Contents

Crime.............................................................................................................................................3
Operational aspects of IPC.................................................................................................................3
Legislative Competency:............................................................................................................4
Republic of Italy v. Union of India (2013)...............................................................................4
Jurisdiction.................................................................................................................................4
State of Maharashtra v. HG Mayor................................................................................4
Mubarik Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay (1957)..........................................................................4
Actus Reus.........................................................................................................................................5
R v. Holland................................................................................................................................5
R v. Jordan.................................................................................................................................5
R v. Smith...................................................................................................................................5
R v. Blaue...................................................................................................................................5
Mens rea............................................................................................................................................6
R v. Prince..................................................................................................................................6
R. Tolson....................................................................................................................................7
State of Maharashtra v. Mayor Hans George............................................................................7
Sherras v De Rutzen...................................................................................................................7
Stages of a crime...............................................................................................................................8
Inchoate Crimes.....................................................................................................................................9
Attempt.............................................................................................................................................9
R v. Collins..................................................................................................................................9
Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab................................................................................................9
Mohd. Yakub v. State of Maharashtra.......................................................................................9
Abetment.........................................................................................................................................10
Joint Liability........................................................................................................................................11
Common Intention (s.34).................................................................................................................11
Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad............................................................................................11
Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor (Post Master case)...................................................11
Common Object (s. 149)..................................................................................................................12
Strict Liability...................................................................................................................................13
General exceptions..............................................................................................................................15
Mistake of Fact................................................................................................................................16
State of West Bengal v. Shew Mangal Singh............................................................................16
R v. Fennell..............................................................................................................................17
 Judicial Act.......................................................................................................................................17
Incapacity........................................................................................................................................17
Infancy.........................................................................................................................................17
I.P.H. v Chief Constable of South Wales...................................................................................17
Ulla Mohapatra v. The King......................................................................................................17
Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand..........................................................................................17
Roper v. Simmons....................................................................................................................17
Insanity........................................................................................................................................18
R v Daniel McNaughton...........................................................................................................18
Jai Lal v. Delhi Administration..................................................................................................19
Surender Majhi v State............................................................................................................19
Intoxication..................................................................................................................................19
DPP v. Beard............................................................................................................................19
Basdev v. State of Pepsu..........................................................................................................20
Accident...........................................................................................................................................20
Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecution........................................................................20
Necessity.........................................................................................................................................21
R v. Dudley and Stephens........................................................................................................21
Re A.........................................................................................................................................21
Bishamber v. Roomal...............................................................................................................22
Duress..............................................................................................................................................23
D.P.P. for Northern Ireland v Lynch.........................................................................................23
R v. Conway.............................................................................................................................23
R v. Hudson and Taylor............................................................................................................23
Consent...........................................................................................................................................23
Private Defence...............................................................................................................................24
Vishwanath v. State of UP........................................................................................................25
Mohinder Pal Jolly v State of Punjab.......................................................................................25
Munney Khan v. State of MP...................................................................................................25
Amzad Khan v. State................................................................................................................25
Offences against the human body.......................................................................................................27
Rape.................................................................................................................................................27
State of HP v. Mango Ram.......................................................................................................27
State of UP v. Chhotey Lal........................................................................................................27
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh...............................................................................................28
Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India....................................................28
 Bodhi Satwa Gowtham v. Subhra Chakraborthy......................................................................28

A criminal offense is wrong against the society, as a whole. It is punished to repair the Wrong
committed against the society.

IPC is a substantive law and tells of the rights owed to a person and the basis of said rights. CrPC is a
procedural law that explains how these rights are to be exercised and followed.

The purpose of IPC to define both the crime and the punishment. It is classified into general
principles and specific provisions. General principles are- criminal responsibility, defense for
criminal responsibility, penal provisions.

IPC General offences- offences against state, human body, property, against reputation

Special provisions-

Penological theories in the IPC act as a general principle of punishment. Sec 53 of IPC creates classes
and types of punishment.

American jurisprudence creates degrees of offenders to dictate the quantum of punishment.

Double Jeopardy (Sec 300 of CrPC, Art. 20(2))

Sec 76-106 deal with general exceptions in IPC.

Sec 6 onwards responsibility under criminal law

Sec 7- strict interpretation of criminal law

Crime
Blackstone- Crime as an act committed or omitted in violation of public-law either forbidding or
commanding it. (Public law is not limited to criminal law)

Austin- A wrong which is pursued by the sovereign or his subordinates is a crime.

Kenny- Crimes are wrongs whose sanction is punitive and is in no way remissible by any private
person; but is remissible by crown alone, if remissible at law

Williams (most prevalent)- A crime is a legal wrong that can be followed by criminal proceedings
which may result in punishment.

Legal- Violation of the IPC/law

A crime should have a perpetrator, intention, act and injury.

Operational aspects of IPC

Instrument of social control in the hands of the state to manage behaviour

IPC as a general catalog of offences

Qualifications of liability and criminal responsibility arising in law

Preamble clause: statement and objectives

‘may’ v. ‘shall’
‘every’- whoever it may be/ ‘any’- any sort or category of persons

Strict interpretation of criminal law

A criminal case involves the proving/refuting of FACTS (Sec 3 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872)

Legislative Competency: criminal law under Concurrent list so both centre and state competent

If in state list, Centre can still make laws with its consent for the betterment/unity of the country.

Sec 1 gives territorial operation of the act. Sec 1(8) defines India for the sake of the act. Applied to
J&K by virtue of Sec 96 of the J&K Reorganisation Act.

Crimes at High Sea are open to jurisdiction of any country.

Republic of Italy v. Union of India (2013) dealt with the application of IPC in territorial water and
EEZ.

Sec 2 (intra-territorial jurisdiction) and 11 read together hold any person- citizen or non-citizen,
natural or juristic- in contravention of IPC liable for punishment. Sec 11 when defining person relies
on the concept of sue or be sued.

Jurisdiction can be intra-territorial (Sec 2) and extra-territorial (Sec 4). Extradition law dictates the
latter; therefore Chapter 1 of IPC is outdated in explaining such principles.

Sec 3 (also CrPC Sec 188) allows the application of Indian law over a person(citizen) when the crime
is not within India. Justification of this is that the primary duty of the state is to protect the citizens
and its nationals even outside its territory.

Under Article 361(2) however, the President and Governors (a special class of people created=
special law?) are exempted. The Constitution as the supreme law of the land overrides the IPC and
CrPC.

State of Maharashtra v. HG Mayor dealt with extra-territorial jurisdiction. Conviction relied on

ignorance of law not being an excuse. Crime always relies on local laws. However, there was a
seeming lack of mens rea.

Special law prevails over General law- gives rise to Sec 5 of IPC (Saving clause- save this,
exempts/limits). The jurisprudential arrangement of rights, duties, privileges (rights without duties),
and immunity (Winfield explanation) allows this.

Mubarik Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay (1957) dealt with a Pakistani national. Bombay court had
jurisdiction because though the crime initiated in Karachi, it was committed in Mumbai. Held that
physical presence is not necessary.

Sec 4 and 5 of CrPC allow the filing, investigation, trial, punishment etc under the IPC.
Mens rea+ actus reus= crime

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea—the act does not render one guilty unless the thought is also
guilty. This varies for different crimes. Some crimes need not have intent and yet will be considered
crimes.

Actus Reus
- ‘guilty act’ as a result of human conduct
-the law ascribes guilt to an act which then need not be morally right or wrong. Crime may be used
to enforce public morality though, as there is overlap between the two (eg: s.377)

- Actus reus is the result of a human conduct and is an event. An event (conduct + result) is
distinguishable from the conduct that produces the result.

-direct participation, indirect participation (through a bystander), circumstantial

(contributory/criminal omission)

R v. Holland
Holland was involved in a fight in which he inflicted a deep cut on the victim's finger which became
infected because the victim did not take necessary steps. Eventually, the arm needed to be
amputated. The victim refused and died, even though survival was likely had he received treatment.

Held: The accused was liable for his death despite the victim's actions in contributing to his own
death. The court applied the ‘but for’ test to establish a causation between the accused’s act and the
defendant’s death. Refusing medical treatment, even where unreasonable, was not a novus actus.

R v. Jordan
A stabbing victim was given the wrong medicine in the hospital. He developed pneumonia and died.

Held: Not liable as the real reason for death was the wrong treatment, not the stabbing.

R v. Smith
Smith stabbed a fellow soldier in the barracks. On the way to being taken to the hospital, he was
dropped twice. At the hospital, his injury was misdiagnosed and so he died. It was contested that the
injury would have healed with proper treatment.

Held: Smith was held liable because of the ‘but for’ test because the OPERATING CAUSE OF DEATH
was the stab wound.

R v. Blaue
The victim was stabbed by Blaue. As she was a Jehovah’s witness, she refused blood transfusion and
died.

Held: Guilty as the operating cause of death was the stab wounds. IF THERE IS A NOVUS ACTUS, IT
MUST BE SO GREAT AS TO MAKE THE FIRST ACT INCIDENTAL. In this case, the second act was
ancillary to the first.
Mens rea decides criminal liability and how responsibility is imposed upon someone. This is
because the quantum of punishment and the bar on personal freedoms is too grave to be imposed
without palpable culpability. Certain offenses do not require mens rea though. Its external
manifestation is actus reus.

Two tests for mens rea-

1. It is a voluntary act (primary consideration in determining)

2. The reasonable consequences were foreseeable (intention).

-it is legal, not moral in quality

-works on the presumption that every person means the NATURAL AND DIRECT results of their
actions.

Mens rea may use will, intent, motive, knowledge etc. to establish itself. They are not the same as
mens rea however, they can be used to ascertain the presence of mens rea.

Will is activating action.

Motive is a reason or feeling to act (why did he act the way he did). The lack of motive is not a
defense, prosecution without motive is possible though it be established. Motive is something which
prompts a man to form an intention. Lack of motive may be due to a psychological disorder (deeply
rooted depression).

Intention is how he acted (desire to act on the will) and did he understand the consequences
thereof. It is the volition or desire to bring about a certain consequence. Knowledge is the awareness
that such consequences are possible.

To determine guilt, one checks whether the accused committed the offense and if it was committed
with intention.

Sec 154 and 155 imply a vicarious liability where mens rea is not relevant. Sec 232 relating to
counterfeiting requires no intent. Statutory crimes do not need them. Mens rea is not used in the
IPC but equivalent words are used (knowingly, voluntarily).

‘Thought crimes’ exist without actus reus. Sec 23 deals with mental concepts without physical
manifestations.

R v. Prince
Henry Prince took an unmarried girl under 16 out of her father’s possession without his consent.
Prince claimed that he did not know that she was 14. She told him that she is 18 and looked 18 too.

There are some crimes that are legal wrongs and also moral wrongs and this is one of those cases
(mala in se) and such cases will have a presumption of existence of intention and question of mens
rea will not come up. Other judges also said that the act does not specify the requirement of mens
rea and held the accused guilty.

All the necessary ingredients that constituted this crime here are fulfilled, except Prince did not have
a guilty mind. Statutory requirement for mens rea is presumed however till explicitly excluded.
R. Tolson
Mrs Tolson, believing her husband was lost at sea, remarried after 6 years. Mrs Tolson believed
reasonably that her husband was dead and remarried.

Held: She was afforded the defence of mistake as it was reasonable in the circumstances to believe
that her husband was dead. No mens rea.

State of Maharashtra v. Mayor Hans George

MH was a German national and he was booked for bringing gold into India without RBI’s permission
and in violation of FERA, 1947. He had connecting flight from India and neither had an intention nor
a reason to come to India.

SC said that ignorance of law is not an excuse. If an order or a law is published, then it is understood
that the whole world will know about it as it is published publicly. Ignorance of fact can be excused,
but not ignorance of law.

Sherras v De Rutzen
Section 16 of the Licensing Act prohibited sellers from supplying alcohol to an officer while on duty.
It was held that this section did not apply when the seller bona fide believed that the officer was off
duty. There is a presumption of mens rea, inferred from the words and object of the statute.

SC in State of Gujarat v. DP Pandey: Mens rea will be applied to statutory offenses, unless
excluded explicitly or by necessary implication by the act.
Stages of a crime
1. Mens rea/intention
-generally, liability does not arise
-criminal conspiracy – s. 120A IPC – 2 or more people meet and decide to commit a crime.
This meeting and decision are in itself creating liability.

2. Preparation (only few offenses are punishable at the preparatory stage- Usually since
intention cannot manifest in preparatory acts, it is not punishable.

Certain preparations in themselves speak of dangerous/malicious intention – s. 122, 126,

399, 402, 233, 234, 242, 243, 259, 265 [preparations to wage war against the government of
India; preparations to commit depredations of territories of any power in alliance or in peace
with the government of India; Making or selling, or being in possession of instruments for
counterfeiting coins or government stamps; possession of counterfeit coins, government
stamps, false weights or measures; preparations to commit dacoity]

3. Attempt (mere attempt may or may not be crime depending on the nature of the offense)- it
is an offense when it threatens the security
quantum of punishment lesser in attempt than in actual offense– utilitarian
4. Commission
5. Actus reus (checking if the act is illegal or not)- equivalent to ‘act’ as a culmination of all
stages of the crime wherein the crime is committed. Anti-social behaviour prohibited under
law.

Act or Omission is derived from a legally imposed duty on a person’s part (Sec 33).

Punishment may be the legal mode of sanctioning any offence.

Punitive/therapeutic/preventive

Dr. Jacob George v. State of Kerala gave 4 Theories of Punishment that should not be preferred one
over the other.

1. Deterrent (utilitarian in nature)- specific or general- 3 components: certainty, severity,

swiftness
2. Reformative
3. Retributive- doctrine of lex talionis
Doctrine of societal personification (collective personification of the society as the victim)
Doctrine of correctional vengeance- Hegel: Society’s Right + Criminal’s Wrong
Seen most where criminal law and morality meet
4. Preventive
Inchoate Crimes
There are some crimes that forego the need for actus reus per se by punishing the mens rea and
some act that is in furtherance of the actual actus reus. These are offenses that have not yet been
completed so all 4 elements/stages aren’t met. These are half committed crimes like Abetment,
Attempt and Conspiracy.

Attempt
A direct action towards commission of an offense after preparations.

 Section 309 – attempt to commit suicide

 Section 307 – attempt to murder
 Section 511- Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this code with
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for which no express provision is given will be
punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which
may extend to one half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence.

A person commits attempt when-

(1) there is intention for that particular offence/mens rea

(2) there is preparation towards the commission

(3) it is an act during the course of committing that offence (falling short of actual commission)

R v. Collins
When one reaches into an empty pocket so as to pickpocket, but finds nothing, he will not be liable
of attempt to commit the act. Position changed in R v. Brown, which was upheld in R v. Ring. There is
an impossibility of offense but not attempt.

Test of Last Act- The last act from which the person may turn back or change his mind out of any
reason (conscience, fear of punishment) will be the threshold post which it will be considered
attempt. (Locus poenitentiae)

Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab

A truck was stopped by the police, 32 miles from the Delhi border inside Punjab. This was food
grains in the truck and it was to be taken from Punjab to Delhi. For this export, they needed a license
(Sec 7 of Essential Commodities) and they did not have it.

Held: cannot be made liable here because the truck was stopped far from the Delhi border and the
person might have changed their mind before committing the offence, they might have stopped at
the border. The driver was still at the preparation stage and had enough time to change his mind.

Test of Proximate Act- How close the accused is to the completion of the crime.

Mohd. Yakub v. State of Maharashtra

A truck stopped by the police was checked and it was found that silver was being smuggled through
it. It was intended to be loaded on a motor boat.
Held: If not stopped, the offense would have happened. The act done came pretty close to
accomplishing that result before the law noticed it. It may not be the last act but must be in
dangerous proximity to success. Degree of proximity varies with the circumstance (greatness of
harm, nearness of danger, degree of apprehension felt). The act must reveal, with reasonable
certainty an intention, as distinguished from a mere desire or object, to commit the particular
offence. The proximity of the act must be towards the intention to commit the offense not the actus
reus, time etc.

Univocality Test/Res Ipsa Loquitor Test- The thing speaks for itself and there is no confusion as the
conduct demonstrates the intention to commit the crime. Such conduct will not lead to any other
thing, other than the commission of the offence.

Abetment
s. 107 to 121 deal with Abetment- Instigating, aiding or engaging someone for an unlawful
commission or an unlawful omission

-it can be direct/indirect but must have active intention to instigate

Abetment by instigation: Suggest, counsel, hint, insinuate, encourage, etc

S. 109 and 110- when the crime is committed but the intention of abettor and criminal were
different, the person will be punished for the offence which would have been committed if it had
been done with the intention or knowledge of abettor

Under s. 111 if the act abetted and the crime are different, and the crime was a probable
consequence of the abetment, the abettor would liable as if he committed the crime.

S. 115 and 116- when no offence is committed, the accused is punished for attempt to commit crime

Section 114 – if the abetter who abetted the commission of an act and would have been liable for
abetment if he was absent, he will be held liable for commission of the act if he is present at the
time the crime was committed.

In English Law, 4 kinds of offences –

1. Principal first degree – whoever actually commits or takes part in the actual commission of a
crime is a principal in the first degree
2. Principal second degree – whoever aids or abets the actual commission of a crime is a
principal in the second degree
3. Accessory before the fact – It is one who directly or indirectly incites, counsels, procures,
encourages, or commands to commit any felony which is committed in consequence thereof.
4. Accessory after the fact – It is one who knowing a felony to have been committed by another
receives comfort or assists him in order to enable him to escape from punishment. [Sections
201, 212, 130, 136, 216, 216A – Harbouring Sections]
Joint Liability
This holds all the people involved in a crime guilty if they were in connivance together, even when
sufficient mens rea/actus reus for each individual cannot be established.

s. 114- Group liability

Common Intention (s.34)

It is not an offense but rather, a rule of evidence so it must be read with other sections of the IPC (s.
34 to 38 act as inputs to be read with other provisions).

- Extension to mens rea as a concept

-an overt act in furtherance of common intention is necessary

-the measure of liability is dependent on the basis of intention or knowledge of the accused

-difference between same/similar intention and common intention- same intention may not involve
meeting of minds where all the parties act knowing the actions of the other in collusion

Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad

Pandurang and two others killed a person. All of them attacked the person degree and nature of
attack was different. They were made liable individually as there wasn’t enough evidence to show
meeting of minds.

-In the absence of common intention, the criminal liability of the members of the group might differ
according to the degree and, mode of the individual’s participation in the act

-When a number of persons are engaged with a common intention and, any act done by them in
furtherance of this common intention, then each person will be made liable as if he alone did the
act.

-there was a meeting of minds before the act was committed (it may be instantaneous and implicit
but must be premeditated)

-if the common intention was to do something and it was done but one person wants to commit a
greater degree of offense, fresh common intention should be formed

-Acts done in furtherance of common intention will also be treated as part of common intention

Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor (Post Master case)

4 people wanted to rob the post office. Barendra had the job of keeping watch. The postmaster was
counting the money when the 3 members killed him in the process of the robbery. S. 302 read with
s.34 was used to hold Barendra guilty as the act of murder was in furtherance of the common
intention here.

-physical presence not necessary for s.34 and mere physical presence is not enough to hold liable
(same for s.149 threshold for 149 is lower than 34)

Common intention s.34 (principle of criminal law) and common object s.149 (substantial offense)
Common Object (s. 149)
-committed by an unlawful assembly of 5 or more people with a common object
-it can form at any stage
-the members must be aware of the common object of the assembly and with this awareness, must
have stayed willingly with the intention of continued participation
-the act in question must be in furtherance of the common object or in the sphere of likely offenses
that can be committed by the assembly while furthering it (threshold lower than in s.34)
-In s.149, if the unlawful assembly knows that the possibility of overdoing the offense to the next
step is real, they will all be held liable for the greater offense
-the number of people in the unlawful assembly should be 5 or more seeking its object, even if the
apprehended/accused in court are less than 5
Strict Liability
This foregoes the need for mens rea and finds guilt regardless of mental state. Here, mere lack of
intention is not enough as a defence. This is relevant to voluntary acts.

There are 3 categories under strict/absolute liability-

1. Where a statute creates a ‘criminal’ act under penalty for public good- quasi-criminal acts
Eg: offences relating to adulteration, weights mismanagement
2. Public nuisance, libel, contempt of courts
3. Criminal proceedings that enforce civil rights
Eg: violation of municipal laws

Offenses that are harmful to the society at large like sedition, waging war against state, public
nuisance, kidnapping, etc. here the presumption will be that if a person is doing things like these,
then he must have had malicious intention.

 AG of India v. Lachmadevi (1989)

 Sunil Batra (2) v. Delhi Administration

Statutory offenses provide mens rea expressly. (non-statutory/regulatory)

General exceptions
Chapter 4 (non-imputable principles that exempt liability for any offense) s.76 to 106

Executory defenses:

1. Mistake of fact
2. Incapacity- Infancy, Intoxication, Insolvency
3. Accident

Justificatory defenses
4. Judicial act- of judge, in furtherance of a judicial order
5. Necessity
6. Duress
7. Communication
8. Consent
9. Trifling act
10. Private defense

Mens rea+ actus rea+ valid defense= no offense

Mistake of Fact
Mistake of existence or non-existence of a material fact in the commission of an offense- prevents
mens rea from forming (R v. Tolson)

ignorantia facti excusat and ignorantia juris non excusat (ignorance of fact is an excuse and
ignorance of law is not an excuse)- the latter is based on the assumption that the people in a
territory (citizens or not) are aware of the law governing them

Under S.76 (bound by law or thought was bound by law- usually for officials) and S.79 (justified by
law- usually for citizens)- In s.76 there is legal compulsion or its belief whereas while a person under
s.79 may not be obligated, he may be expected/allowed to do it.

Pre-requisites:

1. Bound or in good faith thought was bound by law

2. Bona fide intentions and reasonable mistake
3. Mistake of fact, not law of the land
4. Due diligence conducted such that it did not elicit the true fact

Under s.76, following the commands (lawful and just) of a superior officer is not punishable. If the
commands are unjust and unlawful, then good faith must be established.

-does not apply to cases of strict liability (R. v. Prince)

-does not apply if a particular law is available in public domain/published in Gazette

-does not apply in ex post facto situations

-does not apply when court ruling declares an act decriminalised but an act is later passed to
overrule it/higher court overturns it

-does not apply if a particular official’s interpretation is followed (even if the law is contrary to it)

-doesn’t apply if a court has put a stay on the act and the act is committed during the stay

-doesn’t apply in cases of illegal occupation of office for the occupier of the office (quo warranto) as
it would be seen as a mistake of law (those following the order were reasonable in thinking they
were bound by the law)

-doesn’t apply in cases where the mistake prevents an officer of the law/entitled by the law to do
their lawful duty (if that order was justified and lawful, it does not matter if the officers believed or
did not believe that order to be lawful. It is only relevant when the order of the superior officer,
which is pleaded as a defence, is found not to be in conformity with the law)

-doesn’t apply when the justification under s.79 is used disproportionately wrt the facts

State of West Bengal v. Shew Mangal Singh

The deceased were shot point blank by a police officer while was on patrol when he was attacked by
a mob. He contended that orders were given by the Deputy commissioner to open fire.

Held: Mistake of fact will be a valid defence under s.76.

R v. Fennell
Fennell believing that his son was in imminent danger while he was under arrest, assaulted a police
officer to release his son.

Held: He was guilty as his mistake of fact (it would be valid in any other case of imminent danger)
prevented an officer from doing his lawful duty (provided the arrest was lawful) and a diligent
enquiry would have revealed the facts to him.

Judicial Act
-s. 77 and 78 protects judges and those who implement their orders

-s.77- by a judicial officer/judge authorised by law (or believes in good faith to be authorised)

-s.78- in pursuance of a judgement or court order (even if the court has no jurisdiction, the person
enacting it should believe in good faith that it does)

-even if the judgement/order is overturned/incorrect

Incapacity
Infancy
Sec 82- doli incapax- under 7 years, the child is not just unable to form intention, but also lacks
sufficient awareness of their surroundings to see right from wrong and commit an offence knowingly

Immaturity: s. 83- under 12 and above 7, liability can be incurred if he has a mature understanding of
the consequences of his act. This presumption status changed after the JJ act. Now the court will not
presume the mature understanding on part of the children under 16.

Maturity can be inferred from the nature of the crime and also the subsequent behaviour of the
child (does it show awareness that some wrong was committed?)

I.P.H. v Chief Constable of South Wales

An 11-year-old joined older boys in acts of vandalism and damage. It was held that since he showed
no signs of knowing that he had done something wrong, it couldn’t be said he had mens rea and so
the defence of immaturity would be valid.

Ulla Mohapatra v. The King

A 12-year-old screamed that he would kill someone. He had a knife in his hand and he stabbed the
deceased in the neck, leading to him dying. He was convicted for the same, since his behaviour
showed he understood the nature of his act.

Pratap Singh v. State of Jharkhand

Held: Age is calculated as on the day of commission of crime not during proceedings or when the
child is brought to the Juvenile Board (check intent behind legislation).

punitive and therapeutic approach to punishment

Roper v. Simmons (US)

Christopher Simmons, aged 17, planned to burglarize a woman’s home and then murder her. He
brought two friends into the plot. On the night of the murder, one friend opted out and so the
others carried it out.
Held: Capital punishment can’t be given to those under 18.

Insanity
-must be at the time when the offense is happening (temporary/permanent)

-it is an absolute defense

-unsoundness must be at the time of offence (if not acting then, then no defense)

-non compos mentis

wild beast test (R v. Arnold- he does not know what he is doing)

Insane delusion test (Hadfield’s case)- insanity was to be determined by the fact of fixed insane
delusion and that such delusion under which the defendant acted is the main reason for his crime

Isaac Ray's theories on insanity

dementia naturalis, dementia accidentalis, delirium tremens

R v Daniel McNaughton

Daniel McNaughten was charged for the murder of Edward Drummond (Secretary to the PM), by
shooting. The accused was suffering from an insane delusion that Sir Robert Peel had injured him. He
mistook Drummond for Sir Robert and so shot and killed him.

The rules inferred are

1. That every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be
responsible for his crimes until the contrary be proved to the satisfaction of the court
2. In order to establish defence on ground of insanity it must be clearly shown that at the time
of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason from disease
of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know
it, that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong.
3. If the accused was conscious that the act was one which he ought not to do and if that act
was at the same time contrary to the law of the land, he is punishable.
4. Whereas criminal act is done by a man under some insane delusion as to the surrounding
facts, which conceals him from the true nature of the act he is doing, he will be under the
same degree of responsibility as he would have been on the facts as imagined them to be.
5. A medical witness who has not seen the accused before trial should not be asked on the
evidence whether he thinks that the accused was insane.

It laid down 2 primary tests for insanity (literal breakdown of s.84 in tests)-

1. did the accused know the nature of the act

2. did he know that it was either wrong/contrary to law

-Criticism: there may be cases of ‘irresistible impulses’ whereby even though a person knows
something is wrong, they are unable to stop themselves from committing it-
Jai Lal v. Delhi Administration
Jai Lal killed a small girl and stabbed two other people. He pleaded insanity. It was observed that the
accused, after being arrested gave normal and intelligent statements to the investigating officers.
The Supreme Court held that the appellant was not insane at the time of the commission of the act
and was well-aware of the consequences of his acts. He was held guilty for murder under Section
302, IPC.

Ashiruddin Ahmed v R - not followed as precedent- knew nature of the act not that it was wrong

Hazara Singh v state

Surendra Mishra v State of Jharkhand

Surender Majhi v State laid down 4 criteria to determine legal insanity-

1. not every type of insanity is legal insanity- the cognitive faculty must be so destroyed as to render
one incapable of knowing his act

2. the court presumes the absence of insanity

3. burden of proof is on the accused

4. court must consider the accused suffered from legal insanity at the time when the offence was
committed

Intoxication
-is also seen as a sort of insanity as the formation of mens rea is impossible- Section 85 gives the
same immunity to a man intoxicated involuntarily, as section 84 gives to a man of an unsound mind.

-involuntary/ without knowledge as a complete defense

-at the time of the commission of the offense unable to know nature of the fact/ that it was contrary
to the law or wrong

-presumption that voluntarily intoxicated, must be refuted by the accused (burden of proof), s.86
explains that the presumption for certain offenses committed by intoxicated people

If the intoxication is done by one’s own self, and does some act which is an offence when done with
a specific intent or knowledge, then it will be considered as if he did the act with the same
knowledge he would have had, if he was not intoxicated.

DPP v. Beard- held that voluntary drunkenness is not an answer to a criminal charge (qui peccat
ebrius, luat sobrius)

The accused was convicted of murder of a child of 13 years and sentenced to death. It was held

(i) if actual insanity supervenes as a result of alcoholic excess, it furnishes as complete an answer to a
criminal charge as insanity induced by any other cause; and
(ii) through self-induced intoxication, the accused lacked the specific intent necessary to constitute
the offence, the accused has a defence—partial exemption from liability. Murder reduced to
manslaughter.

Basdev v. State of Pepsu

The appellant Basdev went to attend a wedding and while there, asked the victim to move aside
which he did not. In a fit of anger, the appellant whipped out a pistol and shot the boy in the
abdomen. The injury proved fatal.

While rejecting the plea of the accused to allow him the benefit of Section 86, the Supreme Court
laid down the following rules for guidance:

1. The absence of understanding the nature and consequences of an act whether produced by
drunkenness or otherwise is not a defence as such to the crime charged.
2. The evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of forming the specific
intent essential to constitute the crime, should be taken into consideration with other
proven facts in order to determine whether or not he had this intent.
3. The evidence of drunkenness falls short to prove the incapacity of rational judgement, and
merely establishing that his mind was affected by a drink which gave way to some violent
passion, does not rebut the presumption that a man intends the natural consequences of
his acts.

Accident
-a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution

-‘care and caution’ is put to the test of prudent and reasonable man

Woolmington v Director of Public Prosecution

Woolmington was charged with the murder of his wife. He did not deny that he had shot her, but he
stated that the gun had gone off accidentally while he was endeavouring to induce her to live with
him by threatening to shoot himself.

His conviction was overturned because the court, relying on the extent of proof being beyond
reasonable doubt, found that the mens rea couldn’t be established.

1. State of Orissa v. Khora Ghasi

- Facts: Man shot an arrow thinking that a bear had entered his field, and killed a man who had
stealthily entered to steal
- Held: Allowed this defence. “if the accused believed in good faith at the time of the assault that
the object of his assault was not a living human being but a ghost or some object other than a
living human being, then he cannot be convicted of an offence under section 302 or section 304,
IPC. The ground for such opinion is that mens rea or an intention to do wrong or to commit an
offence does not exist in such a case and that the object of ‘culpable homicide’ can be ‘a living
human being’ only”

2. Atmendra v. State of Karnataka

- Facts: The accused fired at the deceased. The accused pleaded that it was an accident as the
reaper swung by the deceased at the accused stuck the gun. However, no reaper was found the
 place of the incident. Further, the evidence of the ballistic experts ruled that the firing took place
from a short distance + evidence there was a dispute between the accused and the deceased.
- Held: the act of the accused was intentional and not accidental. He was convicted under s 302
and sentenced to life imprisonment.

3. Shankar Narayan Bhadolkar v. State of Maharashtra – Proper care and caution

- Facts: The Supreme Court refused to give benefit of s 80 to a person who picked up a gun,
unlocked it, loaded it with cartridges and shot dead, from a close range, one of invitees for
dinner at his place.
- Held: the act of the accused was without proper care and caution, and deliberate.

Necessity
s. 81 nonindictable principles- doctrine of necessity without criminal intent but with knowledge of
harm to prevent greater harm to person or property (own or someone else’s)

-ABSENCE OF CRIMINAL INTENTION

‘Necessity knows no law’ and ‘necessity overcomes the law’

-There was open to the accused no alternative, other than that adopted by him, to avoid the greater
harm or to conserve the value

-acts done to avoid the harm must not be out of proportion to the harm to be avoided

R v. Dudley and Stephens- diminishing responsibility

Dudley, Stephens and a cabin boy named Richard Parker, after a shipwreck, were left stranded on a
boat in the sea. The three of them had been without food and water for days, they decided to kill
Parker to save their lives as the boy was already dying. On the twentieth day, both Dudley and
Stephens killed Parker. They were charged with committing the murder of Richard Parker.

It was held by the Court that killing an innocent person in order to save one’s own life does not
justify murder even though it was committed under the extreme necessity of hunger. Subsequently,
the defendants were sentenced to death, however, it was later reduced to six months
imprisonment. Assuming any necessity to kill anybody there was no greater necessity for killing the
boy than any of the other three men.

-self-preservation is not an absolute necessity so while it may reduce quantum of punishment, it is

still inducing guilt (the law assumes that if one’s own life is put against the life of another, one
cannot harm the other to preserve one’s own)

Self-preservation is a limited defence as it is not available in all circumstances (abortion to save

mother’s life is valid but breaking and entering to find shelter is not)

Re A (conjoined twins)

A pair of conjoined twins would have both died if they weren’t separated. This would result in only
one of them surviving.
Held: The act was needed to avoid the death of both (greater harm) but it must be done in a way
that is proportionate to the threat. The Court of Appeals allowed the defence of necessity and
connected it with the self-defence of the twin who had the higher chance of surviving.

Bishamber v. Roomal
The complainant has molested a girl, which led to a mob forming. To avoid the mob lynching him,
the Panchayat intervened and he agreed to accept the decision of the Panchayat, which made him
walk around the village and be shamed/beaten publicly.
Held: The defence of necessity can be taken by the ‘Panchayat’ as it had acted with good faith to
protect the complainant from more serious harm, and that it had the consent of the victim as a
further defence.
Duress
-except murder and offenses against the state

-the force or threat acting on the person must make him fear for his life (death or grievous hurt
short of death)

-the accused did not, because of his own actions, cause such a force to act on him (you can’t join a
gang and then take this defence when forced to steal)

Actus me invite factus non est meus actus- an act which is done by me against my will is not my act

D.P.P. for Northern Ireland v Lynch

The accused drove members of IRA to a place where they killed a constable. He knew one of the
men by reputation and feared that he would harm him if he didn’t comply. He was charged with
aiding and abetting the murder.

Held: Guilty. The court was mindful of the fact that at the time when the Lynch agreed to drive the
IRA members, he was acting to save his life without knowing that the death of another was possible.
However, the graver the crime for which the defence of duress is sought, the more serious and the
irresistible the threat must be for the defence to have effect.

R v. Conway
Conway was driving with a passenger who had been the intended victim of the shooting a few weeks
back. The appellant noticed that a car was following him and fearing that it was the person
responsible for the shooting, drove fast and recklessly. The car was being driven by two plain clothed
policemen. The trial judge ruled that the defence of necessity could not be raised. The appellant was
convicted of reckless driving and appealed.

Held: Conviction quashed. The defence of duress of circumstances should have been put to the jury.

R v. Hudson and Taylor

Hudson and Taylor were convicted with perjury for giving false evidence at a criminal trial. They
pleaded that a man named Farrell was present at the trial who threatened to hurt them. The Court
of Appeal accepted the accused’s defence. Just because the accused were not subject to immediate
threat of physical violence, does not mean that the threat wasn’t real or imminent.

Consent
Consent of a victim is subjected to some limitations to ensure social interest as a whole

-knowledge and consent to the consequences of the act being consented to (express/implied)

-18 years of age or above (consent can be given for insane/minors by guardians under s.89)

-s.88 doesn’t cause death and is in good faith

-doesn’t apply to causing death/likely to cause death/abetment/grievous hurt

-should be FREELY given and not under threat or fear

-in loco parentis (in the place of the parent)

-consent given by an insane person or a child under 12 years is invalid because they may not know
their own best interests
-pecuniary benefit does not come under the ambit of this exception

Private Defence
- “nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence”.

-allowed against the person and property of others (need not be loved ones) as well as oneself (first
duty to keep oneself safe)

-the danger must be present, real and apparent

-the accused when taking the defence need only prove a preponderance of possibilities (not beyond
reasonable doubt as the defence is given weightage when the court considers the circumstances)

-the apprehension of force must be reasonable (grievous hurt, death, rape, attempt)

-use only that much force as is necessary to protect, not retaliate

Section 96: nothing done by a person in the exercise of his right to private defence is an offence.
Section 97: a person has the right to defend his body and the body of any other person against
any offence affecting the human body and to defend his property or that of any other person,
against theft, robbery, mischief and criminal trespass or the attempt of any of these offences.
-Right to private defence is not available to those who initiate the attack; defensive right not punitive
right

-doesn’t apply to cases where there is a free fight when two people use unlawful force and intend to
hurt/fight

-doesn’t apply in cases where the force is applied by a public servant/officer of law while doing their
lawful duty (even if not strictly covered by law)- applies only if known that the authority is not
valid/malicious

-doesn’t apply in cases of lawful force

-doesn’t apply if the person could have resorted to aid by public authorities/law but did not
(sufficient time and means)

-doesn’t apply in cases of disproportionate harm, however, exceeding it reasonably in the heat of
the moment is allowed

-the right exists only as long as the threat

For a victim to evade liability, he must prove (a) that offence defended against was one of the 6
categories under s. 100 (b) he acted within the limits of s. 99

The 6 categories under s.100 are (these categories are relevant in cases where self-defence causes
death)-
1. Causes apprehension of death
2. Causes apprehension of grievous hurt
3. Has intention of committing rape
4. Has intention of gratifying unnatural lust
5. Has the intention to commit kidnapping or abduction
6. Has the intention of wrongfully confining him
In Rama v. State, 4 essentials were laid The first condition being that the accused must not be
responsible in bringing about an encounter, secondly, there must be an impending peril to life, or of
grievous bodily injury, either real or so apparent as to create honest belief of exceeding necessity,
thirdly, there must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat, fourthly, there must have
been necessity for taking the life.
When self-defence causes harm other than death, s.101 comes into play. In such case, outside the 6
categories, any harm that is not death can be caused while exercising the right.

s.106 permits one to put in harm innocent bystanders if that is NECESSARY to evade the actual
danger.

Vishwanath v. State of UP
A who was married to B, along with a few others went to B’s residence, where she had been staying
due to marital issues and dragged her outside. She shouted for help when her brother came out and
in the process of defending her, ended up stabbing and killing A. He claimed that the right of private
defence to the extent of causing death was applicable in this case under s. 100. The court ruled in his
favour. It was not necessary that the word “abduction” does not mean abduction as type of offense
that has been made punishable under the IPC. Further, the appellant had not inflicted more pain
than what was necessary, and hence would not be held liable.

Mohinder Pal Jolly v State of Punjab

Where there was a dispute between the workers of a factory and management over their demand
for wages, the workers were throwing brickbats at the factory. The owner came out with a revolver
and shot a worker.

Held: Guilty because by exceeded right to private defence, he had caused more harm than was
necessary and forfeited his right.

Munney Khan v. State of MP

The deceased picked up a quarrel with the appellant’s brother, that the deceased overpowered the
appellant’s brother, threw him on the ground and sat on his chest giving him fist blows, and that
since the appellant could not, prevent the deceased hitting his brother by the use of his fist, he
stabbed the deceased in the back with a knife. The trial court found the appellant guilty of murder,
and the High Court dismissed his appeal, agreeing with the trial court. The Court held that the
appellant had exceeded his right of private defence and his guilty of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder punishable under the first part of s.304, IPC. The court observed that the right
of private defence is defensive and neither vindictive nor retributive.

Held: All the provisions on private defence have to be read together in order to have a proper grasp
of the scope and limits. There is no right to private defence for the aggressor. This is true even in
cases where the attacked has the upper hand, as long as he does not exceed its limits. Once he does
so, it is an offense.

Amzad Khan v. State

While riots between Sindhis and Muslims were going on, the owners of a shop closed down the
store and went inside their home. The shop was robbed and rioters started banging on their door
with sticks. The appellant then fired a few bullets, and ended up killing one Sindhi and injuring three.
The court held that there was a reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt or death, and the force
used was not more than what was necessary. The right of private defence was validly exercised.

Section 103: the right to private defence of property extends to the causing of death or any other
harm to the wrongdoer if there is:
a. Robbery
b. House breaking by night
c. Mischief by fire to any building, tent or vessel used for human dwelling or the custody of
property
d. Theft, mischief, or house trespass under such circumstances as may reasonably cause
apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the result if such right is not exercised.

-the person must have settled ACTUAL possession of the property to defend it

The right to private defence against theft continues till the offender has affected his retreat with the
property, or the assistance of public authorities is obtained, or the property has been recovered.
Offences against the human body
Kidnapping

Vardharajan v. state

Abduction

Rape
Penetration— even a slight or partial penetration of the penis, even if the hymen doesn’t rupture or
there aren’t any injuries to her private parts.

2 essentials to consent (R v. Barrow)—

1. Consent to sexual intercourse— consensus quod hoc

2. Consent to sexual intercourse with this particular appellant— consensus quod hanc
personam

State of HP v. Mango Ram defined consent—

Consent for the purpose of section 375 requires voluntary participation not only after the exercise of
intelligence based on the knowledge of the significance and moral quality of the act but after having
fully exercised the choice between resistance and assent. Whether there was consent or not, is to be
ascertained only on a careful study of all relevant circumstances.

State of UP v. Chhotey Lal differentiated between ‘against her will’ and ‘without consent’—

The expression “against her will” would ordinarily mean that the intercourse was done by a man
with a woman despite her resistance and opposition. On the other hand, the expression “without
her consent” would comprehend an act of reason accompanied by deliberation.

Presumption of consent under Section 114A of the Indian Evidence Act— the court shall presume
that she did not consent if that is her evidence in cases of Section 376(2).

Section 146 of Indian Evidence Act—

in a prosecution for an offence under rape or for attempt to commit any such offence, where the
question of consent is an issue, it shall not be permissible to raise questions as to the general
immoral character, or previous sexual experience, of such victim with any person for proving such
consent or the quality of consent.

(Section 53A does the same for Section 354 of IPC)

Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra— mere passive submission is not the same as consent

R v. Bree— heavily intoxicated prosecutrix but capable of understanding the act, not rape
Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai v. State of Gujarat— Corroboration is not the sine qua non for
conviction

State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh— Testimony of prosecutrix in case of sexual assault is vital and
unless there are compelling reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement,
the court should find no difficulty in convicting the accused on prosecutrix testimony alone.

Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India

The Court set out new requirements for police dealing with rape victims, including that the victim be
provided with legal representation, informing the victim of all her rights before questioning her, and
protecting her anonymity during trial. The court also ordered that the criminal compensation board
consider the totality of the circumstances, ranging from the emotional pain of the act itself to
medical costs and emotional pain associated with any child that might result from the rape when
setting out compensation to be paid.

Bodhi Satwa Gowtham v. Subhra Chakraborthy

Held: Compensation should be granted to rape victims as it is an integral and undeniable aspect of
‘Right to Life’. Section 357 and 375A of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, provides for compensation
to victims of crimes along with various victim compensation schemes by States and Centre. This
judgement specifically emphasised the jurisdiction of the Courts to provide interim compensation to
victims of rape, which should be included in such schemes, based on the rationale that if the Court
has the jurisdiction to grant compensation after conviction of the offender, the grant to interim
compensation would also fall within its overall jurisdiction.

Aggravated form of rape

Unnatural offences

Culpable homicide

Murder

- Where a person unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in rerum natura

- Intention to cause/ bodily injury that in all likelihood would cause death/accused knows
will cause death
- R v. Govinda
- State of AP v. Punnaiyya
- KM Nananvati v. State of Maharashtra
- Jai Bhagwan v. State of Haryana
-
Dowry death 304B

Death by rash and negligent act 304A

Doctrine of Rarest of rare cases (differences b/w culpable homicide amounting to murder and not
amounting to murder)

Justice Ramaswami

Jaswant Rai -accused the MD of a bank was convicted under s.409 of the IPC

RS Nayak v. AS Antulay-- no evidence that the management of sugar cooperatives

RK Dalmia v. Delhi adm

Mithu v State of Punjab

Geetagamma v. Attorney General

Shilpa Miter v. NCT Delhi