5.

LAW OF CRIMES
CHAPTER - I

THE CONCEPT OF CRIME

Crime as a Public wrong:

Crime as a Moral wrong

- “Crime is an immoral and harmful act that is regarded as Criminal by public opinion because
it is an injury to so much of the moral sense as is possessed by a community a measure which is
indispensable for the adaptation of the individual to society.”
Crime as a Conventional wrong

He says “Criminal behaviour is behaviour in violation of the Criminal Law”.

Crime as a Social Wrong:

He says, “Crime is an act has been shown to be actually harmful to society...”

Crime as a Procedural wrong:
“A wrong which is pursued by the Sovereign or his subordinates is a Crime” - Austin.

in no way remissible by any private person, but is remissible by the crown alone, if somissible at all.
Crime as a legal wrong:
When a Penal statute prescribes Punishment for an illega act or illegal omission, it becomes crime.
Section 40 of the Indian Penal Code simply states:
“Except in the chapters and Sections mentioned in clauses two and three of this section, the word

However, one can understand what constitutes, a crime, by the following two essential attributes-
a) Crime is an act of Commission or an act of omission on the part of a human being, which is
considered harmful and prohibited by state.
b) the transgression of such harmful acts is sanction of punishment.
CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF CRIME
Criminal guilt would attach to a man for violations of Criminal law. However, the rule is not absolute

Actus reus + mens rea = crime

a) Actus reus : (Act or omission)

the law seeks to prevent.

85 LAW OF CRIMES
b) Mens rea
The another one important essential of a crime is mens rea or evil intent. There can be no crime

punishable unless the same is done with evil intent.

Strict responsibility in Criminal law:
Crimes of Strict liability are those in which guilty mind is excluded. The exclusion of mens rea from

offences are termed as offences of strict liability or absolute liability.

Mens rea in statutory offences:

without any reservations. Application of this doctrine to statutory crimes is fully discussed in two leading
English cases.
1. R. v. Prince (1875) LR 2 CCR 154.
2. R. v. Mrs. Talson (1889) 23 QBD 168.
In R v. Prince Henry was tried for having unlawfully taken away an unmarried girl named Annie
Phillips, below the age of 16 years, out of the lawful possession and against the will of her father,
Under the belief that she was eighteen; That is the crime under section 55 of the offences against

Mens rea in Indian Penal Code:

The word mensrea is a technical term, it is not directly used in the Indian Penal Code; The

Intentionally - Ref.- Sec 300 IPC

Fraudulently - Ref. the topic - offenses against the property in I. P. C.
- Knowingly (or) Knowledge - Ref Sec. Sec 26 I. P. C.

Wantonly - rashly etc.,

done it intentionally and hence the doctrine of mens rea does not apply.
Mens rea in statutory offences in India:
Ref. case law:
Srinivasa Mills v. Emperor A.I.R. 1947 SC
State of Maharastra v. M.H.George A.I.R. 1965 SC 722.

CHAPTER - II
GENERAL DEFENCES

for it in law. However, there are some exceptions to this. A man may be excused from Punishment, either

(Ref. sections 76 to 106). Though there are 32 Sections in this chapter it contains 7 heads.
Mistake of fact:
The common law Principles “ignorantia facit excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat”- ignorance of a
fact is excused or is a defence but ignorance of law is no excuse have been embodied in Section 76 and
79 of the I. P. C.
86 LAW OF CRIMES
under this section can not be accepted. So Mistaken belief in execution of duty is no defence under this
Provision. Ref. Case: State of West Bengal v. Show Mangal Singh (AIR 1981 SC 1917)
Section 79 is a bit different from Section 76, though the language employed is particularly similar

person who

ii) who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law
iii) in good faith.

Ref. Case: Chirangi v. State (1952-Cri L.J. 1212 M.P.)

Mistake of Law:
Mistake of law is no excuse to a crime
Ref. Case: State of Maharastra v. M.H.George (A.I.R.(1965 SC 722)
CAPACITY OF THE PERSON AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Infancy (or) Act of Child:
a) under Seven years of age (Section 82.)
b) Above 7 and under 12 years Section 83.
Sections 82 and 83 of the IPC gives Protection to a child of a particular age from Criminal
Prosecution and punishment. This is based on the Principle that an infant is incapable of distinguishing
between right and wrong.
Section 82 grants absolute immunity to a child below seven years of age on the ground that such

Defence of Insanity:

Defence of intoxication (Drunkenness)

Under Modern English law, in order that drunkenness can be pleaded as an excuse, it must be
involuntary and not voluntary drunknenness.
Ref. Case Law:
D. P. P. v. Beard (1920 A.C.479)
Attorney General for northern Ireland v. Gallachar (1961 Alle R.299)
Law of Intoxication in India : (Sec. 85 and 86)
Ref. Case Law: Basu dev v. State of Pepsu (A.I.R.1956 SC 488)
Consent: (Sec. 87 to 91 IPC)

a good defence in a Criminal case.

Ref. Case Law: R. v. Williams (1923) 1 K.B.340
R. v. Genevan (1934) 2 K.B498
Sec. 87 does not protect causing death or grievous hurt consent however, may help in reducing

87 LAW OF CRIMES
 Sec. 88

Sec. 89 of the IPC provides for protection in those cases where consent for causing harm to
persons of unsound mind or an infant below 12 years of age, is given by parents or guardians with the
prescribed or permissible limit.
Ref. Case: Nankee v. Emperor (A.I.R. 1935 All 916).
Section 90 IPC:

injury or a misconception of fact.

Ref. Case: Poonai Fattemah v. Emperpor 1896 12 WR (Cr) 7
Section 91 IPC
Causing of miscarriage (unless caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of a woman)
is an offence independently of any harm which it may cause or be intended to cause to the woman.
Therefore, it is not an offence by reason of such harm and the consent of the woman or of her guardian
to the causing of such miscarriage does not justify the act.
Ref. Case: R. v. Dudley and stephens. (1884. 14 Q BD 273.)
Section 92 IPC :
Necessity - Implied consent (with good faith)
Ref. Case Law: Simbhu Narain v. Emperor A. I. R. 1923 All 546.
Compulsion - Sec. 94 IPC
Ref. Case law: D. P. P. v. Lynch 1975 (1) All E.R.9(3)
R. v. Home (1986) 1 All E. R. (C. A.)
R. v. Burke and Clarkson (1986) 1 All E.R. 836
Triviality (Sec. 95 IPC)
“De Minimis Non Curat Lex”.

RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE

(Sec. 96 to 106 IPC)
It is a right inherent in man and is based on the premise that the foremost duty of man is
to protect himself. But the right of private defence as provided in the code is to be exercised within certain
limits though the Indian law is wider that its English counter part.
Ref. Case law:
- R. v. Rose (1884 15 cox CC-540).

- Amjad khan v. State (AIR 1952 SC 165)

- Deo narain v State of U.P. (A. I. R. 1973 SC)
Section 96 of the IPC gives statutory recognition to the right of private defence.
Section 97 and 99 IPC

and restrictions prescribed in Section 99. There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is
time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.
88 LAW OF CRIMES
 Section 100 IPC provides; when the right of Private defence of the body extends to causing death.
Ref. case law:
- Puran Singh v. State (AIR 1975 SC 1674 )
- Mancini v. D. P. P. (1942).
Section 101 IPC provides that in the absence of the circumstances laid down in Sec 100, the right
of private defence is limited to causing of any harm other than dealt. This right, again is subject to the
exceptions already dealt with under Sec. 99.
Section 102 IPC Commencement of the right of Private defence and its duration.
Ref Case: Kala Singh v. Emperor (AIR 1933 Lah 167)
Section 103 IPC discussed when the right of Private defence to property extends to causing death.
Ref. Case: Ismail v. Crown A.I.R. 1926 Lah 28.
Section 104 IPC
Ref. Case Law: Ramaswamy Chettiar case (1949 Mad 545)
This Sec. says that if the theft, mischief or criminal trespass does not answer the description given
in Sec. 103, then the right of private defence of property does not extend to causing death, but it extends,
subject again to Sec. 99 to voluntarily causing any harm other than death.

JURISDICTION
Territorial Jurisdiction:
Section 2 of the Indian Penal Code declares that every person shall be liable to punishment under
the code and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the provisions of the code of which he
shall be guilty within India.
Ref. case Law : Mobark Ali v. The State of Bombay A.I.R. 1957 S.C.857.
The accused a Pakistani national while staying at Karachi, made false representations through
letters, telephone conversations and telegrams to the complainant at Bombay and induced the complainant

prosecuted for cheating.

Held that the offence was committed at Bombay even though the accused was not physically
present there and that the Court had jurisdiction to try him under S.2.
Jagannadadhas J. Observed “The use of the word” every person in Sec. 2 as contracted with
the use of the phrase any person in Sec. 3 as well as Sec. 4(2) of the Code Sec. 2 must be read with
the phrase every person at the commencement thereof. But this is far fetched and untenable. The
plain meaning of the phrase “Every person is that it comprehends all persons without limitation and
irrespective of nationality allegiance, rank, status, caste, colour or creed.
On the other hand a reference to S.3 of the Code clearly indicates that it is implict therein that
foreigner who commits an offence within India is guilty and can be punished as such without any limitation

presence at the time in India.

The code does apply to a foreigner who has committed an offence within India not withstanding
that he was corporeally present outside (it may also be noted that foreigners who initiate offence abroad
that take effect of Indian territory are liable to be punished under the code. Ref. case laws: -Chotelal v.
Emperor (36 bom 524)
- Mubarik Ali v. State of Bombay, (A.I.R. 1957 S.C. 857)
- Joyce v. D.P.P. (1946 A.C. 347)

89 LAW OF CRIMES
 CHAPTER III
JOINT LIABILITY
When a criminal act is committed by an individual it is easy to assess his liability for punishing
him. But when an offence is committed by means of several acts by several persons in furtherance of
common intention each of the accused who has participated is guilty of the whole offence. Section 34 of
IPC. Provides for such cases and lays down the principle of joint liability.
Sec. 34 reads when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common
intention of all each of such persons is liable for the act in same manner as if it were done by him alone”.
Thus the section gives statutory recognition of the common sense principle that if several persons unite
with a common intention to effect any criminal object all those who assists in the accomplishment of that

The essential ingredients of Sec. 34 are

1. where a criminal act is done by several persons
2. in furtherance of common intention of all
3. each of such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
The following two cases are illustrative of the application of the principle to joint liability.
Ref. Case Law:
1) Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor (1952 Cat 197P.O)
2) Mehboob Shah v. Emperor (Indus reiver act case) (A.I.R.1945 P.C.118)
3) Nachimuthu Gounder v. State of TamilNadu (1947 Mad)

Corporate liability (Alterego - Doctrine)

Ref. Case Law:
- Moore v. Bresler Ltd. (1944 All E.R.515)
- Vadivelu Arsuthir v. R. (1943 MCJ 445).
Vicarious liability in criminal law
Ref. case Law:
Ruvula Heri Prasada Rao v. The state (A.I.R. 1951 SC 204)
R. v. Prayagsingh.
CHAPTER IV
STAGES OF CRIME
i) Intention
ii) Preparation
iii) Attempt
iv) Commission of crime.
INTENTION

law also mere intention to commit an offence is not punishable. However, law in certain acts does take
notice of an intention to commit an offence.
i.e. wagging war Sec. 121 - 123 IPC Sedition (Sec. 125 - A IPC).
PREPARATION
Preparation is the second stage in the Commission of a crime. Under the Indian penal code, mere
preparation to commit the following offences is punishable.
90 LAW OF CRIMES
 Ref:
- Sec. 122. 126. 399. 233. to 235 255 and 257 I. P. C.
- 242. 243. 266 and 474 I. P. C
ATTEMPT
The term attempt, however, means the direct movement towards the commission of Crime after
necessary preparations have been made next stage is commission of offence.
Preliminary crimes:
Abetment: Sec 107, 108, 108A and 109)
Constituents of abetment
i) by instigating
ii) by engaging in a conspiracy
iii) by intentionally aiding.
Ref.Case Law: Saju v. State of Kerala (2001)

i) Accessory before the Act instigation, Preparation, Attempt; Conspiracy...

ii) Accessory after the act.
Accessor after the Act.
The IPC does not recognise accessories after the fact except that it makes a substantive offence
of it in few cases
(Ref Sec. 130, 136, 201, 212, 216 and 216 A IPC)
Criminal conspiracy

Essential ingredients:
1. in the intention of two or more but in the agreement of two or more
2. to do an unlawful act
3. to do a lawful act by unlawful means.
Ref. Case Law
i. Fakkhruddin v. State of M.P. (AIR 1967 Sc)
ii. Lennart schusslar and another v. Director of Enforcement (AIR 1970 SC)
iii. Barindra Kumar Ghose v. Emperor (Alipu conspiracy case)
iv. P.N. Talukdr v. S.R.Sarkar A.I.R. 1962 SC 876.
CHAPTER V
PUNISHMENT
OBJECT OF THE PUNISHMENT
The object of punishment is the prevention of crime, and every punishment is intended to have a
double effect, viz., to prevent the person who has committed a crime from repeating the act or omission
and to prevent other members of the society from committing similar crimes.
THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT
1. Retributive theory
This theory is based on the principle of an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. It is based on
primitive nature of vengeance against the wrong doer. The Supreme Court has recently laid down that
an eye for an eye approach is neither proper nor desirable. Mandate of Section 354 (3) Cr.P.C. does not
approve of it.
91 LAW OF CRIMES
2. Deterrent theory
According to this theory the punishment is awarded to deter people from committing the emotion of

3. Preventive theory

the criminal. In order to prevent the repetition of the crime the offenders are punished with death,
imprisonment for life or transportation of life.
4. Reformative theory
The object of punishment according to this theory should be to reform criminals. The crime is a
mental disease which is caused by different anti-social elements. Therefore, there should be mental cure
of criminals instead of awarding them severe punishment.
Ref.Case Law: Ediga Annama v. State of Andhra Predesh (SC).
PUNISHMENT UNDER THE INDIAN PENAL CODE
The scheme of the punishment is laid down from Sections 53 to 75 of the Indian Penal Code out

matter of this topic.

According to Section 53 of the Code the offenders are liable to the following punishments:
1) Death;
2) Imprisonment for life;
3) Imprisonment which may be rigorous, simple or solitary;
4) Forfeiture of property;
5) Fine.
The Code as originally enacted, contained one more type of punishment known as “Transportation
for life”. This punishment has now been substituted by imprisonment for life. (Section 53 - A).
The following are the cases where death sentence may be awarded at the discretion of the Court;
a) Waging war against the Government (Section 121)
b) Abetment of mutiny.
c) Fabricating or giving false evidence as a result of which an innocent person
suffers death.
d) Murder.
e) To abet an insane, minor or intoxicated to commit suicide (Section 305).
f) Dacoity with murder.
The maximum term of imprisonment that can be awarded should not exceed lifetime of the accused
and be not less than 24 hours.
The maximum term of imprisonment that can be awarded should not exceed lifeterm of the accused
and be not less than 24 hours.

not exceed
a) 6 months 1 month
b) 1 year 2 months
c) more than 1 year 3 months
Forfeiture of property under the Code was provided for in Sections 61 and 62 which were repealed
in 1921. However, under the following Sections the forfeiture of property can be ordered:
92 LAW OF CRIMES
 i) property used or intended to be used in committing depredations on the territories of a friendly
country.
ii) Property received with the knowledge that the same has been taken by waging war or
committing depredations under Sections 125 and 126 I.P.C. respectively.
iii) Property purchased by public servant who is legally prohibited to purchase or bid for such
property.
Fine:

should be in addition to the imprisonment already awarded (Sections 63 and 64). Sections 65 to 70 deal

Term of Imprisonment
Upto Rs.50 Not more than 2 months
Upto Rs.100 Not more than 4 months
Exceeding Rs.100 Not more than 6 months
Fine imposed by the Court can be realized within 6 years or during imprisonment when the term
of the same is longer than 6 years. The death of a prisoner does not discharge him from liability and
his property will be liable for his debt. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court that limitation of

Death Sentence:

jagmohan Singh V. State (1973). But the Court upheld the constitutional
validity of Section 302 of the Code. In the meantime the new provisions of the Cr.P.C., 1973 came into

death penalty. The Court cannot remain silent spectators of what is happening around the society. So
the Supreme Court of India came forward with a new ruling about the awarding of death penalty rarest
of the rare case Policy in Bachan Singh V. State of Punjab (1980).
The following case examples considered as the rarest of rare cases by the Supreme Court. In Kehar

it was the most foul and senseless assassination as persons duty bound to protect the life of the Prime
Minister have themselves become the assassins. Even the preparation for execution of this (egregious)
crime do deserve the dread sentence of the law. It is one of the rarest cases where extreme penalty of
death was called for.
The accused raped and brutely killed his niece, a 7 year-old girl, it was held that undoubtedly it falls
in the category of rarest of rare cases.
Laxman Naik, v. State, 1994
93 LAW OF CRIMES
 CHAPTER VI
SPECIFIC OFFENCES
OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE
Sedition Sec. 124 A
Ref. Case Law: Queen, Emperor v. Bala Ganghadar Tilak (22 Bom 112)
Crime against the State
Sedition is a Crime against the State. Bringing or attempting to bring into hunted or contempt or
exciting or attempting to such act or attempt may be done by words spoken or written by signs (Ganash
D.Savarkar case) by visible representation, the Act must be international excite disaffection towards the
Govt. of India.
Ref. Case: Kedar Nath v. State of Bihar (AIR 1963 SC)
OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE (or) OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC TRANQUILITY:
Unlawful assembly (Sec 141 IPC)
Unlawful assembly together with its cognate offences section 141 to 145, 149 to 151 157 and 158
of the IPC.
Ref Case :
1. Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1953 SCJ 532)
2. State v. Nadhu Pande (1969 (2) SCC 207)
3. Musakhan v. State (1977 SC)
4. Sukha v. State (AIR 1965 SC 513)

(illegal object) that is called unlawful assembly.

Rioting (Sec 146 IPC)
When a particular State of an unlawful assembly is accompanied by use of force or violence it is a
riot.
Affray (Sec. 159 and 160)

commit an offence of affray.Sec. 160 Punishment for Affray.

Offences against public administration- Bribery
Section 161

1947 enacted the prevention of Corruption Act. The PCA 1947 was amended. The PCA, 1988 envisages

A IPC.
Ref. case :
1. Dalpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1969 SC)
2. Man Sankar Prabha Sankar v. State of Gujarat (AIR 1970- Guj 97)
3. Tirlock chand jain v. State of Delhi (AIR 1977 SC 665)
4. Rs. Nayak v. A.R.Antulay
Personating a public servant (Sec 170 IPC )
Wearing garb (or) convying taken used by public servant with fraudulent intent (Sec 171) personating

is punishable.
94 LAW OF CRIMES
Offences against Administration of Justice giving and fabricating false evidence

191 to 229 can be roughly divided into the following eleven groups.
Ingredients ( Sec 191 IPC)
1) A person must be legally bound (a) by an oath or by an express provision of law
to state the truth (or) (b) to make a declaration upon a subject
2) He must make a false statement
3) He must take a false statement
4) He must (a) know or believe it to be false (or) (b) must not believe it to be true.
Fabricating false evidence (Sec 192)
The area covered by the section is as wide as to cover any offence committed with an intent to
injury another by creating a false background in any judicial proceeding.
Ref Case Law: Santakh Singh v. Izhar Hussain (1973 SCC Cril J 828)
CHAPTER VII
OFFENCES AGAINST PERSONS
Culpable Homicide and murder (Sec 299 and 300 IPC)
Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code provide for the offence of culpable Homicide and
murder respectively. The distinction between culpable homicide and Murder had been clearly explained
by Melvill J. in R. v. Govinda (1876 I Bom 344).
Fact:
back; as a result of which she fell down. There upon he put his knee on her chest and gave blows with

Melvill. J. held that it was culpable Homicide not amounting to murder under Sec. 299 IPC.
Melvill J. brought out the distinction between culpable Homicide and murder by analyzing section
299 and 300 as follows:
Section 299 Section 300
(Except in the cases herein after Excepted)
Whoever causes death by Doing anact. Culpable.
Homicide is murder, if the act by which death
a) with the intention of causing death
is caused is done.
1)with the intention of causing death.
(or)
b) with the intention of causing such bodily injuras 2)If it is done with the intention of causing such
is likely to cause death. bodily injury as the offender knows be Likely to
cause the death of the person to whom the harm
is caused.
(or)
3) If it is done with the intention of causing bodily
injury to any person and the bodily injury intended
c) with the knowledge that he is likely by such act
to cause death nature to cause death.
4) If the person committing the act knows that it is
so-imminently dangerous that it must in all prob-
ability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely
to cause death, and commits such an act without
any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death
or such injury as aforesaid.
95 LAW OF CRIMES
 A comparison of clause (b) and 3 shows that the offence is culpable Homicide, the bodily injury

Practically, it will generally resolve itself into a consideration of the nature of the weapon used. A blow

In interpreting the third clause of Sec. 300 it has been expressed that the proper view to take is that

several times with a spear in the abdoment of the deceased and caused gaping wounds. The accused
was charged with the offence of murder under section 300 thirdly. The medical evidence proved tht the

for murder and ordered a life sentence.

On appeal to the Supreme Court the Court observed the prosecution must prove the following

a bodily injury is present; secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved. Thirdly, it must be proved

unintentional, or the some other kind of injury was intended. Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of

to do with the intention of the offender.

Exception 1 of Section 300
Section 300 provides for grave and sudden provocation as a mitigating factor under Exception-1.

him with leniency as he is deprived of the power of self - Control and he is liable only for culpable
Homicide not amounting to murder. The explanation to exception I states that suddenness or gravity of

In Nanavathi v. State of Maharastra (A.C. 1962 SC.695) the wife of the accused confessed to him
that she had illicit intimacy with the deceased who was not present there. After this the accused drove
his wife and children to a cinema, left them there went to his ship. Took a revolver on a false pretext,

elapsed between the time when he left his house and the murder took place. The Supreme Court held

the murder was a deliberate and calculated one. In other words the evidence showed that the accused
regained his self-control and killed the deceased deliberately.
Ref. Case Law: Murugesan v. State of T.N (1993) Cri L.J.2565); Sompal v. the State (1977 Cri.
L.J.2) Exception 2 (sec 300)

be stated thus:
(1) The test of grave and sudden provocation is whether a reasonable man belonging to the
same class society as the accused placed in the situation in which the accused was placed
would be so provoked as to lose self-control.
2) In India words and gestures may also under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden

Indian Penal Code.

96 LAW OF CRIMES
 (3) The mental back ground created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into

provocation for committing the offence.

II. Exception :
This exception reduces murder in all Cases in which death has been caused by an excessive use
of the right of Self-defence provided the act has been done in good faith without pre meditation and
without any intention of doing more harm than was necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Munney Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (A.I.R.1971 Sec. 1491): Yogendra morarji v. State of
Rajasthan (A.I.R. 1980 SC)
III. Exception:

State of West Bengal us. S.M.Singh (AIR 1981 Sc 1917)

IV. Exception:

1. Budhwa v State of Madya Pradesh (AIR 1954 SC)

2. Transferred Malice in Murder case
3. Public prosecutor v. Suryanaryana Moorthy (AIR 1912)
4. Burden of proof in murder case
5. Wollimington v. D.P.P. 1935 AC 462)
6. Ramadas v. State of Maharastra (1997 2 SCC 124)
7. Provocation on murder case:
8. R v. Duffy (1949) ALL ER 932
9. Homes v. D.P.P. (1946 - AC 588)
10. D.P.P. v. complin (1978) 2 All E.R
11. Sec 304 A IPC
12. Tukaram Sitaram v. State (1971 Crl. L.J. 767)
V. Exception:
Culpable Homicide is not murder where death is caused to the person above the age of 18 years
suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.

Sec 303 IPC- punishment for live convict

Ref case Mithu v. State of Punjab 1983 SC 473
Sec. 304 IPCPunishment for culpable homicide not amounting to Murder
Ref Case R v. Sengoda Goundar 1916 AIR); R v. Palani Goundan (1919 Mad 547)
Sec 307 IPC Attempt to murder
Sec 308 IPC Attempt to culpable homicide
Sec 306 IPC abetment to commit suicide
Sec 309 IPC Attempt to commit suicide
Ref case law relating to suicide cases
1. Maruti Shriputi Dubey v. State of Maharastra (1987 Cr.L.J.743)
2. Chenna Jagadeeswar v. State of A.P 1988 Cr.L.J. 549)
3. P.Rathinam v. Union of India (1994)
4. Gain Kaur v. State of Punjab
97 LAW OF CRIMES
Constitutional validity of the Death penalty
1. Jagmohan singh v. State of UP (A.I.R. 1973 SC 947)
2. Ranjit Singh v. Union territory chandigarh
Sec 310 Thugs special Provisions for Dacoit gang (Ref. Criminal Tribes Act.)
Sec 312 Miscarriage Ref medical termination Act 1971
Hurt and grievous hurt (Sec 319 and 320 IPC)
Hurt:
hurt.
Grievous hurt:
i) Emasculation - To emasculate means to deprive of virile procreative power.
ii) Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
iii) Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
iv) Privation of any member or joint.
v) Destraction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.

vii) Fracture (or) dislocation of a bone or tooth.

viii) Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be, during the space of twenty
days, in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits (Sec.320)
Case law Ref: Naib Singh v. State of Punjab (1986 Cri.L.J.2061 SC
Types of Kidnapping
1. From India (sec.360)
2. From lawful guardianship (361)
Ingredients of Kindnapping
1. Takes or entices a minor or any person of unsound mind.
2. Person taken or enticed away should be below 16 years of age if male, 18 years of age if
female or a person of unsound mind.
3. The taking or enticing should be from the keeping of the lawful guardian.
4. Taking or enticing should be without the consent of such guardian.

Abduction (Sec. 362 IPC)

Wherever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place,
is said to abduct that person
RAPE- (SEC 375)

A man can commit Rape

1) against her will
2) Without her consent
3) with her consent obtained by putting her in fear of death or of hurt.
4) with her consent when the man knows that he is not her husband and that on sent is
given under a false belief.

6) with or without her consent when she is under 16 years of age.

(Ref. case law State of Karnataka v. Krishnappa (2000)
98 LAW OF CRIMES
Exception
Sexual intercourse by husband his own wife if she is above 15 years of age is not rape if she is
under 15 years of age it is rape.
Explanation

- Case law Allens case (1839)

Husband can be guity of abetment

Men’s rea in rape case D.P.P. v. Morgan

Abetment by inducement R v. Cogan (1975)
The Criminal law (Amendment Act 1983 introduced new Sections in IPC Ref. Thukkaram v State
of Maharastra (1980)
Sec 376 A Marital rape (Ref case Ram kumar v. State of H.P. 1946)
Sec 376 B - Rape by public servant
Sec 376 C - Rape by Jail Authorities.
Sec 376 D Rape by staff of the hospital.
Sec. 376 (2) (2) (i) to (iii) custodial rape
Sec. 376 (2) (g) - Gang rape
Ref Case - Arun Kumar v. State of U.P.; Balwant Singh case (1987)
376 (2) (8) - Rape on minor girl (under age of 12 )
Ref Case - State of A.P. v. Bodem Sundara Ra (AIR 1996)
Attempt to commit rape:
Mohan lal v. Jammu Kasmir (1998 Cri L.J. 667)
Un natural offence (Sec 377 IPC)
Un natrual offence is voluntarily having carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man,
woman, (or) animal.
Ref case law - Grija Devi v. State (2000);
3. Bestiality - Khandu v. Emperor (A.I.R.1934)
4. Sodomy - Chitranjit singh case.
Outraging the modesty of a woman (Sec 354 IPC)
Outraging the modesty of a woman is an offence provided there is use of assault or criminal force
with the intention for the purpose or knowing it likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty. The
offence under this Section different from rape and is of seriousness than the one under section 376.
Ref Case Law - Major Singh Case
K. P. S. Gill v. Rupan Deol Bajaj (1995)
Criminal force and Assault: Sec. 350 and 351 IPC)
Ref: Durga Charan Naik v. State of orissa (AIR 1966 SC 1775)

Wrongful Restraint:
Ingredients:

ii) So as to prevent him from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to
proceed.
99 LAW OF CRIMES
 Ingredients:
i) Wrongful restraint of a person.
ii) In a manner as to prevent him from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing.
Ref case : Nilabat Behera v. State of orissa (AIR 1993 SC 1960)
Rudul Shaw v. State of Bihar (AIR 1983 SC 1086)

CHAPTER IX
OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY
THEFT (SEC 378 IPC)
Ingredients:
1. Movable property
2. It should be in the possession of another person.
3. The accused should move such property in order to take it out of his possession.
4. He should do so without his consent.
5. Intended to take the property dishonestly.
Ref Case law- K.N.Mehra v. State of Rajasthan A.I.R. (1975 SC 369)
EXTORTION (Sec. 383 IPC)
Extortion is a form of theft in aggravated stage.
Ingredients
1. The accused should threaten any person with any injury to that person or an other.
2. The person put in fear should be induced.
a. to deliver any property
b. to deliver any valuable security
c. or anything which may be invereted into valuable security
d. accused should have acted with dishonest intention.
ROBBERY (Sec 390 IPC)
Theft to become Robbery
1) The accused should cause or attempt to cause death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of
instant death instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint.
2) He should use such force or employ violence for one of three purposes.
a) In order to commit theft.
b) In the course of committing theft.
c) In carrying away or attempting to carry away stolen property.
3) The accused should cause shuch hurt violently
Ref case Laws: Kushomathton v. State of Bihar (AIR 1980 SC)
Smith v. Desmound (1965) All E.R.976
DACOITY - (Sec 391 IPC)

2) With common intention.

3) Person present and aiding such Commission or attempt liable for dacoity.

100 LAW OF CRIMES

 Ref Case Law: Shyam Behari v. State of UP AIR 1957
Sec 403 IPC Misappropriation
Case law: R v. Sita
Section 405 IPC Criminal Breach of Trust
Ref Case law- Preteba Rani v. Suraj Kumar AIR 1986 C 628) R.K.Dalmioa v. Delhi
Aministrtion.
Sec. 410 IPC Receiving Stole Property.
Ref case Sheonath v. State of UP (1970 A.I.R)
Sec. 415 IPC cheating
Ingredients
1. The accused should deceive another person .
2. The person deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person or consent to
be detention of property by any person.
3. The accused should have acted dishonestly and fraudulently.
Dishonest obtaining of Property by deception
I) the accused should deceive another person
II) The person deceived should be induced to do or omit to do anything which act or
omission either causes or likely to cause injury to that person in body, mind reputation
or property.
III) The accused should have acted intentionally.
Aggravated forms of cheating.
Cheating by personation Sec. 419 IPC
Ref Case Laws : R v. Appusamy (1886) 12 Mad (3)
4. Krishna moorthy v. State of A.P (1965)
5. Sushil Kumar Datta v. state 1985 Cri. L. J. 1948
6. Sec. 420 IPC cheating and thereby dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
MISCHIEF (Sec 425 IPC)
1) Wrongful loss or damage to the public (or) any person be intended or be likely.
2) Any property should either be destroyed or any such change should occur in any property, or
in the situation thereof destroys or diminishes its value or utility or affects it injuriously.
Case Law reference Sir Ram v. Emperor.
Criminal Trespass (Sec. 441 IPC)

insection 441.
House breaking is an offence u/Sec 445 IPC
CHAPTER X
OFFENCES RELATING TO MARRIAGE Sec. 493 to 498 IPC
- Mock marriage sec 493 and 496
Rambilas Singh v. State of Bihar (AIR 1989 SC 1593)
- Bigamy - Section 494, 495 and 496

- Kawall Ram v. Himachal Pradesh (AIR 1966 SC 614.

- Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India AIR 1995 SC
- Lily Thomas v. Union of India AIR 2000
101 LAW OF CRIMES
Adultery - Section 497
A married man having sexual intercourse with (i) an unmarried woman (ii) or with a widow or a
married women whose husband consents to it or iv) with a divorced woman, commits no offence under
this section.
Ref Case:
Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State of Bombay
Justice Malimatti committee and Madavamenon committee reports.
Nanavathi v. State of Maharastra,.

Elopment (Sec 498)

The Section Punishes any person who
a) takes or entires away or conceals or detains the wife of another man from that man or from
any person having the care of her on behalf of that man.
b) with knowledge that she is or having reason to believe that she is a wife of another man, and
c) with intext that she may have sexual intercourse lariat any person.
1. Alamgir v. the State of Bihar 1959 SCJ 457.
2. Ramanarayana Karup (1936) 39 Bom LR 61
Dowry Death (304 B)
This Section was added by Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act 1983. The object of this section to
is prevent increasing number of dowry death in India and to provide stringent punishment for the same.

Lichhama Devi v. State of Rajasthan (1988 - SCC 456)

Delhi Administration v. laxman Kumar (1985-4-SCC 476)
Cruelty 498-A
This section was inserted by the Criminal law (Amendment) Act 1983 as observed by the Supreme
Court of India in B. S. Joshi v. State of Haryana (2003) the object of introducing chapter XX-A in the IPC
was to prevent torture to a woman by her husband or by relatives of her husband.
Ref Case:
Romesh Kumar v. State of Punjab (1986) Cri. L.J.2087
Ashok Kumar v. State of Haryana 1986 Cri.L.J. 1963
Constitutional Validity Challenged
Inder Raj Malik and others. v. Mrs. Sunitha Malik 1986 Cri. L.J. 1510.
Offences relating to religion
OFFENCES RELATING TO RELIGION
Sec. 295 IPC

Ref Case:
Sec 295 A
Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its
religion or religious feelings:
Ref Case:
Acharya Ramesh v. Naval Thakur 1990 Cri L.J. 2511.
Ramji lal Modi v. State of U. P. A. I. R. 1957 SC 620.
Sant Das Maheswari v. Babu Ram A. I. R. 1969 All 436.
Disturbing religious assembly (296)
- Trespassing on burial places (297)
- Uttering words etc., with deliberate intent toward religious feelings (298) also offences under this
head.
102 LAW OF CRIMES
Defamation (Sec. 499 to 502 IPC)
Ref Case : Merivale v. Carson,
Natigam P.Ramaswamy v. M.Karunanithi
Criminal intimidation (Sec. 503 IPC)
Ref Case : Ramesh Chandra Arora v. The State (AIR 1960 Sec 154.
Insult the modesty of women IPC Sec. 509
Ref: case: Mohamed Kassim Chisty case.
511 IPC Attempt to commit offence.
Ref case: State of Maharastra v. Mohamad Yakub (A.I.R. 1980 SC 1111)
OBSCENITY
Section 292, 293 and 294 speak of obscenity. The sections prohibit and punish sale of obscene
books or obscene objects, doing of any obscene act or reciting or uttering any obscene songs, ballads
or words.
Ref. case law: R v. Hicklin (1868) - (Hicklin test)
AMENDMENTS TO THE INDIAN PENAL CODE(45 OF 1860):
1. After section 29, the following section shall be inserted, namely:—
Electronic record-”29A. The words “electronic record” shall have the meaning assigned to them in
clause (t) of sub-section (1) of section 2 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.”.
2. In section 167, for the words “such public servant, charged with the preparation or translation of
any document, frames or translates that document”, the words “such public servant, charged with
the preparation or translation of any document or electronic record, frames, prepares or translates
that document or electronic record” shall be substituted.
3. In section 172, for the words “produce a document in a Court of Justice”, the words “produce a
document or an electronic record in a Court of Justice” shall be substituted.
4. In section 173, for the words “to produce a document in a Court of Justice”, the words “to produce
a document or electronic record in a Court of Justice” shall be substituted.
5. In section 175, for the word “document” at both the places where it occurs, the words “document or
electronic record” shall be substituted.
6. In section 192, for the words “makes any false entry in any book or record, or makes any document
containing a false statement”, the words “makes any false entry in any book or record, or electronic
record or makes any document or electronic record containing a false statement” shall be substituted.
7. In section 204, for the word “document” at both the places where it occurs, the words “document or
electronic record” shall be substituted.
8. In section 463, for the words “Whoever makes any false documents or part of a document with intent
to cause damage or injury”, the words “Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic
record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury” shall be
substituted.
9. In section 464,—

have the meaning assigned to it in clause (d) of subsection (1) of section 2 of the Information

10. In section 466,—

(a) for the words “Whoever forges a document”, the words “Whoever forges a document or an
electronic record” shall be substituted;

purposes of this section, “register” includes any list, data or record of any entries maintained

103 LAW OF CRIMES

11. In section 468, for the words “document forged”, the words “document or electronic record forged”
shall be substituted.
12. In section 469, for the words “intending that the document forged”, the words “intending that the
document or electronic record forged” shall be substituted.
13. In section 470, for the word “document” in both the places where it occurs, the words “document or
electronic record” shall be substituted. In section 471, for the word “document” wherever it occurs,
the words “document or electronic record” shall be substituted.
14. In section 474, for the portion beginning with the words “Whoever has in his possession any
document” and ending with the words “if the document is one of the description mentioned in
section 466 of this Code”, the following shall be substituted, namely:—
“Whoever has in his possession any document or electronic record, knowing the same to be forged
and intending that the same shall fraudulently or dishonestly be used as a genuine, shall, if the
document or electronic record is one of the description mentioned in section 466 of this Code.”.
15. In section 476, for the words “any document”, the words “any document or electronic record” shall
be substituted.
16. In section 477A, for the words “book, paper, writing” at both the places where they occur, the words
“book, electronic record, paper, writing” shall be substituted.
17. Section 166A- After section 166 of the Indian Penal Code, the following section shall be inserted,
namely:-
“ Whoever, being a public servant, -

at any place of any person for the purpose of investigation into an offence or other matter, or
(b) knowingly disobeys, to the prejudice of any person, any other direction of the law regulating
the manner in which he shall conduct such investigation, shall be punished with imprisonment

18. In section 509 of the Penal code, for the words “shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a

which may not be less than Rs.1000” shall be substituted.

The Criminal Law Amended Act,2010 added the term sexual assault and amended Sec.166,
sec.375,sec.374,376B,376C,376D and Sec.509 .The Criminal Law Amendment Act,2013 has added
the following provisions:1)Insertion clause 7 to original sec.100 relating to throwing acid would amount
to grievous hurt 2) Sec 166 A Public Servant disobeying direction under law3) Punishment for non

(Sexual Harassment and Punishment for Sexual Harassment 6)354 B( Assault or use of criminal force

Sec.376 Punishment for Rape 13) Sec.376 A (Punishment for causing death or resulting in persistent
vegetative state of a victim) 14) Sec.376 B (Sexual Intercourse by the husband upon his wife during
separation) 15) Sec .376 C Sexual Intercourse by the person in authority 16) Sec.376 D( Gang Rape)
17) Sec.376 E (Punishment for repeat offenders) 18 ) Sec.509 (Punishment).

**********

104 LAW OF CRIMES