Go, change the world

RV College of
Engineering

Semiconductor and electronics related

applications
Presented by,

ASHIKA NAGARAJ 1RV17ME016

THUNUGUNTLA V N S SRI KIRAN 1RV18ME113
SHRAVANI A 1RV19ME408

Department of Mechanical Engineering, RV College of Engineering Bengaluru-560059

Under guidance of Dr. GANGADHAR ANGADI
 RV College of
Engineering Case Study - 1

Basdev v. The State of Pepsu

Facts:
• The appellant Basdev, a retired military Jamadar, is charged with the murder of 15-16 years old boy named
Maghar Singh. Both of them were attending. Both of them and others of the same village went to attend a
wedding in another village.
• The party that had assembled for the marriage at the bride's house seems to have made itself very merry
and much drinking was indulged in. The appellant Jamadar boozed quite a lot and he became very drunk
and intoxicated.
• When everyone was settling down in their seats for a midday meal, the appellant asked Maghar Singh, the
young boy to step aside a little so that he may occupy a convenient seat. But Maghar Singh did not move.
The appellant whipped out a pistol and shot the boy in the abdomen. The injury proved fatal.
• Basdev was charged with murder and the Sessions Judge noticed that he was highly intoxicated so there
was an absence of motive and premeditation to kill. He was granted a lesser penalty of transportation for
life.
• An appeal to the PEPSU High Court at Patiala proved unsuccessful. After which a Special Leave Petition
was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
 RV College of
Engineering Case Study - 1

Issues

The issue was whether the offence committed by the petitioner fell under section 302 of the
IPC or section 304 of the IPC having regard to the provisions of section 86 of the IPC.
Judgement
• In section 86 of the IPC the first part speaks of intent or knowledge, the latter part deals
only with knowledge which raised a certain element of doubt. So the court referred to
various precedents of English Courts as to whether the intent is also presumed to be
present even when intoxicated
• The court held that so far as knowledge is concerned, we must attribute to the intoxicated
man the same knowledge as if he was quite sober. But so far as intent or intention is
concerned, we must gather it from the attending general circumstances of the case
paying due regard to the degree of intoxication.
 RV College of
Engineering Case Study - 1

• In the present case the court found that although the accused was under the
influence of drink, he was not so much under its influence that there was incapacity
in him to form the required intention as stated.
• This was proved from facts like the accused was capable of moving himself and
talking coherently. He walked by himself to the darwaza and also decided for a chair
to sit on. He after shooting the deceased tried to escape and after realizing what he had
done also asked for an apology. He also did not require any support while he was at the
police station.
• Although the accused was under the influence of drink, he was not so much under
its influence that his mind was so obscured by the drink that there was incapacity in
him to form the required intention as stated. So, the offence was not reduced from
murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under the second part of
section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The conviction and sentence were held right.
RV College of
Engineering Chapters and Sections in IPC
RV College of
Engineering Chapters and Sections in IPC
 RV College of
Engineering Some Important Sections in IPC

IPC Section 86. Offence requiring a particular intent of knowledge committed by

one who is intoxicated
In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or
intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with
as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated,
unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or
against his will.

IPC Section 463. Forgery

Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or
electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person,
or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter
into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may
be committed, commits forgery.
 RV College of
Engineering Some Important Sections in IPC

IPC Section 420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived any property to any
person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or
anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a
valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

IPC Section 509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman
Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any words, makes any
sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard,
or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy
of such woman, 1[shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years, and also with fine].
 RV College of
Engineering Some Important Sections in IPC

IPC Section 378. Theft

Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession
of any person without that person`s consent, moves that property in order to such
taking, is said to commit theft.
Explanation 1:
A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is not the subject
of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is severed from
the earth.
Explanation 2:
A moving effected by the same act which affects the severance may be a theft.
Explanation 3:
A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it
from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually moving it.
 RV College of
Engineering Some Important Sections in IPC

IPC Section 302. Punishment for murder

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life]
and shall also be liable to fine.

IPC Section 304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished
with 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death
is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury
as is likely to cause death,
or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years,
or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to
cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury
as is likely to cause death.
 RV College of
Engineering Recent Amendments
The Criminal Law (Amendment) Bill, 2018

•The Bill amends the IPC, 1860 to increase the punishment for rape of girls. However,
punishment for rape of boys has remained unchanged. This has resulted in greater
difference in the quantum of punishment for rape of minor boys and girls.

•The Bill imposes death penalty for rape of girls below the age of 12 years. There are
differing views on death penalty for rape. Some argue that death penalty has a deterrence
effect on the crime and therefore helps prevent it. Others argue that death penalty would
be disproportionate punishment for rape.
 RV College of
Engineering Debated Provisions of the IPC

Unnatural Offences-Section 377

This Section, among other things, punished consensual sexual acts between consenting adults belonging to the same
sex. With the advent of time, several voices advocated for the decriminalisation of this part which punishes
homosexuality. The Supreme Court, finally in the case of Navtej Johar, obliged and decriminalised the portion of
this Section which punished consensual acts of this nature.

Attempt to Commit Suicide – Section 309

This Section prescribed punishment of up to one year for attempting suicide. There is a longstanding
recommendation of the Law Commission to decriminalise attempting suicide by dropping Section 309
from the statute books. But the amendment to this effect has not been carried, albeit, the use of the
provision has minimized, by the coming into force of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
 RV College of
Engineering Debated Provisions of the IPC

Unnatural Offences-Section 377

This Section, among other things, punished consensual sexual acts between consenting adults belonging to the same
sex. With the advent of time, several voices advocated for the decriminalisation of this part which punishes
homosexuality. The Supreme Court, finally in the case of Navtej Johar, obliged and decriminalised the portion of
this Section which punished consensual acts of this nature.

Attempt to Commit Suicide – Section 309

This Section prescribed punishment of up to one year for attempting suicide. There is a longstanding
recommendation of the Law Commission to decriminalise attempting suicide by dropping Section 309
from the statute books. But the amendment to this effect has not been carried, albeit, the use of the
provision has minimized, by the coming into force of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017.
 RV College of
Engineering Case Study - 2

K. N. Mehra vs The State of Rajasthan , 1957

Facts:
• K. N. Mehra and M. Z. Phillips were cadets who were doing training in the IAF Academy (Jodhpur,
Rajasthan)
• 13th May, 1952 - Philips was discharged from the Academy on the grounds of misconduct.
• As a part of training, Mehra was due for a flight in a Dakota alongside Om Prakash, a flying cadet. The
authorized time given for the takeoff was between 6 am to 6:30 am. The cadets who are given training can
fly only 20 miles around the aerodrome.
• 14th May, 1952 morning- K. N. Mehra and Phillips took off with Harvard H.T. 822 and not with Dakota.
They took off well before the scheduled time (i.e.) at about 5 am, without any authorization and without
fulfilling any formalities, which are essential for an aircraft-flight. In the afternoon, they landed in the
fields of Pakistan.
• 16th May, 1952 - contacted Mr. J. C. Kapoor for help and told him that they lost their way and were forced
to land in the fields of Karachi. Mr. Kapoor arranged the flight to send them back to Delhi. He made
arrangements to send back Harvard H.T. 822.
• 17th May, 1952- both of them were arrested.
 RV College of
Engineering Case Study - 2

Issue Raised:
1.Whether this flight to Pakistan is intentional or not?
2.Whether this offence comes within the category of Section 378 of IPC, 1860?

Judgement:
• There were evidences which showed that Mehra was not satisfied with his word and
was seeking employment in Pakistan.
• The Supreme Court upheld the view of the respondent and changed the punishment
given by the trial court.
• The trial court convicted both of them under Section 378 of IPC, 1860. They both
were sentenced, simple imprisonment of 18 months along with a fine of Rs. 750/-.
If they fail to pay, they would have to undergo 4 months additional imprisonment.