Kishor Prasad

PROBLEMS & SOLUTIONS

ON

Third Edition

-
. .,..,' :::
: Oniversal
Law Poblishlng
' . ......
an imprint of (t·LexisNexis-
 l

Page
SYNOPSIS 63
63
67
o n s 6-52A
N A T JO NS - S ec ti 38 68
GEN ER AL EXPL A
ff e n c e s - S e c ti o n
1. tion 34 t o
tention - Sec tion 3S"Jty o f d if fe re n
69
Common in inte n ti on - S ec
owledge or ma y be g w
69
Criminal kn m in a l act s 76-95
n ce rn ed in c ri
6 ) S e c ti o n 73
Person s co 0 -
ec ti o n s 76-1f ivate d e fe n.ce s 96-106
L E X C E P TIONS - S . . h p r 83
A O
hon
2. GENER dmg n g t tions) - S e c
eral ex ce p tions (exclu 1 ex ce p 87
Gen (Genera
vate defence lA -l 7 l- I . 1-229A
Right o f pri 0
.
n s
17
T IC E - S e c ti o n s 19 88
tions 107-12LECTIONS - S ec ti o UBLIC J U S
ENT - Sec O E 88
3. ABETM G T
T IN IN S T p
ES R E L A CES A G A
4. OFFENC IDENCE A N D OFFEN 88
EV
5. FALSE tio n 19"1
g fa lse ev idence - Sec 9
89
Givin on 1 2
ev id ence - Secti 90
Fabricating
fa ls e 299 -377
d er - S ec tion 212 - S e c ti o n s 90
g offen AN BODY
H a rb o u ri n THE H U M
F E C TIN G
ES AF s 299-3 11 90
6. OFFENC L ife - Sec tion
ffec tin g -304
Offences A rd a - S ec tion s 299 99
ic1ife and m u
Culpable ltom Sec ti o n 304
A 103
de at h by 11 eg lij1·11 ce -
Causing o n 307 107
urdn - Secti
Al/empt lo m Section 309 108
p t to co m mit suicidt· -
Al/em 339-348 11 2
- S ec ti o ns 319-338
fi n e m e n t - S e c ti o ns
n s 359-374
Hurt n
w ro n g fu l co 115
n g fu l re straint a n d rc e d la b o u r - S e c ti o
W ro fo
slavery a n d 12/
n ap p in g , abduction,
Kid ns 375-376
D
ces - SecUo 2 124
exu a l o ff en o n s 378-46
S
P R O PE R TY - S e c ti m
ST
ES A G A IN
7. OFFENC
Th e ft - Sec
tions 378-382 /Ji
-389
Extortion -
Sec ti ons 383 nJ
s 390-402
a n d da co ity - Sec ti on -I
/JJ
Robbe ry
n - Sec ti ons -l 03--IO
appropriatio /Ji
Criminal mis tion~ -I OS --
l09
brea ch o f trn s t _ Sec /J5
Criminal 0
Sec tions -4 15--42 /$
Cheating -
440
Mischief -
Sections -4 ;:5 JI)

N - S~tion
s 499-502 u:
EF A MA TIO
8. D IT 0 n 511
ES - S tt ti o
Jj;
T TE M PTS TO COMM F FEN C
9. A
MENT 1511
10. PUNISH
S
GE N ER AL EXCEPTIO N
11.

62
 pl{OBLEMS AN D SOL Urf ION S ON THE
IND IAN PEN AL CO DE
GEN ERA L EXPLANATIONS
INTRO DUCT ORY
Q_ r; lntHIOfl 11,e oxtrn torrltorlal operation of the lnrJian Penal Code.
, S(•rllc>nti '. \ :ind '1 of lh<· lndi;:in Penal Code lays down the extra-territor
A,w .. 'lhn ( 'odt•. ~1,•clion :, prov1J ial operation of
· es II1,1t any person 1·1a bl c by any L d . l
n 1an aw to be tned
. for
,111 offi•nc •,. commi l11)d b1!yond India c;hall be dea lt with accord ing to the provisi
ons of
,1t1,, ,•odl' for .rny arl commilted beyond India in the same manne r as if such
act had
lw<•n ~on1millvd wilhin lndin.
H,•i\rlot1H: Sc•cllnn :'I gives 1·rln 1i11:1 l jurisdiction to
the cou rts lo try for an offence committed by
,1111 ,rson hcynnJ the lC'rritory of India provid ed such
a person is subject to the lndian
ltiW , The ;H.:cuscd will be liable for the offence in Lhe same
manne r and to the same
1,xtcnl afl If it. were committed within India . The scope of section 3 is wide enough
as
ii iTiilkC's not only lndinn citizens liable for offences comm itted abroad , but also
those
who an• cov1!red by any special law bringing them under lndian jurisdiction.
s,•clion 4 of Indian Pena l Code las amend ed by the information Techno
logy
(AnH:ncim1•nt) /\ ct, 20081 provides that the provisions of this code apply also
to any
offe11c1~ commillcd by-
( I) .1ny <"i lizen of India in any place without and beyond India;
(2) illlY 1wrson on any ship or aircraft registered in India where ver it may
be;
(:') nny 1wrson in any place withou t and beyond India comm itting offence targeti
ng a
rnm pul<•r rrsourcc! loci'l tcd in India .
The J:xpln1/(/fio11 appcn d1·d to lhc section provid es that in this seclion-
(.1) llw word 'offence' includ es every acl comm itted outsid e India which,
if committed in
lndi,1, would be punish able under this code;
(b) the ('xprcssion 'rnmp utcr resourc e' shall ha ve the meani ng assign ed to
it in clause (k)
of suh-st'ct ion ( 1) of sec lion 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.
Tlw reason behind the extens ion of criminal jurisdiction of the courts in India,
even if
lhe offence is committed outside and beyond India, is based on the conten
1·w ry soven~
tion that
ign s tale can regulate the condu ct of its citizens, where ver they might be
for thl' lime being. Bul if a person is not an Indian citizen at the time of
committing
llw offence , he canno t be tried in India for the offence comm itted outsid e and
beyond
lnd!;1, merely becaus e he subseq uently acquires Indian nation ality. Simila
rly, if an
Indian citizen after relinquishing his citizenship, acquir es anothe r
countr y's
63
r

64 Problem s and Solution s on ,

l 11e Jni' .
<Ian p
citizen ship, he is n~t s_ub~ec_t to the jurisdi~ tion of Indian courts. Clause
e,i.at Caci:.
'I
4 crives admira lty Junsdic tion to the Indian courts and the pow (2) of Se . .
. \
l o·
commi tted on any ship, or a1rcra. ft . t d . I d.
reg1s ere m n ia, w h erever iterrnito try Offeti Chu
r1
is consid ered to be a floatin g island and belong s to the countr y who . ght be. 1
. . h A ~t~
flying and likewis e also aircraft s. T us, a
11 I h. . se flag h Sn1:--.
, vesse s, s 1ps or aircraft s t e sh· "
be part of the territor y of the countr y w h ose fl ag they fly. If areco . 'P t
1
f ~S derect
. . . .
commi tting a cnme outside India steps mto I n d Ia, " h
e may be sent baa k ore1Pi-. . o"tr aft
t~
where the offence was commi·tted for tna, · I on th • . c lo
e proper requisi tion b h count,..the er
The requisi tion procee dmgs· are terme d ' ex t ra d 1·t10n
· proceed'mgs' and a Y l at countr-,.1
the Indian Extrad ition Act, 1962. re gove ··
med b,
Recent ly the Indian Penal Code was amend ed by the Inform ation T
·
(Amen dment) Act, 2008 to extend the extra-t erritori al operati on of the C~chno
logy
offence commi tted by any person in any place withou t and beyond India t
· Th et~ an>
compu ter resourc e located in Ind ia. · ' compu
e expres sion ter resourc e' is dargettng
f a
section 2(1)(k) of the Inform ation Techno logy Act, 2000 as meanin g a ce
med in
compu ter system , compu ter networ k, data, compu ter d atabase or software. om~~
r,
COMM ON INTEN TION - Section 34
Q. A commit s the offence of theft in the house of B. Can A be convict ed under
section
I.P.C. read with section 34, 1.P.C.? Give reason s and also refer to the 380
case law, if any'
on the point.
'
Ans.: No, A cannot be convict ed under section 380 (theft commi tted in dwellin
g houses etc.)
read with section 34, I.P.C. - section 34 and Suprem e Court in Rnma Swami Ayyanaar
v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1976 SC 2027. 0

Reason s: Section 34 of the 1.P.C. deals with the prov ision relating to
'acts done by several
person s in further ance of commo n intentio n' which is commo nly known as 'common
intentio n'. The section reads as follows- "Whe n a crimin al act is done by
several
person s in further ance of the commo n intentio n of all, each of such persons is
liable
I
I for that act in the same manne r as if it were done by him alone" .
ll1. Thus, it is clear from the langua ge of section 34 that this section will apply only
when there are several person s i.e., more than one person .
I, In the presen t case, there is only one person n a m ely A who has committed
the
offence of theft under section 380, I.P .C. Thus, he ( A) cannot be convicted
under
section 34.
The Suprem e Court, in Rnma Swami v. State oJTami l Nad11, referred above, observed
that section 34 can be invoke d only when an offence is commi tted by several persons
i.e. , by more than one person.

Q• .
A and 8 commit the murder of C but there was no pre-arr anged plan betwee them in this
n Give
regard. Can A and B be convict ed for murder of C under section s 302/34, 1
1.P.C. ·
reason s and mentio n case law, if any, on the point.
.
Ans.: No, A and B cannot be convict ed under section s 302/34, I.P.C.- Court in
Supreme
Pandur ang v . State of Hyderabad, 1955 SCR 1083.
hat for
Reason s: The Suprem e Court in above mentio ned Pandur ang's case,
obser~ed t cert or
I
applica tion o f section 34, I.P.C., there must be a pre-arr anged plan (prior con
Ii mee ting of minds) betwee n the offende rs.
I
!
I I
i
 ,.,,
(,e,,mtl 1:xp/111111I IUII H I I

In the prctienl ti.lac, allhougli 11 n11d H jul11tly c11111111il Il l!! 111 11 nfor uJ , y~•I l1 1uy ltnd
no meeting of minds {ptc•arnmgcd pla11) lri llil11 rnw11·ll. 'J'Jiuq1 11 ,,! y < :.it111ul II" l,,,1,1
liable under section ~4.

Q. P, Q and R had common intention to rob S. Whlla /J umJ LJ 1:1rtlrm:1<J lrtt() thH f111u1J'1 ,,1 u
and beat and robbed him, R stood outside to warn /J a11d Q u1 uriy di.s111tJ~r. ()11 1,,1lrJ(J
prosecuted along with P and 0, R pleadecJ that nuithfJr tlkJ htJ corrnnit H1ea, r11tJIJyry r11,r
cause injuries to S and hence was not guilty of any ofhmca, Uuolcfo,
Uttar /Jradr1£Jh J11diclul ~11ruln! 1::mm., l 'Jlf~
Ans.: The defence (plea) of R cannot be accepted ,md he wll.1 be ~ullly c1lu11fJ wHh /' r111d {J,
under section 34, l.P.C.- Privy Council in 13arendm Kumar Wwllh v, Yinu Lmprmr, All'
1925 PC 1.
Reasons: The facts of the case rcsemble8 with the facls of Harendm Kumar Ghullh v, Yin:,: 1:mpmJt,
mentioned above. Jn Barendra Kumar' fJ r:u11e, the Privy r:uur1d l held that ,my ,:;d
performed by an accused on the place of occurrcnc:c, however r,Jl~hle1;t lt rrtii y b1· 1
amounts to participating with olhcr offenders anc.l all the pemorw wuuld IJC llt1 1Jl!• Im
the offence committed as if the offence were commitlcd by 1:Jch cJJ !ht:-rn alu111~ . Jt,
support of this view, an important line of celebrated put:! Juhn Mlltun Imm. 'Par'acli~c
Lost' was quoted-"They aJso serve who onJ y stand c.1nd wait'',
In the present case, R was present jn place of occuaencc ;:i long wlth P ;,irnJ (l tu
make them alert for any unexpected danger while S w wJ being bcakn arid n,bbecJ l:1y
P and Q, The aid provided by R in facililaling the crime .irrwun tB tu ;JCt 1Jr
participation in crime. Thus R would also be guilty along with P and Q for the o.ffcncc
of hurt/ grievous hurt (according to the nature of beating) and robbery undc:r 1tection
34, as the offences have been committed in furth erance of the cornmor1 inl!m litm <Ji /J,
Q and R The plea of R that he neither committed robbery nor CiJ USl'd injuri~r.; tu :;
not sustainable at law.
,~i
Q. A, B, C and O jointly plan to beat up X While Xis being assaulted, his daughter interv9nfJg
who is molested by 0. While retreating from X's house, B pick up a watch, For what
offence A, B, C and O are liable?
Hihar Ii.VP. (A. V O,) t:xam., 1981
Ans.: A, B, C, and O are guilty of beating X (hurt or grievous hurt according lo th~ r'l2iture
of bodily harm/injury). 0 will also be liable for molesting the d;wghwr of X
(outraging the modesty of _a woman - section 354) and B W(JUl<l be Ji,;1blc fo r
committing the theft of watch, in addition lo beating X.
Reasons: A, B, C, and O jointly plan to beat X. Thus, alJ the four accused person~ an: g-uilty of
beating X under section 34., as the offence was committed in furtherance of their
common intention. In addition, 0 is indi vidually guilty of molesting X's daughter and
B is individually guilty of theft of watch as there was no meeting of mind!> or pre-
arranged plan to molest or steal, which is an essential element for invoking common
intention. The common intention /meeting of minds did not develop even on &pot a~
was held by the Supreme Court in Krishana Gcrvind Patil v, State af Maharashtra, AIR
1963 SC 1413.
 l 'ro/;fr'llls r11,rt Solllt
io,,., m,IIte Ind
. I/In p
NOTE: It ,s :ilso notable that in the case 1n hand, section 149 (common b' e,,q/r
applicable as for the application of section 149, there must be ~v!ect) Would n o.t,
unlawful assembly. Persons l,e
. ot be..
·, an

Q. There is a pre-arranged plan between A and B to beat C. During be t'

murder C. Consequently B murders C. Is A guilty of murdering C? Givea ing, A teus
. h . t . reason 8~
refer to case law, 1f any, on t e po1n . s and a~
Ans.: Yes, ,.\ is g uilty for the murder of C - Supreme Court in Krishana Govind p .
of .Malzarnshtra, A IR 1963 SC 1413. ati/ v. State
Reasons: The Supreme Court in Krishan Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra, referred ab
tha t common intention may also develop on the spot in the course of c ~ve, held
the offence. ommission of
In the present problem, A and B had no common intention originally to
but it developed on the spot i.e., on the place of occurrence in the course :~der C,
as soon as A told B to kill C and B acted upon A's direction. Thus A is also gu~ttng
1
offence of murder along with B under section 302/34, I.P.C. ty of

Q. Six persons are charged under section 302/149, I.P.C. Three of them are acquitted by the
trial court . Remaining three are convicted under section 302/34, I.P.C. and given life
imprisonment. Discuss validity of this conviction.
Bihar A.P.P. (A.P.0.) Exam., 1985
Ans.: In a case where more than 4 persons are charged with the aid of section 149 (common
object) and on the basis of evidence adduced, it appears to the trial court that three of
them are innocent, then the court may acquit the three accused. Further, if it appears
to the trial court that remaining accused persons have committed murder in
furtherance o f their common intention i.e., with a pre-arranged plan, they can be
convicted under section 302/34. The Supreme Court of India in Jagir Singh v. State, AIR
1968 SC 43; Gnjjan Singh v . State, AIR 1976 SC 2069; and Gupteshwar Nnth Ojha v. State,
1986 SCC (Cr) 191 also supported such a view. In the context, it might be pointed out
that in order lo apply section 149, there must be more than 4 persons. It is notable th
for the offence of murder, the minimum punishment is 'life imprisonm ent'. Thu_s ~ne
t
trial court is bound to pass minimum sentence i.e., life imprisonment, to rernauu g
three convicted accused persons. . h·s
Thus, it can be said that the sentence of life imprisonme nt given by trial court int l
problem is proper, hence conviction is valid.

Q• .
TheY gave
In furtherance of the common intention A, B and C attacked O with La th1 s· the head
·
various lathi blows on the person of D. During such attack C gave last blow on cuted tor
of D which proved to be fatal blow. Consequently o died. A, Band (! we~e pro~~d 8 wok
the murder of O under section 302 read with section 34, I.P.C. During trial, A as theY did
the defence that they are not guilty of murder but only for causing hurt to Dhe fatal biO~
not give the fatal blow and only C is liable for the murder of 0, who gave t answer an
to D. Is th e defence of A and B acceptable. Give reasons in support of your
also refer to th e case law, if any, on the point.
Ans.: No, the defence of 11 and B is not acceptable - ·1977 SCC (Cr) 26.
►
. • . £.r,,/,mat io11 :_;
c,:-
t,illr1,11

The Supreme Court, in above noted cJ se, obsen ·t~d th,1t w hl' l1 thcrt' i~ simull.Hwnus
Re.isons: attack by several assailants in further.mce of conunon inkn tion, th 0 r\' c.rn hl' rh ,
distinction betw een accused person who gan • fatal bin\\' and pl'~ons who d iJ not
aive fatal blow.
0
In the present case, Lhe accused persons A, B .md C simult.111cou:::ly ,1tt,1ckcd L) in
furtheran ce of their common intention . Thus, in view of decision given by Suprl'ml'
Court all the accused persons namely A, B and C are equ:-illy li.1ble for the offence of
murder of D under section 302 read w iU1 section 34 and th~ defence of .-\ .md R that
they did not give the fatal blow to D will not exemp t tht>m fr0m the criminn l liability
of murder of D .

a. Suddenly a fight began between A, B (accused persons) and C (informant) . In such sudden
fight, A caused simple hurt to C whereas B caused grievous hurt to C. Will A and B both
be guilty of causing grievous hurt to C in view of provision made in section 34, 1.P.C.?
Give reasons and also refer to case law, if any, on the point.
Ans.: No, both A and B would not be gu ilty of grievous hurt in Yiew of section 3-!. :-\ would
be guilty only of simple hurt w hereas B alone would be guilt)' of causing grieYous hurl
to C- 1\lfin dhai v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1981 All LJ 972.
Reasons: 1n Mindlini v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Allah abad High Court held that section 34 does
not apply in a case ,,vhere the fight has begun suddenly, and every person who rahs
part in the fight would be taken to be responsib le for his ind ividu c1 l ,1ds.
In the present case, the fight between A, B and C look place suddenly . Thus, A is
guilty of his ind ividual act (hurt only) and B alone is guilty of his ,1ct (grie,·ous hurt).
Section 34 will not apply in the present case.

CRIMINAL KNOWLEDGE OR INTENTION - Section 35

Q. A and B successively and independently wound C with murderous intent. C dies from the
loss of blood caused by both the wounds together. But the fact remained that C would not
have died from either wound alone. Discuss the criminal liability of A and 8 .
Uttar Pradesh Judicial Se111ic:1 Exam., 1992 n11rl 1997
Ans.: A and B are guilt)' of murder of C- section 35 (section 302 read with section 35).
Reasons: Section 35 of the I.P.C. lays down that when an act, which is criminal only by reason
of its being done with a criminal knowled ge or intention, is d one by several persons,
each of such persons w ho joins in the act w ith such know led ge or intention is liable
for the act in the sa me manner as if the act were d one by him alone with that
knowled ge or intention.
In the present case, the intention of A and B are same (to murder C) .rnd both of
them successiv ely but independ ently cause wound to C. Consequ ently C dies. In this
case, all the conditions of section 35 are satisfied. Thus, both A and B are guilty of
murder of C und er section 302 read wi th secti on 35. It is notable that in this case,
section 34 will not come into play, as in order to apply section 34, meeti':g of minds/
pre arranged plan be tween accused persons is essential. Here, there is absence of
meeting of minds between A and Band both of them independ ently ,vound C, though
the intention of A and B are same i.e. , to murder C.
 Problems and Solutions On 11ie Ind ·
68 . . ian Pena/ r.,
book (Law of C .
Lear ned auth or Rata n Lal has also rema rked m his
'-"'le

P· l l4) whil e _com~enti~g on secti on 35 t~~t

whe n se~e ral pers on/~:~- 23rct E:ctri
. ing one ·,
conu mt mur der, e ach is
the same crim mal mtent10n or know ledg e, Jointly Ii b and
a le for the
offence as if he had acted alon e.

MAY BE GUILTY
PERSONS CON CER NED IN CRI MIN AL ACT
OF DIFFERENT OFFENCES - Sect ion 38
be ·guilty of different offences .
Q. If two persons commit the same act, can they
that act ?.
in respect 01

Haryann Judicial Service Exa 2

ces - sect ion 38. rn., 001
Ans.: Yes, they can be guilt y of diffe rent offen
here seve ral pers ons are engaged or co
Reasons: Sect ion 38 of the I.P.C. lays dow n-"W
guilt y of diffe rent offences b ncerned
in the com miss ion of a crim inal act, they may be Ymeans
of that act."
Sect ion 38 can be mad e more clear by the illus
trati on attac hed to it. The illustr f
msta nces of grav e provocation th:t ~-"
read s as follo ws-" A attac ks Z unde r such circu
amo unti ng to murder. B, having;
killing of Z wou ld be only culp able hom icide not
not havi ng been subject to the
will towa rds Z and inten ding to kill him, and
A and B are both engaged in causing
prov ocat ion, ~ssis~s A in killin g Z. Here , ~hou~h
Z's deat h, B 1s guilt y of mur der, and A 1s
guil ty only of culp able homicide".
altho ugh A and B are doing the
From the abov e il1ustration, it is clear that here
A is guilt y of culp able homicide nol
same crim inal act i.e., caus ing deat h of Z yet
der. Thu s, acco rding to section 38,
amo untin g to mur der whe reas B is guil ty of mur
in resp ect of the same act.
two pers ons can be guilt y of diffe rent offen ces
-
GENERAL EXCEPTIONS
GENERAL EXCEPTIONS (EXCLUDING RIGHT OF
PRIVATE DEFENCE) - Section s 76-95

a. A Soldier A fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer in conformity

commands of law. Has A committed any offence? Give relevant provision of law.
with the

Uttar Pradesh A.P.O. (A.P.P.) Exam., 1997

West Bengal Judicial Service Exam. , 1998
Ans.: No, A has not commit ted any offence - section 76, l.P.C.
Reasons: According to section 76, l.P.C., on which this problem is based, an act
is not an
offence, if it is done by a person who is bound by law to do so.
In the instant case, the soldier A believes himself bound by law in good faith to
comply with the order of his superio r officer and fires on the mob. Thus, he has not
committed any offence in view of section 76, l.P.C.
NOTE: This problem is based on Illustration (a) of section 76, 1.P.C.

Q. A, an officer of a court of Justice, being ordered by that court to arrest A and, after
due
inquiry, believing Z to be Y; arrests Z. Has A committed any offence? ·Give reasons
and
also refer to the relevant provision in this regard.
West Bengal judicial Service Exam., 1993
Ans.: No, A has not commit ted any offence - section 76, I.P.C. ,
Reasons: Section 76, on which this problem is based, states that an act is not an offence
if it is
done by a person who believes himself in good faith bound by law to do so, because
of a mistake of fact (not mistake of law).
In the present case, A, after due inquiry, arrests Z believin g him to be Y. Thus, in
view of section 76, I.P.C., A is not guilty of any offence, as he (A) arrested Z because
of 'mistake of fact' and that too in good faith i.e., after making due enquiry . Here A
was bound by law also to comply with the order of court, being the employ ee (officer)
of that court.
NOTE: This problem is based on Illustration (b) of section 76, I.P.C.

Q. ~ sees Z committing what appears to X to be murder. X in the exercise to the best of his
Judgement,_ exerted in good faith, of the power which the law gives to all persons
of
appre~~nding murderers in the act, seizes Z in order to bring z before the
proper
au!honties. But it turns out that Z was acting in exercise of his right of self defence
. Is X
guilty of any offence? Give reasons.
Civil Services (l.A.S .) Exam., (P.T.), 2000
69

J
 f'u,N,· m. r111d <;,ii ,:/1011; , n the ind
'"~ f,..,_ I
' "II ft ·
~
A n~. : :\,l \ 1'• n o l i:u1lt v oi .111\- 0Hc11,·t• 1'1-N ·tio n 79
Rc,F,on~: St<c twn 7 ~ 11'.( . nn ,.,t,
11 h 1h1" p robh•m ,., b ..,..,cd, s tat , ·s that a n act i5 nnt a
11 it ,., dot1t· due to ., mi..,l,lk(• o( (,wt ;1r'ld not J ue• to ;·1 m i<: take of law in goo:;
Off,;,,,"·
thr p i·r-.tm ,i o m ~ 1l bl'liL'Vt'> him~clf to be ju.., l ificd by law in doing it. faith.
ln tht· gt\ t'n probkm x m good f ,1ith due to mistake of fart fnot by rnist '-
' . b I - d7-_€' r;f I·
,, \.''- / \ Hh.k r the powC'r g1vc-n to h tm Y ,J1N .
...._, ,_ d'"'
Thu~, X h.1s n ol committe d an y offence in v iew of th£: p r o v1sicm rn d
section 79, 1. P.C., even thoug h subsequen tly X comes to k now that z a .,
murdere r, bu t was exercis ing h is right of priva te defence/self defenc~ . ·Nas rv.it _
NOTE : This problem is based on the Illustration attached to sec1ion 79, I. P.C.

Q. A is at work wrth a hatchet; the head flies off and kills a man who is standing by.
ottence has been committed by A? Wna:
Rajasthan Judicial Service Ex·am. w-
W~t Bengal Judi~ial Service Exam., 2004 ;A::
Ans.: A has committed no offence, if A was domg the act W1th proper care and cauti
on -
section 80, I.P.C.
Reasons: Section 80, I.P.C., la ys down that an act is not an offence if it is done by accident ,
mis forhme, and w ithout any criminal intention or kn?w ledg e . Further, the pe~
d o ing it must be involv ed in the doing of a lawful act, m a la wful manner, bv lawtu:
means and w ith proper care and caution. · ·
In th e present case, A is at work w ith a h atchet. Thus, he is d oing a lawful act in
lawful m anner. As he is at work, no criminal intention or knowledge can be presumed
and if h e was doing the act with proper care and caution, he commits no offence eren
if a m a n is killed when the hatchat flies, which is merely an acciden t.
NOTE: (i) The act, under the circumstances mentioned in section 80 is known as 'accidental
act' . That is why it has not been placed under the category of an offence.
(ii) Th is problem is based on the Illustration attached to section 80.

a. The accused was beating a person with fists. The wife of the man being beaten intervened
with her baby in arms with a view to rescue her husband. The accused gave a fist bloW
to her also, which struck the baby, as a result of which it died. On being prosecuted, !he
accused pleads accident. Decide.
1().1'
fharkhand Judicial Service (1st Exam. ,) Exam., -. ~
Ans.: The plea of accident is n o t sustainable a t law and the accused will not succeed in;;~;~
of fageshwar's case, 1923 (24) Cr LJ 789 and Chatur Nath 's case, 1919 (21) Born LR
Reasons: S ection 80 of I.P.C., on which this case is based states that in order to take the
. . , t have I.P-'.
deft':
o f section 80 (accidenta l ac t), it is n ecessary that the act of the accused mus
la wful, and must h ave been done in lawful manner and b y lawful means.
In the g iv en case, the act of beating a m a n with fis ts is not lawfu l.
d above. 111 t/li:i
i. ·
The facts of the giv en case are ba sed on Chatur Nath 's case, re f erre ccused l')
. . I .t by the a
case, th e Bo mbay High C ou rt held that a lthough the child w as 11 . so, I..p·C.
.d f'1 t 0 f section
acc1 e nl, ye t the accu sed was not entitled to take the bene
inasmuc h as the a c t of accu sed i.e., ' be a ting', was not la "vful.
 71
The view cxprc~ticd by Bombay J li gh t '. ourl i11 Cl1o t11r Nath's case w as
also ta ken in
Ja.~1·:;/1wa r's ens,· referred nbovc.
Thus, the basb of <1 bove d isn ,ssion, it can be ~aid lh nl in the given case, the
Oil
acc used cannot plead ;)('Cidc nt.

a. didA initgreat fire pulls down houses in order to prevent the conflagration from spreading.
in good faith , saving the life property and to avoid
and
A
greate r harm. What offence,
if any, is made out in this case. Give legal provision .
Civil Serv ices (1 .A. S.) Exam., (P.T.), 1994
Uttnr Pradesh A. P.0. (A.P. P.) Exam ., 1996
Ans.: No offe nce is mad e o ut in this case - section 81 .
Reasons: Acco rd ing to section 81, l.P.C., a n act is not an offence th ou gh the
ac t is likely to cause
harm, if such a n ac t is done in good fa ith, with ou t any crimin a l inten tion
to cause
harm and also to preven t other h arm to pe rson / prope rty.
The section is based on the maxim of 'choice of evils'.
In the presen t case, A pulls d own ho uses to p revent the confla gra tion
from
spread ing. A h as d one it withou t any crimin a l intenti on, in good faith
to save the life
and proper ty and a lso to av oid grea ter ha rm . Thu s A has commi tted
no offence.
NOTE: This problem is based on lllustratlon (b) of section 81.

Q. A a child aged 5 years causes hurt on the head of B. Consequently

B sustained s~rlous
injuries. Has A committed any offence?
Rajasthan Judicial Service Exam., 1986
Ans.: A has commi tted no offence - section 82, I.P.C.
Reasons: Under section 82 of 1.P.C., a child below 7 years is regard ed as
'doli incapax' (A person
unable to have wrong ful intenti on) . The section read s as follow s-"No
thing is an
offence which is done by a child under seven years of age".
In the presen t proble m, the child A who causes se rious injurie s on the head
of B is
only 5 years old i.e. , under 7 years of age. Thus, he h as not commi tted
any offence in
view of law embod ied in section 82, l.P.C. In thi s res pect it is also notable
that a child
below 7 years is conclu sively presum ed to be a person unable to h
ave 'mens rea'
(wrong ful intenti on), and his every act is placed und er the ca tegory of
'no offence ' .
Thus A is not guil ty of any offence, in the presen t case, even if he had caused
the death
of B.

Q. A, finding B being attacked by C with knife, shoots at C thereby intending

to save 8, the
shot misses C and kills B. Has A committed any offence?
Utta r Pradesh Judicial Service Exam., 1984
Civil Services (l. A.S.) P. T. Exam. , 2000
Ans.: A has not commi tted any offence.
Reasons: Section 92 of the I.P.C. sta tes that no act wou ld be an offen ce if
it is d one in good failh
and for the benefi t of lh e person concerned, even though the act was done
withou t th e
,,,rfra i Excl'p lions
73
8 has comm itted no offence. The celeb rated autho rs Ratan
Lal and Dhiraj Lal also
agree with this view by giving same illustration (Law
of crim es, 23rd Edn., p. 269)
while comm entin g on secti on 95 of the l. P.C.
Rnjasthan Judicial Service Exam., 1986
West Bengal Judicial Service Exam ., 2004 (April)

RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE (GENERAL

EXCEPTIONS) - Secti ons 96 to 106
a. A, a passerby sees B beating his wife merc ilessl
I
y. A gives a blow to B who dies
immediately at the spot. What offence, if any , has
A comm itted? Give reaso ns for your
answer.
Bihar Civil Services Exam ., (Lirw ) 1982
Ans.: A has comm itted no offence, as the death of B
took place in exercise of ' right of private
defence' - secti on 97 and secti on 100 of I.P.C.
Reasons: Secti on 97 is one of the secti ons whic h
deals with law relating to ' right of priva te
defence'. Acco rding to secti on 97, to which this prob lem
is related, 'every perso n has
right to defen d his own body as well as body of any other
perso n, again st any offen ce
affecting the hum an body '.
Thus, every one has right to defend the body of other
s also (in this prob lem wife
of B).
Further, acco rding to secti on 100, a perso n can even volu
ntari ly cause the death of
another in exercise of 'righ t of private defence' of
body if he has reaso nable
appre hens ion of death or grievous hurt from an assau
lt of such anoth er perso n
(assailant).
In the given prob lem, B was beati ng his wife mercilessl y.
Thus, undo ubted ly, there
was reasonable appre hens ion of 'griev ous hurt' to her
body, if not of death .
Here, the wife of B as well as A, has right of priva
te defen ce and accor ding to
secti on 100, if A has cause d the death of B for defen
ding the wife of B, he commits
no offence, as there was reasonable appre hens ion of
griev ous hurt to the wife of B.
It is also notable here that it is imma terial that B was beati
ng to his own wife, as
the law does not give right to any one to beat his wife
and if he does so, the right of
private defence is available against him.

Q. A, a child below 7 years of age attacks B by a swor

d. Before A could cause death or
grievous hurt to B, -8 opened fire by a gun on the child
A (below 7 years of age), A is killed.
Bis prosecuted under section 302 I.P.C for murder
of A B takes the defence that he killed
the child in exercise of 'right of private defence' wher
eas the arguments of prosecution was
that B had no 'right of private defence' because A
was under 7 years of age and his act
~as not an offence and the right of private defence
is exercised only against an act which
ts an offence and not against such an act which do
not constitute an offence.
Decide, who will succeed , whether prosecution or defen
ce. Give reasons and also refer to
the relevant provision on the point .
Ans.: Defence (accused B) will succeed-s ectio n
98, J. P.C.
 75
£_,:Ct'/itiollS . . .
t;l'111•r111 ho is likely lo be made lhe v1 cl1m of rape. Ag reemg with this view the
of v~oni:r\~ryana High Court in ~11kh~iar _S ingh v. S_tate, (1975) Cr LJ 132 (P&H) held
Puniab ecd not w;:iil lo exe rcise his right of prtv a te d efence till he is hit by his
l ,1 n,an n
lIl c:l ·,HY assa 1 · 1 1t
a1 ·
advcr~ · ·v ,11 case A had the int~ntion to rape W and for this purpose he made an
I the g1 t: ' . . . .
n . this direction. Thus, W gels the right to exercise her nght of pnvate defence
h fA . . f . . . .
•1
ssaull d 111 d may even cause the d eat o · m view o provis10n made m section 100
of bo y an '
3rd clause) of I.P.C. . . .
( Mohinder Singh's case, the RaJasthan High Court held that 1f accused makes only
In ult with the intention to commit rape then nothing more is required to cause
an assa of accused m ·
· view o f sec t·10n 100 (3 r d c1ause ).
u1e d ea th
In this regard, it is also notable that the section 102 provides that the right of private
defence of the body commences ~s soon as a reas~nable appre~ension of danger to the
body arises from an attempt or threat to comrmt the offence .
In the given case, reasonable apprehension of danger (rape) to the body of W has
arisen from threat (by assault) to commit the offence of rape. Thus, the right of private
defence of W has commenced in view of section 102, l.P.C., as soon as A made an
assault to W.
Thus, it can be said without any doubt that in the given case W has not only right
of private defence but such right of private defence extends upto the causing the death
of A.
Hence, W is not liable to be convicted for the murder of A.

Q. B aimed his revolver at A. In order to save himself A gave a 'pharsl blow on the hand of
Bwith a result that the revolver fell down on the ground. Thereafter, A gave another 'pharsl
blow on the head of B causing the instantaneous death of 8. Can A justifiably claim the
right of private defence in causing death of B ?
Rajasthan Judicial Service (Special Appointment) Exam., 1974
Ans.: No, A cannot justifiably claim the 'right of private defence' in causing death of B -
Mukhtiar Singh v. State, (1975) Cr LJ 132 (P&H).
Reasons: Section 100 of I.P.C. lays down six circumstances (clauses) under which a person can
even cause the death of an assailant in exercise of his right of private defence of body.
According to 1st clause of section 100, a person can go to the extent of causing the
dea th of an assailant if he has reasonable apprehension of death from the act (assault)
of the assailant. ·
Further, section 102 of I.P.C. provides that the right of private defence of body
comes to an end when apprehension of danger to the body comes to an end .
In the present case, B aims his revolver at A. Thus, A has reasonable apprehension
of death from the act of B and if he gives a 'pharsi' blow on the hand of B, he commits
no offence, as he has a right of private d efence to do so. At this moment he could even
cause the death of B in view of 1st clause of section 100, I.P.C.
d But as soon as the revolver falls down from the hand of B on the ground, A has no
0
:ng~r to his body and at least no reasonable apprehension of death. Thus his right
private defence comes to an end. Thus, if even after falling down of revolver of B
 /t1tions on th<' ln dinn P<'nn/ C
/l ro/J ll'nt::i nnd •S0 Ocie
76
on head of B causing his d
. , 1 ... , l I w to u thnl loo
. d f . eath
!'
on the ground,/\ ngam g1vt'S /1/ t.'. , ~ J o . . , the right of private . e ence in C\usin
imnwdiatdy, Lhcn he cannot. 1ustifiably claim · g
tht:: death l) f H. , I , Punjab & Haryana High Court I
· •· J Stt· · •fcrrcd · il)nvc, tic
tn M 11 k/1t1,1r ~111 ~ 1 v. , a 1 , ic ' . t from causmg· hrma to bd
O
Y thenasa
h·
' d . nssa11an
pprehens1on o anger o the b is
held Lhal' when ;i person . 1s .1 0 -- , . ,. les the . f d . t
lo 111 end, as a Od11
right of priv ate defence comes ' '
; 1I disappcnrs. . . . A ca nnot justifiably claim the right
' I

I\
Thus il can be sa id thal in the given case of
-, . ·111 . ti1 death of B.
·1
private dcfrncc 111 ca us g e
-;i
t' he voluntarily causes hurt to B. When bear
Q. A beats his neighbour Band by su~h b~haein~ace 8 picks a heavy stone and throws u~ng
of by B was over and A was leaving p hurt to him. A prosecutes B for 'volunta~n
A The stone hit~ A's head which t~aus;;3 1.P.C. on behalf of B it was argued in~/ i
causing hurt' pu~1shable ~nd e; , ~ ~;rily c~using hurt' and he did so in exercise 01 h's
58

defence th_ at he is not ~uilty ~ hv~u~lso voluntarily caused hurt to him. Is B liable to~
'right_ of private defenced, afs ~ent advanced on his behalf. Give reasons and als
acquitted on the groun o arg_u . o
mention the relevant provision, if any, und er 1.P.C. .. .
.N B . t liable to be acquitted and the argument advanced by him is not acceptable
Ans.: . o, 1s no .
-section 102, I.P.C.
Reasons: Section 102 lays down that the 'right of priva~e defence of body' continues as long as
the apprehension of danger to the body contmues.
! A beats Band by such beating he voluntarily causes hurt to B which is punishable
I under section 323, 1.P.C.
I
• i
However, it is notable that after such beating A was going back (leaving the place).
Thus, the offence had become complete and apprehension of danger to the body had
come to an end. Hence, B had no 'right of private defence' in view of section 102 and
specially when offender A was neighbour of B, as such fully known lo him (B) . The
proper course fo r B was to take lega l recourse and nol to cause hurl lo A by lakinglaw
in his own hand in vengeful manner.
The object of the right of private defence is to prevent the offence and not to take
revenge. That is why it is said that 'the weapon of right of priva te defence should
~)ways b~ used as shield and not as sword '. Agreeing with this view, Supreme Court
m Ram _ Smgh v. State, 1970 SCC Cr 376 held that right of pri vate defence is purely
preventive and not punitive or retributive.
In the given case, B has exe rcised right of private defence as 'sword' in a revengeftil
ma1:11er. Thus, he is guilty of voluntarily causing hurt to A punishable uocler
section 323, I.P.C., though, here A is also guilty for the same offence. f
Th ·t b ound o
us, 1 can e easily said that B is not liable to be acquitted on th e gr
argumen t advanced in his defence.

Q• A an enemy of B ·
' 8
scare h,rn.
tr~ating th . t ' pointed a to~ (false) pistol looking like real one, at B to d pistol fr()(ft . ·.
9
pis O1 as real one, finds his life in danger and draws out a loade ·.
 77
Exceptions
1
cenera d fires at A Consequently A dies on the spot. B is prosecuted for murder of
his pocket a~ defence that he killed A in exercise of 'right of private defence' as he did
A. B takes t :the pistol of A was not real one but a toy. Will B succeed in his defence?
not knOW tha
_
.
. reason 5 . · . .
Give .11 succeed in his defence, as he had nght of pnvate defence - section 97 and
s. Yes, B w1
An .. sec t·on
1
100 of I.P.C. . .
. g to section 97, I.P.C., every one has nght of private defence to protect his
. Accord m •
'
J{easons. .
body. . .
F rther section 100, I.P.C. lays down six Circumstanc es under which a person can
eve:
voluntarily cause the death of another in exercise of his right of private defence
of body.
According .to the 1st, and 2nd circumstanc es (Clauses) of section 100, a person can
even voluntarily cause death of another if he has reasonable apprehensio n of death or
grievous h.urt from the act of an assault by such other person.
In the instant case, though A pointed the toy pistol at B, yet B had right of private
defence to voluntarily cause death of A, as B did not know that the pistol of A was not
real one, because it was looking like a real pistol. Moreover, A was an enemy of B. AU
the circumstance s of the case were sufficient to create a reasonable apprehensio n in
the mind of B that death or at least grievous ,h urt may be caused to him. Thus, he gets
the 'right of self defence' and has not committed any offence. Hence, B will succeed
in his defence and is liable to be acquitted.

Q. A puts his hand in the pocket of B in order to commit theft. B resists A tor not doing so.
During such resistance hurt was likely to be caused to A In defending himself from such
hurt, A caused hurt to B. Subsequently, A was prosecuted by B for attempt to theft
(sections 379/511, I.P.C.) and for voluntarily causing hurt to B (section 323, I.P.C.) .
During trial, it was argued on behalf of A that though he is guilty of attempt to commit theft,
yet he is not guilty of voluntarily causing hurt to B because he caused hurt to B only when
B was causing hurt to him. Can A be convicted for voluntarily causing hurt to B and for
any other offence alongwith the offence of causing hurt. Give reasons and also refer to
case law, if any, on the point.
.Ans.: ;es, A can be convicted for 'voluntarily causing hurt ' to B and also for offence of
attempt to theft' - Supreme Court in Kishan v. State, AIR 1974 SC 244 and in Pammi
v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1998 SC 1185.
Reasons: Th S . . .
e_ upreme Court m Kzshan v. State, referred above, held that an act done in exercise
0
0
!
n~ht of private defence is not an offence, hence, it does not give rise to any right
f pr~vate defence to the offender in return. In other words, it can be said that right
0
. priva te defence is available against only an act which is an offence. Taking the same
~iie~, t;e ~upreme Court in Pammi v. State of Madhya Pradesh, held that there is no
g O private defence against an act of private defence (self defence).
off!~uS, causing. harm to any person in exercise of right of private defence is not an
say cthe an~ no nght of private defence can be claimed against such an act. That is to
, ere 1s · h
defence no n? t of private defence to cause harm against a right of private
1
a ready being exercised.
 Untmn,a\y A
\\ h \o t) d ie d ,
302 . tP C T h ih e a c c u s ed
"'mod lh o \h
re n s o n s a n d
e n c c u s o d l oo
\ot A \n e x o
a\so re to r to
\<. the dete nc
rc is e o l h e r
th e c a s e \aw
le prosecuted
e that sh e ha
righ t o1 priv a
tor m urder pu
s n ot c om"'»tt
te d e len c e . W
nishab\e UT}de
e d a n y ott e~
r
e.
~ q~:·~
h a t is 'l o u r V 1c:..:: -
. \f any , on th \~
e p oint. G r1e
A n s.: T \w «r
<.:u~t'~' ~\\~ _c W es t Bengal Ju
l, m m H h· d th
n ,u rd t' r - I 11
R~•.,soc,~: T h t' k1 ro ( h ,m w
e
r' s cnst', ( \866
o ff e n c e o f 'c u l p ab
dicial S!!rvice ,a--
Exam .. __ ,.-.,
fal:l~ o f lh<.' g ) 6 W R (Cr) 5 le: h o m ic id e n o t amounti..
.1'\g to
~-'~w it W~\ ~ ~,eld \hiv.,e n c:a~c a rc b a se d o n rukira Ch0 .
n gh l o f rr \V a t th o u g h lhc am ar' s case, re
lc d<.'fo n c c ' to accu sed h a d ri fe rr e d a b o v e .
n•,~son~,b h ' ,~ lh gh t o f p riva te ln th is
p p rc h e n ~ io n c e x te n t of v o\u d e fe n c e , ye t h
o f d e a th o r n ta ri \y ca e h ad no
oH c n d~ r (\ h tc
f). lf th e a c c g ri e v o u s h u rt u sin g d e a th a s th e re w a s
d l' f~ nc c , h e u se d c a u se s to the a c c u se no
c om m its th e th e d e a th b y d b y th e act
l Exce p ti o n 2 o ffe n c e of cu excee d in g th e or
o f s e c ti o n l p a b \e h o m icid e n o t ri g h t o f pri..-ate
h o m ic id e n o
t a m o un ti n g 300 , w he re th e o ff e n c e a m o u nti n g to
m m
lo m u rd e r) . o f m u rd e r re
T h us , in v ie w d u ces in to c u d e r
o f E xc e p ti o n lp a bl e
cost', it c a n b 2 o f se c ti o n
e s aid tha t in 300 a n d d e c
the g iv e n ca se
h n s c o m m it te
d th e o ff e n c e , n e it h e r the a is io n g iv e n in F u k im Ourmar
c om m it te d a of rg u m e n t o f p ro 's
n y o ff e n ce) is ' m u rd e r' ) n o r th e a rg u m e se c u ti o n (a c a .L
~
o ff e n c e o f 'c u su s ta in a b le a n t of d e fe nc e (a
lp ab \e h o m ic t cc
id e n o t a m o u \a w a n d th e acc use d h a s u se d h a s n o t
n ti n g to m u rd c o m m it te d th
Q . A , o n b e in g a e r' . e
w a k e n e d in
in to th e c o u rt th e ·m id d le o
y a rd o f h o u s f th e n ig h t, fo
al\ s id e s . T h e b y s c a li n g th u n d B in h is
e g a te o f th e a t wa\\ w h ic h c o urtyard . B
s u c h c o u rt y c o u rt y a rd o f s u rr o u n d e d th h ad en tered
a rd . W h e n h o u s e w a s lo e concerned
tim e s o n th e B re a c h e d in c k e d . ,h e re h o u se on
head of B w ro o m a tt a c h w a s a roo m a
it h a c \u b . C e d w it h c o u rt tt ach e d w n.h
G iv e re a s o n o n s e q u e n tl y y a rd , th e n A
s a n d a ls o B d ie d . H a s s tr uck three
re fe r to re le A c o m m it te d
v a n t p ro v is io any ott ence?
n and case
No, A h as co \aw , if any , o
R n th e p oin t
A n s. : p ri v a te m m it te d n o o ff e a ja sthan Judicial
d e fe nc e - 4 th n c e a s th e d e a th S er v ice Exam .. 19
c la u s e o f se c o f A w as cau~ 84
R e a s o n s : 'T h ti o n 103, l .~ .C ~ d in e xe rc ise of
e 4 th c la u s e - a n d I~matl s rig ht of
o f s e c ti o n 1 0 case, 192 5 6 L
c a n c a us e th 3 , o n w h ic h a h 463.
e d e a th o f a th e g iv e n c a se
. n o th e r in e x e is _b a s e d , st a te s t~a t a J e
p e rs o n c o ~ m , rc ise o f ri g h t ~n
a p p re h e n s io 1 ts h o u s e tr ~ sp a ss , . su ch a m a nonfe rp ri v a te d efe n ce lf su e
n o f d e a th o a s m ay o b~:
r g ri ev o u s hm u rt m
. the m in d o
f p e rs on e x e rcc a use re a so n a
p ri v a te d e fe n is ing h is ri g h t
ce o
ln Ismail's ca f p ro p e rt y . of
se, re fe rr e d a b re H i h C ou rt
b u il d in ~ th o o v e , th e L a h o h e ld th a t c ou
u g h u n ro o fe d . ghi rty
w h e th e r th e ' an d th e a c c u se d ( m t s c A ) n o t k now ing a rd w a s a
b . n o t e x c eese a in th e d a rk,
u n d e r 4 th c u rg la r w a s_ a rm e d o r n ~ d h is ' ri g h t of f ,
la u s e o f s e c ti t, d~~n if th e
li m e s o n th e o n 1 0 3 , l.~- a ccu se d s tr u c p riv a te d e e nce
h e a d w h ic h .e k the b u rgla r
c a u s e d h is d three
'T h us it c a n e a th .
b e s a id th a t th t f B w a s su
re a so n; b le d in th e p re s e ~ c h a s to cause
o u b t in th e m t c : e,d e a ~ ha~r
A h a d ri g h t o in d o f A re g a ~t le a st griev o
f rd in g d :a th o u s h u rt . T h ,t$,
p ri v a te d e fe p ri v a te d e fe ~ c e e v e n to ~ f B in the e xe
rcise of h is ~ig,
nc e u n d e r s e
c h o n 1 0 3, l.P u :: e nce, A h a s n o t c om mit ht ~ot
.. te d a ny o ttt.'ne
t: .
 f)r:•l 1lt'ti1:: 1111d ;:;dill-wit . 1 ,
I I
;:>() -~ •11 1lit'
;;,v n, 11111 J1
. . r'll,1/ 1·.

Q. A finds· that a,·a teeble old woman, was st ealing hrs crops. A bent her so vrolenuYthat ~·.:,.!\,
died on the spot. A was p~osecu tsd unde~ ~action ~~2 . 1.P.C tor r~urcJor Qf B.
defence that he killed B ,n exercis e of right of p, 1vate doterice Is the det A took
kit

tainable at law? Give rea sons and also re fer the re levant provision ano case &nco 01 ,:
sus . law if . •
' · a, 1
on th e point.
Ans... .No, tL,1e t iofe
"'
nce of A is not s ustaina ble a t law . ,m d 1-w is not li<J bk• 1o l·,p 1 . .
section 103, I. P.C. and Gokul Bmvrt11' ·s case, (1866) S WR (Cr) 3.'i. ' (_qu ,tti•d
based on Gok11/ Baw,n•' s t'I1~c. In th is r.1 Sl..,, l[. \\· d\ ·.,
Reason s: The facts of the gi,·en case are . .
b\' the court th a t A had no reclsona ble appreh ens1on of either dei1 th or , . . . · 1,1:1;;
d · · f · l t ·1 ·
· I con 1t10n or v_o tm ':n ~ ca using dea th in offt•nu• bril \ 0 11 s h
.,
from B which is an esse~t1a of 1;r•
1
, of )ro 11 1
, ·t Lte/:
under -Hh cla use of section 103 (when the nght ol pri vate ddenn. · 1 \ } .extt-nd
. . f bl Id . '
to causing the dea th of a thief). B was a ee e o woma n. 1·Mo reo,·er, lhe bCJ!tngc
. t t
B by A is in so violent manner th at 1t amoun s o gross neg 1gencc on part 01 1
·

£ro~s neglige nce amoun ts to knowle dge. Thus, he is guilty of the offence of r,, ~rie
o . . . . ' , . rnurctcr
Thus, 1t can be said that A 1~ gml ty of murder punish able under section 30 2, LP.(
The defence of A is not sustain able at law. ·
So the often
NOTE: /n the present case, the problem says that B was stealing the crops of A.
of theft was not complete and A had right of private defence to cause some harm 10
c:
other than death for further stopping the theft. In fact here A has exceed ed his right
of
private defence and caused the death of B. Hence, A should be guilty of culpable
homicide not amounting to murder and not of murder in view of 2nd Exception 01
section 300. But in Gokul Bawaree's case, court took the view of murder, as B was
a
feeble old woman and A beat her so violently that she died on the spot itself.

Q. A is attacked by a mob which attempts to kill him. A in exercise of his right of private
What
defence fires at the mob killing one of the several children mingled with the mob.
offence , if any, is committed by A?
Haryana Judicial Service Exam.. 1995 (Ii 1

Rajasthan judicial Sen ,itt.' Exam. 1936

West Bengal ]lldicial SPrvh:e Exam., 1995
Madhya Pradesh Judicial Sen,ice E.ram., (P.T.i 1986
Ans.: A has commi tted no offence - section 106.
Reasons: The problem is based on section 106.
Section 106 lays down- "If in the exercis e of the right of private defence aga in ~r'.
st

assault which reasona bly causes the appreh ension of death, the defender be ~.~
1
situated that he cannot effectu ally exercis e that right withou t risk of harn~ _~, ilP
innocen t person, his right of private defence extend s to the running of that nsk1 :
The present problem is wholly covere d by section 106' as A is in such a sit\1·£ t,crn,n
h . . . . d 1mn5i
. elt ro1
. ircn
t at he cannot effectu ally exercis e his nght of private defence r. e. defen
111
th e deadly assault withou t taking the risk of causing harm to innocent c : 'led
mingle d with the mob. Thus, even if he causes harm to innocen t children mt~tatt'
wi th t!1e mob in defend ing himself , he (A) commi ts no offence. His right of pri
defence extends to runnin g of the risk which he has taken in this case. ·
~JOTE: This problem is based on the Illustration attached to section 106.
 81
. I r ,,-r71f1,JJI~-
;.,,:1;., r,J •
ol prop orty ·. E I · nd
notO on 'High t o_f pr ivo to t1o fonco of Oody nncJ
·ta ft xp ain u er what
Q ~rr stnricos mo so1d rlI)Mt ox!U n<fa lo oou:.i lnu rtotJ lh.
•
0

c1rt.:um. I M iu /11,/; '·· 1·i ,I .~,

<' , -
ruu·,· (Mi111 n) f:xam ,, 200.'j
.
done
:-,c_"( ·ltl' 11 , 11, 11/ rh,· Ji11 ·l1 .1n Pt•111il ( Pd
<• p r1>vldt•s fh,11 11o f'1 ing i•, ,.111 off(•nc<· whic h is
. tl h_, l ' ". 't<'h«
,i\rti,: )11 · p/ lht.' rlg hf of pdv ..ilc ddt' nn•.
•
~ubjcc-t lo the
~y(i l1n l(' l)I the I_ P( · pr'. ivid t·i-: th ;i l every JW l'.' iO n lws ,, righl ,
.. · • ,, ,._ /l'111 it.1i11cd 111 sec lI l 111 ')9 /, to defe
nd --
rt'-'1 11l 11I ·
p) hi:; tl\\' ll liod y, ,111d tlw body nf any other pcr!;
on, aga inst any o ffenc e affecting
llw hum:111 body;
~r _of any othe r person,
(ii) prnp crl _y, whc tl_u~r _mova ble ur imm _ovabJc, of himsel~
tlw
defm1t1on ?f theft, robbery,
, 8,,i_nsl ,111y ,ic_t ,,~hte h 1s an offence f~llm_g unde r the
1 p t to commit theft, robbery,
mischid or l' l'llllin a l trespass, or whICh 1s an attem
misc hief or criminal trespass.
priv ate defence against an act
Secti on 99 of !PC provides that there is no right of
of deat h or of grievous hurt, if
h-ich does not reasonabl y cause the appr ehen sion
acting in good faith unde r colour
~"one, or attempted to be done, by a public serv ant
~f his office, though that act, may not be strictly
justifiable by law .
h does not reasonably cause
There is no right of priva te defence against an act whic
, or attem pt~d to _be done, by the
the apprehension of deat h or of grievous hurt: if done
r colo ur of his office, thou gh that
direction of a public serv ant acting in good faith unde
direction may not be strictly justifiable by law.
h there is time to have recourse
There is no right of priva te defence in cases in whic
to the protection of the public authorities.
to the inflicting of more harm
Further the right of priva te defence in no case exte nds
than it is necessary to inflict for the purp ose of
defence.
t of priv ate defe nce exte nds
As per the provision of section 98 of IPC, the righ
mind .
against the acts of minor and persons of unso und
e righ t and is avai lable only
The right of private defence is essentially a defe nsiv
be allow ed to be avai led of as
when the circumstances dear ly justify it. It could not
ose of offence. In Ishwar Singh
a pretest for a vindictive, aggressive or retributive purp
rt held that in orde r to invo ke
v. State of Rajasthan, 1973 Cr LJ 811, the Supr eme Cou
mus t prov e that he was plac ed
the right of defence to pers on or prop erty, the accu sed
he had to use reaso nabl e force.
in such a dangerous situation that to prote ct hims elf
SC 67, A acco mpa nied with three
In Vishwa Nath v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR I 960
wife. A stoo d insid e and aske d
p~rso ~, went to hi_s father-in-law's hous e to brin g his
ged outs ide in conv ersa tion with
h15 wife to come along. His com pani ons were enga
the gir · I's f ather, pers uadi·ng him · to agree to send the girl to her husb and. A tug of war
brot her of the girl mad e a knife
followed between A and his wife. At that mom ent the
rt held that whe n the accu sed's
b.low on A and as a result A died. The Supr eme Cou
and, and there was an assa ult on
~ISter wdas being abducted, even thou gh by her husb
er an she was bein g compe11 ed b y force to go awa y from her fathe r's plac e, the
appe ll t
an would have the right 0 f ~nva · te d e f,ence of the body of his siste r agai nst an
assault with the inte .
and that righ t wou ld exte nd to the
causing of death of ntJon of ~bdu ctmg her by force the Supr eme
A. In Ja1pal v. State of Haryana, AIR 2000 SC 1271,
 . /, rdHHI /',•rr1d t od,·
' I t' 111 l ' I I IJ I I,,
/ '► p/1 / 1• 111 '111111 .... , "

:I . . \ , ,n , t • . 1, , Him11 ',1>1r,!1
1 4 11
h
C
0 :irt C 1~ t_h;tl ,H1 ,,~ .,, gt1'~~o r c,111t10I 1'Lil 1n lht• • •}~l,t nf
v. State.a_! Brlrt1r 1 A IR 197S S<. ' H7 ' t w o ,,1 tlu· ,wc·u
pn v,,\I ·
•,••d h, ,v ii•~·.\ t•I · Y'i"'
1
"•v
,d i.HH\ 1I•· ,, , 1urh ••,
~
nn
,
1n, ·
\ , , . HI •)' ,· 1 '
' , "'
• . ' 0
e, lc tdwd •,wni d rnd \11 1\lih· d Ld ,il ' l 1 ., 1. , . , .1 1
.,n 1 1,H 1
ran back lo ·tlwtr hous , 1
' · 111111
lh •l l t 1t' 1 H •
r
•
\ t
rd . ll w •,., h e ld 1h,11 ~•. ' 1
11 1,ld l• , tl\1111 l'I , I 1 'Y fl 11II·
1· v 1· 11 , , w ,11
decea sed .w1lh \h,\ . .
I. HW1.>
' .
. . • I \ i , ,., 1111,,, 1 . \
mfhc t C'd _~1mp k· 1n111 n ,·s 0 11 th(• ,hYu·wd . 1lw 1P ht I H>
l 111ild
. I 1)I, , \" 1r 1y . l H r 11 , 11
1 0
., (, \ 1,IJ , ( I • ·i·h I
,wcu s,'d to hi t th r• ,.k n •.t:--1•d wi th ,, ~w urd rn, .1 v il ,'1 1 · ' ' ' , \)(.•\ • I \ ,I fl l , '1 1I fl
,

b,, id l' dl w , l o l, ,, V(' , . I I\.' •l fl ' ' l 11 l. I , I f. d I, 111, 1 ' 'I l11•
• • . ,
The S1.' VC'nl•v ll l tlw m1ury cuuld 110 1 lw
11
w,l',-' the ,1L'L·u scd murd l'rl·d lll1..• dt'Ci.'. t:-~
t•d w .i:, \iy 110 I .I ' h y I t ,•. .H ' I I • < 1j j •

.
right o i priva ll~ dc lC'nn.• , tlwrd on·, ro uld 110 \ .l 1..• ,,v,,i 1.•c _
1
I I o l iH 1v ,1t v dv(t•11 1 •· , •. ( ,>1'-1,• rr••tt
. 1
rf f 11<1 i y f •t\.1 11 J 11 1·
As l,H ,l S the c:1us ing of d c•.:-. lh in c xcc rsinµ, lil t' ri~;
p ri v t.1 ll' d1.• ,-n ~·t· <, ·f .<-- . >H
section 100 of lPC \avs down when lhc , ri~hl of
·,
'd , \ (' 1 1 tht.• rt nhl () pr 1v .1l\- dd1•r1 u• 1 j
J )
c 1usm g of death a nd sec tio n 103 o f !PC prov 1 es w '1 ·

prop erty exten ds l o lhe ca using o f dea th .

Section lOO of IPC prov ides that the right of p rivat e def<· •,n· of dt\n t. d tlw r>tl<·nr,,
l_h ,.- \ Jc)~ Y {•X l< ·nd •. t,,
· f d ea th or o f a n y other h a rm tof the! a s~a
f O II •
th e vo un
l tary causi ng o · O
l
1
Vi \.., t '•\n ip\1(11 1•.,
w hich occas ions the exe rcise of the right be of any tiw t)Wln

namely-
(i) such an assau lt as may reaso nably cause the appr
ehen s ion th ;l l Jcalh will
other wise be the conse quen ce of such assa ult;
h a t griev ous h urt will
(ii) such as assau lt as may reaso nably cause lhe ap preh en sion t
other wise be the conse quen ce of such assa ult;
(iii) an assau lt vvith the inten tion of comm itting rap e;
(iv) an assau lt with the inten tion of grati fying unna tura l lusl;
(v) an assau lt with the inten tion of kidna ppin g or abdu chng;
g a person, un<ll•r
(vi) an assau lt with the inten tion of wron gfull y con finin
d tha t he will bi•
circu msta nces whic h may reaso nably cause him to app rehen
.
unab le to have recou rse to the publ ic autho rities fo r his rc \ea~c
p roperly cxtcndtl It>
Secti on 103 of IPC prov ides that the right of priv a te d e fence of
gdoe r, if the offcno·,
the volu ntary caus ing of death or of any other h a rm to the wron
, occas ions lhc exl·rdsc
the comm itting of whic h, or the attem pting to comm it, which
\y-
of the right , be an offen ce of any of follo wing d escri ption , name
(i) robb ery;
(ii) hous e-bre aking by night ;
buildin).1, irnt
(iii) misc hief by fire comm itted on any build ing, tent o r vesse l, whic h I . I 1ro11t'rll
. d Y l) l
or vesse 1 1s use as a hum an dwel ling or as a place for the cuslm , , r~,, -:on11t,l1
. h. f h ' .
(iv) theft , misc 1e , o~ ouse tresp ass, unde r su ch crrcuIT,sla nccs ns mt\) , , · ii ~11111
quenc~,
c~us e appr ehen sion that deat h or grie vous hurt wH\ be the con~r
n ght of pr ivate d e fence is not exe rcise d.
 ABETMENT
.aI A instigates B to murder C, but B refuses to do so. Has A committed any offence? If so
what?
Haryana Judicial Service Exam ., 2001
Rajasthan Judicial Service Exam. , 1970 and 1984
Bihar A.P.P. Exam 1997
Civil Services (1.A.S .) Exam (P.T. ) 1994
Ans.: A has committed the offence of 'abetment of murder' of C - section 108,
Explanation 2. ·
Reasons: Explanation 2 of section 108 provides that in order to constitute the offence of
abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed.
In the present problem, A has committed the offence of abetrnent for murder
though B has not committed the offence abetted.
NOTE: This problem is based on Illustration (a) attached to Explanation 2 of section 108.

Q. A instigates B to kill 0. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs 0. 0 recovers from the

wound. What offence, if any, has been committed by A and B?
West Bengal Judicial Service Exam ., 1999 and 1993
Civil Services (I .A.S.), P.T. Exam. , 1998
Madhy{I Pradesh Civil Services Exam. , (P.T.) 1995
Ans.: A has commHted the offence of 'abetrnent for murder' whereas B has committed the
offence of 'atter..1pt to murder'.
Reasons: _Explanation 2 of section 108 consists of two parts:-
(i) To constitute the offence of abetrnent, it is not necessary that the. act abetted
should be committed.
(ii) The effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.
In the case in hand A would be guilty of offence of 'abetment for murder' in view
of 2nd part of Explanation 2 of section 108, though D recovered from wound and did
not die, as s~ction 108 lays down that it is not necessary that the effect requisite to
constitute the offence should be caused .
It is also notable that A would have been guilty of 'abetrnent for murder' even if B
had refused to kill D or not acted upon the instigation of A, as according to 1st part
of Explanation 2 of section 108, a person becomes guilty of 'abetrnent' for an offence,
even if the offence abetted is not committed.
So fa r as criminal liability of B is concerned, he is guilty of the offence of attempt
to murder under section 307, 1.P.C. because the act of B was such that if D had died,
B would h ave been guilty of offence of murder.
NOTE: This problem is based on Illustration (b) of section 108.
83
 84 f 'ro/Jf,•m•, ,mcl ~o/u l ,omi cm t/ 1(' fndt,u 1 Pn rq/
( I>{;,.

a• A Wllh tho lntontlon of murrfe t11 !Q Z, pomund110 fJ, a child o f 6 years to put poison 1n P·
tood of ?. 8 t1on s no, wh lc t1 rns ult tt 1ri 7'o <loott, W h at off once · 1f any · has been c0 rnrniu,.r'.J
11

In tho CliHlO? ,j
( ·,·vii s,,ro icP!J (l ./\ .S. ) r xarn . (P -1. 2(
' I • )

Hihar /I YY . (AP .CJ.) f ' ' .J(;J

. . . -Xa rn ., Jr , .
West Hengal Jud1cwl Service b:a 'J r, ;
rn ., 199-1
. l lo mu r de r Z - Exp lanati on 3 of s .
Ans.: 1\ lu:- l..' 11m 111 illt•d tl 11.· o ffl' 11 n ' o f ; i bc lm c: n ·. echon 10
Bu t H h,,~ nHnrn iltcd no o ffc 11Ct' - s e ction 82 , LP.C. . , 8.
S • •t ' f , (' which den ls with 'gene ra l exccpt10ns rea d s as follows: "N
Reasons: .. C:!C 10 n 82 o 1..1 . . .
t
. d . ea rs of a e" {)h ilr,
is an of(en cc' w hich is d one by a chdJ un er se ven Y g · ~
'fh us, 1n, v iew
. <>f a.,ec ti'on 82 , H has not com mitted a ny o ffe nce, as he is only
6 Years
old .
Explanation 3 of section 108 of 1.P.C., on whi~h _this problem is based, states . -~
in order lo constitute the offence of abetment, it is not n ecessary that the p tha,
abetted should be capable ~y law of committing an offence (For example - a p::::
of unsound mind and a child below seven years) .
ln the present case A abets B to mix poison in the food of Z. B does so conseqUenuy
. . I I

Z dies.
Thus. , A committed the offence of abetment for murder of Z. Here, it is irnrn t .
. . . . a enal
that the child (B) who ~ut or mixed the poison m the food of Z was not capable of
committing the offence m the eye of law.
NOTE: This problem is based on Illustration (b) of Explanation 3 of section 108.

Q. A abets B to abet C to commit the m~rder of D. B accor~ingly abE;ts C to commit the

murder of D. Have A and B bo~h- committed the offence of abetment? Give reasons and
also mention the relevant prov1s1on.
Uttar Pradesh Judicial Service Exam., 1988
Madhya Pradesh Judicial Service Exam., (P.T.) 1988 and 1996
Ans.: A and B, both are guilty of the offence of 'abetment' - Explanation 4 of section 108.
Reasons: Explanation 4 of section 108 lays down: "The abetment of an offence being an offence,
the abetment of such an abetment is also an offence".
In the present case, A abets B to abet C. Thus, in view of provision made in
Explanation 4 of section 108, both A and B have committed the offence of 'abetment'.

Q. A instigates B to burn Z's house. B sets fire to the house and at the same time commits
theft of property there. Is A guilty of abetting the theft?
West Bengal Judicial Service Exam., 1996
Ans.: No, A is not guilty of abetting theft - proviso attached to section 111, I.P.C.
Reasons: S~chon· 111 o~ I.P.C. deals with the liability of abettor when one act is· abetted and
different act is done
. . ' . the abettor
Section 111 states that when one act is abetted and different act 15 done, 'f h had
is liable for the act done, in the same manner and to the same extent as 1 e
directly abetted it.
 · l BS
Hut tf\'!C.t1 on 1 1 I~ s 11hj,· , 1 to .u, ·1• :,i;, ·,·,lliot,· ,,. •"- · .
. •' .,.._. ll;.lturc of a ·
"<'~~ ti<m 1 11 A1xordtn>~ tu th,~ 't.•xn• i,tton' •c t ct,..,..,. ·t ff provlS-0 attached lo
, , ... . ,.,(• , . 1 er~nt lro L, -
th (' 1,n,b,,hk 1..' r lJ1St '~llt.' t1 t 1..• n f tht.• , tt:t w h i<. h w 1, .,,1-. tl d . rn a~tment must be
hl blt• l11 r , ud, d1 1k n •n l ,11..: t co1nnutt,,<.J by '> u'c h• .. ,". •
e , Jn order tc
d ( f'
k h
J ma el e accused
• . <1( < u~ Q ,ender J.
In th,• p n•:-.1..• n l probl~n ,, the lhdt com m itted by ,, · h
, 1{ tht.? .ict a llt.?IIC-d b y A (to burn Z's h ouse>) bu t a complete\
" •~ not l e probabl
ct ·rf 1;: consequence
. . , Y 1 erent act Th · •
c1-f the sedion 111 re a d w ith 1t.s 'p r oviso', A is not gu ilty of bet . h · us, m v,ew
· a ting t e offence of thef
This problem 1s ba sed on Illustration (b) of section , , , . l. P .C . t.

I'\ A aoets B to rob C, B attempts to rob C, C resists B trom doing so .

\If• f robbery, B has to fire at C in order to complete the off ence f · ~O mg such attempt
ouch firing from gun C is seriously injured and admitted to hosp~alroAft ry~ As a result_of
~ hospital due to injury s ustained from gun shot. · er O days C dtes
A is ~rosecuted for abetment for robbe_ry ~nd also for abetment for murdering C. Dun
trial, it was argued by t~e lawyer of A in his defence that A is not guilty of 'abetment : .
murder' of C, as he neither abetted B to murder c nor he had such intention .
Presuming yourself to be a Judge, decide, whether the argument of A is acceptable?
Ans,: The ar~ent of A_ in his defence is not_ ac~eptable. He is guilty of 'abe tment for
murder of C - section 111, I.P.C. read with its 'proviso'.
Reasons: Section 111, .I.Pd.C. lays down the liability of abettor when one act is abetted and
different act 1s one.
The aforesaid section says that when one act is abe tted and a different act is <ione
the abettor is liable for the act done, in the same manner and to the same extent as il
the abettor has directly abetted it.
But it is notable that there is a 'proviso' also in section 111. The 'proviso' states that
in order to make the abettor liable for the different act done, the act should be the
probable consequence of the act abetted.
In the present case, though A abets B only to rob C, yet murder is the probable
consequence of robbery, as it is just, usual and natural that person being robbed would
resist the offender from doing so and not allow to take away his property without any
resistance and after such resistance offender would go to any exten t in giving effect
to robbery.
Thus, murder being the probable consequence of the offence of ' robbery' , A is guilty
of the offence of 'abetment of murder' alongwith 'abetn1ent of robbery' . Here it is
immaterial in view of section 111 and its ~proviso' whether A h as directly abetted B
to commit the murder of C or not and A never intended the death of C. The only thing
which matters, is, whether the murder i.e., different act is probable consequence or not
and in this regard arguments advanced by A in his defence is liable to be rejected.
NOTE: In this problem B has committed the offence of murder and robbery but liability ot 8 has
not been discussed as it was not asked in the problem.

a. A abets 8 through telephone to murder C. But due to some technical defects 8 could not
hear the voice of A. 1$ A guilty of 'abetment for m urder' of 0 .. . xam ., 1988
LI ttar Pradesh Judzcwl Sennce £.,
 , __,e
on th e Ind ia n Pena/,.'-UQ
72 " a i i(I ·•Sol ut io n s
ProI1I •·trI"'

. L1 c- irc
· ms ta nc es in wh ich the· p erson
th e p e rso n con ct! rnc d, bu t un de r ... un u
conse n t of
. . .
_
t m a •. . _ _ ..
Was no o n to giv e con sC' nt. ng ht un der this
· pos 1t1 c rnse off
pro v idt· 5 tha t ,n the exex cep t or pre ven i;-tg tne
pro vjs o of sec tio n 92
F.urthe r, 2n d ..d to a pe, rso n <u
sect-ton ' d C.l- th or grr.ev ou s hu r t ca nn ot be G JW
:IC

de ath o r g rie vo us hu rl. f~orn the attack of C

sh oo ts a t C in go od fai t h in ord er lo pr ev e nt B rt. ThUs it
Tn th.i s cas e, /1
s a po ssi bil i ty of B's de ath or a t leas t gn ev ou s hu
~.Y s uc h a tta ck, the re wa .
15 cle a r tha t A h as no t co m m itte
d an y offen ce.
ac he d to s~ cti ~n
92 w~ ich reads as follows.....
ilar to Illu strati on (b) att th t rnay k4
NOTE: Th is problem is sim tiger. A fires at the t_iger ,knowing. 11 to be llkely at sho
"Z is carried off by a und. A h~
int en din g Z's be ne fit A_ s ball gives Z a morta l wo
Z, an d in good faith
co mm itte d no offence".
th tes to
a pa tie nt na me d _B, in go od fa~ communica 8
da y in conseq ue nce of the
inatio n of
Q• A, a do cto r after full exam
he cannot /iv~ lon g. B_ di~ s ne xt
that he has ca nc er and that ication. Dec~de the llab1l1ty of A
mmun
sh oc k ca us ed by A's co m
Rajasthan Jud icial Service Exa ., 1986
Bihar A.P .P. Exam ., l 989
Civ il Services (I.A.S .) Exam
. , (P. T.) 1993 and 2007
., (P.T. ), 996
Ci vil Services (l.A. S.! Exam 1
. nc e A is no t gu ilty of an ,
ma de ou t ag ain st A (D octor), he 1
Ans.: No cri mi na l liabil
ity is
offence - sec tio n 93. de in go od faith does not
constitutt,
Reasons: Ac co rd ing to sec
tio n
ug h
93
it
, a
ca
co
us
mm
es ha
un
rm
ka
,
tio
if
n ma
the c_ o~ ~c ation ha s be
en made for :
offence ev en tho such commurucation is ma
de .
of the pe rso n to wh om
benefit not live Ion
co mm un ica tio n ma de by do cto r to pa tie nt that he can
In this pr ob lem , faith (after full examination 0
~
mm un ica tio n ma de in go od
because of cancer, is a co oc tor ) is no t gu ilt y of an y offence in view of
the
Th us , A (D
B), fo r the be ne fit of B. h the pa tie nt die s as a result of
shock caused
sec tio n 93 , tho ug
pr ov isi on co nta ine d in
by A' s co mm un ica tio n. on 93.
m is sim ila r to the Illu stration attached to secti
NOTE: This proble
\
liJ
pe n fro m tha t inkpot. A does not allow, s
Q. A has an inkpot with him.
\f? wants to fill his
es ink from it. Ha s B committed any offence?
B tak vice Exam., 19i6
Rajastha n Judicir,/ Ser
an y offence - section 95 . !e~
Ans.: B ha s no t co mm itt ed ed on
lem is ba se d on se cti on 95 of
I.P.C., an d the section is bas
t of tnfle:·
Reas ons: Th e in stant prob rat lex '. It me an s the law do es not take acc atm
m ax im - 'De minim is no n cu d bv suchharn
act JS
ha rm ca us~ , uch i.
. . es th at an act is no t an offence, if the
S ~c ho n 95 p ro v1d
p er wo uld comp lain of s o
{A~
or di na ry se ns e an d tem
. so sligh t th at no pe rso n
of ·nk pot
to A by B by tak ing ink fro m 1. f •t evCJl
ca used
In the presen t problem, harm
O
r wo uld tak e no t~ce c:i~Jt 95,
of or di na ry se ns e an d tem pe
so sligh t tha t no person
01
B to do so . Th us , ii, vie w of provision made se
tho ug h A did not allow
- r•r1,/ 11n 11 •
ir 11 I
1

l
•:0{11/; u,1· . , ...

riv ht o
.•
f pn v,, te . v'-
o
,fe ncP ;;
f1",•
-
f
nce , or
n l u ,:tn
~ t,. , ~•1 ,
tll i,. prn lill• III I. , le o f n1r n1n 1t 1 P n
nn t, , ir• •1l I rni nd . H or
98 on wh 1d1 I 'H .. . . r h . ha d kil led ..
7-1
, .. ·un , w i ll > i n ,1w rn,1n of \.111 s otH
" I is c 1s1 on
c.c tlo n
cco rdi ng h.> s ,1n ,t .l pcri:; f • or ,1
t
·cw of p rov
A n ..,~• r~ uf ao c . Jf 1l '.,n .
v1
s: • .I 7 ,,,,o r-. ~
. n
Reason ~,· ,,·t.1blc• (•v~r, h,l~
•• • ·1 1 tw nW . ~. 7y c ~1
ow . n o l IH: 1• t1 ~in n: ~- 1~~
~ se cti on 98 , B ha s the
c hil d ocJ
c, ,.,m plt.• . ,1 c t ( , /\ i:-: .1
r ov i ~io n n, ~dc . '·1 e r
so n ab ov e 7 ye ars
<, to H, i i wu Lil d l i.1v t lw P
ln th,' pn. -se nt C"ttS ain s t ,.
. , J .,ri cvu llS hu
rl . 11 vie w of1cI r so nP cnJ.O ys ag
•.
c;;i u:-l v (" . 8 ? H o wt• vcr , t .
h . f he ha s r ea son ab le
d c fl!n cc ' w h1 clf1 ,i f.) -
in.1 l"k in se:?dtfo n .· -~l e
1· , 18 ye. u s o ag e. . ht to k i ll a n ot e r t -
.
-.rn,e:: ' rihh . l o p1 1v · a n g
-' ·or (n ,nv t . e r son h.1 s ath of A (ch ild
of .1 g e or a tlh1J ' . c1
if he c au se d de
~ie v~ u s hu r t. the r
A:-cordi.1 1,\; t1J sec tio n 1oo se cti on 10 0, J.P .<;=. In o
n,i tte d no off en ce ev e1 :th
::tp ~re hen sio n of d e.1 th o r g tio n 98 rea ~ w1 d efe n ce ag ain st a n
oth er e'.·en
s ~o m of sec
ln the g ive n cas e, B ~a . ht of pn va te itt ing offen ce .
. ge) u 1 v iew ers on h as ng .
t
bet 0 ,,., 7 ye arst o -ai .l~
a P ble of co mm ed an d the pr os ec u tio n will
· d tha. t law is no t ca pa
wo rds , it ca n e :,,
1
d B (de fen ce) w ill s u cc e
if s uch a oth er pe rso n, in
,
use
Th us, in the g ive n cas e, acc
ke s an
Fo r thi s pu rp os e , t he ma I
no t su cce ed. IY W · ·
sto from
ma n na me b dy of sh e dr aw s ou ad p1 w , f
t· n to co mm it rap ed of a wo , o A W
an
. en 10
,nt But be for e he co ul ev en
tou ch
.
the .o pr os ec ute
W
'
d fo r the mu r er th
Q• A ha d . at A had
W tly A die s., whts ere as pr os ec uti on ar gu e s
assault on an d• sh oo ts A Co ns eq ue n ' f d f W (d'1d t
make
urse , · ht 0 f pri va te de en ce
no t ev en tou ch th e bo Y ~ . no
her P nd he did n to rap e or
takes the de fen ce of rig . e a . pa rat ion sta ge an d me re inten ,
tio
. .
rap
merely 'int en tio n' to •tco mme)rt so he wa s 1n pre off en ce ). Th us' , W ha d no ng ht of priv ate
· . h bl (an extent
an attempt to co mm , ~ap ad ~ of A Ha s wr ig ht of pr iva te def e nc e to the
_ts n_ot pu~rs . . law
preparation tor rapee ts gu ilty of so mu r er d als o. ref er to the re lev an t pr ov 1s1on an d ca se '
' h nee sh G. ns an
de fen ce , e rea
of causing de ath of A? rve
the po int . Bih ar Ci vil Se rvi ces Ma in Exa m., 2001
if any, on
l~
ce ' to the ex ten t of ca u s~ g de at h of A an d sh e is 1:ot li~b
An s.: w ha s 'rig ht of pri va
te de fen .C . an d Mukhhnr Smgn
A -3 rd cla us e of se cti on 10 0, l.P
to be convicted for m u rd er of hin de r Sin gh 's cas e, 19 77 Ra j
Cr C 333.
J 13 2 (P &H HC ) & Mo
v. State, 1975 CL (cl au se s) un de r wh ich a perso
n can·
wn six cir cu n1 sta nc es
.C. lay s do
Reasons: Se cti on 10 0 of I.P
t in ex erc ise of his 'ri gh t of pr iv ate de fen ce ' of bod y.
cause the de ath of ass ail an t of causing
tio n 10 0 pr ov ide s tha t a pe rso n ca n go to the ex ten
The 3rd cla us e of sec
n n1 ak es an 'as sa ul t wi th the
inten tion of
if su ch oth er pe rso
the de ath of an oth er
comn1itting rap e'. e of se cti on 100 tha t for
the
lan gu ag e of 3r d cla us
T~ us,_ it is cle ar fron1 the ly tw o co nd iti on s sh ou ld
be sat isfied:-
cla us e of se cti on 10 0, on
~p ph ca ho n of this .
(J) Th ere sh ou ld be an
int en tio n to co n1 rni t 'ra pe ' ·s nota bl e thJ!
It · h d · · ev en tin g rap e . (It 1
c tlo n of pr
. .be an ssa u 1n t e 1re
a t' n 351
(ii) Th ere sh ou ld n - sec 10
for ass a ult 1-t 1s no t n e bo dy of ag gr iev ed pe rso
I.P.C .). . ' , ' ce ssa ry to to uc h the
nol
0 1·t isticJt
f · cti on .10
He nc e, it is an1 p!. y cl ea r th a t or aJ:'pl ica tio n of 3r d cla us e o f s~ ching th e ·
ne ce ssa ry tha t a e re alm of 'at tem pt ' by tou
ssa i1an t sh ou ld e n ter 1n th
 ~
, . . • Jr1 ,/1n •1 f ',_•r111I ( -,.,1,·
'
'i,_1/11/1 0 11 ; " ti /I i.
I 10 1•lnn: ,m;f
78 . I ,1 rn<•l l n\ •, lo ,_ 11 ·1
.
h .u11 I 1n
) l•)(t• r<. 1"'-1' u( ht··-
llw 1•1tt ·r_1 ·I (JrI\, ti\
p f ,, \ ( p ll(I IJ ll'"
In tfw l"ft' '> l'll l ( ,l ' l ' tlw , I( t r•
ltti rt IP • ·r ht1", 11 lhb l
li.J
d t .11 11 1 II W, l •, -M-... ly lo (, IU 'lt'
nlh•n('l' ll ,Hll 1' h ',H lt •n11 •t 11• fh ..
_,,c·t Io n }(Ii , l I' < ) w l11d 1 1, pol .,n . o ff<•fl {t
Jh<•H \f', , •,, 1· n ,<,1·· d
. · .. ·
rI ~ t11 of pn \ ,d1 ' 1kk n 1 v ( ,. _ I ·t' ·I 11 "f' , 1lr1• ~
,\C y
to /~ ( pnr1 1~h.1 Lk
rv, 11t' 11t • ' 1,
. 1· ,1~; .1111 •, f 1111 · , 11..: 111 C1 I pt
j
n,-; I,t nf ptt\ ,1te , 1•l1· 1H ti ' ing 11 11r
I Y 1 •1 · h t A wo11 ld be huil!•.,
ulfi.·1 1, 1• nl 'v 11f11 11IMI
hv /< . 11,•n u. • , \ 1, }'. t11lt v n l ll1t· I 10111 ("
! l 'i lrl )', lH ,
·kc•I r,( H, lw tmte red lf•.t v
1uli11·d lf, .1p,11l t ·id, ti
nn\, kr s ,•~· (11 111 J :!l l l' .l ) llnd1 · t f 1· 1nd 1nl<1
• .
po< -
, Mor ccJv (:r,
d ·
u rmg rt
1)( ·.•\llt-m pl 1t, ro1111nll
(}wi t ' , i.'i li v pult 1n y, 11 '-
I I -· 1 o f 'I1 rc11~1rJl lon . rncn t .,._ ()0 I y to l ',1·!,1•1 _:
, , -.-.. 111g- t w 11111. ,
•
IIw r1' .tlr11 (){ .il11,,•n1pl 11\' c·ro
. , I I ·,; f·)le..if c1 rgu
_ rn pl to thcf l abo, pun,' ,na L\1
0
,1din 1! ft•d llw gutl t l){
',l lll'l'l lrt lo thd l (ln<. . ll
. Th11 s, /\ i,; guil ty uf ,ittc
llim ~l>lf from tl1L· cc1w,in g hurl
un,.:kr sed ion 379/ 5 11 , I l'.C.
. W, an u~mamed v1orr •dr
performs sexual intercourse with
Q• M, a male of 25 years of age
ent. While they were in comprom
1s1ng pos1t1on , F the fath~r
of 20 years of age with her cons nam ely, Ma nd his daughter
F started beating both of them
of W sees them . Out of anger, and W. F was pros ecuted b•
ily caused grievous hurt to M
W By such beating F voluntar of any offe nce , as he be:.
s the plea that he is not guil ty
M. On such prosecution, F take _priv ate defe nce . Is the pie,
nce , in exercise of his right of
M who wa_s committing an offe c1al prec ede nt, if any, on trs
reasons and also refer to Jud1
of F sustainable at law? Give
., n 5
point. West Bengal judicial Service Exam
t of priv a te defence - Gmw ;i ·:
Ans.: No, plea of Fis not sust
ainable at law, as he has no righ
).
La/'s case, (1889) 16 Cal 206 (218 the co~ sent of W does nc'.
Reasons: The act of perf orm
ing sexual intercourse by M wi~ ed and abo ve the age
an Penal Code, as W 1s unm arri
constitute any offence und er Indi
qf 16 years. that the righ t c:
ve, Calcutta Hig h Court held
In Ganauri Lnl's case referred abo offence under Uie
d against an act whi ch is not an
private defence can not be exercise
I.P.C. wing reason.s:-
t of priv ate defe nce , due to follo
In the pres ent case, F has no righ her consent) is not ar.
(i) The act of M (per form ing
sexu al inte rcou rse wit h W wit h
consent of! \
nce of 'rap e' if don e wit hou t the
offence. It wou ld hav e bee n offe ld have bee:-
rs (section 375, I.P.C.) and it wou
or the age of W wer e und er 16 yea
mar ried (section 497, I.P.C.).
offence of 'adu lter y' if W wer e
of any harm to L1t'
(ii) From the act of M, there
was no app reh ens ion of dan ger
bod y of F (section 102, I.P.C.). the plea of Fis c,·
ussi on, it is amp ly clea r that
Thus, on the basis of abo ve disc e the act of Mor IV C1l''.·,
righ t of priv ate defe nce bec aus
sust aina ble at law, as he has no of danger to his be,,\·
reov er, F had no app reh ens ion
not con stitu te any offence. Mo
from the act of M or W.
hous t up a50 e~ ~r.
Q a thief was seen with half of his body and head through the walldenoflya caug
• A, ~ his head.
young idiot son. The accused sud
by woman (the accused) and her nearly cut 0
thief five times on his neck and
of pole-axe and with it struck the