code for any act committed beyond India in the same manner as if such act had
been committed within India. “Any person” means citizen or a non-citizen
committing the (O) outside India.
It simply provides that an act constituting an offence in India shall also be an offence
when committed outside India.
Section 4: Clause (1) deals with (O) committed without (i.e. on any ship, aircraft or
vessel whether on territorial waters or otherwise) and (O) committed beyond (i.e.
outside India).
Clause (2) deals w/- (O) committed by any person on any ship, aircraft or vessel
registered in India.
Clause (3) was added in Sec.4 by the IT (amendment) Act 2008 vide which any
person who is targeting the computer resource in India for any (O) will be held liable
u/IPC.
Section 4 also provides for a period of limitation which was earlier silent in the
crpc1898 the new act of 1973 limitation to the launching of criminal proceedings are
applicable acc. to S.468 (2) of CRPC.

Mobarak Ali Ahmed v. state of Bombay [AIR 1957 SC857]

A Pakistani citizen while staying at Karachi made false representation to the
complainant at Bombay through telephonic calls, letters, etc and induced him to part
payments over 5 lakhs to his agents at India for the delivery of the rice as per
agreement. Later he flew to England and the agreement was never honoured.
Thereafter, he was arrested from England under the extradition proceedings.

State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George [AIR 1965 SC 722]

The common law doctrine of mens rea is not applicable to statutory crimes in India.

• Section 5: This Section is a saving clause to S.2 IPC and in accordance with
the maxim “generalia specialibus nonderogant” – general words do not
repeal or modify special legislation.
• This Section excludes the operation of this code, wherever some separate law
is prevailing u/ special or local laws to deal with such (O).
 CHAPTER II GENERAL EXPLANATIONS

It consists of 47 Sections and runs from S.6 to S.52A

Section 6: Definitions of this code to be understood subject to the general
exceptions u/chapter 4 and it also extends to any local or special law being
operational against the code.

• Section 6 acts as a proviso to Sec.105 IEA.

• BOP is always on proSecution held in Prabhu v. Emperor in India this was
adopted by K.M.Nanawati’s case.

Section7: This Section is based on the roman maxim Inclusio unius est exclusio
alterious (the inclusion of one is the exclusion of another) or expressio unius est
exclusio alterious (the mention of one is the exclusion of another)
• A ‘word’ which is repeated more than once in the act carries the same meaning
throughout the code, unless the legislature intents and uses differently.

Section 8: Gender - “he” includes both male and female.

Section 9: Number – here the singular includes the plural and plural includes the
singular.

Section 10: ‘Man’ ‘Woman’ relates to the living human being and not to the child in
the womb.
• No age is prescribed for ascertaining the term of man and woman.
National Legal Service Authority v. UOI (SC, 2014)
The SC has given recognition to the members of transgender community, who are
neither male nor female and during the time of birth they are recognised as “Third
Gender”.
Section 11: Person is defined in wider sense and it includes both natural person (a
human being whether a man or a woman) and an artificial person.

• Human being
• A company
• An association
• A body of persons
• An idol which is a legal person.
• An unborn child in the mother’s womb is a person for the understanding of Sec.
11.
Section 12: Public means general body of mankind; it includes any class of people or
community.

Section 13: Queen (repealed by the A.O. 1950)

Section 14: Servant of Government – any employee of any cadre or grade appointed
or employed by the central or state government in India.

Section 15: British India (repealed by A.O. 1937)

Section 16: Government of India (repealed by A.O 1937)

Section 17: Government – includes central govt. / state govt. as well as local
government of a state. R/w S.55A (Appropriate Govt.)

Section 18: India – means the territory of India excluding the state of J&K.

Section 19: Judge – includes all the hierarchy of judges (JMSC to district judge, HC,
SC) a magistrate, an arbitrator, a sarpanch or a panch of panchayat.
Revenue proceedings are not included.
“Legal Proceedings”- legal proceedings are the judicial proceedings.

Section 20: Court of justice – The court is addressed as the “court of justice”.
Here judges are empowered to conduct the judicial proceedings, but when judges
are performing administrative work then it is not regarded as court of justice.

Section 21: Public Servant – nowhere defined in IPC; following list of categories are
illustrative and not exhaustive in nature:

Following held to be Public Servant

• Commissioned officer of military/ judge/ officer of court of justice including a
liquidator, receiver or commissioner)/juryman, assessor or member of
Panchayat assisting court or public servant/arbitrator or other person etc.
• Municipal Commissioner.
• Member of executive committee or servant of registered society.
• Employee of a national bank.
• CM and Ministers in centre or state [M.Karunanidhi v. UOI, AIR 1979,
SC][P.V.Narasimha Rao v. State, AIR 1998 SC 2120]
• Chairman of film censor board.
• Khalasis of railway carriage Section.
• Village kotwal.
• Employees of local bodies or corporation or boards etc.

Persons not to be held as Public servant

- MLA (R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay) 1984 SC.
- Examiner appointed by University.

Section 22: Movable Property – includes only Corporeal(tangible) property and not
incorporeal.
• Anything which is fastened to the earth is not corporeal for the understanding of
this code.
• Growing crops and standing timber till unsevered from the earth are immovable
property and once severed becomes movable property.
• But in CPC they are movable property (Sec.2(13))

Section 23: Wrongful Gain/ Wrongful loss - This Section lays down the test of
unlawfulness which has been laid down in Sec. 43 of IPC as “illegal”.
• To constitute wrongful gain/loss there must be “unlawful acquisition by
unlawful means”.
• For example: A takes a house on rent on the pretext of opening a school instead
uses the premises for immoral acts.
• If A steals the watch of B from his possession unknowingly or without his
consent then he has committed wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to B
and he is guilty of the (O) of theft u/379.

Section 24: Dishonestly- generally understood as ‘having deviated from honesty’.

• This means to conduct an act intentionally to cause the wrongful gain to one and
wrongful loss to another.
• This term is used here in relation to property.
• Dr. Vimla Kapoor v. Delhi Administration – case of Padmini Premier car
For Section 24 &25 the intention is “must”.

Section 25: it states there can be no fraud unless there was an intention to defraud.
Defraud involves two elements i.e. deceit and injury (such injury may be to the
property (movable/immovable) or to the person bodily, mentally etc.
• Deceit is an essential ingredient of the term fraudulently whereas it is not so
required in dishonestly.

Section 26: Reason to believe – signifies the facts and circumstances are sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to believe a thing.
• Abdul Karim Telgi Case: the accused person was in possession of the stamp
printing machine along w/- the stamps; he was not a licensee nor he held any
authority to print the same. So, there was a reason to believe that the accused is
guilty of the (O) under such facts in question and the BOP lies on the accused.

Section 27: Property in Possession of wife, clerk or servant – the property

entrusted to wife servant or clerk is considered to be with the owner himself.
• The conjugal relationship between husband and wife has to be in continuation
and not otherwise for eg: they should not be separated or divorced.

Section 28: Counterfeit –making a thing resemble another thing.

• Ingredients of counterfeit: causing one thing to resemble another thing.
• Intending by the means of that resemblance to practice deception.
• Knowledge of resemblance purports the possibility of such deception to be
practiced.

Section 29: Document – denotes any matter expressed or described upon any
substance by means of letters, figures or marks which can be seen by the naked eyes.
For example: cheque, writings on the stones, etc.

Section29A: Electronic document – it is defined u/- Sec. 2(1) clause (t) of IT Act,
2000. Electronic record means – data record/data generated, image or sound stored
in an electronic medium which is sent or received electronically.
The term record appearing in IPC also includes the electronic records.

Section 30: Valuable Security is a document of some value i.e. a document which
creates or extinguishes legal rights.
• Document which create, confer, extend, transfer, restrict, extinguish or release
any legal right is a valuable Security.

Section 31: will – denotes a testamentary document i.e. it is a legal declaration of

person.

Section 32: words referring to acts also include illegal omission. Act regards doing
something voluntarily as well as acts also involves failure to perform legal
obligations.
• Shaukat Hussain Guru v. State of NCT (2008)
• Om Prakash v. State of Punjab (1961)

Section 33: Acts/Omissions: a series of acts as a single act and series of omission to
be a single omission.

Section 34: COMMON INTENTION (principles of joint liability) - provides that when
a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of
all, each of such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it was done by
him alone.

• The expression “in furtherance of common intention of all” was added by

the amendment of 1870 and was not a part of the initial draft.

• S.34 elaborates the Joint liability, Constructive liability or Vicarious

liability. These Sections can be classified under Section 34 to 38, 120A, 121A,
149, 396 or 460 of the code.

• where the criminal act is done with the common intention of the
group(S.34 to 38)
• where the offence is committed with the common object of an
unlawful assembly (S.149)
• where the persons are charged of a criminal conspiracy (S.120A,
121A)
 • where are five or more persons conjointly in the commission of
dacoity commit Murder (S.396)
• where persons are jointly concerned in committing the offence of
lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night (S.460)

• All are guilty of the principal (O) and not of abatement, only.

• For attracting this Section two elements are essential:

o There was common intention in the sense of a pre-arranged plan between
the two; (CI may develop on the spot also).
o The persons sought to be so held liable had participated in some manner
in the act constituting the offence.

• This Section Lays down a rule of evidence that if two or more persons commit
a crime in furtherance of a common intention, each of them will be liable
jointly on the principal of group (or joint) liability.

• Sec. 34 incorporates the principle of joint liability which was laid down in the
case of Reg v. Cruse.

• Applicability of this Section depends upon the facts and circumstances of the
case.

Ingredients of Section 34:

1. Criminal act must be done by several persons.

2. There must be a common intention of all to commit that criminal act.
3. By more than one person.
4. There must be participation of all in the commission of the offence in
furtherance of that common intention and each will be liable as if that act was
done by him alone.

Act done in furtherance of common intention makes all persons liable equally.
1. Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor [AIR 1925 PC 1] (Post-office case): The
court held that even if a person who does not do anything but if he has
common intention he will be liable. The court said they also serve who only
stand and wait.

2. Mahboob Shah v. Emperor[AIR1943 PC118]: the court laid down the

following principles:
a. Essence of liability under Section 34 is found in common intention.
b. To invoke Section 34 it must be shown that act was done in
furtherance of common intention.
c. Common intention implies pre-arranged plan and it must be proved
that criminal Act was done in concert First went to pre-arranged plant.
d. For intention to be common it must be known to all members and must
also be shared by them.
 3. State of Uttar Pradesh vs Sahrunnisa [AIR 2009 SC 3182]:it was held by the
apex court that mere presence does not indicate the common intention of the
person.
4. Kirpal Singh vs. state of Uttar Pradesh [AIR1954 SC 706]: Supreme Court
held that the common intention may develop on the spot after the offenders
are gathered there. A previous plan is not necessary. Common intention can
be inferred by the conduct of the accused and the circumstances.
5. Rishi Deo Pandey vs State of UP [AIR 1955 SC 331]: Supreme Court held that
common intention can develop on the spot also during the course
of Commission of the offence.
6. Shree kantia vs State of Bombay SC held that physical presence and active
participation in crime is necessary but in J.N. Desai vs State of Bombay
Supreme Court observed that the physical presence and active participation is
not necessary in all cases.
7. Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad: Supreme Court differentiated between
similar intention and common intention. The court held that several persons
can simultaneously attack a man and each can have the same intention,
namely, the intention to kill, and each can individually inflict a separate fatal
blow and yet none would have the common intention required by the specific
Section because there was no prior meeting of Minds to form a pre-arranged
plan.

Joint Liability
Where two or more persons are liable in respect of the same liability

Vicarious Liability
A situation which one party is held partly responsible for the unlawful action of a
third party

Constructive Liability
When the person /persons may not be directly involved in the commission of the
actual act constituting the offence, but are persons who have committed the
offence.

COMMON INTENTION COMMON OBJECT

Section 34 does not create offence in
itself only was down principle of Joint
Liability
Common intention under Section 34 not
defined anywhere in IPC
Prior meeting of minds necessary for
Common intention
Applicable when two or more persons
are involved
Participation is a crucial aspect
Section 149 creates an offence in itself
Being a number of the unlawful assembly
which is punishable under Section 143
Common Object must be one of the five
ingredients defined under Section 141
Common Object may be formed without
prior meeting of mind.
Applicable when 5 an more persons are
involved
No need fun active particption in Section
149
Section 35: Provides that several persons do an act jointly but different intention or
knowledge from another, everyone is liable according to one's own criminal
intention knowledge and not beyond that.

Section 36: The words referring to acts include illegal omission also depression
makes it clear that an (O) can be committed partly by an act and partly by an illegal
omission.

Section 37: when an offence is committed by means of several acts, whoever

intentionally cooperates in the commission of that offence by doing any one of those
acts, either singly or jointly with any other person, commits that offence.

Section 38: Person concerned in criminal act may be guilty of different offences. –
provides that the liability of the offenders according to their own acts, where a crime
has been committed. This Section provides for different punishment for different
offences, whether such persons are actuated by one intention or the other.

Section 34 talks about common intention and on the other hand Section 37 provides
international cooperation, which must include action that contributes to the offence
and is done with the consciousness, though without showing the intention to commit
that offence.
 CHAPTER 3 PUNISHMENTS

Section 53: Punishment can be defined as suffering upon the offender by the court
when he is adjudged guilty under the law. There are 5 types of punishment under
this section.

Theories of Punishment
1. Deterrent theory
2. Preventive theory
3. Retributive theory
4. Reformative theory
5. Expiatory theory

Punishments
1. Death
2. Imprisonment for life
3. Transportation for life (was omitted by Amendment Act of 1955 w.e.f.1/1/1956)
(Kala Pani ki saja) Imprisonment here was only Rigorous.
4. Imprisonment - Rigorous or Simple
5. Forfeiture
6. Fine

• Types of punishment – 6

Death
The death penalty may be awarded in the following cases:
Sec.121: waging or attempting to wage a war against government.
Sec.132: Abetting mutiny and it actually being committed.
Sec.194: Giving or fabricating false evidence upon which an innocent suffers death.
Sec.195A: Giving false evidence under threat or inducement upon which innocent
suffers death.
Sec.302: Murder
Sec.305: Abetment of suicide to a minor, insane, delirious, idiot or an intoxicated
person who commits suicide.
Sec.307: Attempt to murder a person under a sentence of imprisonment for life if
hurt is caused in such attempt.
Sec.364A: kidnapping for ransom.
Sec.376A,376AB,376DB,376E: Rape.
Sec.396: Dacoity accompanied with murder.
Sec.354 CRPC: The court has to give special reasons in awarding the death penalty.

Bachan Singh vs. State of Punjab(1980)

SC held that the death sentence to be awarded in the “rarest of the rare case” and
not otherwise.

Imprisonment for life

Life here means the whole life or till the natural death occasions.
The question of lifetime was addressed in the case of UOI vs. Sriharan & others
Nayab Singh vs. State of Punjab.
Transportation for life
This punishment has been abolished and instead it is now read as imprisonment for
life. This was converted as a rigorous life imprisonment.

Imprisonment
They are divided in two of the categories: 1. Rigorus / 2. Simple

Forfeiture of property
Sec.126

Fine
Sec.154

Section 53A: This section was inserted in IPC by CRPC (Amendment) Act,26 of 1955
in order to abolish ‘transportation for life’ as a form of punishment and substituted
“imprisonment for life” in its place.

Section 54: empowers the appropriate government (i.e. central govt. in cases where
(O) is committed in UT’s and state govt. Where (O) is committed in a state) to
commute (without the consent of the offender) sentence of death to any other
punishment provided in the code.

This section has to be read with S.433 CrPC and an exception to the general rule
under these sections is provided in 416 of CrPC.

NHRC has no jurisdiction to recommend any commutation of death sentence as held

in Bani Kanta Das vs. Sate of Assam(2009).

Power to grant pardon is a constitutional power vested with the President(Article

72) and Governor(Article161). Such clemency petition can be filed by the convicted
person, his relatives or others concerned.

Sher Singh vs. State of Punjab(1983): SC held that delay in execution of death
sentence exceeding two years itself does not entitle a person of sentence to demand
quashing of death sentence and convert the same into life imprisonment.

Jagdish vs. State (2009): The division bench of SC stated the prisoner’s wait to
execution is very frightful, the longer the wait the convict should get the chance of
commutation of sentence from death to life imprisonment.

Section 55: empowers the same appropriate govt. to commute (without the consent
of the offender) the sentence of imprisonment for life to imprisonment of either
description of a term not exceeding 14 years.
Sec.55 distinguishes between Commutation and remission of punishment. Former is
alteration of the original punishment to some other sort of punishment, whereas the
latter is reduction of the original punishment without changing its very nature &
character.
Section 55A: Appropriate Govt. In respect of any sentence to which UT’s power
extends there the central govt. Will be termed as appropriate govt. And where state
executive’s power extends there state govt., Will be termed so.

Section 56: this section was repealed by Removal of Racial Discriminations Act
1949.

Section 57: fractions of terms of punishment – The word ‘life’ have been interpreted
by various courts for the sake of this section i.e. a Person’s natural life. Life
imprisonment does not mean to be a term of 14 years or 20 years but the whole life,
unless it has been remitted, suspended or commuted by the appropriate govt.
Gopal Vinayak Godse vs. State of Maharashtra (1961), the SC through its
constitutional bench unanimously held that there is no provision in the law where by
a sentence for life imprisonment with no formal remission by an appropriate govt.,
can be automatically treated as one for a definite period. Sec.57 does not say
imprisonment for life shall be deemed of 20 years for all purposes.

Section 63: (O) and penalty must be proportionate to the nature of crime. The
paying capacity of the accused has to be borne in mind while imposing such fines, so
that he is in a position to pay.

Section 64: Imprisonment for non payment of fine – punishments inflicted under
this section: 1. Imprisonment as well as fine.
2. Imprisonment or fine.
3. With only fine.
Awarding a sentence for default of payment of fine is court’s discretion; here the
provision of set-off stated under sec.428 CrPC is not applicable. Therefore, a person
can be let free for the period of imprisonment after set-off but in the case of default
of fine.

Section 65: Limit to imprisonment for non payment of fine – the maximum
punishment for default of fine - 1/4th of the imprisonment for the offence.

Section 66: description of imprisonment for non-payment of fine could be of any

description to which the offender is sentenced.

Section 67: Imprisonment in default of payment of a fine can only be simple

imprisonment. The scale in this section refers to fines actually imposed by the court.
It states where the amount of fine is under Rs.50/- the imprisonment cannot be
morethan 2 months; amount under Rs.100/- then not morethan 4 months and in
other cases not morethan 6 months.

Section 68: Imprisonment imposed for default of payment of fine shall be

terminated as soon as the payment of fine is done or is levied by the process of law
under Sec.421 CrPC.
Section 69: Termination of imprisonment on payment of proportional part of fine.
This means the section states for the proportional remission of imprisonment on
payment of proportionate part of fine.
Section 70: Fine liveable within 6 years, or during the period of imprisonment; if
death is caused then that doesn’t discharge an offender’s liability the fine will be
realised from the property of such offender.

Section71 & 72: Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences:

• Where an offence is made up of parts, each of which constitutes an offence,
the offender shall not be punished for more than one offence unless expressly
provided for separate punishment in such cases.

• Where a particular act falls within two or more separate definitions of

offences the offender shall not be furnished with the most severe punishment
then the one the court could award for any of that offence. The accused will be
punished only for one offence as this section is based on the principle of
double jeopardy as enshrined under the article 20(2).

• Where several acts of which (one or more than one) would by itself or
themselves constitutes an offence, when combined constitute a different
offence, the accused shall not be punished with a more severe punishment
than the one, that the court could award for any one of such offences.

• Where it is doubtful as to which of the several offences a person is guilty of, he

shall be punished for the offence for which the least punishment is provided.

Section 73: Solitary Confinement - Solitary confinement is an isolation of the

Prisoner from other co Prisoners and complete segregation from society. It
is granted in exceptional cases, unparalleled brutality and atrocity.

Sunil Batra vs. Charles Shobraj : Any harsh isolation of a Prisoner from the
society of fellow prisoners by cellular detention under the Prisons Act, 1894 is
penal under sec.29 and 30 of such act and so must be inflicted only in
accordance with fair procedure and in absence of which the confinement it
will be violative of article 21.

Sunil Batra vs Delhi Administration(1978): Supreme Court addressed the

question of prisoner’s right to live with dignity in jail.

Section 74: Limit of solitary confinement

 Chapter IV GENERAL EXCEPTIONS

This chapter states the General Exceptions(GE) enlisted under the IPC which
exempts certain acts to be covered under the curb of an offence, it means these
are defences which absolve the accused from any criminal Liability. Even if the
Accused does not plead for these defences but if it is clear by the evidence that
any of them are applicable the court will ‘suo motu’ apply them on his case.

Scope of general exceptions is very wide. GE is not only limited to the offences
under IPC but it extends to the offences under special or local laws.

Chapter 4 consists of 31 sections sec.76-106) which may be further divided into

8 main heads:
1. Mistake of fact / Mistake of law. 76,79
2. Act of a judge (Judicial Acts). 77, 78
3. Accidental acts. 80
4. Necessity. 81
5. Incapability to commit a crime. 82 - 86
6. Acts done with consent. 87 -90
7. Triviality 95
8. Private defence 96- 106
Two categories:
Excusable exceptions: Sec76, 79, 80, 82, 83, 84, 85-86.
Justifiable exceptions: Sec.77-78, 81, 87-89, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96-106.

1. Mistake of Fact / mistake of Law

Section 76: Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact behaving himself
bound, by law, Mistake of Fact’ Misconception about the existence or
nonexistence of fact in someone’s mind.
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who reason of a
mistake of fact and not by reason, of a mistake of law in good faith believes
himself to be, bound by law to do it.
The Act of subordinate officer is protected under this Section. This section is
based on common law principle:
Ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat.
(Ignorance of the fact excuses, ignorance of the law excuses not.)
Person is bound by Law
Essentials of section 76: In good faith he believes to be bound by law
Such believe is by reason of mistake of fact and not
by mistake of law
 M.H George V. State of Maharashtra (Air 1965 Sc 722)
M.H. George was not an Indian Citizen and was trying to smuggle gold through
India. India recently passed a law prohibiting to carry that much gold through
India.
M.H George was hiding the Gold in his jacket that too 34 kg of gold.
Court said that even if M.H. George didn’t know the law he is supposed know it
ignorance of law is no excuse and he was held liable under the relevant provision.

Section 79- Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself,
justified , by law-
Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who
by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith,
believer himself to be justified by law, in doing it.

Person is justified by law.

Essentials of section 79: In good faith he believes to be justified by law.
Such belief is by reason of mistake of fact and not
by mistake of law.

Note: The difference between Sec. 76 and Sec. 79 is that in 76 it is legal

compulsion and in 79 it is legal justification which the doer of the act believed he
had).

State of Andhra Pradesh v. Venu Gopal (1994 AIR 33)

Policeman sub inspector one head constable and a constable) arrested a person
on suspicion that he had received some stolen property and is involved in house
breaking. Later the person was found deal with injuries on his body.
The prosecution alleged the police for wrongful confinement and torture for
taking out a confession out of him; Trial Court convicted the police.
High court acquitted giving them the defence of Sector 79- whatever policeman
do during investigation is justified by law. Supreme Court said that this view of
High Court is whally unwarranted in law beating and torturing has absolutely no
relation to the process of investigation.

2. Judicial Acts
Section 77: Act of judge with acting judicially, Nothing is an offence which is
done by a judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is, or
which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law.

Section 78: Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of Court

Nothing which is done pursuance or which is warranted by the judgment or
order of, a court of justice, if done whist such judgment or order remain in force,
is an offence, notwithstanding the Court may have had no jurisdiction to pass
such judgment or order, provided the person doing the act in good faith believes
that the Court had such jurisdiction.
3. Accident
Section 80. Accident in doing lawful act
Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any
criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of lawful act in a lawful manner by
lawful means and with proper care and caution.
The main objective for providing this defence is that there is no criminal
intention (Mens rea) in Accident, if these 5 conditions are fulfilled it will be
obvious that there was no criminal intention and the person would get protection
under section 80.
1. Act is done by accident or misfortune;
2. Act done was lawful;
3. Done in a lawful manner,
4. By lawful means;
5. Done with due care and caution
Example: A person killed by mistake by the use of hatchet.

Absence of Criminal Intent

Section 81. Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to
prevent other harm.
Nothing is offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it
is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm,
and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person
or property.
Jus Necessitates, Quad necessitas non habet legem (Necessity knows no law)
There essentials for this section mandates act to be done in good faith and
without any criminal intention i.e. there should be absence of Mens Rea.
R v. Dudley & stephens caselaw (shipwreck case) is the most important case on
self preservation.
Examples: houses on fire, titanic ship, the burning train etc.

Section 82: Act of a child under seven years of age

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.
Section gives the defence of infancy
Doli incapax (incapable of committing an offence): states Absolute immunity.

Section 83: Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature
understanding
Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under
twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the
nature and consequence of his conduct on that occasion.
In case there is no evidence to prove ‘immature understanding’ court will assume
that the child above seven and below 12 understood the nature of his acts.
Ulla Mahapatra v. The King (AIR 1950 Ori 261)- The boy below 12 years shouted ‘
will cut you into pieces and did so to the victim, He was convicted under Section
302.
 Section- 84 Act of person of unsound mind
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by
reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or
that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary law.

M’ Naughten Case – House of lords

Daniel M Naughten suffered from a delusion and killed Edward Drummod
(Secetary of PM). The accused was suffering from an insane delusion that Robert
peel had injured him and believing Mr. Drummod to be Sir Robert peel he shot
and killed him. The Medical evidence also showed that he infact was delusional
which carried him away from self control over his acts.
He was acquitted which attracted criticism by public. Thereafter, Principles
devised after his case which are followed for Section 84 of IPC:
1. The accused was incapable of knowing the nature of the act.

2. The accused was precluded by reason of unsoundness of mind from

understanding that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law.

Section 85: Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication

caused against his will.
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is by
reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is
doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law provided that the thing which
intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his
will.
Essentials to claim defence of intoxication:-
1. Accused must be intoxicated at the time of the commission of the crime and he is
incapable of knowing the nature of the act.
2. Because of reason of intoxication he was not in a condition to know the nature of
his act.
3. Intoxicant must have been administered to him without his consent or against his
will. (Voluntary intoxication is no defence).

Section 86: Offence requiring a particular intent of knowledge committed by one

who is intoxicated
In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular
knowledge or intent, a person, who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be
liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he
had been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to
him without his knowledge or against his will.
Now this section basically says that if you are intoxicated voluntarily you will be
taken as person who has the same knowledge as a normal person (who is not
intoxicated), But this section does not assume that you have the same intention
as a normal person while intoxicated.
So if you voluntarily drunk and stab your friend then it will be assumed that you
had knowledge that it will kill him, but if you can prove that you didn’t have
 intention at that time then you might be given less harsher punishment (say for
culpable homicide instead of murder)
Basudeo v. State of Pepsu
The appellant Basdev belonging to the village of Harigarh is a retired military
Jamadar. He is charged with the murder of a young boy named Maghar Singh,
aged about 15 or 16 under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. People living in
the same village had gone to attend a wedding in another village. All of them
went to the house of the bride to take the midday meal on 12th March, 1954.
Some had settled down in their seats and some had not. The appellant asked
Maghar Singh, the young boy to step aside a little so that he may occupy a seat of
his choice. However, Maghar Singh did not move. The appellant whipped out a
pistol and shot the boy in the abdomen. The injury proved to be fatal.
In the present case, evidence proved that the accused was capable of moving
himself independently and talking coherently. He also came to the ‘darwaza’ of
Nath Singh himself. After shooting the deceased, he also attempted to get away,
which proved that he realized the consequences of his actions.
Hence, according to the SC “The accused had, therefore, failed to prove such
incapacity as would have been available to him as a defence, and so the law
presumes that he intended the natural and probable consequences of his act, in
other words, that he intended to inflict bodily injury to the deceased and the
bodily injury intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death.” The conviction and sentence were held right.

NOTE: Section 87 to 93 of the code deals with consent as a general exception.

Sections 87 and 91 lay down consent as a defence, while section 88, 89, 92 and 93
lay down the law relating to the immunity for the harm caused, in good faith,
with or without consent, for the benefit of the sufferer; and section 90 explains
what is not consent for the purposes of the code.
Section87: Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or
grievous hurt, done by consent.
Nothing which is not intended to cause death, or grievous hurt, and which is not
know by the doer to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, is an offence by
reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to case, to any
person, above eighteen years, of age, who has given consent, whether express or
implied to suffer that harm, or by reason of any harm which it may be known by
the doer to be likely to cause to any such person who has consented to take the
risk of that harm.
‘Volenti non fit injuria’ - He who consent to an act has no right to claim damages
for the injury caused to him by that act.
Ingredients:
1. The Act is not intended and is not likely to cause death or grievous hurt.
2. The person consenting must be 18 years or above (consent can be express or
implied).
 Section 88: Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for
person’s benefit.
Nothing, which is not intended to cause death, it an offence by reason of any
harm which it may cause or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the
doer to be likely to cause, to any person for whose benefit it is done good faith,
and who has given a consent, whether express or implied to suffer that harm, or
to take the risk of that harm.

Ingredients:
1. Act not intended to cause death,
2. Act must be for the benefit of that person and done in good faith
3. If should be with the persons consent (consent can be express or implied)

Section 89: Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane person, by or
consent of guardian.
Nothing which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years
of age, or of unsound mind, by or by consent, either express or implied, of the
guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, is an offence by
reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause or be
known by the doer to be likely to cause to that person:
Provisos:
First- That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or
to the attempting to cause death,
Secondly- That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the
person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the
preventing death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease of
infirmity;
Thirdly- That the exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of grievous
hurt, or to the attempting to cause grievous hurt, unless it be for the purpose of
preventing death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or
infirmity;
Fourthly- That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to
the committing of which offence it would not extend.

Section 90: Consent known to be given under fear or misconception

A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any section of this Code, if the
consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of
fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the
consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception; or
Consent of insane person: if the consent is given by a person who, from
unsoundness of mind, or intoxication is unable to understand the nature and
consequence of that to which he gives his consent; or
Consent of child: unless the contrary appears from the context, if the consent is
given by a person who is under twelve years of age.
NOTE: If consent has been received by fear or injury (coercion, undue influence,
misconception of fact or unsoundness of mind, intoxication or immaturity of age
in understanding the nature of act, is then regarded as no consent.

Section 91: Exclusion of acts which are offences independently of harm caused.
The exception in sections 87, 88 and 89 do not extend to act which are offences
independently of any harm which they may cause, or be intended to cause, or be
known to be likely to cause, to the person giving the consent or on whose behalf
the consent is given.
The exception in section, 87, 88 and 89 do not extend to each which are offences
independently of any harm which they may cause, or be intended to cause, or be
known to be likely to cause, to the person giving the consent, or on whose behalf
the consent is given.
There is an Act (Miscarriage)- It causes some harm to the women- if the women
even consent for the harm- It won’t be covered under 87, 88, 89- because-
Causing Miscarriage is also an offence against the child – so the act is
independently an offence under section.312 (IPC) other than the harm caused
which was consented.
The illustration under IPC gives the exception where Miscarriage is necessary to
save the women’s life but after Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971’
other exceptions are also there apart from ‘saving the life of the women’
Other Acts on which defences of 87, 88, 89 do not extend are offences affecting
public health, safety convenience, decency morals etc. Like publication of obscene
material even with the consent of the concerned person is an offence because it is
independently an offence for reasons other than the harm caused to the
consenting person.
This section extends only against human body and property and not against the
public policy and other provisions of law.
For example: Posting any obscene material, publishing of such obscene material
etc are all offence under the IPC.

Section 92: Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent.
Not even a single act or thing is a crime if such reasons are present:
• If any harm caused to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even
without the person’s consent, and
• Even when the circumstances were such that it was impossible for that
person to signify the consent, or
• That the person was incapable of giving consent, and
• Also the person has no guardian or any other person in lawful charge of him
from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be in
benefit.

Essentials of Section 92

• An act done for the benefit of a person who suffers harm.

• The act done must be in good faith.
• There was no time to obtain the consent of the person.
• Where it is impossible to signify the consent of that person.
• There was no guardian or lawful in charge of that person to obtain the
consent.

Exceptions to section 92
• The doer cannot take advantage of this Section if he does the act intentionally
to cause death or intentionally attempts to cause death.
• If the doer knows that such an act if done then the result is likely to cause
death then he cannot be benefited under this Section.
• The doer should not extend the act to voluntarily causing hurt or even
attempting to cause hurt.
• The doer should not enhance his act in order to instigate or abet any person
to make him commit an offence.

Section 93: Communication made in good faith

No communication made in good faith in an offence by reason of any harm to the
person to whom it is made, if it is made for the benefit of that person.
Essentials to this section
• The communication must be made in good faith.
• It must be made for the benefit of the person.

Section 94: Act to which a person is compelled by threats-

Except murder, and offences against the State punishable with death, nothing is
an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats, which,
at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to
that person will otherwise be the consequence: Provided the person doing the act
did not of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself
short of instant death, place himself in the situation by which he became subject
to such constraint.
Explanation1.
A person who, of his own accord, or by reason of a threat of being beaten, joins a
gang of dacoits, knowing their character, is not entitled to the benefit of this
exception, on the ground of him being compelled by his associates to do anything
that is an offence by law
Explanation 2.
A person seized by a gang of dacoits, and forced, by threat of instant death, to do
thing which is an offence by law, for example a smith compelled to take his tools
and to force the door of a house for the docoits to enter and plunder it, is entitled
to the benefit of this exception.

It exempts a man from criminal liability in respect of an act committed under

compulsion or duress, that reasonably causes the apprehension of death to that
person. This is founded on the well-known Maxim: “Actus me invito factus est
nisi actus” an act which is done by me, against my will is not my act, and hence I
am not responsible for it.
Exceptions
 • Murder punishable with death; (a man cannot kill another to save his own
life, but the one who abets the murder or helps in disappearing the
evidence is read under sec.94 for the defence)
• Waging a war against the state or government of India, punishable with
death (Only one (O) which is punishable by death under IPC is under
sec.121, the defence is not available to any under law because it presumes
that “an individual should not place the sovereignty of his country, even
above his life”).
Essentials
• The apprehension of threat must be reasonable and not voluntarily
sought.
• The threat must be of instant death at the time of doing the act, and
accused was with no other option but to act.
• The threat must be confined to the person himself.
• Presence of threatner.
• This law extends to the IPC as well as special and local laws under
sec.40 IPC.

Important caselaws
• Duress – defence to Bestiality – R v. Bourne (1952)
• Duress – defence to Perjury – R v. Hudson, R v. Taylor(1971)

Section 95: Act causing slight harm / Acts of trivial nature

Nothing is an offence by reason that it cause or that it is intended to cause, or that it
is known to be likely to cause, any harm if that harm is so slight that no person of
ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.

Sec.95 is intended to prevent the penalisation of the negligible wrongs or offences of

trivial nature. Further it is based on the maxim “de minimis non curat lex” means
the law will not take notice of trifles( something of less importance or value).
“Harm” - connotes a wider meaning under section 95 it includes physical injury,
financial loss, loss of reputation, mental worry or even apprehension of injury.

Important caselaws which establishes the law is not maintainable in cases of socio
economic offences (food adulteration, trading in medical drugs) and any traffic
offences.

• State of Maharashtra v. Taherbhai (1978)

• State of Karnataka v. M/s Lobo Medicals (1978)
• Bichitrananda naik v. State of Orissa (1978)
Compounding of (O) – sec. 320Crpc

PRIVATE DEFENCE – (Sec.96-106)

The law of self defence is not written but is born with us. We do not learn it or
acquire it somehow but it is in our nature to defend and protect ourselves from
 any kind of harm. Bentham has said that fear of law can never restrain bad men
as much as the fear of individual resistance and if you take away this right then
you become accomplice of all bad men.
Munney Khan V. State (AIR 1971 Sc 149)
All Sections (96-106) all read together to know the scope and limitation of this
defence. The following limitations will apply to this defence:
1. Not your right to exercise if there is sufficient time for recourse to public
authorities.
2. The force used and harm caused should be only as much as reasonably
necessary( Rafiq v. State of Maharashtra, 1979) hit by sharp knife while he was
being hit by lathi).
3. There should be reasonable apprehension of hurt grievous hurt or death to the
person or damage to the property.

Section 96: The law of private defence to body and property has been mentioned
here. This section lays down the general rule of the defence. It makes the acts,
which are otherwise criminal, justifiable if they are done while exercising the
right of private defence. Normally, it is the accused who takes the plea of self
defence but the court is also bound to take cognizance of the fact that the accused
aced in self defence if such evidence exists.
Scope and characteristics are defined from Sec.97-98 and 100-106 and section 99
defines the restrictions so imposed under Pvt. Defence.
Section97: This allows a person to defend his or anybody else's body or property
from being unlawfully harmed. Under English law, the right to defend the person
and property against unlawful aggression was limited to the person himself or
kindred relations or to those having community of interest e.g. parent and child,
husband and wife, landlord and tenant, etc. However, this section allows this
right to defend an unrelated person's body or property as well. Thus, it is apt to
call it as right to private defence instead of right to self defence.
The right to private defence of the body exists against any offence towards
human body, the right to private defence of the property exists only against an
act that is either theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal trespass or is an attempt to
do the same.
It is important to note that the right exists only against an act that is an offence.
There is no right to defend against something that is not an offence. For example,
a policeman has the right to handcuff a person on his belief that the person is a
thief and so his act of handcuffing is not an offence and thus the person does not
have any right under this section.
Similarly, an aggressor does not have this right. An aggressor himself is doing an
offence and even if the person being aggressed upon gets the better of the
aggressor in the exercise of his right to self defence, the aggressor cannot claim
the right of self defence. As held by SC in Mannu vs State of UP AIR 1979, when
the deceased was waylaid and attacked by the accused with dangerous weapons
the question of self defence by the accused did not arise.
Ram Ratan v. State of Bihar, AIR1965
Jai Dev v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963
Section98: Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind
etc.
When an act which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by
reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of
mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any
misconception on the part to that person, every person has the same right of
private defence against that act which he would have it the act were that offence.
When any of these are attacking your other person or your property or other
person’s property.
Person Acting under Mistake of Fact- Section 76 and 79
Child protected via-doli incapax – Section 82
Child of immature understanding – Section 83
Insane Person – Section 84
Person not voluntarily intoxicated – Section85
They are committing no offence because they are protected, but if you Protect
yourself from this attack it will be treated as if you are protecting yourself from
someone who is committing an offence.

Section 99: Acts against which there is no right of private defence.

There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably
cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done or attempt to be
done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though
that act may not be strictly justifiable by law.
There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably
cause the apprehension of death of grievous hurt, if done, or attempt to be done,
by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office
though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law.
There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have
recourse to protection of the public authorities.
Extent to which the right may be exercised; The right of private defence in no
case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for
the purpose of defence.
The person should know that act is done by public servant.
[And should show the authority proof if demanded]
Like a policeman search in house should show the search warrant
Refiq v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1979 SC1179)
The deceased was attacking the accused with a lathi but the accused took out a
knife and stabbed him to death. The medical showed that the wound was deep
and the knife pierced through the heart with great force resulting in death
because of pouring out of blood from the heart
It was held that it was self defence but the Accused used excessive force so he is
liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Section 100. When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing
death.
The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions
mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of
any other harm, to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the
right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated namely:-
First – Such an assault as may reasonable cause the apprehension that death
will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
Secondly- Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that
grievous hurt will otherwise be consequence of such assault;
Thirdly- An assault with the intention of committing rape;
Fourthly- An Assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;
Fifthly- An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;
Sixthly- An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under
circumstances which may reasonable cause him to apprehend that he will be
unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his releases.
Seventhly- An act or administering acid or an attempt to throw or administer
acid which may reasonable cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will
otherwise be the consequence of that act. (Added by Criminal law
(amendment) Act, 2013.

Section 101. When such right extends to causing any harm other than death.

- If the offence be not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last

preceding section, the right of private defence of the body does not
extend to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant, but does
extend, under the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary
causing to the assailant of any harm other than death.
Section 102. Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence
of the body.
- The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a
reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt
or threat to commit the offence through the offence may not have been
committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to
the body continues.
Section 103: When the right of private defence of property extends to
causing death. – the right of private defence of property extends, under the
restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of
any other harm to the wrong-doer, if the offence, the committing of which, or
the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right, be an
offence of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:
First. – Robbery;
Secondly, - House-breaking by night;
Thirdly- Mischief by fire committed on any building, tent or vessel, which
building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or as a place for the
custody of property;
Fourthly- Theft, mischief, or house-trespass, under such circumstances as
may reasonably cause apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the
consequence, if such right of private defence is not exercised.

Section 104. When such right to causing any harm other than death.-
If the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which
occasions the exercise of the right of private defence, be theft, mischief, or
criminal trespass, not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last
preceding section, that right does not extend to the voluntary causing of
death, but does extend, subject to the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to
the voluntary causing to the wrong-doer of any harm other than death.
Section 105. Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence
of property.
- The right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable
apprehension of danger to the property commences.
- The right of private defence of property against theft continues till the
offender has effected his retreat with the property or either the
assistance of the public authorities is obtained, or the property has
been recovered.
- The right of private defence of property against robbery continues as
long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or
hurt or wrongful restraint or as long as the fear of instant death or of
instant hurt or of instant personal restraint continues.
- The right of private defence of property against criminal trespass or
mischief continues as long as the offender continues in the commission
of criminal trespass or mischief.
- The right of private defence of property against house-breaking by
night continues as long as the house-trespass which has been begun by
such house-breaking continues:
Section 106. Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is
risk of harm to innocent person — If in the exercise of the right of private
defence against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of
death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that
right without risk of harm o to an innocent person, his that right without risk
of harm to an innocent person, his right or private defence extends to the
running of that risk.
 CHAPTER 6 - OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE

Section.121 provides whoever

• wages war against Government of India or

• attempts to wage such war
• abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for
life and shall also be liable to fine.
In state (NCT of Delhi) versus Navjot Sandhu, Supreme Court held that to
constitute offence of waging war under section 121 of the code, the intention and
purpose of the warlike operations directed against the government is sine qua
non.
Section.121A provides punishment for conspiracy to commit offences
punishable by Sec.121
Section.122 provides punishment for collecting arms, etc, with intention of
waging War against the Government of India.

Section 124A (sedition) provides that whoever by

• words either spoken or written or

• by sign or
• by visible representation or
• otherwise
Brings or attempts to bring into

• hatred or contempt or
• Excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by
law in India, Which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or
with fine.
The expression disaffection includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the government with a
view to obtain their alteration by lawful means without exciting or attempting to
excite hatred, comment or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this
section.
Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the
government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or
disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this section.
In Kedarnath versus state, Supreme Court held that Section 124A does not
violate Article 19(1)(a) or the constitution as it is a reasonable restriction.
 Section 130: Aiding escape of, rescuing or harbouring such prisoner.—Whoever
knowingly aids or assists any State prisoner or prisoner of war in escaping from
lawful custody, or rescues or attempts to rescue any such prisoner, or harbours
or conceals any such prisoner who has escaped from lawful custody, or offers or
attempts to offer any resistance to the recapture of such prisoner, shall be pun-
ished with 1[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.
Explanation.—A State prisoner or prisoner of war, who is permitted to be at large
on his parole within certain limits in India, is said to escape from lawful custody if
he goes beyond the limits within which he is allowed to be at large.
Parole always bounds a person under certain boundary, if goes beyond, then it is
(O) under section 224.

CHAPTER 7 (O) RELATING TO ARMY, NAVY AND AIR FORCE

Section131 - Mutiny – An act of group of people, especially sailors, soldiers,
refusing to obey the person who is in command.
Section 136 – Harbouring Deserter

CHAPTER 8 (O) AGAINST THE PUBLIC TRANQUILITY

Section 141: defines an unlawful assembly while Section 142 States as to who
can be said to be a member of an unlawful assembly Section 143 provides
punishment to a member of an unlawful assembly.
The ingredients of unlawful assembly are:
1. An assembly of five or more persons.
2. The common object of that assembly.
I. To overawe by criminal force or show of criminal force.
a. The central government or state government.
b. The Parliament or the Legislature of state.
c. any public servant in exercise of lawful power, or

II. To resist the execution of any law or legal process, or

III. To commit Mischief, criminal trespass or any other offence, or
IV. By means of criminal force or show criminal force -
a. To take or obtain possession of any property, or
b. To deprive any person of any incorporeal right, or
 c. To deprive any person of the right of way or of the use of water or
other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment
d. To enforce any right or supposed right.
V. By means of criminal force or show of criminal force to compel any person
a. To do what he is not legally bound to do, or
b. To omit what he is legally entitled to do.

A person who is present in the unlawful assembly as a curious spectator does not
become one of the members of that unlawful assembly [Muthu Naicker vs. State
of Tamil Nadu]
Kartar Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1961/ Moti Das case 1951.

Where on the finding, the identity of only four persons in the Assembly is
established while it is proved that five or more persons were present there to
constitute it, Section 149 can be applied without any serious difficulty.
The common object of the assembly should be one of the mentioned in section
141. The members should be aware of the common object and they
should concur in it.
Section 146 defines the offence of Rioting & Section 147 provides punishment
for it. The ingredients of rioting are:
1. An unlawful assembly
2. using of force or violence by -
a. the unlawful assembly, or
b. any member thereof,
c. In prosecution of the common object of that assembly.

Section 149 incorporates principle of constructive liability on the basis of the

common object of an unlawful assembly, regarding the commission of an offence
or the knowledge of the member of an unlawful assembly of likelihood of the
commission of an offence.
Following are the ingredients of Section 149:
1. Offence must be committed by the member of an unlawful assembly.
2. It must be committed in prosecution of the common object of that assembly.
3. It is such as the member of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed.
 Section 159 defines “Affray” while Section 160 provides punishment for
committing affray. Following are the ingredients of affray:
1. Two or more persons fight.
2. They fight in a public place.
3. By fighting they disturb the public peace.
This (O) is congnizable and bailable.
Section 153, 153-A, 153-AA, 160.

CHAPTER 9 (O) BY OR RELATING TO PUBLIC SERVANTS

Section 166-A Public servant disobeying direction under law.

Section 166-B punishment for non treatment of victim.
Section 177 wearing Garb or carrying token used by public servant with
fraudulent intent.

CHAPTER 9-A (O) RELATING TO ELECTIONS

Section 171A: Candidate and electoral right has been defined

• “Candidate” means a person who has been nominated as a candidate at an

election.
• “Electoral right” means the right of a person to stand or not to stand as or to
withdraw from being a candidate or to vote or refrain from voting at an election.
Section 171 B: bribery whoever gives
1. To any person with the object of inducing him or any other person to exercise
any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such
right.
2. Except teaser for himself or for any other person any gratification as a reward
for exercising any such right or inducing or attempting to induce any other
person to exercise any that's right,
commits the offence of bribery.
Section 177 C: undue influence at elections whoever voluntarily interferes or
attempts to interfere with the Free exercise of any electoral right commits the
offence of undue influence at an election.
Section 171 D: Personation at elections.—Whoever at an election applies for a
voting paper or votes in the name of any other person, whether living or dead, or
in a fictitious name, or who having voted once at such election applies at the
same election for a voting paper in his own name, and whoever abets, procures
or attempts to procure the voting by any person in any such way, commits the
offence or personation at an election [Provided that nothing in this section shall
apply to a person who has been authorised to vote as proxy for an elector under
any law for the time being in force in so far as he votes as a proxy for such
elector.]
“treating” means that form of bribery where the gratification consists in food,
drink, entertainment, or provision.

CHAPTER 16 OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN BODY

Meaning
Culpabilis - “worthy of blame”.
Homicide- ‘homo’ which means a man, ‘caedere’ which means to cut or kill.

“Homi”
Homicide
Means MAN

“Cido”
Means cut

“HOMICIDE” means – killing of a human being by another human being.

Homicide is the genus and the murder is the species.
Homicide are of two types:
1. Lawful homicide further defined as Excusable homicide & Justified
homicide – the one’s which have been protected under chapter 4, section
76-106.

2. Unlawful homicide also known criminal homicide – they have been stated
under IPC as offence under this code.

• Under this code 4 types of homicide have been mentioned:

 o Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
o Culpable homicide amounting to murder.
o Death by rash or negligent act.
o Dowry death.
Why the difference in punishment?

• The Intention matters- whether it was a murder in cold blood or not.

• Cold Blooded murder- If a person kills someone in cold blood, they kill them
in a calm and deliberate way, rather than in anger or self-defence.
Section 299: Culpable homicide.-
- Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing
death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause
death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Explanation 1.- A person who causes bodily injury to another who is
laboring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby
accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his
death.
Explanation 2. – Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who
causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death,
although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death
might have been prevented.
Explanation 3.- The causing of the death of a child in the mother’s womb is
not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death
of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the
child may not have breathed or been completely born.
Ingredients of Culpable homicide

• Intention (of causing death)

• Bodily Injury (likely to cause death)
• Knowledge (that such act will likely cause death)

In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu punnaya Anr. (1976) It was held that
culpable homicide is the genus and murder is the species which was reiterated in the
recent case of Rampal Singh vs State of UP (2012)

Section 300. Murder.-

- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder,
if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of
causing death, or
 - Secondly- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury
as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to
whom the harm is caused. Or
- Thirdly- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any
person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
- Fourthly- If the person committing the act knows that it is so
imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act
without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such
injury as aforesaid.
Exception 1- When culpable homicide in not murder- Culpable homicide is
not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by
grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the
provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:-
First- That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the
offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
Secondly.- That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to
the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such
public servant.
Thirdly.- That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful
exercise of the right of private defence.
Explanation- Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to
prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.
Exception 2.- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender in the exercise in god
faith of the right of private defence or person or property, exceeds the power given
to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such
right of defence without prediation, and without any intention of doing more harm
than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Exception 3.- Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant
or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the
powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith,
believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as the such
public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception4.- Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without
premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and
without the offender’s having h taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual
manner.
Explanation.- it is immaterial in such case which party person whose death is
caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death
with his own consent.
Ingredients of Culpable Homicide Amounting to Murder
Ingredients of Culpable Homicide
1. Intention (Of causing Death)
2. Bodily Injury (which will likely cause death)
3. Knowledge (that such act will likely cause death)
+
Intention is of such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the
death of the person to whom the harm is caused.
Bodily Injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death,
Knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause
death.
Section 300: deals with situations where culpable homicide is murder it can be said
that murder includes culpable homicide but a culpable homicide may or may not
amount to murder.

• culpable homicide will amount to murder only when it falls within the ambit of
section 300,otherwise will be “culpable homicide not amounting to murder”.
• Section 300 defines Murder, Section 302 provides the punishment for Murder and
section 307 provides punishment for attempt to murder

Ingredients of Murder section 300 provides that culpable homicide is murder if it

is done with
1. Intention to cause death.
The gravest of the species of murder; It is basically intention of a person in
killing of a person.
2. Intention to cause bodily injury knowing that such injury caused is likely to
cause death.
Mens rea under clause 2 is twofold: first there must be an intension to cause
bodily harm, secondly there must be ‘knowledge’ that death is the likely result
or consequence of such intended bodily injury.
This knowledge under sec.299 has not been postulated as done under sec.300.

3. Intention of causing bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to

cause death.
4. Knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that in all probability it will
cause death or bodily injury likely to cause death and such act should be
without justification.

Exceptions to Section 300: section 300 provides five exceptions where “culpable
homicide will not amount to murder” these exceptions are:
1. Where the act is done on Grave and sudden provocation
 • Person must be deprived of power of self control.
• Person must cause death of a person who gave sudden and Grave
provocation.
• Death may be caused of some other person by mistake or accident.
• Provocation must not be sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender.
• Provocation is not given by anything done in obedience of law or by public
servant in exercise of public duty.
• Provocation is not given by anything done in law full exercise of right of
private defence.

2. Where the act is done in exceeding the right of private defence of person or
property.

• Right of private defence must be exercised in good faith.

• It should be done without premeditation.
• It should be without intention of causing more harm than necessary.

3. Where the act is done in exceeding the right by public servant or in aiding a public
servant.

• Public servant or person aiding public servant must be acting in advancement

of public justice.
• Act must be done in good faith and under a belief that it is lawful and
necessary for discharge of duty of public servants.
• It should be without ill-will toward the person whose death is caused.

4. Where the act is done in sudden fight without premeditation.

• It is a material which party offers provocation or commits the first fight.

5. Where the act is done with the consent of deceased of the age of above 18 years.

Section 304 A - causing death by negligence

Sec.304 A punishes causing death by Rash or negligent act. Following are the
essential ingredients of the section:

• The death of any person is caused by Rash or negligent act.

• The act causing that does not amount to culpable homicide.

➢ This section applies where there is neither any intention to cause their
knowledge that the act would be in all probability cause death.

➢ Death should be the direct result of rash and negligent act .

➢ Rashness and negligence is not the same thing negligence is the genus and
rational is this species.
➢ culpable rashness is acting with consciousness that illegal consequence may
follow but with the hope that it will not because the person is under the belief
that he has taken the necessary precaution. Contributory negligence is no
defence to the criminal charge.
In the case of Jacob Mathew versus State of Punjab 2005, Supreme Court held that
the word gross has not been used in section 304 A, but it is said that a criminal law,
negligence or recklessness must be of such high degree as to be gross. The
expression ‘rash and negligent act’ is to be qualified by the word “grossly”.

Section 304B Dowry Death

This provision was inserted by the Amendment Act of 1986(w.e.f. 19/11/1986).
Section 304 B defines dowry death and provides punishment for it. The essential
ingredients for dowry death are:
1. The death of a woman should be caused by burns or fatal injury or otherwise
than under normal circumstances.
2. Death should have occurred within 7 years of her marriage.
3. She must have been subjected to cruelty or has harassment by her husband or
any relative of her husband.
4. Such cruelty or harassment should be for in connection with demand for
dowry.
Punishment for dowry death is the imprisonment for a term which is not less than
seven years but which may extend to life imprisonment.
In Mustafa shahdal Shaikh versus state of Maharashtra, 2013 SC interpreted the
expression ‘soon before death’ and held that there must be existence of proximate
and Live link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the
concerned death.
In Girish Singh versus state of Uttarakhand, 2019 Supreme Court held that
conviction under section 304 b can be made only if the women was subjected to
cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative which must be for in
connection with any demand for dowry.

Abetment of suicide section 305 & 306

Section 305 makes abetment of suicide punishable to the following persons:

• Child Below The Age Of 18 Years

• Insane Person
• Delirious Person
• Idiot
• Intoxicated person
 Punishment under section 305 is death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a
term not exceeding 10 year then also fine.
Section 306 provides that 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 also be liable to fine.

Attempt to murder and culpable homicide section 307 & 308

Section 307 provides for attempt to commit Murder and Section 308 provides for
attempt to commit culpable homicide.
Section 307 provides that attempt to murder shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable
to fine and if hurt is caused to any person by such at the offender shall be liable to
imprisonment for life or to such punishment as hereinbefore mentioned

Section 309 Attempt to Commit Suicide

Section 309 provides punishment for attempt to commit suicide it provides that
whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of
such (O) shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 1
year or with fine or with both

In Maruti shripati Dubal vs State of Maharashtra Bombay High Court held that
section 309 is violative of article 14 19 and 21 of the constitution, right to life
includes right to live and right not to live.

P.Rathinam versus Union of India 1994 Supreme Court observed that section 309
violates article 21 of the constitution.
Smt. Gyan Kaur vs State of Punjab 1996 Supreme Court overruled previous
decisions and held that section 309 is not violative of article 14 and 21 of the
constitution right to die is not included in right to life.

Section 310: Thug - section defines as to who is a thug, while punishment for a thug
has been provided by section 311. A thug according to section 310, is one who after
the passing of this Code shall have been associated as a matter of habit with any
other person or persons for the purpose of committing either robbery or child-
stealing either by means of murder or accompanied with murder, sections 310 and
311 are similar to the provisions under the Thugee Act, 1836.
The offence of thugee was practised on a large scale in the olden days, but it has
become almost extinct now. Habitual association is a necessary ingredient under
this section and the purpose of such association must be commission of robbery or
child-stealing by means of or accompanied with murder. Since thugee was practised
by gangs in the olden days, habitual association has been deliberately made an
essential element.

OFFENCES RELATING TO FOETUS, UNBORN CHILDREN AND INFANTS

Section 312: Causing miscarriage – punishes the (O) of causing miscarriage.
Miscarriage nowhere defined in IPC it is synonymous to abortion. The ingredients of
section 312:-
1. Voluntarily causing the woman to miscarry.
2. The miscarriage was not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life
of the woman.
The factum of pregnancy is a prerequisite to the offence. The sections provide
distinct liabilities for offences against a woman who is known to be b or ‘quick with
child’. In the case of Queen-Empress v. Ademma, it was held that “the moment a
woman conceives and the gestation period/ pregnancy begins, the woman is said to
be ‘with child’”; while in another case of Re: Malayara Seethu, a ‘woman quick with
child’ was referred to as a more advanced stage of pregnancy wherein ‘quickening’ is
perceived to be the mother’s stimulus to the movement of her foetus. However, an
offence against a woman ‘quick with child’ is an aggravated form of that against a
woman ‘with child’, and hence, the punishment prescribed for the latter is
imprisonment for upto 3 years/ fine/ both, and for the former is upto 7 years with
fine.

Sec.312 – here miscarriage is caused with the consent of the woman, so for the
punishment even the woman is liable whereas under sec.313 the person procuring
abortion alone is liable.

Sec.314: Death caused by act done with intent to cause miscarriage. Here the
knowledge of the act is not required, mere intension to cause miscarriage is
sufficient under then this section, the death need not be a known consequence.

Sections 315 & 316 envisage the provisions relating to injury caused to an unborn
child. They cover the situations where an act is done with the intention of preventing
such child to be born alive; or causing the death of a child who’s quick unborn by an
act amounting to culpable homicide.
Essential ingredients to sec.316
1. Act done or injury done to the unborn before the birth of the child. The
culpable act or actus reus must be done before the birth of the child and not
later.
2. Intention of preventing the birth of the child being born alive or cause it to die
after birth.
3. The act under this section is done with the proper mens rea or intention to
commit to culpable homicide which is graver then sec.315.
Section 317 of the IPC deals with the offence of exposing a child under twelve years
of age with an intention of wholly abandoning it, done by a parent or any person
having care of it.
The ingredients of sec.317:

1. Child to be under twelve years.

2. Responsibility is on both Father and Mother or Person Having Care of Such

Child: Contrary to the provisions of the Guardians & Wards Act 1890,
wherein the father is declared as the natural guardian of the child, the IPC
under Section 317 equally obliges both the father & mother alike to provide
care & protection to the child, irrespective of the child being born in/outside
wedlock.
3. Parents as well as people who are in due care of the child such as day care
centres, crèches, orphanage, etc are equally liable to take care of the child.

Section 318: deals with a situation where a person intentionally endeavours to

conceal a child’s birth by secretly burying or disposing of the dead body of the child,
irrespective of the death occurring before/after/during its birth.

Essential ingredients of sec.318:

1. Secret disposal of bodies of children.
2. Dead body of child: The term ‘body’ in this Section indicates a precondition
that the secret burial/disposal should be of the dead body of the child, i.e. the
child should not be a mere embryo/foetus but should’ve been developed and
matured.
3. Conceals or endeavours to conceal birth: An essential element stipulated by
this Section is that of the intention of the accused to conceal/attempt to
conceal the birth of the child. The offence becomes complete when the birth of
the child, dead/living, is concealed by any means.

HURT OR GRIEVOUS HURT

Simple hurt - section 319 321 323
Grievous hurt - section 320 322 325
Causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or dangerous means - section
324 and 326
Causing grievous hurt by acid - Section 326A 326B
Causing hurt by means of poison - Section 328
Causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort confession or compel Restoration of
property - Section 330 & 331
Causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter public servant - Section 332 and 333
Causing hurt or grievous hurt on provocation - Section 334 & 335
Causing hurt and grievous hurt by endangering life or personal safety of others
Section 336, 337 & 338

Section 319: defines ‘hurt’ and section 320 defines ‘grievous hurt’.

• Hurt is a non-fatal crime, fatal crimes are life threatening crimes.

• Non-Fatal Crimes: Assault—Criminal Force—Hurt –Grievous hurt.
Section 319: Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said
to cause hurt.
Essentials to the offence of Hurt
- Bodily pain
- Disease
- Infirmity
- Actus Reus- act causing hurt
- Mens Rea- Intention or Knowledge of causing hurt.

Jashnmal Jhamatmal v. Brahmanand Sarupanand, 1943

Facts: In this case accused was evicted out of a house, the complainant also lived in
the same house as tenants. The victim decided if he couldn’t live there, no one else
can. So he hid under the staircase in the dark and when the wife of the complainant
came down she shouted at her ‘hooo’ and pointed a gun at her. The wife got a
nervous shock and collapsed and the accused was charged with causing hurt.
Arguments: The accused argued that there was no physical contact between her and
him and his intention was only to scare her out that place and there was no physical
pain occurred.
Held: Firstly, Physical contact is not an essential for causing hurt. The accused can
still be liable for act whose direct consequences cause hurt. Secondly, the means rea
can be fulfilled with knowledge also, that the act might cause hurt so, there can be
offence of hurt it there was only knowledge and no intention. Thirdly, Nervous shock
does not cause Physical pain but Hurt also covers Disease and Infirmity and a
nervous shock would be considered an infirmity under Section 319. So the accused
was held liable for hurt.
Infirmity means the inability of an organ to perform its normal function temporarily
or permanently, it could also be temporary mental impairment, hysteria or terror.
Section 321: voluntarily causing hurt: Most important essential component of this
section is “intention” to cause hurt or the “knowledge” that the act is likely to cause
hurt.
Section 323: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt.
Whoever, except in the cause provided for by section 334, voluntarily cause hurt,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with
both.
If the intention was of only causing hurt and the victim dies in a way which couldn’t
be reasonably foreseen then the person who caused death would only be held liable
for hurt.
Section 324: Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.-
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes
hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument
which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or
any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by
means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is
deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or
by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Section 320: Grievous hurt is defined here.
Grievous hurt. – The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”:-
First - Emasculation. (Causing impotency, loss of virility, only applicable to men)
Secondly - Permanent privation (loss) of the sight of either eye.
Thirdly - Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
Fourthly – Privation of any member or joint.
Fifthly - Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
Sixthly - Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
Seventhly - Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
Eighthly - Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during
the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary
pursuits.
The line of difference between grievous hurt which endangers life and culpable
homicide where the hurt is likely to cause death is very thin. But there is a difference
nonetheless. It will be decide on basis of evidence whether the intention of assailants
was to cause death or not. [Laxman vs. State of Maharashtra, 1974]
Section 322 - Voluntarily causing grievous hurt.
Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows
himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is
grievous hurt, is said “voluntarily to cause grievous hurt”.
If the person intends/has knowledge of causing one kind of grievous hurt and he
causes some other kind of grievous hurt then he is liable for the grievous hurt caused
even though the intention was not for that particular grievous hurt.
Example: a person intending to break the bone of hand but breaks the bone of legs. If
a person had intention/ knowledge of causing hurt but grievous hurt was caused
because of some unforeseeable circumstances then he will be liable only for hurt.
Example: if someone hits someone with the intention of causing hurt, but the other
person had brittle bones and suffered multiple fractures which was not foreseeable
by the other person then he will only be liable for hurt.
Section 325: Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.-
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous
hurt, 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 326: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or
means.
Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes
grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any
instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely ot cause death, or by means
of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive
substance, or by mean of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance
which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the
blood, or by means of any animal, 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.

Accused bit the nose tip of the victim, the teeth would be considered dangerous
weapon because they can be used as an instrument of cutting. So the offence would
fall under 324 or 326 according to the fact as to whether the act fall under Hurt of
Grievous Hurt.
[Jameel Hasan vs. The State, 1974]

Section 326A: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid etc.

Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity or disables, any part or
parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by
administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of
causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less
than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine;
Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses
of the treatment of the victim;
Provided further that any fine imposed under this section, shall be paid to the
victim.
Section 326B –Voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid-
Whoever throws or attempts to throw acid n any person or attempts to administer
acid to any person, or attempts to use any other means, with the intention of causing
permanent or partial damage or deformity or bums or mainming or disfigurement or
disability or grievous hurt to that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanations
For the purposes of section 326A and this section, “acid” includes any substance
which has acidic or corrosive character or burning nature, that is capable of causing
bodily injury leading to scars or disfigurement or temporary or permanent disability.
For the purposes of section 326A and this section, permanent or partial damage or
deformity shall not be required to be irreversible.
Section 328: Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit and
offence - Extension of Section 324 (Hurt by dangerous weapon), In 324 there should
have been hurt cause but in 328 only mere administering of poison is sufficient to
make it an offence.
Ingredients of section 328
1. The offender should administer a poisonous stupefying intoxicating or
unwholesome drug.
2. Such administration should be with the intention to cause hurt, or to commit
or facilitate the commission of an offence.
3. Such administration should be with the knowledge that it is likely to cause
hurt.
Section 327: Voluntarily causing hurt to extort property, or to constrain to an
illegal act
Section 329: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort property, or to
constrain to an illegal act.
Section 330: Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession or to compel
restoration of property.
Section 331: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort confession or to
compel restoration of property.
{D.K. Basu vs State of West Bengal (1997)- Any form of torture or cruel inhuman
degrading treatment to a arrested person is against Article 21 of the constitution
whether it occurs during investigation, interrogation or otherwise and is punishable
under Section 330/331 as applicable.}
Section 332: Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty.
Section 333: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant form his
duty.
Section 334: Voluntarily causing hurt on provocation.
Section 335: Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation - It’s a
Diminished Responsibility so Lesser punishment (1 month for hurt-4 Years for GH)
the Provisos of Exception 1 to Section 300 shall apply in the same manner.
Section 336: Act endangering life or personal safety of others - If no hurt or GH
is caused then Section 336 shall apply, if Hurt or GH is caused then 337 or 338 shall
apply.
Section 337: Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.
Section 338: Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.

WRONGFUL RESTRAINT & WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT

Section 339: Wrongful restrain - Voluntary Obstruction in any one direction.
The ingredients of section 339 wrongful restraint are
1. Voluntary obstruction of a person.
2. The obstruction must be such as to prevent that person from proceeding in
any direction in which he has a right to proceed.
• The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good
faith believes himself to have a lawful right of obstruct, is not an offence
within the meaning of this section.
• Physical obstruction by mere verbal prohibition constitutes wrongful
restraint.
• Physical presence of the accused is not always necessary.
Section 340: Wrongful Confinement
Voluntary restraining beyond certain circumscribing limits.
The ingredients of section 340 wrongful confinement are:
1. A person is wrongfully restrained.
2. By wrongful restraint, he is prevented from proceeding beyond certain
circumscribing limits.

Punishment for restraint- Section 341

• Up to one month or fine (up to Rs. 500) or both

Punishment for confinement- Section 342-346

• 342- Up to one year or fine (UP to Rs. 1000) or both.

• 343- Confinement for more than days- up to 2 years, or with fine or both.
• 344- Confinement for more than 10 days- up to 3 years, or with fine or both.
 • 345- Confinement of person whose liberation writ has been issqed- extra
punishment up to 2 years in addition to other punishment up to 2 years in
addition to other punishment for which he is liable under any other section of
this chapter.
346- Confinement in secret – up to extra 2 years just like 345
347- Confinement to extort property, or constrain illegal act- up to 3 years
plus fine
348- Confinement to extort confession, or compel restoration of property.- up
to 3 years plus fine
Section 347 and 348 are related to Section 327, 329, 330, 330, 331, (Hurt and
Grievous hurt for extorting property confession etc.)

CRIMINAL FORCE AND ASSAULT - (Section 349-358)

SECTION 349-FORCE
A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or
cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or
change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact that
other’s body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with
anything so situated that such contact affects that other’s sense of feeling:
Provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation f
motion, causes that motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the
three ways hereinafter described.
First- By his own bodily power.
Secondly- By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or change or
cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part or on the part of
any other person.
Thirdly- By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move.

SECTION 350- CRIMINAL FORCE (KNOWN AS ‘BATTERY’ IN ENGLISH LAW)

Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’s consent, in
order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to
cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear
or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to
that other.
Ingredients of criminal force
1. There must be use of force as defined by section 349 and such force should be
used intentionally.
 2. The force must be used against the person and it should have been used
without the consent of the person against whom it is used.
3. The use of force should be in:
(a) pursuit of committing an offence or
(b) Intending to cause or knowing that it is likely to cause injury, fear or
annoyance to the person to whom the force is used.
SECTION 351-ASSAULT
Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing. It to be likely
that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he
who makes that gesture or preparation is about to sue criminal force to that person,
is said to commit an assault.
Explanation- Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a
person uses may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may give to
his gestures or preparation such a meaning as any make those gestures or
preparations amount.
Ingredients to Assault
1. The accused should make a gesture or preparation to use criminal force.
2. Such gesture or preparation should be made in the presence of the person in
respect of whom it is made.
3. There should be intention or knowledge on the part of the accused that such
gesture or preparation would cause apprehension in the mind of the victim
that criminal force would be used against him and,
4. Such gesture or preparation has actually caused apprehension in the mind of
the victim of use of criminal force against him.
In Stephen v. Myers (1830) the defendant clenched the plaintiffs hand and said that
he would throw him out of the chair. This is Assault.
Note: A verbal threat is not assault unless the person to whom verbal threat is made
reasonably assumes that the other person is going to use force. The whole liability
for this offence depends on the fact that whether the ‘apprehension of force’ was
created in the other person's mind.

Punishment for assault and criminal force

Section 352: Punishment for assault and criminal force-up to 3 months, or with fine
or both.
(If grave and sudden provocation resulted in the offence then the punishment could
be mitigated, the same conditions as Exception 1 of Section 300 shall apply in
respect of Grave and sudden provocation i.e. it will not be gasp if provocation is
sought, the provocation was from act of public Servant doing his duty or the
provocation is given by anything done by other person in self defence),
Section 353- Assault or Criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of
duty - up to 2 years, or with fine or both.
Bhupinder Singh V State of Punjab (1997 CR LJ 3416)-
Accused Snatched ballot papers from election officer and tore them officer and tore
them off punished under this section i.e. use of criminal force , because he deterred
the public servant from his duty.
Section 354- Outraging the Modesty of Women- 1 to 5 years, or with fine or both
Presence/ Absence of consent of the woman is the deciding factor in this offence
Section 354A- Sexual Harassment- up to 3 years, or with fine or both
Section 354B- Assault or Criminal force with intent to disrobe-3to 7 years
Section 354C- Voyeurism- 1st conviction 1-3 years, subsequent attempt 3-7 years.
Section 354D- Stalking-1st conviction-up to 3years, subsequent conviction up to 5
years.
Section 355- Dishonouring person- to 2 years, or with fine or both.
Section 356- In attempt tot commit theft of property-up to 2 years, or with fine of
both
Section 357- IN attempt or wrongfully confine a person-up to 1 year, or with fine or
both.
Section 358- Assault or Criminal Force on Grave provocation- Up to one month, or
with fine or both.
(the provocation must be from that person who is assaulted or against whom
Criminal Force is used.)

OUTRAGING MODESTY OF WOMEN -`HARASSMENT, VOYEURISM AND

STALKING
Who is a woman?
Section 10 defines ‘Man’ and ‘Woman’ as a male and female human being
respectively of any age.

What is modesty of women?

Modesty of a woman is a virtue attached to a woman. Owing to her ‘sex’
[Tarkeshwar Sahu v. State of Bihar, (2006)]
Does a girl who has not gained puberty and not developed a sex instinct has a
concept of modesty?
In State of Punjab v. Major Singh (AIR 1967 SC 63) , the accused went into a room,
switched off the lights, stripped himself naked and performed indecent act of
unnatural lust be insertion of finger in the vagina of 7.5 month old girl.
It was argued on his behalf that this won’t attract Section 354 because a child of 7.5
month is not capable of developing a sex instinct so she doesn’t have concept of
modesty which could be outraged.
Trail Court and High Court accepted this contention but Supreme Court said that yes,
the modesty is based on her sex but that modesty is with every woman from her
birth. Yes sometimes the reaction of the woman on the act is very important to
constitute an offence but absence of such a reaction does not mean that Section 354
would not apply.
Section 354 will apply in this case as it will apply in this case as it will apply to an
adult sleeping woman who was not aware who was not aware of outraging of her
modesty.
Section 354 - Assault or Criminal Force to women with intent to outrage her
Modesty -1 to 5 years punishment, or with fine or both.
Note: Presence/Absence of consent of the woman is the deciding factor in this
offence.
Section 354A – Sexual Harassment
(1) A man committing any of the following acts-
a. Physical contract and advances involving unwelcomed and explicit
sexual overtures; or
b. A demand or request for sexual favour; or
c. Showing pornography against the will of a woman;
d. Making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of
sexual harassment.

Vishakha V. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1997 SC 3011)

354A was added by an amendment in 2013. Before that the governing law on
sexual harassment at workplace was Vishakha Guidelines given in this case by
the Supreme Court.
Sexual harassment was described as any unwelcomed sexually determined
behaviour (whether directly, indirectly or implied) like physical contact and
advances, a demand or request for sexual favours sexually coloured remarks,
showing pornography and other unwelcomed physical, verbal or nonverbal
conduct of sexual nature. The parliament has also enacted ‘Sexual harassment
of women at workplace (Prevention, Prahibition and Redressal) Act, 2013’
Section 354B- Assault or Criminal force to women with intent to disrobe-
Any man who assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets such act
with the intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not
be less than three years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also
be liable to fine.
Section 354C- Voyeurism
Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a
private act in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of
not being observed either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the
behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such image shall be punished on
first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which
shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall
also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction,
with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less
than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable
to fine.
Explanation 1.- For the purpose of this section, “private act” includes an act of
watching carried out in a pliace which, in the circumstances, would
reasonable be expected to provide privacy and where the vicitm’s genitals,
posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim
is using a lavatory; or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind
ordinarily done in public.
Explanation 2.- Where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any
act, but not to their dissemination to third persons and where such image or
act is disseminated, such dissemination shall be considered an offence under
this section.
Section 354D- Stalking
1. Any man who-
a. Following a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such
woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear
indication of disinterest by such woman;
b. Monitors they use by a woman of the internet, email or any other
form of electronic communication.
Commits the offence of stalking. Provided that such conduct shall not amount
to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that-
a. It was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and
the man accused of stalking had been entrusted with the
responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by the state; or
b. It was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or
requirement imposed by any person under any law; or
c. In the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and
justified.
2. Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first
conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a
 second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to five year, and shall also be liable to fine.

KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION

NOTE: There could be kidnapping of a non-minor and abduction could be of a minor.
KIDNAPPING
Generally Kidnapping means ‘child’ stealing of England. But in IPC the provisions are
not uniform, and all kidnapping are not only in to a minor.
Section 359- Kidnapping is of two types: kidnapping from India and
Kidnapping from lawful Guardianship.
Section 360- Kidnapping from India – Could be of a minor or of a major.
When any person of any age is conveyed beyond the territorial limits of India
without his/her consent, In case of minors (Without the consent of someone who is
authorized to give consent on their behalf) – consent will construed as mentioned in
Section 90.
Section 361- Kidnapping from lawful guardianship - Could be of a minor or a
person of unsound mind only.
Essentials:
o There should be taking away or enticing out of the lawful guardianship
without the guardian’s consent.
o It should be of a minor (U/16 if male(boy) or U/18 if female(girl)) or of a
person of unsound mind.
o The taking or enticing away must be out of the keeping of the local guardian
of such minor or person of unsound mind and,

o Such taking or enticing away must be without the consent of such guardian.

Note: The ‘consent’ of the minor or of unsound person doesn’t matter here.

• The word ‘entice’ connotes the idea of inducement or pursuance by

offer of pleasure or some other form of allurement.
• The word “keeping of the lawful guardian” Was considered by
Supreme Court in the case of State Of Haryana Vs Raja Ram (1973),
the court said word “keeping” connotes the idea of charge, protection,
maintenance and control.
 •

Varadrajan v. State of madras (1965)

A Girl of her own free will voluntarily lift her father’s home and went to the
accused and went to sub-registrar’s office to register an agreement to marry, no
evidence was shown that the boy took away or enticed the girl. So he was not held
liable under Section 361.
There is difference between “lawful guardian” and “leg guardian”. A guardian may be
lawful without being legal. The lawful guardian is one to whom the care and custody
of a child is lawfully entrusted under a lawful proceeding in lawful manner. It will
not be kidnapping if a person good faith believes himself to be the father of an
illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to lawful
custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful
purpose.
Punishment for kidnapping
Section 363: kidnapping under 360 and 361: up to 7years plus fine.
Section 363A: kidnapping or abducting a minor for a purposes of begging: life
imprisonment or up to 10 years plus fine.
Section 364: Kidnapping or abducting to commit murder: up to 10 years.
Section 365: to secretly or wrongfully confine a person: up to 7 years plus fine

ABDUCTION
Section 362- Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any
person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.
Abduction per se is no offence under IPC, it is only an offence when it is accompanied
by certain intent to commit another offence.
Essentials

• Forcible compulsion or inducement by deceitful means and,

• The object of such compulsion or inducement must be the going of a person
from any place.

Gurcharan Singh v. State (1972)

The Accused induced a minor girl to go with him by threatening her by pointing a
pistol at her; the act amounted to abduction and not kidnapping from lawful
guardianship because the element of compulsion by force was present in the case.
 • The term ‘force’ means the use of actual force and not merely to show force or
threat of force.

• Inducing a person by deceitful means to go from any place is also an

offence. ‘Deceitful’ means substitution to the ‘use of force’ and an alternative
to deceive a person to leave a place.
• Deceitful means misleading a person by making false representation and
there by persuading the person to leave any place.

Punishment for Abduction

Abduction is per se not a crime under Section362; it is a punishable crime if 362 is in
combination with any of these intents:
➢ Section 364: to commit Murder- up to 10 years.

➢ Section 364-A: For ransom- death penalty or imprisonment for life with fine.
(Added as a deterrent to increased kidnapping and abductions by amendment
act of 1993).

➢ Section 365: to secretly or wrongfully confine a person: up to 7 years plus

fine.

➢ Section 366: to induce a woman to compel her marriage.

➢ Section 367: To subject a person to grievous hurt, slavery etc: up to 10 years

plus fine
➢ Section 369: to abduct a child under 10 years of age with intent to steal from
its person (here from his person means ‘his body’ , so stealing from his person
means stealing his chian, nose ring, ornaments, money, etc)

Thakoral D Vadgama v. State of Gujarat (1973)

Accused used to go to the prostitutes regularly, at the place of prostitutes he found a
16- year-old married girl who was leading a life of prostitute, he brought her to live
with him without the knowledge of her husband.
It is not kidnapping because the girl was already out of the lawful custody of her
husband.
Kidnapping & Abduction Difference

KIDNAPPING ABDUCTION
Two types of Kidnapping: Age doesn’t Age doesn’t matter ever. The offence is
matter in ‘kidnapping from India-Section committed against the person abducted.
360’. Age matters when the situation is of Guardian has no role.
‘Kidnapping from lawful guardianship-
Section 361’ Under this section
Kidnapping is Committed in respect of
Minor, person of unsound mind;
kidnapping is Against the will of
guardian [Age of Minors: male- U16;
Female- U18].
Only taking away or enticing. Force, compulsion, inducement by
Deceitful means is involved.
Consent of kidnapped person doesn’t Consent if given in abduction then it is no
mean anything under 361, but matters abduction.
under 360 for kidnapping of non minor.
Kidnapping is in itself an offence. Abduction is a crime if there is criminal
intent; section 364-366.
Nota a continuing offence, offence Continuing offence, offence continues as
completes as soon as the minor or long as the abducted person is removed
person of unsound mind has been from one place to another.
removed from the lawful guardianship.
Intent of Kidnapper doesn’t matter. Intent of abductor is important factor for
deciding the gravity of the offence and
punishment.

RAPE

Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra (1979)

Which is also known as ‘Mathura Bai Rape Case’, this was a case in context of
‘custodial rape’.

A tribal girl named ‘Mathura Bai’ was reaped by policeman in custody and when the
matter reached the sessions courts, the courts said that Mathura was ‘habituated to
sexual intercourse’, and their was voluntary consent on her part for intercourse, so
intercourse only can be proven and not rape, the policeman were held not guilty.

The Supreme court though acquitted the accused policeman, the reasoning of
Supreme court was that Mathura did not raise any alarm; and also, no visible marks
of injury were there on her body which suggested that there was no struggle and
therefore no rape.
Aftermath: Renowned law professor Upendra Baxi and other professors of law wrote
an open letter to supreme court protesting the ‘interpretation’ of the concept of
‘consent’ of supreme court.

The main contention was that ‘consent involves submission, but submission does not
mean consent.’

The court was accused of being so regressive that just because ‘pre-marital sex’ is
taboo in India and Mathura bai had a history of having sex before marriage, the
court is allowing rape of young girls by policeman.

The decision also got mainstream media coverage.

And the result of this Judgment was the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983

Major changes in this context of rape through this amendment were:

• Burden of proof of proving that consent was present lies on the accused.
• Section 376A- 376D were added. Custodial rape punishable under 376(2).
• Disclosing identity of victim punishable (added 228A in IPC).

Nirbhaya Case/2012 Delhi Gang Rape Case

- Resulted in Criminal law (Amendment) Ordinance 2013

- Also called the Nirbhaya Act, Anti-Rape Act.
- Based on the recommendations of ‘Justice Verma Committee’

Justice Verma Committee

3 member body headed by justice J.S Verma, Former CJ of SC of India.
o Objective of Committee- To review possible amendments to the criminal law
and suggest measures for faster trials and harsher punishments for vicious
offences against women.
o Recommendations of the committee
• Increased punishments for rape (not death penalty though).
• Increased punishments for other sexual offences like Voyeurism, acid
attacks etc.
• Stricter provisions for registering complaints of rape.
 • Bill of Rights for women which gives dignity and respect to women
over their choices of sexual relationships and for their sexual
autonomy. (but this has not been included in amendment till now)

Kathua Rape Case 2018

- Resulted in Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordiance, 2018.

- Main Objective was to give harsher punishment to perpetrators
of rape, especially for the rape of minor girls below 16 years
and 12 years.
- Minimum Punishment of rape increased from 7 years to 10 years.
- Gang Rape of a girl below 16 years is imprisonment for the rest of
the life.
- Rape of a girl below 12 years of age has minimum 20 years
punishment and up to death penalty.
- Provisions for speedy investigations of trial and appeals (Cr.P.C)
o Investigation -2 months
o Trial- 2 months
o Disposal of Appeal- 6 months
- No provision for anticipatory bail for a person accused for rape
or gang rape of a girl below 16 years of age.
- If different punishments in IPC and POCSO (The protection of
children from sexual offences act, 2012), then the punishment
which is higher will be given.

375. Rape- A man is said to commit “rape” if he-

a. Penetrates his penis, to any extend, into the vagina, mouth,

urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or
any other person; or
b. Inserts, to any extent any object or a part of the body, not being
the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or
makes her to do so with him or any other person; or
 c. Manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause
penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of
such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other
person; or
d. Applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or
makes her to do with him or any or any other person,

Under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions:-

First.- Against her will.

Secondly. – without her consent.

Thirdly.- with her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or
any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt.

Fourthly.- With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and
that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom
she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.

Fifthly.- With her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of
unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or
through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to
understand the nature and nature and consequences of tthat to which she gives
consent.

Sixthly.- With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age.

Seventhly.- When she is unable to communicate consent.

Explanation 1.- For the purposes of this section, “vagina” shall also include labia
majora. Explanation 2.- Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when
the woman by words, gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal communication,
communicates willingness to participate in the specific sexual act:

Provided that a woman who does not physically resist to the act of penetration shall
not by the reason only of that fact, be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity.

Exception 1.- A medical procedure or intervention shall not constitute rape.

Exception 2.- Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife not being
under fifteen years of age, is not rape.

• Only man can commit ‘Rape’

• Even Consensual sex with a girl below 18 years of age is rape.
• Non-Consensual sex with your wife (not younger than 15 years old) is not
rape
(This is not applicable anymore as SC has declared that the age is now
18 in this context too)-

Independent thought vs. union of India-2017

• When woman is not able to communicate her consent, it is rape.
• Consent could be by words gestures or any form of verbal and non-verbal
communication, but if a woman does not resist to the act of penetration that
does not mean that she is consenting.
• All conditions of a valid consent are applicable (as per section 90) – consent
should not be forced consent, consent by fear, consent under mistake of fact
etc.

Will and Consent

• Rape is committee ‘against her will’ and ‘without her consent’

Act done ‘against her will’ is wider than ‘against her consent’
Act done against someone’s will is always without their consent.
But vice versa is not true i.e.
• Act done could be with the consent but against the will.
• Like a girl who is intoxicated, or a girl under mistake of fact gives her consent
for sexual intercourse but that does not mean that she was willing to do that.

Difference between Outraging Modesty of women and Rape:

The main difference is the act done and to differentiate we have to read 375(a)-
375(d)

If acts falling under any of the scenarios mentioned from 375(a) to 375(d) then it
will be rape.
Attempt to do any of the acts falling under 375(a) to 375(d) shall be attempt to
rape.

Section 376- Punishment for Rape

1. 10 years- life imprisonment

2. But for the following cases provided the punishment would be 10
years- imprisonment of life which shall mean imprisonment for the
remainder of that person’s natural life.
a. Being a police officer, commits rape,
i. Within the limits of the police station to which such
police officer is appointed; or
ii. In the premises of any station house; or
iii. On a woman in such police officer’s custody of a public
servant subordinate to such public servant; or
b. Being a public servant, commits rape on a woman in such
public servant’s custody or in the custody of a public servant
subordinate to such public servant; or
c. Being a member of the armed forces deployed in an area by
the Central or a state government commits rape in such area;
or
d. Being on the management or on the staff of a jail, remand
home or other place of custody established by or under any
law for the time being in force or of a women’s or children’s
institution, commits rape on any inmate of such jail, remand
home, place or institution; or
e. Being on the management or on the staff of a hospital,
commits rape on a woman in that hospital; or
f. Being a relative, guardian or teacher of, or a person in a
position of trust or authority towards the woman, commits
rape on such woman; or
g. Commits rape during communal or sectarian violence; or
h. Commits rape on a woman knowing her to be pregnant; or
i. Commits rape, on a woman incapable of giving consent; or
 j. Being in a position of control or dominance over a woman
commits rape on a such woman; or
k. Commits rape on a woman suffering from mental or physical
disability; or
l. While committing rape causes grievous bodily harm or
maims or disgigures or endangers the life of a woman; or
m. Commits rape repeatedly on the same woman,
3. Rape of a woman under 16 years of age-20 years punishment-
imprisonment of life which shall mean imprisonment for the
remainder of that persons; natural life. (fine under this section shall
be paid to the victim)

Life imprisonment ‘meaning’

Life imprisonment means punishment till the person take his last breath only. It is
not 14 years or 20 years. The state has authority to reduce the sentence for various
grounds like family related problems, illness, good behavior etc. But according to
Section 433 of Cr.P.C, the State cannot reduce a life imprisonment to less than 14
years, that is why a person serving life imprisonment is some themes set free after
14 years.

But in 376(2) and 376(3) special emphasis is given in written to give life
imprisonment for whole of the remaining life so the life imprisonment is having
higher gravity that life imprisonment in 376 (1).

Other Provisions

376A- Rape causing death or permanent vegetative state or death

376AB- rape of girl under 12 years.

(Punishment- Minimum 20 years up to death)

376B- Rape by Husband During separation with wife- (Punishment-2-7years.)

376C- Sexual Intercourse not amounting to rape by person in authority.

376D- Gang Rape

 (Punsihemnt-20 years- life imprisonment)

376DA- U 16 years old Gang rape

(Punishment - life imprisonment)

376DB- U 12 years old Gang rape

(Punishment -20 years minimum up to death penalty)

376E- Repeat offenders

(Punishment- Life imprisonment or death penalty)

OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY

1. Theft (378-382)
2. Extortion, Robbery and Dacoity (383-402)
3. Criminal Misappropriation (403-404)
4. Criminal breach of trust (405-409)
5. Cheating (415-420)
6. Mischief (425-440)
7. Criminal Trespass (441-462)
8. Stolen property (410-414)
9. Fraudulent Deeds and Disposition of property (421-424)

Section 378 – Theft - Whoever intending to take dishonestly and movable property
out to the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that
property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

Ingredients:

1. A Dishonest intention to take it out of that person’s possession;

2. It should be a Movable property;
 3. Without his consent;
4. Moved out of possession of someone;
• Property attached to earth which is not movable becomes movable as soon as
severed from earth.
• Moving would also mean removing an obstacle which prevented it from
moving.
• Moving an animal through which other things are moved are also covered.
• Consent in this section covers express as well as implied consent.
• You can also commit theft on your own property.
o You pledge your own gold for loan, and then you try to steal the gold.
• Electricity theft (chori) is not theft held in Avtar singh v. state, gas chori is
theft.

Section 380: Theft in dwelling place

Section 381: Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master

Section 382: Theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint
in order to the committing of the theft.

Section 383 - Extortion whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury
to that person, or to any other 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 valuable security, commits “extortion”.

Valuable security- section 30- A document relating to a legal right (creation,

restriction, extension etc of a legal right)

Injury- Section 44- Illegal Harm to person in body, mind, reputation or property.

Ingredients

1. Fear to injury (injury could be in future)

2. Dishonest inducement
3. To deliver to any person any property (both movable or immovable),
valuable security or anything which cab be converted into valuable
security.
 • If you extort person on basis of the fear of publishing material which
tarnishes his/her image, it doesn’t matter that material you want to publish is
based on the truth.

Section 390 Robbery In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.

Robbery Robbery
Theft Extortion

When theft is robbery – theft is “robbery” When extortion is robbery – Extortion is

if, in order to the committing of the theft, “robbery” if the offender, at the time of
or in committing the theft, or in carrying committing the extortion, is in the
away or attempting to carry away presence of the person put in fear, and
property obtained by the theft, the commits the extortion by putting that
offender, for that end, voluntarily causes person in fear of instant death, of instant
or attempts to cause to any person death hurt, or of instant to that person or to
hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of some other person, and, by so putting in
instant death or of instant hurt, or of fear, so put in fear then and there to
instant wrongful restraint. deliver up the thing extorted.

Explanation - The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the

other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

Ingredients:

1. Theft or Extortion.
2. Causing/attempting Death, hurt or wrongful restraint.
3. Putting in fear of Instant Death, hurt or wrongful.

Robbery by theft and Robbery by extortion sometimes gets difficult to identity, for
example X enters into a house and asks Y to give him the valuables at gun point (here
it is robbery by extortion because the property is delivered by Y through consent
which is obtained by fear).
But at the same time X stars picking up other property himself (this is robbery by the
because there is no consent So, in this example both robbery by theft and by
extortion happens.

Section 391 Dacoity - When robbery is committed by 5 or more people it is dacoity.

- Attempt and aiding dacoity is also ‘offence of dacoity’ (same punishment as

dacoity)
• Attempt to commit dacocity shall not be punishable as attempt under 511 it
will be punished as dacoity’
- When you hear gang robbery that means docoity only.
- This offence is punishable at every stage of Crime

Four Stages of Crime – Dacoity

1. Intention (Punishable under Sec. 402- Assembling for purpose of committing

dacoity).
2. Preparation (punishable under Sec-. 399- Preparation for dacoity).
3. Attempt (Sec. 391).
4. Completion (Sec.391).

If 5 people are accused for Dacoity and 2 of them are acquitted then the 3 remaining
would be convicted for robbery only (because minimum 5 should be there for
dacoity)

But less than 5 people could be convicted for dacoity if it is proved that at the time of
commission of the crime there were 5 or more people (happens if only some
members are caught, or some members are alive at the time of punishment etc)

Section 403 Dishonest

Misappropriation of property

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.
Essentials
1. A dishonest appropriation or conversion by a person to his own use of
any property of another.

2. The property must be movable.

Difference between Theft and Misappropriation

o The Dishonesty (mens rea) in person mind comes into the persons mind after
obtaining the property in Dishonest misappropriation
o In theft there is no consent in misappropriation consent may or may not be
present.
o The offence is against the owner of the property in misappropriation, in theft
offence could against someone who is just in possession of property.
o Misappropriation for a temporary period is also covered under this section.

If a person finds property which is not in possession of any person and then makes
reasonable attempt to restore the property, or if he uses the property for his own
use knowing that it is not possible to discover the owner then he is not liable for
misappropriation.

Section 405 Criminal Breach of Trust

Whoever being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over
property, dishonestly misappropriates 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 of 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”.

Essentials
• A person should be entrusted with property or he should have any dominion
over property.
• That person
- should dishonestly misappropriate or convert the property to his own
use
 - should dishonestly use or dispose of that property aur willfully suffers
any other person so to do
• In violation of
• any law of trust or
• or any legal contract

Here property can be movable or immovable.

R.K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration- Court held the words under this section
connotes wide meaning and in that pretext the case of a partner will also be
included in this section, if it is proved that the partner was entrusted with the
partnership property.

Section 415 Cheating

Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so
deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall
retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived 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 in body, mind,
reputation or property, is said to “cheat”

Explanation. – A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of

this section.

Here if we see the last part of the provision it says harm to that person in body,
mind, reputation or property

Though the provision falls under chapter of offences against property, section 415
has wider applications than offences against just property.

A very interesting case in this regard is G.V. Rao v. L.H.V Prasad (2000)

In this case the petitioner married a girl because he was told by the girl’s side
that they were of a high caste but later on discovered she was of scheduled tribe, 2
years after the marriage he filled for cheating under section 415, the high court gave
the reasoning that hi this section was only applicable in offences against property
and no property was involved here.
The Supreme Court said that High court was mistaken in its interpretation because
the last part of the provision gives it wider application than just offences against
property.

But the Supreme Court said that the petitioner himself is a Scientist at the Centre for
DNA Finger Printing & Diagnostics, Hyderabad which is a prestigious Institution of
the country. In this capacity, he can be reasonable presumed to be aware of the bio-
diversity at the Cellular and Molecular level amongst human beings without the
“caste” having any role in the field of human Biotechnology. If was for these reasons
that the Petition, being without merit, was dismissed

Puffing: Falsely pretending that the goods are of unusually high quality.

Sellers usually do that by saying the terms as best product in market but if the
products are in fact not the best then they won’t be liable under cheating but if
factually the products are wholly different than what was promised then they be
liable.

A person selling fruits saying they are fresh and best quality in fact it is 18 karat then
he will be liable for cheating.

False promise of marriage for Sexual intercourse would be cheating under this
section.

Section 416: Cheating by personation

Section 420: Cheating involving delivery of property

Essentials

• That the Representation made by the accused was false.

• That the accused knew that the Representation was false at the very time
when he made it.
• That the accused made the false representation with the dishonest intention
of deceiving the person to whom it was made and;
 • That the accused there by induced that person to deliver any property or to
do or to omit to do something which he would otherwise not have done or
omitted.

SECTION 425- 440 MISCHIEF

Mischief has been dealt under sections 427-440, broadly classified into 7 categories:
1. Damage of property valued at rupees 50 and upwards (section 427)
2. Mischief in regard to animals (section 428-429)
3. Mischief in regard to supply and public works (section 432-434)
4. Mischief by fire (section 435-436)
5. Mischief in regard to docket vessels (section 437-438)
6. Mischief in regard to any vessel with intent to steal (section 439)
7. Mischief with preparation for causing that death hurt wrongful restraint or
fear of such death hurt for wrongful restraint (section 440).

Section 425 Mischief

Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to case, 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”.

This section is based on the principle “sic utre tuo ut allenum non leadas” – ‘Use
your own property so as not to injure your neighbours (or others) property’.

Ingredients:

1. Mens rea- Intention/knowledge of likelihood to cause wrongful loss or damage to:

(a) The public; or (b) any person (mens rea of mischief).
2. Causing Wrongful loss or damage – causing the destruction of some property or
any change in it or in its situation (actus reus of mischief).

3. Such change must destroy or diminish its value or utility or affect it injuriously
(effect of the change).

Trespass

Section 441 - Criminal Trespass

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”.

Essentials 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.
4. To commit an offence to intimate, insult or annoy the person in possession of
the property.

• There must be actual person’s entry upon the property by the accused.

• The property defined under the section is wide to include both movable and
immovable property.

• Therefore, criminal trespass could be there to a motor car, aeroplane, Railway

carriage or a boat.

• In context of possession, this section contemplates actual physical possession to

the exclusion of any other person. The object of the provision is to protect the
session and not ownership.

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”.

Section 443 - Lurking House Trespass

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”.

Section 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”.

Section 445 House Breaking

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 it in such six ways, that is to say.

First,- 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 though 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 bas opened, in order to the committing of the house-trespass by
any means by which that passage was not intended 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.

OFFENCES RELATING TO DOCUMENTS AND PROPERTY MARKS

463-477A IPC – forgery
477 -489 IPC – property marks
489A – 489E - counterfeiting
Sec. 463: Whoever makes any false documents or part of a document 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.
Essential ingredients of forgery are

• The document or electronic record or part of the document or electronic

record must be false.
• It must have been made dishonestly or fraudulently and,
• It must have been made with intent to cause damage or injury to the public
or to any person.

A person is guilty of forgery if he makes false instrument, with intention that

he or another shall use it to induce somebody to accept as genuine and by
reason of so accepting it to do or not to do some act to his own or any other
person’s prejudice.

Section 464: IPC says a false document or electronic record forgery can be made in
the following ways
1. by making signing sealing or executing a document or,
2. by alteration of a document or electronic record or
3. by causing a person who is innocent of the contents or nature of the
alteration of a document or an electronic record to sign it or
4. by affixing any digital signature on any electronic record

According to clause 2 of 464 dishonest or fraudulent intention is mandatory for the

commission of offence under this section.
Sec.465 : Punishment for forgery
Sec.466: Forgery of Record of court or a public register etc.
Sec.467: Forgery of valuable security, will etc.

OFFENCES RELATING TO MARRIAGE

Offences relating to marriage are defined under IPC are of four of the categories:

• Mock marriages (sec. 493 & 496)

• Bigamy (sec.494 & 496)
• Adultery (sec. 497)
• Criminal elopement (sec. 498)
Section 493: cohabitation Caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of
lawful marriage
Sec.493 provides that every man who buy this is it causes any woman who is not
lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit
or have sexual intercourse with him in that believe, shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to
fine.
Only male is accused under this section. The male and female both can be married/
unmarried.
Section 494 provides that 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.
• It also does not extend to any person who contract marriage during the life of a
former husband or y 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.
Section 495 provides punishment if offence of by bigamy is committed by
concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is
contracted.
Section 496 provides punishment for marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through
without lawful marriage.
Both male female can be punished here, either singularly or jointly i.e. only male/ or
female / or both can be punished.
The dishonest intention is very important essential here.
Bigamy for Hindu
This section makes by bigamy an (O) in case of all persons living in India irrespective
of religion of either sex, namely Hindu Parsi Christian except Muslim males.
Hindu includes sikhs & Buddhist vide article 25 exception of the Constitution of
India.

Thus bigamy between two Hindus will be void if:-

1. The marriage is so solemnized after the commencement of the Hindu
Marriage Act.
2. At the date of such marriage either party as spouse is living.
3. According to Hindu Marriage Act Section 11: provides person should not do
second marriage if happened then it will be declared void.
4.
5. according to Section 17 of HMA one who is doing bigamy will get punishment
according to Section 495 IPC.

Bigamy for Muslim

According to Muslim law - it permits polygamy to males but insists monogamy for
females.
A Muslim male marrying a fifth wife during the continuance of four female marriage
and Muslim wife marrying during the subsistence of an earlier marriage are
punishable under section 494 and 495.
In the case of S Radhika Samina, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh Muslim men
marries under special Marriage Act 1954 he would be guilty of bigamy under section
494 495 of IPC if enters into another marriage under Muslim law also.

For example if a Muslim man marries a christian woman under special Marriage Act
and he marries another woman then he would be liable under section 494 and 495
of IPC.s

Section 497 Adultery

A person commits adultery if he:

• has sexual intercourse with a person

• who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be device of another
man
 • without the consent or connivance of that man
• such sexual intercourse not amounting to rape
In the case of Yusuf Abdul Aziz versus state of Bombay, It was Pleaded by the
complainant that the wife along with accused be considered for the offence under
section 497 as her consent also matters here or else it will be rape & if not then at
least for abetting the offence, but SC held woman cannot be held punishable under
this section.
In the case of W Kalyani versus state AIR 2012, It was again pleaded that the men
and even the women should be help punishable under this section or else for
abetting this offence but Supreme Court reiterated its previous stand and said the
same cannot be held.
In the case of Joseph Shine vs Union of India Section 497 was struck down stating
it to be unconstitutional. The court held section 497 is manifestly arbitrary as a
punished only men and treated women as husband's property, it was violative of
article 21 and 14 of the constitution. The court also declared section 198(1) and
198(2) of CRPC as unconstitutional to the extent that allowed the husband to bring
charges against men with whom his wife committed adultery.

• Adultery will remain as a ground for civil issue including divorce.

• If an act of adultery leaves the aggrieved spouse to suicide the adulterous
partner could be prosecuted for abatement of suicide under section 306 of
IPC.

Section 498: criminal elopement

Sec 498 IPC deals with the offence of criminal elopement. The provisions of IPC
section 498 are intended to protect the rights of the husband. The section
requires some of the following essential ingredients:
• Taking or enticing away or concealing or detaining the wife of another man
from
1. That man,
2. Or any person having the care of her on behalf of that man
• Knowledge or reason to believe that she is the wife of another man;
• Such taking, concealing or detaining must be with the intent that she may
have illicit intercourse with any person.
The word ‘takes’ here connotes the personal or active assistance of the accused to
the wife in getting her away from the husband’s protection, or from any person,
who was taking care of her in the absence of her husband.
 CRUELTY BY HUSBAND OR RELATIVE OF HUSBAND

Section 498 A This chapter was inserted by Criminal Law Second Amendment
Act 1983 with effect from 25th December1983.

Section 498A provides that whoever being the husband or the relative of
husband of a woman subjects to such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable
to fine.

Meaning of Cruelty for the purpose of the section:

1. 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 the woman.

2. Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to

coercing her on any or any e 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.

3. Cruelty can be both mental, emotional harassment beyond endurance and

physical. It may be subtle, brutal, by words, gestures, by taunt or by mere
silence depending upon the circumstances of a particular case.

• The offence under Section 498A is a continuing offence and on each occasion on
which the respondent which was subjected to cruelty she would have a new
starting point of limitation.

• In Ranjana Gopal Thorat versus state of Maharashtra Supreme Court held

that a person can become a relative only by blood or marriage.

• The Nitika vs. Yadwinder Singh (2019) Supreme Court Reiterated that the
courts at the place where the wife takes shelter after leaving or driven away
from the matrimonial home on account of acts of cruelty also have jurisdiction to
entertain a complaint alleging commission of offence under Section 498A of the
IPC.
• In Rashmi Chopra vs State of UP state Supreme Court held that Section 498A
does not contemplate that complaint for offence under Section 498A should be
filed only by women who is subjected to cruelty by husband of his relatives.

DEFAMATION
Section 499: provides for defamation and section 500 provides for its punishment.

Kinds of defamation

• Slander – statements made orally

• Libel – statements made by writing, engraving, etc.

Essentials ingredients

Whoever, by words –
• Either spoken or
• Intended to be read or (WRITTEN)
• By signs or
• By visible representations
• Makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person.
• Such imputation must have been made with intention of harming the reputation
of the person about whom the imputation is published.

Right to reputation has been equated and seen as an integral part of the right to
life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the constitution.

Types of publication
1. Direct communication to the defamed has been considered by court as no
defamation, as that is held to be no publication.

2. Republication or repetition of a libel already published is defamation.

Explanation 1: Defamation may be of a deceased person intending to be

hurtful to the feeling of his family / near relatives.

Explanation 2: Defamation of a company or a collection of persons.

Explanation 3: Defamation by innuendo

Innuendo: The explanation by which the passage is said to be defamatory is
called innuendo. The language of irony/ sarcasm is used instead of bad
statement.
 Explanation 4: This explanation specifies the various ways in which the
reputation of a person may be harmed. It says that the imputation must
directly or indirectly lower the moral or Intellectual Character of the person
defamed.

Exceptions

Ten exceptions have been enlisted under this section:

1. Imputation of truth for public good.
2. Public conduct of public servants.
3. Public Conduct of public men other than public servants.
4. Comment on cases and conduct of witnesses and others concerned.
5. Merits of decisions and judicial proceedings.
6. Merits of public performances, literary criticism, etc.
7. Censure in good faith by one in authority.
8. Complaint to authority.
9. Imputation for protection of interest.
10. CAUTION IN GOOD FAITH.

Section 500: Punishment for Defamation

Punishment for defamation—Whoever defames another shall be punished with
simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both.

CHAPTER - CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION, INSULT AND ANNOYANCE

Section 503 Criminal Intimidation:

The following are the essentials of the section:

1. There should be threat of injury to a person.
o To his person, reputation, of property
o To person reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.

2. The threat must be with the intent

o To cause alarm to that person
o To cause that person to do an act at which he is not legally bound to do
as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.

3. To cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally
entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.

A mere threat does not amount to criminal intimidation; it must be made with
intent to cause alarm to the person threatened.
In Amulya Kumar Behera V. Nabhagana Behera, court went ahead in
defining the term alarm and said Intention must be to cause alarm to the victim
and whether he is alarmed or not is really of no consequence.

Scope of injury threatened

Making a person liable for criminal intimidation injury threaten to be caused
must be illegal; for example stopping a person from selling a foreign imported
clothes for a period of one year under the threat of shutting his shop will
amount to criminal intimidation. Similarly where threatening was to a butcher
selling beef, was frightened for practicing his profession in terms of sending
him to jail. Further where the threat extends to social boycott or punishment
which couldn't be put to execution for example threat of punishment by God
cannot be indicated as criminal intimidation.

Section 506: punishment for criminal intimidation

Section 507 and Section 508 respectively deal with criminal intimidation
through an anonymous communication and criminal inducement.

Section 504: talks about intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of
peace.

The term insult means “To treat with offensive disrespect, to offer indignity”
as stated in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. Sushila Srivastav.

The accused must show that he had the intention or knowledge for the
commission of an offence.

Essential ingredients of the offence are:

• The accused person must intentionally insult another person.
• Which is such that it provokes another person.
• There must be the intention or knowledge that such provocation will
cause that person to break the public or to commit any other offence.
 CHAPTER – ATTEMPT

Section 511 provides that whoever

• Attempt to commit an offence punishable by this code with

• Imprisonment for life or
• Imprisonment or
• To cause such an offence to be committed and
• In such attempt does any act towards the commission of the Offence,

• Shall where no Express provision is made by this code for the punishment of
such attempt, be punished with

• Imprisonment for a term which may extend to one half of the imprisonment
for life or
• one half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence or
or
• with such fine as is provided for the offence or with both

Section 511 is a residuary Section. The offences, the attempts of which do not fall
under any of the sections of the IPC are punishable for their attempt under Section
511.

The term ‘attempt’ has not been defined in the code.

An attempt to commit an offence can be defined as an act done with the intent
to commit the crime and forming part of a series of acts which would constitute
commission of not interrupted.

In Abhayanand Mishra vs State of Bihar, 1961 Supreme Court held that the
person commits the offence of attempt when

• He intends to commit that offence.

• Having made preparations and with the intention to commit the offence does
an act towards its commission;
• Such act need not be penultimate act towards the commission of offence but
must be an act during the course of committing the offence.
• Supreme court affirmed the view in Sudhir Kumar Mukherjee V. State Of
West Bengal, AIR 1973 SC 2655.
• In State Of Maharashtra V. Mohammad Yakub, Supreme Court held that
some act must be done towards the commission of offence and such act must
be ‘proximate’ to the intended result, proximity need not be in relation to time
and action but in relation to intention.
• The preparation to commit offence is punishable only in serious class of
offences. These are the following –
o Preparation to wage war against the Government of India. [section 122]
o Preparation to commit depredations on the territories of a friendly
country. [Section 126]
o Making, selling or being in possession of instruments for counterfeiting of
coins or stamps. [section 233,234,235 and 237]
o Possession of counterfeit coins, false weights and forged documents.
[section 242,243,266]
o Preparation to commit dacoity. [section 399]
o Mere assembly for the purpose of committing dacoity. [ section 402]

THEORIES OF ATTEMPT

PROXIMITY RULE: It provides that an act constitutes attempt if the offender

has completed all the important steps necessary to constitute the offence but
the consequence which is the essential element of offence has not taken place.

In the case of R v. Taylor, A was found guilty of attempting to commit arson

because he was detected in the act of lighting a match stick behind the
haystack.

In the case of R v. Robbinson, A jeweller With the intention of

fraudulently obtaining insurance money created a fake scene of robbery by
trying himself and hiding the jewellery. The investigation revealed that he
made false pretensions. he was not convicted for attempt.

In the case of R. v. Shivpuri A person was arrested a suitcase which he

believed to contain prohibited drugs. In fact the suitcase contained harmless
vegetable matter. Nevertheless, he was held liable for the attempt to commit
offence of carrying prohibited drugs.

THEORY OF IMPOSSIBILITY: In Queen v. Collins

DOCTRINE OF LOCUS POENITENTIAE

OBJECT THEORY: It differentiates the cases where the object is merely
mistaken and cases where the object is absent. In former case it would be an
attempt while in the latter place it would not be an attempt.

ON THE JOB THEORY: it was laid down in R. v. Osberon, in this case A gave
certain pills for causing abortion. It was found that pills were innocuous. It was
held that since the person was not on the job he is not liable for attempt. This
case has been overruled in R v. Spicer.
DREAM.
BELIEVE.
DO.
REPEAT.

www.rostrumlegal.com