LAW OF CRIMES – IPC

UNIT 1 – CONCEPT OF CRIME

1. Concept of crimes
A. The Concept of Crime
Unlike torts, crime is not just a wrong against an individual but is also a
wrong committed against the society or a public wrong and includes
acts like murder, rape and theft to mention a few. It is not a case of
differences between two parties but is a case between the wrongdoer
and the state.

Criminal law is a body of rules and statutes that defines conduct

prohibited by the state because it threatens and harms public safety
and welfare and that establishes punishment to be imposed for the
commission of such acts. Criminal law differs from civil law, whose
emphasis is more on dispute resolution than in punishment.

The term criminal law generally refers to substantive criminal laws.

Substantive criminal laws define crimes and prescribe punishments. In
contrast, Criminal Procedure describes the process through which the
criminal laws are enforced. For example, the law prohibiting murder is a
substantive criminal law. The manner in which state enforces this
substantive law—through the gathering of evidence and prosecution—
is generally considered a procedural matter.

1
2. Definition and meaning of crime.
A.

Definition:
Definition Of Crime: Many jurists have defined crime in their own ways
some of which are as under:
· Blackstone defined crime as an act committed or omitted in violation
of a public law either forbidding or commanding it.
· Stephen observed a crime is a violation of a right considered in
reference to the evil tendency of such violation as regards the
community at large.
· Oxford Dictionary defines crime as an act punishable by law as
forbidden by statute or injurious to the public welfare.

Meaning:
1. In ordinary language, a crime is an unlawful act punishable by a state
or other authority. ... One proposed definition is that a crime or offence
(or criminal offence) is an act harmful not only to some individual but
also to a community, society, or the state ("a public wrong").

2. A law that relates to a crime is known as criminal law. In these laws,

punishment is used as a bearer torch. This is done to prevent and
prohibit the citizens to avoid them from unsocial and wild behavior or
conduct. Also, this law ensures that the citizens of India are safe. Crime
definition in India is defined using the criminal law.

2
3. Distinction between tort and crime.
A.
What is Crime?
Undoubtedly, crime is nothing but doing something wrong. Specifically,
in this case, the impact is on society in general. There are special cases
or acts which are a crime under the state legal system. In case, a person
does any of the act, the law will take necessary decisions of punishment
in the court.

Specifically, the proceeding takes place in the criminal court of law.

Crimes which go against laws are already set for the protection of
society. Moreover, it keeps peace ensuring everyone can have the right
to live in a society, free of crimes.

Crime is an illegal act for the following reasons:

1. Firstly, crime goes against existing laws set-up in society.
2. Secondly, crime affects the standard of living of law-abiding citizens
who wish to live peacefully in society.
3. Lastly, a crime is an intentional act contravening human fundamental
rights.

What is Tort?
Unlike a crime, tort is doing something wrong hampering individual
parties. In legal terms, a tort happens when negligence directly
damages a person or his/her property. There are different types of
torts, but all of them result in injury to a private person or property.

Negligence is the most common reason for tort. When a person

unintentionally harms someone then the injured party can sue the
defendant for his act. A strict liability tort becomes an issue if a private
party is injured through a faulty product.

3
 CRIME TORT
1. A Crime is wrongdoing which 1. A Tort is wrongdoing which
hampers the social order of the hampers the individual or his
society we live in. property.
2. Crime happens mostly 2. It happens mostly due to
intentionally. It is a deliberate act negligence. Tort is hardly
which people do to get some intentional. But it is still damaging
unlawful benefits. to the individual.
3. Crime impacts the well-being of 3. Tort impacts the well-being of
society in general. The legal bodies the individual. The aggrieved party
try to give proportional seeks compensation for the
punishment to law offenders in damages.
order to maintain peace in society.
4. Crimes are presented in the 4. Torts are presented in the Civil
Criminal Court. Court.
5. Compensation for crimes is 5. Compensation for torts is given
already mentioned in the book of on the basis of the damages to the
law. Whenever the court has to aggrieved party.
decide the amount of
compensation, they simply refer to
the law book. In certain cases,
judges use their personal
judgments too.

4. Stages of crime.
A. Stages Of A Crime If a person commits a crime voluntarily or after
preparation the doing of it involves four different stages. In every
crime, there is first intention to commit it, secondly, preparation to
commit it, thirdly, attempt to commit it and fourthly the
accomplishment. The stages can be explained as under-

4
1. Intention-
Intention is the first stage in the commission of an offence and known
as mental stage. Intention is the direction of conduct towards the
object chosen upon considering the motives which suggest the choice.
But the law does not take notice of an intention, mere intention to
commit an offence not followed by any act, cannot constitute an
offence. The obvious reason for not prosecuting the accused at this
stage is that it is very difficult for the prosecution to prove the guilty
mind of a person.

2. Preparation- Preparation is the second stage in the commission of a

crime. It means to arrange the necessary measures for the commission
of the intended criminal act. Intention alone or the intention followed
by a preparation is not enough to constitute the crime. Preparation has
not been made punishable because in most of the cases the
prosecution has failed to prove that the preparations in the question
were made for the commission of the particular crime.

If A purchases a pistol and keeps the same in his pocket duly loaded in
order to kill his bitter enemy B, but does nothing more. A has not
committed any offence as still he is at the stage of preparation and it
will be impossible for the prosecution to prove that A was carrying the
loaded pistol only for the purpose of killing B.

Preparation When Punishable

- Generally, preparation to commit any offence is not punishable but in
some exceptional cases preparation is punishable, following are some
examples of such exceptional circumstances-

1. Preparation to wage war against the Government - Section 122, IPC

1860;

5
2. Preparation to commit depredation on territories of a power at
peace with Government of India- Section 126, IPC 1860;

3. Preparation to commit dacoity- Section 399, IPC 1860;

4. Preparation for counterfeiting of coins or Government stamps-

Sections 233-235, S. 255 and S. 257;

5. Possessing counterfeit coins, false weight or measurement and

forged documents. Mere possession of these is a crime and no
possessor can plead that he is still at the stage of preparation- Sections
242, 243, 259, 266 and 474.

3. Attempt
Attempt is the direct movement towards the commission of a crime
after the preparation is made. According to English law, a person may
be guilty of an attempt to commit an offence if he does an act which is
more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence; and a
person will be guilty of attempting to commit an offence even though
the facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible.
There are three essentials of an attempt:-

1. Guilty intention to commit an offence;

2. Some act done towards the commission of the offence;

3. The act must fall short of the completed offence.

Attempt Under The Indian Penal Code, 1860- The Indian Penal Code
has dealt with attempt in the following four different ways-
1. Completed offences and attempts have been dealt with in the same
section and same punishment is prescribed for both. Such provisions
are contained in Sections 121, 124, 124-A, 125, 130, 131, 152, 153-A,

6
161, 162, 163, 165, 196, 198, 200, 213, 240, 241, 251, 385, 387, 389,
391, 394, 395, 397, 459 and 460.

2. Secondly, attempts to commit offences and commission of specific

offences have been dealt with separately and separate punishments
have been provided for attempt to commit such offences from those of
the offences committed. Examples are- murder is punished under
section 302 and attempt to murder to murder under section 307;
culpable homicide is punished under section 304 and attempt to
commit culpable homicide under section 308; Robbery is punished
under section 392 and attempt to commit robbery under section 393.

3. Thirdly, attempt to commit suicide is punished under section 309;

4. Fourthly, all other cases [where no specific provisions regarding

attempt are made] are covered under section 511 which provides that
the accused shall be punished with one-half of the longest term of
imprisonment provided for the offence or with prescribed fine or with
both.

4. Accomplishment Or Completion- The last stage in the commission of

an offence is its accomplishment or completion. If the accused succeeds
in his attempt to commit the crime, he will be guilty of the complete
offence and if his attempt is unsuccessful he will be guilty of an attempt
only. For example, A fires at B with the intention to kill him, if B dies, A
will be guilty for committing the offence of murder and if B is only
injured, it will be a case of attempt to murder.

5. Intention, preparation, attempt and commission of crime.

A. Refer answer number 4 unit 1 for the answer for this question.

7
6. Elements of crime.
A. Fundamental Elements Of Crime: There are four elements which go
to constitute a crime, these are:-
1. Human being.
2. Mens rea or guilty intention.
3. Actus reus or illegal act or omission.
4. Injury to another human being.

Fundamental elements of a crime

To establish criminal liability, crime can be broken down into elements
which a prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. There are
basically four elements of a crime are as follows:

1) Human being: Section 11

Human being must commit wrongful Act to fulfill first element of a

crime that means any non living thing or animals are not considered in
the category of a person or a human being whereas in ancient times
when criminal law was closely dominated by the idea of ritter bit
theory punishment was also inflicted on animals for the injury caused
by them. For Example, if a dog bites anyone he is punished a horse was
killed for kicking a man but in Indian Penal Code if animal cause injury
we do not make animal liable but the owner is held liable for such
injury so the first element of crime is human beings who must be given
appropriate punishment and should be under legal obligation to held
criminally liable. ‘Person’ is defined in Section 11 of Indian Penal Code
which includes company, association or body of persons whether
incorporated or not. The word person includes artificial or juridical
persons. He is a legal entity created by law which is not a natural
person such as corporation created under state statute. It is a legal
entity having a distinguished identity and legal rights and obligation
under the law.

8
2) Mens rea or Guilty intention

The second element is derived from the famous maxim Actus Non-Facit
Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea. This maxim is divided into two parts. The first
part-
a) mens rea (guilty mind);
b) Actus reus ( guilty act ).

It means the guilty intention and guilty Act together constitute a crime.
It comes from a maxim that no person can be punished in a proceeding
of criminal nature unless it can be shown he has a guilty mind. The
second element is Mens rea which can be explained in various forms a
guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent, guilty
knowledge and willfulness all constitute the same thing that mens rea.

Motive and Intention are both aspects in the field of law and justice
both are very important. They are also associated with the purpose of
proving or disproving a particular case or crime Wrong motive with
guilty intention is necessary to prove criminal liability.

3) Actus reus or illegal Act or omission

It is the Latin term used to describe a criminal Activity. It is commonly

defined as a criminal activity that was the result of voluntarily bodily
movement. This describes a physical Activity that harms another person
or damages property. In other words, due to guilty or wrongful
intention, some overAct or illegal omission must take place. There are
two types of Actus reus first is commission and the second one is an
omission. The commission is as a criminal activity that was the result of
voluntarily body movement. This describes a physical Activity that
harms a person or property. Against human body includes physical
assault, murder, hurt, grievance, hurt etc & property includes theft,
decoity, extortion etc.

9
The omission is another form of Actus reus as an Act of criminal
negligence. An omission could be falling to warn others that you have
created a dangerous situation, for eg. not feeling an infant who has
been left in your care or not completing a work-related task which
resulted in an accident.

4) Injury under Section 44

The fourth requirement of a crime is injury should be caused to another

person or to society at large. According to Section 44 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 the injury is defined as any harm illegally caused to any
person in body, mind, reputation or property by another person.
Elements of crime are a set of facts that must be proven to convict a
defendant of a crime. Criminal elements are sets forth in criminal
statutes or cases in jurisdictions that allow for common law crimes.

7. Actus Reus and Mens rea.

A. It is a cardinal principle of law. it means "Mental element or Evil
intent or Guilty mind". It may be defined as the mental element is
necessary to constitute a criminal liability. Mens rea is not defined in
the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Mere commitment of offense is not enough but it has to be proved that

the offense was committed with "guilty mind". for example -if a while
playing cricket a person is hit by a ball and dies, a person hitting the ball
cannot be charged with murder as there was no mens rea.

In criminal offenses generally, Mens rea has to be proved by

prosecution and quality of proof required is heavy i.E. It should be
proved beyond reasonable doubt.

10
 Thus in criminal offences heavy burden is cast on government
authorities regarding proof and hence many people are released by the
court as a proof of mens rea (culpable mental state) " is not enough.

It is expressed in the Latin Maxim " actus non facit reum nisi mens sit
Rea" as a fundamental principle for penal liability.

It means, "intent and act both must concur to constitute a crime. in

other words and act itself is no crime, unless it is coupled with an evil
intent. for a person to be held guilty of the crime it is necessary that he
had an intention to do it. for a person to be held guilty of theft, it
should be established that he had an intention to steal.

No man should be a convicted of a crime unless the two requirements

of mental element are satisfied in every crime that requirements are as
follows-

(i) Actus Reus (Physical Element)

(ii) Mens Rea (Mental Element)

Mens rea
Mens rea is an essential part of deciding whether an act is culpable or
not. Mens rea displays specific intent by the accused for the
commission of the crime for which he is charged. The accused must be
proven to have knowingly committed the crime, and had full knowledge
of their actions and must have malafide intent towards the victim.
Mens rea is also used in some civil suits, requiring the defendant to
have been aware of the repercussions of their actions for a civil liability
to arise, but usually, the Actus Reus takes precedence in cases of civil
liability.

11
Further, an Act may be voluntary or involuntary, and the guilt is
determined by the facts of the case. If a person drives while he’s drunk
and involuntarily causes harm to others, he is still guilty as it was a
voluntary choice on his part to consume alcohol before driving, even
though the crime itself was unintentional. However, if an otherwise
healthy person suffers a heart attack while driving and involuntarily
causes harm to others, he are not liable and is not guilty of the crime.

Actus Reus
Actus Reus is the physical aspect of a crime. The accused needs to have
done something or omitted to do something, resulting in injury to the
plaintiff, or the victim in civil cases. Without a guilty act, there can be
no crime and no suit for damages can arise. An act alone does not make
a crime, however, and both the intention of the person and the act
itself, if such act is prohibited, combine to form the crime. In certain
cases, circumstances of the case are also taken into consideration, and
are often used to either conclusively prove guilt, or can be used to
prove reasonable doubt of intention. (Example: – carrying a knife into
someone’s house with the express intention of committing the act of
murder, or driving a car on a foggy night and accidentally striking
someone attempting to unsafely cross the road.)

Actus Reus can also be the omission of an act, by omitting to do

something that the accused knows he is bound by duty or law to do
(example: – a mother intentionally omits to feed her female child,
leading to the child’s death.) The mother can legally be charged with
causing death by negligence, and may also be charged with murder, if
her intentions of murdering her infant can be proven in court.

12
Minors
In Indian law, children below the age of seven are judged as guiltless,
and cannot be held guilty for any offence. Children below the age of
eighteen cannot be tried as adults and can only be sentenced to a
maximum of three years.

Ignorantia juris non excusat

In certain cases, an illegal act may have been committed, but by
mistake of fact, the accused may be excused. [Example: – If a person
drives in the wrong direction in a one way lane without knowing that it
is a one way (no sign boards) and causes an accident, he will not be
criminally liable, and may or may not be liable in a civil court.]
Ignorantia facti excusat is the legal principal used which means
ignorance of fact is an excuse. Mistakes of Law are not excused,
however. If a person sells an illicit substance, without the knowledge
that the possession or sale of that substance is illegal, he is still
completely liable for the crime. Ignorantia juris non excusat is the legal
principle used in such cases, and it means, ignorance of fact of law is no
excuse.

Some crimes do not necessarily require a malafide intention towards

one particular person, and cases involving criminal negligence are a
prime example of this. If a person leaves behind dangerous items that
he is legally responsible for, like a firearm, he may be charged with
criminal negligence if a crime is committed. (Example: – If a person
leaves his shotgun loaded in his driveway, and a criminal uses it to
commit a crime, the owner of the firearm may be guilty of criminal
negligence for failing to properly secure the weapon. Such criminal
negligence is culpable, and may carry a prison term.

13
Strict liability
Some cases have a strict liability clause, wherein Mens rea does not
matter. Cases involving statutory rape and sale of alcohol or tobacco to
minors are prime examples of this. It does not matter if the accused
believed that his actions were legal, he will be guilty for the crime. In
such cases, Actus Reus alone is sufficient to establish guilt, and to
obtain a conviction from a competent court of law.

Some crimes require a deeper level of Mens Rea, like theft. Crimes like
theft involve the specific intention to deprive the rightful owner of the
full use the stolen good and enjoyment of his personal property with no
intention of returning the said goods to their rightful owner. However,
in cases of theft, the object does not necessarily have to be removed
from the victim’s immovable property (Example: – A person steals a
diamond ring belonging to ‘A’ and hides it in a flower vase, in ‘A’’s
house with the intention of retrieving the ring later and with no
intention of returning it to ‘A’. The moment the ring is taken from the
location where ‘A’ left it, theft has been committed, and the thief can
be prosecuted.) Cyber crime is simpler since theft of digital data cannot
be accidental, and theft of identity, data and confidential information is
done with malicious intent to harm the reputation of the victim or to
get wrongful gain from the use of someone else’s property or
resources.

8. Codification of law of crimes in india.

A. Different Types Of Codification of Criminal Law

Criminal law in the Vedic age

In ancient India, Hindu religious laws contained many provisions for
governing criminal as well as civil matters. The Vedas, Shrutis, Smritis
and even other documents like Manusmriti contain provisions
regulating criminal law. The practice of codifying criminal offences
existed in this period as well.

14
These laws also contained detailed procedural rules and regulations for
trials. There are some records which also show the existence of
principles of evidence to govern these trials.

Criminal law in the Islamic age

With the advent of Islamic rule in India, criminal laws in several parts of
the country saw major changes. Even prior to the Mughal rule, the
Delhi sultanates had already introduced offences based on Islamic laws
of Shariat. The main influence of these laws was Islamic religious texts
like the Quran, Sunna, Hadis, Ijma, Qiya, etc.

During the Mughal rule, the codification of criminal law of law became
more sophisticated. Muslim criminal law came under three broad
categories: crimes against God, crimes against sovereignty, and crimes
against individuals.

The law even divided modes of punishments into categories. These

included death, dismembering of limbs, stoning, levy of fines,
confiscation of property, the punishment of exile, etc.

After the British arrived in India, they initially decided not to interfere
much with existing Muslim criminal laws. They implemented changes in
a phased manner so as to not upset the locals.

Criminal law in the British period

When Warren Hastings introduced his Judicial Plan of 1772, he did not
many any severe changes to substantive criminal law. In 1773, he
slowly started changing rules of procedure and evidence in existing
criminal laws. For example, he abolished the practice of allowing male
relates of victims to pardon their killers.

15
During this time, serious offences like homicide became crimes against
the state instead of being private offences. This laid the foundation of
the modern practice of the state prosecuting people who commit
public offences.

From 1790 onwards, Lord Cornwallis extended the process of codifying

criminal law. Major changes took place in the subject of sentencing. As
a result, the process of levying punishments physically harming and
dismembering convicts slowly started fading.

Lord Wellesley made even more changes to the offences of murder and
homicide in the early 1800s. For example, the law now made
distinctions between intentional and unintentional killing.

Furthermore, rules of evidence became stricter and the threshold of

proof to indicate guilt increased greatly. In presidency towns like
Madras, Bombay and Calcutta, the British made many changes keeping
local conditions in mind.

Codification of Substantive Criminal Laws

According to the Charter Act, 1833, India’s first law commission in 1834
recommended drafting of the Indian Penal Code. Lord Macaulay, who
was the chairman of that law commission, spearheaded its drafting.
The Code was basically a comprehensive enactment describing all
major crimes in existence at that time.

Despite several revisions over almost thirty years, the law did not come
into force until 1860. It was only after the Rebellion of 1857 that the
British decided to implement it.

IPC has seen several amendments since it first came into existence.
Although it largely relied on British laws and practices, many of its
provisions are still the same.

16
Even the Indian Evidence Act came into existence in 1872 under the
guidance of Lord Macaulay. Its foundation was largely the British law of
evidence, but it has seen many changes since then.

Codification of Procedural Criminal Laws

Although the British had enacted a Criminal Procedure Code for India in
1862, modern procedural laws came much later. The Code of 1862 was
amended and replaced many times later to make procedural laws
modern.

After Independence, the Law Commission made many

recommendations to update CrPC. Some of these changes were the
abolition of jury trials. The most important reason for these changes
was to make the criminal procedure quick and effective. CrPC was
finally enacted again by the Parliament in 1973, and it has been
amended many times since then.

Questions on Codification of Law of Crime in India

(a) Who was responsible for the Judicial Plan of 1772?

(b) Under whose leadership did the Indian Penal Code come into
existence?

(c) When did the Parliament enact the Code of Criminal Procedure that
we follow today?

Answers: (a) Warren Hastings (b) Lord Macaulay (c) 1973

17
9. Application of indian penal code.
A. Sec.1 of IPC chapter 1 deals with the above topic.

SEC.1 – Title and extent of operation of code

This Act shall be called the Indian Penal Code, and shall [extend to the
whole of India [except the State of Jammu and Kashmir].

UPDATED:
Jammu and Kashmir State Ranbir Penal Code or RPC was the main
criminal code applicable in the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir. ...
Now it has been removed as the Parliament of India has passed the bill
to scrap provisions of Article 370 of the Indian Constitution on 5 August
2019.
Enacted: 1932
Repealed: 2019

SOME MORE INFO

-RPC is a penal code applicable in the State of Jammu and Kashmir.

Indian Penal Code (IPC) is not applicable there under Article 370 of the
Constitution of India, which gives an autonomous status to J&K. The
code was introduced during the reign of Dogra dynasty with Ranbir
Singh as its ruler and therefore named as Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).

-Indian penal code and ranbir penal code

Both are substantive law prescribe the different kind of offenses and
their punishment , their framework is almost same the only difference
is ipc is applicable in whole India except the state of j&k and RPC is
applicable in j&k.

18
10. Territorial and Extra Territorial application.
A. Sec. 2, 3 and 4 of IPC chapter 1 deals with the above topic.

TERRITORIAL:
S. 2- Punishment of offences committed within India.
Every person shall be liable to punishment under this Code and not
otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof,
of which he shall be guilty within India.

S. 3 - Punishment of offences committed beyond, but which by law

may be tried within, India.
Any person liable, by any Indian law, to be tried for an offence
committed beyond India shall be dealt with according to the provisions
of this Code for any act committed beyond India in the same manner as
if such act had been committed within India.

EXTRA TERRITORIAL:
S. 4 - Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences.
The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by:

1. Any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India;

2. Any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may
be.

Explanations
In this section the word “offence” includes every act committed outside
India which, if committed in India would be punishable under this Code

Illustrations
A, who is a citizen of India, commits a murder in Uganda. He can be
tried and convicted of murder in any place in India in which he may be
found.

19
11. General explanations.
A. CHAPTER II GENERAL EXPLANATIONS

6 -Definitions in the Code to be understood subject to

exceptions
7 - Sense of expression once explained
8 - Gender
9 - Number
10 - Man, Woman
11 - Person
12 - Public
13 - Queen (Repealed)
14 - Servant of Government
15 - British india (Repealed)
16 - Government of india (Repealed)
17 - Government
18 - India
19 - Judge
20 - Court of Justice
21 - Public Servant
22 - Movable property
23 - Wrongful gain, Wrongful loss
Gaining wrongfully, losing wrongfully
24 - Dishonestly
25 - Fraudulently
26 - Reason to believe
27 - Property in possession of wife, clerk or servant
28 - Counterfeit
29 - Document
30 - Valuable security
31 - A will
32 - Words referring to acts include illegal omissions
33 - Act, Omission

20
34 - Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common
intention
35 - When such an act is criminal by reason of its being done with
a criminal knowledge or intention
36 - Effect caused partly by act and partly by omission
37 - Co-operation by doing one of several acts constituting an
offence
38 - Persons concerned in criminal act may be guilty of different
offences
39 - Voluntarily
40 - Offence
41 - Special law
42 - Local law
43 - Illegal, Legally bound to do
44 - Injury
45 - Life
46 - Death
47 - Animal
48 - Vessel
49 - Year, Month
50 - Section
51 - Oath
52 - Good faith
52A - Harbour

NOTE : DOWNLOAD – LATEST LAWS APP for section information.

12. Punishments.
A. CHAPTER III OF PUNISHMENTS

53 - Punishment
53A - Construction of reference to transportation
54 - Commutation of sentence of death

21
55 - Commutation of sentence of imprisonment for life
55A - Definition of "appropriate Government"
56 – Sentence of Europeans and Americans to penal servitude
(Repealed)
57 - Fractions of terms of punishment
58 – Offenders sentenced to transportation instead of imprisonment
(Repealed)
59 – Transportation instead of imprisonment (Repealed)
60 - Sentence may be (in certain cases of imprisonment) wholly or
partly rigorous or simple
61 – Sentence of forfeiture of property (Repealed)
62 – Forfeiture of property, in respect of offenders punishable with
death, transportation or imprisonment (Repealed)
63 - Amount of fine
64 - Sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of fine
65 - Limit to imprisonment for non-payment of fine, when
imprisonment and fine awardable
66 - Description of imprisonment for non-payment of fine
67 - Imprisonment for non-payment of fine, when offence
punishable with fine only
68 - Imprisonment to terminate on payment of fine
69 - Termination of imprisonment on payment of proportional part
of fine
70 - Fine leviable within six years, or during imprisonment—Death
not to discharge property from liability
71 - Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences
72 - Punishment of person guilty of one of several offences, the
judgment stating that it is doubtful of which
73 - Solitary confinement
74 - Limit of solitary confinement
75 - Enhanced punishment for certain offences under Chapter XII
or Chapter XVII after previous conviction

22
 UNIT 2 – GENERAL EXCEPTIONS

1. General exceptions.
A. Chapter 4 of IPC deals with the general exceptions (defenses) from
(sec. 76 – 106).

S.76 – Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing

himself bound, by law.
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by
reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in
good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it.

Illustrations

1. A, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in

conformity with the commands of the law. A has committed no
offence.
2. A, an officer of a Court of Justice, being ordered by that Court to
arrest Y, and after due enquiry, believing Z to be Y, arrests Z. A has
committed no offence.

S.77 - Act of judge when acting judicially

Nothing is an offence which is done by a Judge when acting judicially in
the exercise of any power which is, or which in good faith he believes to
be, given to him by law.

S.78 - Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of Court

Nothing which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by the
judgment or order of, a Court of Justice, if done whilst such judgment
or order remains in force, is an offence, notwithstanding the Court may
have had no jurisdiction to pass such judgment or order, provided the

23
person doing the act in good faith believes that the Court had such
jurisdiction.

S.79 - Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing

himself, justified, by law

Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by

law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a
mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in
doing it.

Illustrations

A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A, in the exercise,

to the best of his judgment exerted in good faith, of the power which
the law gives to all persons of apprehending murderers in the fact,
seizes Z, in order to bring Z before the proper authorities. A has
committed no offence, though it may turn out that Z was acting in self-
defense.

S.80 - Accident in doing a lawful act

Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and

without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act
in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.

Illustrations

1. A is at work with a hatchet; the head flies off and kills a man who is
standing by. Here, if there was no want of proper caution on the part of
A, his act is excusable and not an offence.

24
S.81 - Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and
to prevent other harm

Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the

knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any
criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of
preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.

Explanations

It is a question of fact in such a case whether the harm to be prevented

or avoided was of such a nature and so imminent as to justify or excuse
the risk of doing the act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause
harm.

Illustrations

1. A, the captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or

negligence on his part, finds himself in such a position that, before he
can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run down a boat B, with twenty
or thirty passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his
vessel, and that, by changing his course, he must incur risk of running
down a boat C with only two passengers on board, which he may
possibly clear. Here, if A alters his course without any intention to run
down the boat C and in good faith for the purpose of avoiding the
danger to the passengers in the boat B, he is not guilty of an offence,
though he may run down the boat C by doing an which he knew was
likely to cause that effect, if it be found as a matter of fact that the
danger which he intended to avoid was such as to excuse him in
incurring the risk of running down C.

25
2. A, in a great fire, pulls down houses in order to prevent the
conflagration from spreading. He does this with the intention in good
faith of saving human life or property. Here, if it be found that the harm
to be prevented was of such a nature and so imminent as to excuse A’s
act, A is not guilty of the offence.

S.82 - Act of a child under seven years of age

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.

S.83 - Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature

understanding
Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age
and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of
understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct
on that occasion.

S.84 - Act of a person of unsound mind

Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of
doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the
nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to
law.

S.85 - Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication

caused against his will
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of
doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature
of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law:
provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him
without his knowledge or against his will.

26
S.86 - Offence requiring a particular intent or 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.

S.87 - Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or
grievous hurt, done by consent
Nothing which is not intended to cause death, or grievous hurt, and
which is not known by the doer to be likely to cause death or grievous
hurt, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be
intended by the doer to cause, to any person, above eighteen years of
age, who has given consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that
harm; or by reason of any harm which it may be known by the doer to
be likely to cause to any such person who has consented to take the
risk of that harm.

Illustrations

1. A and Z agree to fence with each other for amusement. This

agreement implies the consent of each to suffer any harm which, in the
course of such fencing, may be caused without foul play; and if A, while
playing fairly, hurts Z, A commits no offence.

S.88 - Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith
for person’s benefit
Nothing, which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason
of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or

27
be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any person for whose
benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether
express or implied to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm.

Illustrations

1. A, a surgeon, knowing that a particular operation is likely to cause

the death of Z, who suffers under the painful complaint, but not
intending to cause Z’s death, and intending, in good faith, Z’s benefit,
performs that operation on Z, with Z’s consent. A has committed no
offence.

S.89 - Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane person, by
or by consent of guardian
Nothing which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under
twelve years of age, or of unsound mind, by or by consent, either
express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful
charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may
cause, or be intended by the doer to cause or be known by the doer to
be likely to cause to that person: Provided

Provisos
1. That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of
death, or to the attempting to cause death;

2. That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which
the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose
other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of
any grievous disease or infirmity;

3. That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of

grievous hurt, or to the attempting to cause grievous hurt, unless it be

28
for the purpose of preventing death or grievous hurt, or the curing of
any grievous disease or infirmity;

4. That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence,
to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

Illustration

1. A, in good faith, for his child’s benefit without his child’s consent, has
his child cut for the stone by a surgeon knowing it to be likely that the
operation will cause the child’s death, but not intending to cause the
child’s death. A is within the exception, in as much as his object was the
cure of the child.

S.90 - Consent known to be given under fear or misconception

A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any section of this
Code, if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a
misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has
reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such
fear or misconception; or

Consent of insane personif the consent is given by a person who, from

unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the
nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent; or

Consent of child unless the contrary appears from the context, if the
consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age.

S.91 - Exclusion of acts which are offences independently of harm

caused

29
The exceptions in sections 87, 88 and 89 do not extend to acts which
are offences independently of any harm which they may cause, or be
intended to cause, or be known to be likely to cause, to the person
giving the consent, or on whose behalf the consent is given.

Illustrations

Causing miscarriage (unless caused in good faith for the purpose of

saving the life of the woman) is offence inexpediently 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.

S.92 - Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent
Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may causes to a
person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that
person’s consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for
that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving
consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him
from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be
done with benefit: Provided-Provisos.

Provisos

1. That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of

death or the attempting to cause death;

2. That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which
the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose
other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of
any grievous disease or infirmity;

30
3. That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of hurt,
or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than the
preventing of death or hurt;

4. That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence,
to the committing of which offence it would not extend.

Illustrations

1. Z is thrown from his horse, and is insensible. A, a surgeon, finds that

Z requires to be trepanned. A, not intending Z’s death, but in good
faith, for Z’s benefit, performs the trepan before Z recovers his power
of judging for himself. A has committed no offence.
2. Z is carried off by a tiger. A fires at the tiger knowing it to be likely
that the shot may kill Z, but not intending to kill Z, and in good faith
intending Z’s benefit. A’s ball gives Z a mortal wound. A has committed
no offence.
3. A, a surgeon, sees a child suffer an accident which is likely to prove
fatal unless an operation be immediately performed. There is not time
to apply to the child’s guardian. A performs the operation in spite of the
entreaties of the child, intending, in good faith, the child’s benefit. A
has committed no offence.
4. A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out
a blanket. A drops the child, from the house-top, knowing it to be likely
that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child, and
intending, in good faith, the child’s benefit. Here, even if the child is
killed by the fall, A has committed no offence.

Explanations

Mere pecuniary benefit is not benefit within the meaning of sections 88

89 and 92.

31
S.93 - Communication made in good faith
No communication made in good faith is an offence by reason of any
harm to the person to whom it is made, if it is made for the benefit of
that person.

Illustrations

A, a surgeon, in good faith, communicates to a patient his opinion that

he cannot live. The patient dies in consequence of the shock. A has
committed no offence, though he knew it to be likely that the
communication might cause the patient’s death.

S.94 - Act to which a person is compelled by threats

Except murder, and offences against the State punishable with death,
nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do
it by threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the
apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the
consequence: Provided the person doing the act did not of his own
accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of
instant death, place himself in the situation by which he became
subject to such constraint.

Explanations
1.A person who, of his own accord, or by reason of a threat of being
beaten, joins a gang of dacoits, knowing their character, is not entitled
to the benefit of this exception, on the ground of his having been
compelled by his associates to do anything that is an offence by law.

2. A person seized by a gang of dacoits, and forced, by threat of instant

death, to do a thing which is an offence by law; for example, a smith
compelled to take his tools and to force the door of a house for the
dacoits to enter and plunder it, is entitled to the benefit of this
exception.

32
S.95 - Act causing slight harm
Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to
cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is
so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain
of such harm.

S.96 - Things done in private defence

Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of
private defense.

S.97 - Right of private defence of the body and of property

Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section
99, to defend -

His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence
affecting the human body;
The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any
other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the
definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an
attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.

S.98 - Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound

mind, etc.
When an act which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that
offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding,
the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that
act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every
person has the same right of private defence against that act which he
would have if the act were that offence.

33
Illustrations

1. Z, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill A; Z is guilty of no

offence. But A has the same right of private defence which he would
have if Z were sane.
2. A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled to enter. Z, in
good faith, taking A for a house-breaker, attacks A. Here Z, by attacking
A under this misconception, commits no offence. But A has the same
right of private defence against Z, which he would have if Z were not
acting under that misconception.

S.99 - Acts against which there is no right of private defence

There is no right of private defence against an act which does not
reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if
done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith
under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable
by law.

There is no right of private defence against an act which does not

reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if
done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant
acting in good faith under colour of his office though that direction may
not be strictly justifiable by law.

There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to

have recourse to protection of the public authorities.

Extent to which the right may be exercised – The right of private

defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is
necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.

34
Explanations

1. A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act

done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant, as such, unless he
knows or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is such
public servant.
2. A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act
done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant,
unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act
is acting by such direction, or unless such person states the authority
under which he acts, or if he has authority in writing, unless he
produces such authority, if demanded.

S.100 - When the right of private defence of the body extends to

causing death
The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions
mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of
death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which
occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions
hereinafter enumerated, namely:

1. Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that

death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

2. Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that

grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;

3. An assault with the intention of committing rape;

4. An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;

5. An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;

35
6. An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under
circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he
will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release.

7. An act of throwing or administering acid or an attempt to throw or

administer acid which may reasonably cause the apprehension that
grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such act.

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

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

preceding section, the right of private defence of the body does not
extend to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant, but does
extend, under the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary
causing to the assailant of any harm other than death.

Section 103:- When the right of private defence of property extends

to causing death
The right of private defence of property extends, under the restrictions
mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any
other harm to the wrong-doer, if the offence, the committing of which,
or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right,
be an offence of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated,
namely:
1. Robbery;

2. House-breaking by night;

3. Mischief by fire committed on any building, tent or vessel, which

building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or as a place for
the custody of property;

36
4. Theft, mischief, or house-trespass, under such circumstances as may
reasonably cause apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the
consequence, if such right of private defence is not exercised.

S.104 - When such right to causing any harm other than death
If the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit
which occasions the exercise of the right of private defence, be theft,
mischief, or criminal trespass, not of any of the descriptions
enumerated in the last preceding section, that right does not extend to
the voluntary causing of death, but does extend, subject to the
restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing to the
wrong-doer of any harm other than death.

S.105 - Commencement and continuance of the right of private

defence of property
The right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable
apprehension of danger to the property commences. The right of
private defence of property against theft continues till the offender has
effected his retreat with the property or either the assistance of the
public authorities is obtained, or the property has been recovered.

The right of private defence of property against robbery continues as

long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death
or hurt or wrongful restraint or as long as the fear of instant death or of
instant hurt or of instant personal restraint continues.

The right of private defence of property against criminal trespass or

mischief continues as long as the offender continues in the commission
of criminal trespass or mischief.

The right of private defence of property against house-breaking by

night continues as long as the house-trespass which has been begun by
such house-breaking continues.

37
S.106 - Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is
risk of harm to innocent person
If in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which
reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so
situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of
harm to an innocent person, his right of private defence extends to the
running of that risk.

Illustrations

1. A is attacked by a mob who attempt to murder him. He cannot

effectually exercise his right of private defence without firing on the
mob, and he cannot fire without risk of harming young children who
are mingled with the mob. A commits no offence if by so firing he
harms any of the children.

2. Abetment.
A. IPC chapter 5 – (Sec. 107 to 120) deals with abetment.
Section 107:- Abetment of a thing
A person abets the doing of a thing, who:

1. Instigates any person to do that thing; or

2. Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy

for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

3. Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that

thing.

38
Explanations
1. A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willful concealment
of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or
procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to
instigate the doing of that thing.

Illustration: A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court

of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z,
willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A
to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.

2. Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act,

does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and
thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of
that act.

S.108 - Abettor
A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an
offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if
committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with
the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.

Explanations

1. The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an

offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act.

2. To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act

abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute
the offence should be caused.

39
Illustrations
(A) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting
B to commit murder.

(B) A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs

D. D recovers from the wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit
murder.

3. It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law

of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty
intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or
knowledge.

Illustrations
A. A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic to commit an act
which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of
committing an offence, and having the same intention as A. Here A,
whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of abetting an offence.

B. A, with the intention of murdering Z, instigates B, a child under seven

years of age, to do an act which causes Z’s death. B, in consequence of
the abetment, does the act in the absence of A and thereby causes Z’s
death. Here, though B was not capable by law of committing an
offence, A is liable to be punished in the same manner as if B had been
capable by law of committing an offence, and had committed murder,
and he is therefore subject to the punishment of death.

C. A instigates B to set fire to a dwelling-house. B, in consequence of

the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of
the act, or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to
the house in consequence of A’s instigation. B has committed no
offence, but A is guilty of abetting the offence of setting fire to a

40
dwelling-house, and is liable to the punishment provided for that
offence.
D. A, intending to cause a theft to be committed, instigates B to take
property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession. A induces B to believe
that the property belongs to A. B takes the property out of Z’s
possession, in good faith, believing it to be A’s property. B, acting under
this misconception, does not take dishonestly, and therefore does not
commit theft. But A is guilty of abetting theft, and is liable to the same
punishment as if B had committed theft.

4. The abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such

an abetment is also an offence.

Illustrations
A. A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z. B accordingly instigates C to
murder Z, and C commits that offence in consequence of B’s instigation.
B is liable to be punished for his offence with the punishment for
murder; and, as A instigated B to commit the offence, A is also liable to
the same punishment.

5. It is not necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by

conspiracy that the abettor should concert the offence with the person
who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in
pursuance of which the offence is committed.

Illustrations

A. A concerts with B a plan for poisoning Z. It is agreed that A shall

administer the poison. B then explains the plan to C mentioning that a
third person is to administer the poison, but without mentioning A’s
name. C agrees to procure the poison, and procures and delivers it to B
for the purpose of its being used in the manner explained. A
administers the poison; Z dies in consequence. Here, though A and C

41
have not conspired together, yet C has been engaged in the conspiracy
in pursuance of which Z has been murdered. C has therefore committed
the offence defined in this section and is liable to the punishment for
murder.

S.108A - Abetment in India of offences outside India

A person abets an offence within the meaning of this Code who, in
India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India which
would constitute an offence if committed in India.

Illustrations

1. A, in India, instigates B, a foreigner in Goa, to commit a murder in

Goa, A is guilty of abetting murder.

S.109 - Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in

consequence and where no express provision is made for its
punishment
Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in
consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this
Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the
punishment provided for the offence.

Explanations

1. An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of

abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation, or in
pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid which constitutes the
abetment.

42
Illustrations
1. A offers a bribe to B, a public servant, as a reward for showing A
some favour in the exercise of B’s official functions. B accepts the bribe.
A has abetted the offence defined in section 161.

2. A instigates B to give false evidence. B, in consequence of the

instigation, commits that offence. A is guilty of abetting that offence,
and is liable to the same punishment as B.

3. A and B conspire to poison Z. A, in pursuance of the conspiracy,

procures the poison and delivers it to B in order that he may administer
it to Z. B, in pursuance of the conspiracy, administers the poison to Z in
A’s absence and thereby causes Z’s death. Here B is guilty of murder. A
is guilty of abetting that offence by conspiracy, and is liable to the
punishment for murder.

S.110 - Punishment of abetment if person abetted does act with

different intention from that of abettor
Whoever abets the commission of an offence shall, if the person
abetted does the act with a different intention or knowledge from that
of the abettor, be punished with the punishment provided for the
offence which would have been committed if the act had been done
with the intention or knowledge of the abettor and with no other.

S.111 - Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act
done
When an Act is abetted and a different act is done, the abettor is liable
for the act done, in the same manner and to the same extent as if he
had directly abetted it:

Provided the act done was a probable consequence of the abetment,

and was committed under the influence of the instigation, or with the
aid or in pursuance of the conspiracy which constituted the abetment.

43
Illustrations

1. A instigates a child to put poison into the food of Z, and gives him
poison for that purpose. The child, in consequence of the instigation, by
mistake puts the poison into the food of Y, which is by the side of that
of Z. Here if the child was acting under the influence of A’s instigation,
and the act done was under the circumstances a probable consequence
of the abetment, A is liable in the same manner and to the same extent
as if he had instigated the child to put the poison into the food of Y.

2. A instigates B to burn Z’s house. B sets fire to the house and at the
same time commits theft of property there. A, though guilty of abetting
the burning of the house, is not guilty of abetting the theft; for the theft
was a distinct act, and not a probable consequence of the burning.

3. A instigates B and C to break into an inhabited house at midnight for

the purpose of robbery, and provides them with arms for that purpose.
B and C break into the house, and being resisted by Z, one of the
inmates, murder Z. Here, if that murder was the probable consequence
of the abetment, A is liable to the punishment provided for murder.

S.113 - Liability of abettor for an effect caused by the act abetted

different from that intended by the abettor
When an act is abetted with the intention on the part of the abettor of
causing a particular effect, and an act for which the abettor is liable in
consequence of the abetment, causes a different effect from that
intended by the abettor, the abettor is liable for the effect caused, in
the same manner and to the same extent as if he had abetted the act
with the intention of causing that effect, provided he knew that the act
abetted was likely to cause that effect.

44
Illustrations

A instigates B to cause grievous hurt to Z. B, in consequence of the

instigation, causes grievous hurt to Z. Z dies in consequence. Here, if A
knew that the grievous hurt abetted was likely to cause death, A is
liable to be punished with the punishment provided for murder.

S.114 - Abettor present when offence is committed

Whenever any person who if absent would be liable to be punished as
an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be
punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be
deemed to have committed such act or offence.

S.115 - Abetment of offence punishable with death or imprisonment

for life if offence not committed
Whoever abets the commission of an offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life, shall, if that offence be not committed in
consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this
Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine: if act causing harm be done
in consequence.

If act causing harm be done in consequence – and if any act for which
the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment, and which causes
hurt to any person, is done, the abettor shall be liable to imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years,
and shall also be liable to fine.

Illustrations

1. A instigates B to murder Z. The offence is not committed. If B had

murdered Z, he would have been subject to the punishment of death or

45
imprisonment for life. Therefore A is liable to imprisonment for a term
which may extend to seven years and also to a fine; and, if any hurt be
done to Z in consequence of the abetment, he will be liable to
imprisonment for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and to
fine.

S.116 - Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment—if

offence be not committed
Whoever abets an offence punishable with imprisonment shall, if that
offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no
express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such
abetment, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided
for that offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the
longest term provided for that offence; or with such fine as is provided
for that offence, or with both; if abettor or person abetted be a public
servant whose duty it is to prevent offence.

If abettor or person abetted be a public servant whose duty it is to

prevent offence – and if the abettor or the person abetted is a public
servant, whose duty it is to prevent the commission of such offence,
the abettor shall be punished with imprisonment of any description
provided for that offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of
the longest term provided for that offence, or with such fine as is
provided for the offence, or with both.

Illustrations

1.A offers a bribe to B, a public servant, as a reward for showing. A

some favour in the exercise of B’s official functions. B refuses to accept
the bribe. A is punishable under this section.

46
2. A instigates B to give false evidence. Here, if B does not give false
evidence, A has nevertheless committed the offence defined in this
section, and is punishable accordingly.

3. A, a police-officer, whose duty it is to prevent robbery, abets the

commission of robbery. Here, though the robbery be not committed, A
is liable to one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for
that offence, and also to fine.

4. B abets the commission of a robbery by A, a police-officer, whose

duty it is to prevent that offence. Here though the robbery be not
committed, B is liable to one-half of the longest term of imprisonment
provided for the offence of robbery, and also to fine.

S.117 - Abetting commission of offence by the public or by more than

ten persons
Whoever abets the commission of an offence by the public generally or
by any number or class of persons exceeding ten, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Illustrations

1. A affixes in a public place a placard instigating a sect consisting of

more than ten members to meet at a certain time and place, for the
purpose of attacking the members of an adverse sect, while engaged in
a procession. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

47
S.118 - Concealing design to commit offence punishable with death or
imprisonment for life
Whoever intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will
thereby facilitate the commission of an offence punishable with death
or imprisonment for life, voluntarily conceals, by any act or illegal
omission, the existence of a design to commit such offence or makes
any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design,

If offence be committed – If offence be not committed – shall, if that

offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, or, if the
offence of not committed, with imprisonment of either description, for
a term which may extend to three years; and in either case shall also be
liable to fine.

Illustrations

1. A, knowing that dacoity is about to be committed at B, falsely

informs the Magistrate that a dacoity is about to be committed at C, a
place in an opposite direction, and thereby misleads the Magistrate
with intent to facilitate the commission of the offence. The dacoity is
committed at B in pursuance of the design. A is punishable under this
section.

S.119 - Public servant concealing design to commit offence which it is

his duty to prevent
Whoever, being a public servant intending to facilitate or knowing it to
be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence
which it is his duty as such public servant to prevent, voluntarily
conceals, by any act or illegal omission, the existence of a design to
commit such offence, or makes any representation which he knows to
be false respecting such design.

48
If offence be committed – shall, if the offence be committed, be
punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the
offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the longest term of
such imprisonment, or with such fine as is provided for that offence, or
with both;

If offence be punishable with death, etc – or, if the offence be

punishable with death or imprisonment for life, with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten years;

If offence be not committed – or, if the offence be not committed,

shall be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for
the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the
longest term of such imprisonment or with such fine as is provided for
the offence, or with both.

Illustrations

1. A, an officer of police, being legally bound to give information of all

designs to commit robbery which may come to his knowledge, and
knowing that B designs to commit robbery, omits to give such
information, with intent to facilitate the commission of that offence.
here A has by an illegal omission concealed the existence of B’s design
and is liable to punishment according to the provision of this section.

S.120 - Concealing design to commit offence punishable with

imprisonment
Whoever, intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will
thereby facilitate the commission of an offence punishable with
imprisonment, voluntarily conceals, by any act or illegal omission, the
existence of a design to commit such offence, or makes any

49
representation which he knows to be false respecting such design, if
offence be committed-if offence be not committed.

If offence be committed – if offence be not committed – shall, if the

offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of the
description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to
one-fourth, and, if the offence be not committed, to one-eight, of the
longest term of such imprisonment, or with such fine as is provided for
the offence, or with both.

3. Criminal conspiracy.
A. Chapter 5A of IPC (Sec. 120A to 120B) deals with criminal conspiracy.

S.120A - Definition of criminal conspiracy

When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done:

1.an illegal act, or

2.an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is
designated a criminal conspiracy;

Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an

offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides
the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in
pursuance thereof.

Explanations

1. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such

agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.

50
S.120B - Punishment of criminal conspiracy
1. Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment
for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is
made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be
punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence.

2. Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal

conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not
exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.

4. Offences against state.

A. chapter 6 of IPC (Sec. 121 to 130) deals Offences against state.

NOTE:
-PLEASE DOWNLOAD – LATEST LAWS APP FROM THE PLAYSTORE. IN
THAT APP, EVERY SECTION INFORMATION IS PROVIDED IN ORDER FOR
ALL SUBJECTS OF LAW.

-BY PROVIDING COMPLETE SECTIONS INFORMATION HERE PROLONGS

THE NUMBER OF PAGES. WHILE TAKING PRINT OF THIS MATERIAL THE
COST OF IT WILL BE INCREASED DUE TO INCREASED NUMBER OF PAGES
BECAUSE OF PROVIDING COMPLETE SECTION.

-SO I REQUEST YOU TO DOWNLOAD THE APP FOR DECREASING THE

PRINTING COST, THANK YOU.

Section 121:- Waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging

of war, against the Government of India

51
Section 121A:- Conspiracy to commit offences punishable by section
121

Section 122:- Collecting arms, etc., with intention of waging war

against the Government of India

Section 123:- Concealing with intent to facilitate design to wage war

Section 124:- Assaulting President, Governor, etc., with intent to

compel or restrain the exercise of any lawful power

Section 124A:- Sedition

Section 125:- Waging war against any Asiatic Power in alliance with
the Government of India

Section 126:- Committing depredation on territories of Power at

peace with the Government of India

Section 127:- Receiving property taken by war or depredation

mentioned in sections 125 and 126

Section 128:- Public servant voluntarily allowing prisoner of state or

war to escape

Section 129:- Public servant negligently suffering such prisoner to

escape

Section 130:- Aiding escape of, rescuing or harbouring such prisoner

52
5. Offences against public peace and tranquility.
A. Chapter 8 of IPC (Sec. 141 to 160) deals with above topic.

Section 141:- Unlawful assembly

Section 142:- Being member of unlawful assembly

Section 143:- Punishment

Section 144:- Joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon

Section 145:- Joining or continuing in unlawful assembly, knowing it

has been commanded to disperse

Section 146:- Rioting

Section 147:- Punishment for rioting

Section 148:- Rioting, armed with deadly weapon

Section 149:- Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence

committed in prosecution of common object

Section 150:- Hiring, or conniving at hiring, of persons to join unlawful

assembly

Section 151:- Knowingly joining or continuing in assembly of five or

more persons after it has been commanded to disperse

Section 152:- Assaulting or obstructing public servant when

suppressing riot, etc.

53
Section 153:- Want only giving provocation with intent to cause riot –
if rioting be committed: if not committed

Section 153A:- Promoting enmity between different groups on ground

of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing
acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony

Section 153B:- Imputations, assertions prejudicial to national

integration

Section 154:- Owner or occupier of land on which an unlawful

assembly is held

Section 155:- Liability of person for whose benefit riot is committed

Section 156:- Liability of agent of owner or occupier for whose benefit

riot is committed

Section 157:- Harbouring persons hired for an unlawful assembly

Section 158:- Being hired to take part in an unlawful assembly or riot

Section 159:- Affray

Section 160:- Punishment for committing affray

54
UNIT 3 – OFFENCES AFFECTING THE HUMAN BODY

1. Offences affecting the human body.

A. Chapter 16 of IPC (Sec. 299 to 377) deals with above topic.

Section 299:- Culpable homicide

Section 300:- Murder

Section 301:- Culpable homicide by causing death of person other

than person whose death was intended

Section 302:- Punishment for murder

Section 303:- Punishment for murder by life-convict

Section 304:- Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to

murder

Section 304A:- Causing death by negligence

Section 304B:- Dowry death

Section 305:- Abetment of suicide of child or insane person

Section 306:- Abetment of suicide

Section 307:- Attempt to murder

Section 308:- Attempt to commit culpable homicide

Section 309:- Attempt to commit suicide

55
Section 310:- Thug

Section 311:- Punishment

Section 312:- Causing miscarraige

Section 313:- Causing miscarriage without woman’s consent

Section 314:- Death caused by act done with intent to cause

miscarriage

Section 315:- Act done with intent to prevent child being born alive or
to cause it to die after birth

Section 316:- Causing death of quick unborn child by act amounting to

culpable homicide-

Section 317:- Exposure and abandonment of child under twelve years,

by parent or person having care of it

Section 318:- Concealment of birth by secret disposal of dead body

Section 319:- Hurt

Section 320:- Grievous hurt

Section 321:- Voluntarily causing hurt

Section 322:- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt

Section 323:- Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt

56
Section 324:- Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or
means

Section 325:- Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt

Section 326:- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons

or means

Section 326A:- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.1

Section 326B:- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.1

Section 327:- Voluntarily causing hurt to extort property, or to

constrain to an illegal act

Section 328:- Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to

commit and offence

Section 329:- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort property, or

to constrain to an illegal act

Section 330:- Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession or to

compel restoration of property

Section 331:- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort confession, or

to compel restoration of property

Section 332:- Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his
duty

Section 333:- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant

from his duty

57
Section 334:- Voluntarily causing hurt on provocation

Section 335:- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation

Section 336:- Act endangering life or personal safety of others

Section 337:- Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety

of others

Section 338:- Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal

safety of others

Section 339:- Wrongful restraint

Section 340:- Wrongful confinement

Section 341:- Punishment for wrongful restraint

Section 342:- Punishment for wrongful confinement

Section 343:- Wrongful confinement for three or more days

Section 344:- Wrongful confinement for ten or more days

Section 345:- Wrongful confinement of person for whose liberation

writ has been issued

Section 346:- Wrongful confinement in secret

Section 347:- Wrongful confinement to extort property, or constrain

to illegal act

58
Section 348:- Wrongful confinement to extort confession, or compel
restoration of property

Section 349:- Force

Section 350:- Criminal force

Section 351:- Assault

Section 352:- Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than

on grave provocation

Section 353:- Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from

discharge of his duty

Section 354:- Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to

outrage her modesty

Section 354A:- Sexual harassment and punishment for sexual

harassment1

Section 354B:- Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent

to disrobe1

Section 354C:- Voyeurism1

Section 354D:- Stalking1

Section 355:- Assault or criminal force with intent to dishonour

person, otherwise than on grave provocation

Section 356:- Assault or criminal force in attempt to commit theft of

property carried by a person

59
Section 357:- Assault or criminal force in attempting wrongfully to
confine a person

Section 358:- Assault or criminal force on grave provocation

Section 359:- Kidnapping

Section 360:- Kidnapping from India

Section 361:- Kidnapping from lawful guardianship

Section 362:- Abduction

Section 363:- Punishment for kidnapping

Section 363A:- Kidnapping or maiming a minor for purposes of

begging

Section 364:- Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder

Section 364A:- Kidnapping for ransom, etc.

Section 365:- Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and

wrongfully to confine person

Section 366:- Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her

marriage, etc.

Section 366A:- Procreation of minor girl

Section 366B:- Importation of girl from foreign country

Section 367:- Kidnapping or abducting in order to subject person to
grievous hurt, slavery, etc.

60
Section 368:- Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement,
kidnapped or abducted person

Section 369:- Kidnapping or abducting child under ten years with

intent to steal from its person

Section 370:- Trafficking of person1

Section 370A:- Exploitation of a trafficked person1

Section 371:- Habitual dealing in slaves

Section 372:- Selling minor for purposes of prostitution, etc.

Section 373:- Buying minor for purposes of prostitution, etc.

Section 374:- Unlawful compulsory labour

Section 375:- Rape1

Section 376:- Punishment for rape1

Section 376A:- Punishment for causing death or resulting in persistent

vegetative state of victim1

Section 376AB:- Punishment for rape on woman under twelve years of

age2

Section 376B:- Sexual intercourse by husband upon his wife during

separation

Section 376C:- Sexual intercourse by person in authority1

61
Section 376D:- Gang rape1

Section 376DA:- Punishment for gang rape on woman under sixteen

years of age2

Section 376DB:- Punishment for gang rape on woman under twelve

years of age2

Section 376E:- Punishment for repeat offenders1

Section 377:- Unnatural offences

2. Culpable homicide and Murder.

A. Sec. 299, 300 and 301 of chapter 16 of IPC deals with above topic.
Refer below sections in detail in case of any doubt.

Section 299:- Culpable homicide

Section 300:- Murder

Section 301:- Culpable homicide by causing death of person other

than person whose death was intended

IMPORTANT INFO – INTRO

1. Homicide is a term which originates from the Latin term ‘Homo’
means human and ‘caedere’ means killing. The act of homicide is an act
that has been a part of human life since day 1. Early men used to kill
each other for food or creating dominance, the kings used to perform
homicide to win territories and now people kill each other in the sway
of jealousy, greed, etc.

62
2. Homicide is one of the most grievous act a person can commit as it is
the highest order of bodily injury inflicted on a human being hence
that’s why regulations regarding Homicide are really grave, for instance,
culprits are usually sentenced to life imprisonment or the death penalty
as these are the most extreme punishments given by the judiciary.

3. In India homicide is divided into two forms- Culpable Homicide

(Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code) and Culpable Homicide
amounting to murder (Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code). Both of
these have a very minimal difference but these differences prove to be
very crucial for the legal system as the delivery of a fair judgment is
dependent on these differences.

4. “For deciding the proper punishment which is proportionate to the

current offense, IPC has divided culpable homicide into three degrees.
First is the gravest form which is Murder it is defined under section 300
of IPC, the second is the culpable homicide of the second degree which
is punishable under Section 304 part 1 of IPC and Third is the lowest
degree of culpable homicide which is punishable under Section 304 part
2 of IPC.”

5. It was held in the case of Nara Singh Challan v. State of Orissa (1997)
that Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code is the genus and Section 300
of the Indian Penal Code is the species. Hence, there are no
independent sections regarding culpable homicide not amounting to
murder it is the part of Section 300 of IPC which defines Murder.

6. Culpable Homicide
As mentioned before culpable homicide is a type of unlawful homicide.
Laws regarding culpable homicide are enshrined in the Indian Penal
Code 1862 (IPC). According to which, there are two types of culpable
homicides-

63
1. Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder (Section 299 IPC)
2. Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder (Section 300 IPC)

7. Lawful and Unlawful Homicide- A culprit in a case of Homicide

cannot always be culpable. This derives the notion of lawful homicide
where the accused had a valid reason to commit the crime. In these
cases, the person will not tend to be tried by the law and can also be
exempted from the charges.

CULPABLE HOMICIDE MURDER

1. It can be simply referred to as 1. It can be simply referred to as
culpable homicide, this comes Murder, this comes under the
under the purview of Section 299 purview of Section 300 of the
of The Indian Penal Code 1862 Indian Penal Code 1862 which
which states that: states that:

An act done with the intention of Culpable homicide is murder, if the

causing death or causing such act is done with the intention of
bodily injury which is likely to causing death or if it is done with
cause death or having the the intention of causing such
knowledge that he can likely by his bodily injury as is likely to cause
act cause death, he’ll be the death of the person or if the
committing the offense of culpable inflicted bodily injury is sufficient
homicide. enough in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death or if there is
knowledge involved that the act
done is so fatal that in all
probability it can cause death or
such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death and commits such act
without any excuse.
2. Conditions 2. Conditions
After bifurcating the definition, we After bifurcating the definition, we

64
get 3 conditions which have to be get 4 conditions which have to be
fulfilled to attract Section 299 of fulfilled to attract Section 300 of
the Indian Penal Code these are- the Indian Penal Code these are-

1. The intention of causing death. 1. The intention of causing death.

2. The intention of causing such 2. The intention of causing such
bodily injury as is likely to cause bodily injury as the offender
death. knows to be likely to cause the
3. With the knowledge that he is death of the person to whom the
likely by such an act to cause harm is caused.
death. 3. With the intention of causing
bodily injury to any person and the
bodily injury intended to be
in-flicted is sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause
death.
4. The person committing the act
knows that it is so imminently
dangerous that it must, in all
probability, cause death or such
bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, and commits such act
without any excuse for incurring
the risk of causing death or such
injury as aforesaid.
4. Illustration 4. Illustration
1. A not knowing that D has a 1. X knows that Z has a tumour in
tumour in his brain, hits him hard his brain and he hits him again and
on the head with a cricket bat, again with a bat on his head with
with the intention of causing death the intention of causing death, and
or with the knowledge that death 2. Z dies subsequently.
is likely to be caused. 3. X is liable for Murder.
2. D dies because of the bursting

65
of the tumour.
3. A is liable for culpable homicide
not amounting to murder.

Major differences between culpable homicide and murder

“All murders are culpable homicide but not all culpable homicides are
murders” this is a very common phrase used to establish a difference
between culpable homicide and murder. It talks about the point which
I’ve already proved before that culpable homicide is the genus and
murder is the species. The major difference between them is that
murder is a more aggravated form of culpable homicide. In murder
there is no presence of ambiguity that the act may or may not kill as it
is present in culpable homicide, looking at Section 299 of the Indian
Penal Code where there is clearly mentioned that:

“Act done with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily
injury which is LIKELY to cause death or having the knowledge that he
can LIKELY by his act can cause death, he’ll be committing the offense
of culpable homicide”.

If you notice the multiple occurrences of the term “LIKELY” showcases

that there is an element of ambiguity that the act of the accused may
or may not kill the person, is present. Whereas, in the case of murder
which is defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code there is no
such mention of words as “likely” which shows that there is no chance
of ambiguity left on behalf of the accused, the accused is for sure that
his act will defiantly cause death.

As mentioned by Sir James Stephen, it is extremely difficult to

distinguish between Culpable Homicide and Murder as the end result of
both is death. But there is a presence of difference though little it all

66
boils up to a very subtle distinction of intention and knowledge
involved in both the crimes. The actual difference lies in the degree of
the act there is a very wide difference of degree of intention and
knowledge among both the crimes.

CUPABLE HOMICIDE MURDER

1. It is a genus 2. It is a species
2. There is intention present but 2. There is stronger intention to
not in amount as is present in kill.
murder.
3. There is a probability or 3. There is certainty or higher
likelihood of death. probability of death.
4. Punishment of murder is much 4. The punishment is less grave
graver. than murder.

S. 301 - Culpable homicide by causing the death of a person other

than the person whose death was intended.
The notion of ‘culpable homicide by causing the death of a person
other than the person whose death was intended’ is enshrined in
Section 301 of the Indian Penal Code which states that:

A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of

another person while trying to kill the other person. Here the intention
of the person who killed or grievously hurt any other person whom he
didn’t want to kill or hurt is not considered.

Illustration

1. Let’s consider, there was Mr A who was angry with Mr B as he took

over his business.
2. He plans to kill Mr B. In order to achieve that he Buys a gun.

67
3. He spots Mr B on the street. He takes out his gun and shoots Mr B.
Accidentally the bullet deflects because of a pole and eventually kills Mr
C.
4. Now according to the law, Mr A has committed culpable homicide.
It is also regarded as the principle of transferred intent or transferred
knowledge or doctrine of the transfer of malice.

3. Hurt and grievous hurt

A. Section 319 to 338 of Indian Penal Code deals with hurt and
Grievous Hurt in various forms. Section 319 defines simple hurt as
causing bodily pain, disease, or infirmity, and section 321 makes
voluntary causing of hurt an offence punishable under section
323, IPC.

I. Hurt (Section 319):

Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to
cause hurt.

To constitute hurt (battery under English Law) any of the following

essentials needs to be caused:-
1. Bodily pain, or
2. Disease, or
3. Infirmity to another.

1. Bodily Pain
To cause hurt, there need not be any direct physical contact. Where the
direct result of an act is causing of bodily pain it is hurt whatever be the
means employed to cause it. Hurt is constituted by causing bodily pain,
not mental pain.

In the absence of an intention to cause death, or grievous bodily hurt,

where a person died as a result of two kicks on the abdomen, the

68
accused was held guilty of causing hurt only. [In re Marana Goundan[1]
Dragging a person by hair or fisting him falls under this section.

2. Disease
A person communicating a particular disease to another would be guilty
of hurt. In Raka v. Emperor, the Bombay High Court held a prostitute
who had sexual connection with the complainant and thereby
communicated syphilis, liable under section 269, IPC, for spreading of
infection and not of causing hurt, because the interval between the act
and disease was too remote to attract sections 319 and 321, IPC.

3. Infirmity
It means the inability of an organ to perform its normal function which
may either be temporary or permanent. It denotes a temporary mental
impairment, hysteria or terror.

Hurt resulting in Death: Where there is no intention to cause death, or

no knowledge that death is likely to be caused, and death is caused, the
accused will be guilty of ‘hurt’ only if the injuries are not serious in
nature.

II. Grievous Hurt (Section 320)

The code on the basis of the gravity of the physical assault has classified
hurt into simple and grievous so that the accused might be awarded
punishment commensurate to his guilt.

The following kinds of hurt only are designated as “grievous”:

1. Emasculation.

2. Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.

3. Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.

69
4. Privation of any member or joint.

5. Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or

joint.

6. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.

7. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.

8. 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.

Grievous Hurt resulting in Death

In the case of grievous hurt, the hurt inflicted only endangers life but in
case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, the hurt is likely to
cause death. The distinction between culpable homicide not amounting
to murder and grievous hurt is very thin.

Where the evidence shows that the intention of assailants was to cause
death, the case should fall under section 302 and not under section
325.

Voluntarily causing hurt: Section 321

Whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any
person, or with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause hurt to
any person, and does thereby cause hurt to any person, is said:
“voluntarily to cause hurt”.

70
Voluntarily causing grievous hurt: Section 322
Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause
or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, is said:
“voluntarily to cause grievous hurt”.

Explanation - A person is not said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt

except when he both causes grievous hurt and intends or knows
himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt. But he is said voluntarily to
cause grievous hurt if intending or knowing himself to be likely to cause
grievous hurt of one kind, he actually causes grievous hurt of another
kind.

Illustration

A, intending or knowing himself to be likely permanently to disfigure Z‘s

face, gives Z a blow which does not permanently disfigure Z‘s face, but
which causes Z to suffer severe bodily pain for the space of twenty
days. A has voluntarily caused grievous hurt.

Punishment: Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334,

voluntarily causes hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which
may extend to one thousand rupees or with both.

Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means: Section 324

Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 334, voluntarily
causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or
cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely
to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by
means of any poison or any animal, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both.

71
Punishment: Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 335,
voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine.

Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means:

Section 326
Whoever, except in the case provided for by Section 335, voluntarily
causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing
or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is
likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by
means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any
explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is
deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into
the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or or with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Sentence for causing grievous hurt.— Sentence for causing grievous

hurt must be adequate. The brutality of the crime should also be
considered.

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

Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns
or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a
person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering
acid to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of
causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or
hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and with fine:

72
Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the
medical expenses of the treatment of the victim: Provided further that
any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.

Acid Attack.— Considering the seriousness of the crime, reduction of

sentence by the High Court to the period already undergone which was
only 30 days, not justified and resultantly, the sentence of one year as
imposed by the trial Court directed to be restored.

Further, as the attack resulted in disfiguration in some part of her body,

the accused directed to to pay a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and the
State directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 3 lakhs.

Other Section Related to Hurt and Grievous Hurt

Section 326-B – Voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid.

Section 326B:- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc.1

Section 327:- Voluntarily causing hurt to extort property, or to

constrain to an illegal act

Section 328:- Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to

commit and offence

Section 329:- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort property, or to

constrain to an illegal act

Section 330:- Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession or to compel

restoration of property

Section 331:- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort confession, or

to compel restoration of property

73
Section 332:- Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his
duty

Section 333:- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant

from his duty

Section 334:- Voluntarily causing hurt on provocation

Section 335:- Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation

Section 336:- Act endangering life or personal safety of others

Section 337:- Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of

others

Section 338:- Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal

safety of others.

4. Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement

A. Introduction
Under the Constitution of India, in Articles 19 and 21, every person
throughout the territory of India is conferred with the right to freedom
of movement and is guaranteed personal liberty. In furtherance of this
objective set up by the Constitution, the Indian Penal Code lays down
penal sanctions in case a person violates the freedom of movement or
personal liberty of another. This is done so as to safeguard an
individual’s right to liberty against deprivation by another individual or
groups other than State (as fundamental rights only place an obligation
on the state).

74
Section 339 and 340 of Indian Penal Code define Wrongful Restraint
and Wrongful Confinement respectively. The Indian Penal Code, 1860
makes wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement punishable under
Section 339 to 348.

To understand wrongful restraint and confinement, we first need to

understand the meaning of wrongful. In criminal law, wrongful is
defined as an act which is injurious, heedless, reckless, unjust, unfair,
unlawful and negligent. It includes any act which is unlawful or
unauthorized or any other act of this nature which amounts to a civil
wrong. The following sections deal with the concepts in detail.

Wrongful Restraint
Definition
According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code;

“Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person

from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to
proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.”

Further, the section also lays down an exception, which is that if a

person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct
and so obstruct a private way over land or water, then it does not
amount to wrongful restraint.

To understand this, let us look at the following illustration-

Chitra is walking on a public road on which she has a right to pass.

Rajesh obstructs this path despite knowing that he had no right to stop
the path. As Chitra was prevented from passing, Rajesh can be said to
have wrongfully restrained Chitra.

75
Ingredients
To establish the offence of wrongful restraint the complainant must
prove all the following essential:

1. That there was an obstruction;

2. That the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in
any direction;
3. That the person/complainant so proceeding must have a right to
proceed in the direction concerned.

Objective
The objective of this section is to ensure that the freedom of a person is
protected. When a person has a right to proceed in a particular
direction then the law must ensure that such right is available to the
person. Even if there is a slight unlawful obstruction, it is deemed to be
wrongful restraint.

It is neither necessary that the obstruction caused must be physical nor

is the presence of the accused essential for the restraint to be wrongful
under this section.

The presence of assault is not required for the act to amount as

wrongful restraint. Even use of mere words to cause obstruction to the
path of a person may constitute as an offence under this section.

When a person obstructs another by-

1. Causing it to appear to that other person that to proceed would be;

1. Impossible
2. Difficult
3. Dangerous

76
2. Or by actually causing it to be impossible, difficult or dangerous for
that other person to proceed
Lastly, it must be noted that in order to invoke this section and to prove
the offence under this section, it is essential for the complainant to
prove his right of way over the land.

Punishment
Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code imposes punishment against the
wrongdoer under Section 339 with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to five
hundred rupees, or with both.

The classification of the offence under this section is that the offence is
Cognizable, Bailable and Triable by any Magistrate, it is also
compoundable by the person restrained or confined.

Case law
In the case of Madala Perayya vs. Varugunti Chendrayya (1954 CrLJ 283
Mad), the facts were that, the accused and the complainant jointly
owner a well and so both of them were entitled to use the water for
agricultural purposes. The accused stopped the complainant from using
the water and also stopped the bullocks of the complainant from
moving. The Court held that the accused had committed eh offence of
wrongful restraint under Section 339.

Wrongful Confinement
Definition
According to Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code;

“Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to

prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing
limits is said to have committed the offence of wrongful confinement.”

77
Illustrations:

1. Radhika causes Anamika to go within a walled space and locks

Anamika in. Anamika is thus prevented from proceeding in any
direction beyond the circumscribing line of the walls and so Radhika has
wrongfully confined Anamika.

2. Gabbar places men with firearms at the outlets of a building and tells
Veeru that they will fire at him if he attempts to leave the building.
Here, Gabbar has wrongfully confined Veeru.

Ingredients
The essential ingredients of the offence of wrongful confinement are:

1. The accused should have wrongfully restrained the complainant (i.e.

all ingredients of wrongful restraint must be present)
2. Such wrongful restraint was to prevent the complainant from
proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits beyond which he or
she has the right to proceed.

Punishment
Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code states that whoever wrongfully
confines any person shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which
may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both The classification of
this offence is that it is cognizable, Bailable and Triable by any
Magistrate. Further, it is Compoundable by the person confined with
the permission of the court.

Cases
In the case of State of Gujarat vs. Keshav Lai Maganbhai Gujoyan (1993
CrLJ 248 Guj), it was discussed by the court that “For a charge of

78
wrongful confinement, proof of actual physical restriction is not
essential. It is sufficient if the evidence shows that such an impression
was produced in the mind of the victim, a reasonable apprehension in
his mind that he was not free to depart. If the impression creates that
the complainant would be forthwith seized or restrained if he attempts
to escape, a reasonable apprehension of the use of the force rather
than its actual use is sufficient and important.”

Types of Wrongful Confinement

1. Wrongful confinement for three or more days ( Section 343)
“Whoever wrongfully confines any person for three days, or more, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.” The classification
of this offence is that it is Cognizable, Bailable and Triable by any
Magistrate, further, it is also Compoundable by the person confined
with the permission of the court.

2. Wrongful confinement for ten or more days (Section 344)

“Whoever wrongfully confines any person for ten days, or more, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.” The
classification of this offence is that it is Cognizable, Bailable and Triable
by any Magistrate, further, it is also Compoundable by the person
confined with the permission of the court.

3. Wrongful confinement of person for whose liberation writ has been

issued (Section 345)
“Whoever keeps any person in wrongful confinement, knowing that a
writ for the liberation of that person has been duly issued, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years in addition to any term of imprisonment to which
he may be liable under any other section of this Chapter.” The

79
classification of this offence is that it is Cognizable, Bailable and Triable
by Magistrate of the first class. Further, this offence is Non-
compoundable.

4. Wrongful confinement in secret (Section 346)

“Whoever wrongfully confines any person in such manner as to indicate
an intention that the confinement of such person may not be known to
any person interested in the person so confined, or to any public
servant, or that the place of such confinement may not be known to or
discovered by any such person or public servant as hereinbefore
mentioned, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to two years in addition to any other
punishment to which he may be liable for such wrongful confinement.”
The classification of this offence is that it is Cognizable, Bailable and
Triable by Magistrate of the first class, further, it is also Compoundable
by the person confined with the permission of the court.

5. Wrongful confinement to extort property, or constrain to illegal act

(Section 347)
“Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting
from the person confined, or from any person interested in the person
confined, any property or valuable security or of constraining the
person confined or any person interested in such person to do anything
illegal or to give any information which may facilitate the commission
of an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also
be liable to fine.” The Classification of this offence is that it is
Cognizable, Bailable and Triable by any Magistrate. Further, it is Non-
compoundable.

6. Wrongful confinement to extort confession, or compel restoration

of property (Section 348)

80
“Whoever wrongfully confines any person for the purpose of extorting
from the person confined or any person interested in the person
confined any confession or any information which may lead to the
detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of
constraining the person confined or any person interested in the
person confined to restore or to cause the restoration of any property
or valuable security or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give
information which may lead to the restoration of any property or
valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also
be liable to fine.” The classification of this offence is that it is
Cognizable, Bailable and Triable by any Magistrate and it is Non-
compoundable.

Difference between Wrongful Restraint and Confinement

Wrongful Restraint Wrongful Confinement
1. It is the genus, i.e. it is a wider 1. It is a species of wrongful
term and includes several types of restraint i.e. a type of wrongful
restraints under it. restraint.
2. It prevents a person from 2. It keeps a person within certain
proceeding in a direction in which circumscribing limits.
that person has a right to proceed.
3. It is not a very serious offence 3. It is a more serious offence and
and is punishable with lesser is punishable with a more severe
punishment. punishment than wrongful
restraint.
4. There is only a partial 4. There is total suspension of
suspension of one’s liberty. liberty beyond certain
circumscribing limits.
5. Punishment: Sec. 341. 5. Punishment: Sec. 342.
Imprisonment to one month, or Imprisonment to one year, or fine
fine Rs. 500/-, or with both. Rs. 1000/-, or with both.

81
Conclusion
An easy way to understand this is that wrongful Restraint is essentially
a restraint in a line, this means that it involves all sorts of restraint that
happen in a path or road or any sort of movement in a straight line.
Here the person has the option to go back or left or right as he is just
restrained from going forward. This is punishable because here a
person has a right to move on such path and other person has
restricted such movement.

Example- When Alia was walking down the school corridor, Varun
stopped her by standing in her way and wrongfully restrained her.
Further, if Varun would have merely told Alia that if she would go down
the corridor, then a bucket full of paint would fall on her and because
of this Alia did not go down the corridor, then also Varun has
wrongfully restrained her.

On the other hand, wrongful confinement is in a Circle, this means that

it involves all sorts of restraints that happen in a circumscribed limit
such as restriction from leaving a room or building or a park etc.

Examples- When General Dyer entered the Jallianwala Bagh and

blocked every exit for the people to escape, he wrongfully confined the
people or when Krishna’s mother Yashoda tied him to a trunk, here she
in a way completely restricted his movements and thereby wrongfully
confined him.

82
5. Criminal force and assault.
A. Assault - Offences affecting the Human Body (Section 351 - 358 of
Indian Penal Code)

Criminal Force
When a person intentionally uses force on another person without that
person’s consent, in order to commit an offence and with the prior
intention of causing harm to that person in the form of injury, fear or
annoyance to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force on
the other person. It comes under Section 350 of the Indian Penal Code.

Force
A person is said to be using “force” on another person when he causes
a change in motion, cessation of motion or a substantial change in
motion of another person, or brings a substance in contact with
another person’s body or it affects another person’s sense of feeling.
The term force in Section 349 is force used in connection with the
human body.

Consent
In criminal force, a person may use undue force on another person
without the consent of that person so as to cause harm to him. If there
is consent, it won’t be counted as criminal force.

Assault
When a gesture is made to any person, knowing that the person is
going to apprehend it as the person is going to use criminal force on
that person is known as assault. Mere words do not consist of an
assault. But a person may use certain gestures and expressions or
preparation, such gestures, expressions and preparations may amount
to assault. For example:

83
1. X shakes his fist at Y, intending or knowing that may cause to believe
Y that X is about to strike Y. X has committed assault.

2. X loosens the muzzle of a ferocious dog knowing that the dog will
cause harm to Y. So, X has committed an assault upon Y.

3. A takes up a stick, says to Z, “I am going to beat you up”. Here,

although the words employed by A may in no case amount to a direct
assault, and although the mere gesture, unaccompanied by the other
circumstances, may not amount to an assault, the gesture explained by
the words might amount to an assault.

Ingredients
1. Gesture or Preparation
When a gesture or preparation is made from one person to another
person with the intention to use criminal force, it is said to commit
assault.

2. Cause Apprehension of Assault

Generally speaking, assault happens when someone causes harm to
other person’s body which may be usually followed by battery, as this
may include things like unlawful physical conduct, violence or unlawful
sexual contact. Though, all threats are not considered assault. Also, to
rise to the level of actionable offence, the plaintiff may file the suit:

1. The act was intended to cause apprehension of harm or offensive

contact;

2.The act caused apprehension in the eyes of the victim that he would
be harmed by the other person’s actions.

84
Difference between Assault, Criminal Force and Hurt
When a person intentionally uses force on another person without that
person’s consent, in order to commit an offence and with the prior
intention of causing harm to that person in the form of injury, fear or
annoyance to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force on
the other person. It comes under Section 350 of the Indian Penal Code
whereas assault is when a gesture is made to any person, knowing that
the person is going to apprehend it as the person is going to use
criminal force on that person is known as assault and whoever causes
bodily pain, disease or infirmity to another person is known as hurt. It is
defined in Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code.

Punishment for Assault or Criminal Force

When someone assaults or uses Criminal force another person based
on sudden and grave provocation by another person, he may be
sentenced to prison time of a term which may be extended for a term
of three months or a fine of up to INR 500, or both. It is defined under
Section 352 of the Indian Penal Code.

Aggravated Forms of Assault or Criminal Force

Aggravated forms of assault or use of criminal force includes
aggravating elements that consist of the intention to outrage the
modesty of a woman and he has the knowledge that will outrage his
modesty. It comes under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

Assault or Criminal Force to Deter Public Servant

Assault or criminal force on another person to discharge him from duty,
this comes under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. Whoever
assaults any public servant when he is in the course of his or her duty,
or with the intent of deterring the person of his duty, the person shall

85
be imprisoned for a term which may be extended for up to 2 years, or a
fine, or both.

Assault or Criminal Force to Woman to Outrage her Modesty

A person who assaults another woman, intending to outrage her and
thus likely to outrage her modesty, shall be punishable under this act
under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. It consists of assault or use
of criminal force, mere knowledge is also sufficient without any
deliberate intention.

Assault or Criminal Force with Intent to Disrobe a Woman

Any man who assaults or uses criminal force on another woman abets
such act with the intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked,
shall be punished with the sentence of the term of 3 years minimum
with the sentence also extending to seven years and also shall be liable
to a fine. This comes under Section 354B of the Indian constitution.

Assault with Intent to Dishonour a Person

Whoever assaults or uses criminal force on that person, hereby
intending to dishonour that person, otherwise on grave and sudden
provocation given by that person, shall be imprisoned for two years or
be fined, or both. This comes under Section 355 under the Indian Penal
code.

Assault in Attempting Theft

Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to another person to commit to
attempt theft on any person that he is wearing or he owns, shall be
punished for a term which may extend to 2 years, or a fine, or both.
This comes under Section 356 of the Indian Penal Code.

Assault in Attempting Wrongful Confinement

Any person who assaults or uses criminal force on another person with
the intention to wrongfully confine another person, shall be imprisoned

86
for a period of one year or be fined Rs. 1000 or both. This comes under
Section 357 of the Indian Penal Code.

Specific Acts Offending Decency of a Woman

There are specific acts which offend the modesty and decency of a
woman. Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman,
utters any word, says something bad, makes any sound or gesture, such
an action may be seen by the woman, and in order to protect her
privacy, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
simply be for a year, or a fine, or with both.

Sexual Harassment
A man committing any of the following acts:

1.Physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and specific

sexual overtures.

2. A demand or request for sexual favours.

3. Showing porno against the desire of a woman.

4.Making sexually coloured remarks shall be guilty of the offence of

sexual harassment.
Any man that commits the offence laid out in clause (i) or clause (ii) or
clause (iii) of sub-section (1) shall be penalised with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which can extend to 3 years, or with fine, or
with both of these.

Any man that commits the offence laid out in clause (iv) of sub-section
(1) shall be penalised with imprisonment of either description for a
term which can be one year or with fine, or with both. This comes
under Section 354A of the Indian Penal code.

87
Voyeurism
Any man that watches, or captures the image of a lady participating in
an exceedingly personal act in circumstances wherever she would
typically have the expectation of not being discovered either by the
culprit or by the other person at the dictation of the culprit or
disseminates such image shall be penalized on initial conviction with
imprisonment of either description for a term that shall not be but one
year, however, it may add up to 3 years, and shall even be at risk of a
fine, and be penalized on a second or subsequent conviction, with
imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be but 3
years, however, which can add up to seven years, and shall be liable to
fine.

Explanation: For the aim of this section, “private act” includes an act of
observation allotted in a place that, within the circumstances, would
fairly be expected to produce privacy and where the victim’s private
parts, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered solely in underwear;
or the victim is employing a lavatory, or the victim is doing a sexual act
that is not of a form unremarkably done in public.

Where the victim consents to the capture of the pictures or any act,
however not to their dissemination to third persons and wherever such
image or act is disseminated, such dissemination shall be thought of an
offence under this section. This comes under Section 354C of the Indian
Penal Code.

Stalking
In the groundswell of support for exploited women, the one common
experience most girls have undergone has been that of stalking. Before
the advent of the internet age, the offence was not even recognized in
the statute. Social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, etc. have
given stalkers a replacement weapon to victimize girls and harass them
online. The recognition of stalking as an offence was a slow and gradual

88
method that finally got introduced within the statute once the 2013
criminal law amendment. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, being a colonial
law, did not contemplate stalking as an offence at all.

The only protection to girls was under Section 354 for harassment and
Section 509 of IPC for victimization words or gestures to insult the
modesty of a lady. Under Section 354 of the IPC, whoever assaults a
woman knowing that it would outrage her modesty is liable to be
punished under the law. The essence of a woman’s modesty is her sex.

The ultimate check to be seen if the lady’s modesty is incensed is to

examine if the act or assault would be enough to stun the sense of
decency of a woman. The law makes it punishable providing 3
ingredients are met- i.e, the assault should be on a lady, the suspect
should have used criminal force and that it should outrage her
modesty. This comes under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code.

Conclusion
Assault is basically the apprehension that the other person is going to
get hurt. It is done to another person with the use of criminal force with
the ill will to harm the other person. People face a lot of problems
because of this, especially women. So, it was inevitable that strict laws
regarding Assault and Criminal force had to be put in place and be
implemented properly so that every person is protected by the law.
Any person who assaults any other person by using criminal force, he
may be punished or fined, or both, according to the Indian Penal Code.

6. kidnapping and abduction.

A. Though, Indian laws prohibit abduction and kidnapping, since 2005,
more than 100,000 kidnapping and abduction cases have come up in
India. People have continued to take advantage of the tender age of
minors to kidnap them and exploit and force them to perform

89
horrendous acts. Such offences are an attack on the liberty and
freedom of citizens and must be prevented.

Section 359 to 374 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for

punishments for these offences. In this article, we will discuss these
provisions in detail, understand the essentials of kidnapping and
abduction, discuss the difference between kidnapping and abduction
and also discuss the provisions regarding forced slavery, labour and sale
and purchase of minors for illegal purposes.

Kidnapping
Kidnapping means taking away a person against his/her will by force,
threat or deceit. Usually, the purpose of kidnapping is to get a ransom,
or for some political or other purposes etc. Kidnapping is classified into
two categories in Section 359 of the Indian Penal Code and defined in
Section 360 and 361 of the Indian Penal Code. Let’s understand these
sections better.

As per Section 359 of the Indian Penal Code, Kidnapping is of two types:

1. Kidnapping from India,

2. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship.

1. Kidnapping from India

Section 360 explains kidnapping from India. According to section 360, if
any person takes a person beyond the limits of India against the
consent of that person or against the consent of someone who is legally
entitled to give consent on that person’s behalf, then the offence of
kidnapping from India is committed.

90
Illustration: ‘A’ is a woman living in New Delhi. ‘B takes ‘A’ to
Bangladesh without her consent. ‘B’ committed the offence of
kidnapping ‘A’ from India.

2. Keeping of Lawful Guardian or kidnapping from lawful guardian

Section 361 explains kidnapping from lawful guardianship. According to
this section, if a person takes away or entices a minor (i.e, a boy under
the age of 16 years and a girl under the age of 18 years) or a person of
unsound mind, away from his/her lawful guardian without the
guardian’s consent, then that person commits the offence of
kidnapping from lawful guardianship.

Thus, the essentials of kidnapping from lawful guardianship are:

Illustration: ‘A’ is a boy of 13 years of age, living under the lawful

guardianship of his mother, ‘Z’. ‘B’ ‘convinces him to accompany him to
his house against the consent of his mother. According to Section 361,
‘B’ has committed the offence of Kidnapping from lawful guardianship.

Here, the minor is ‘A’; the lawful guardian is his mother, ‘Z’ and the
person who is committing the offence is ‘B’ as he is taking A away from
‘Z’ against Z’s consent.

This section also mentions an exception. It says that it does not result in
the crime of kidnapping from lawful guardianship, if the person in good
faith, i.e, honestly with reason, believes that:

1. He is entitled to the lawful custody of the child; or

2. He is the father of an illegitimate child.

Hence, If in the above illustration, ‘B’ believes that ‘A’ is his illegitimate
son, then his act of convincing him to come to his house without his

91
mother’s consent would not result in kidnapping from lawful
guardianship.

State of Haryana v. Raja Ram, AIR 1973 SC 819(case law)

To understand this better let’s look at the case of State of Haryana v.
Raja Ram.

Facts
‘J’ had tried to seduce the prosecutrix, a girl of 14 years to come and
live with him. The girl’s father forbade ‘J’ from coming to their house
and in response, ‘J’ started sending her messages through the
respondent.

One day, the respondent went to the girl and asked him to come to his
house and later sent his daughter to bring her. At his house, the
respondent told her to come to his house at midnight so that she can
be taken to ‘J’.
That night when she went to his house, the respondent took her to ‘J’.
Issue
Whether the respondent was guilty of the offence under section 361 of
IPC?

Judgment
The trial court held him guilty, but the High court acquitted him. On
appeal to the Supreme court, it was held that:

1. Section 361 is to protect minor children from being seduced for

improper purposes and to protect the rights and privileges of guardians
having their custody.
2. The consent of a child is completely immaterial and only the
guardian’s consent is relevant to decide whether the offence was
committed or not.

92
3. ‘Taking’ as mentioned in the Section is not only through fraud or
force but also through persuasion by the accused which creates
willingness on the part of minor to be taken away from his/her lawful
guardian.

4. In this case, the respondent was held guilty under section 361 as it
was the respondent’s action which persuaded the prosecutrix from
going out of her father’s keeping, against her father’s wishes.

Age of the Minor

Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code clearly states that minor is:

A male under the age of 16 years,

A female under the age of 18 years.

However, it must be highlighted here that in Manipur, the age of 18

years of females in section 361 is replaced with 15 years. Hence if a
female of 16 years is taken from her lawful guardians in Manipur, it
would not result in kidnapping from lawful guardianship.

Moreover, the Allahabad High Court in Smt Suman and another. V.

State of Uttar Pradesh gave a peculiar judgment. It was held that if a
minor girl, who is 17 years old and is mature enough to understand the
consequences and rationale behind her action, leaves the guardianship
of her parents to live with a boy who has in no way subjected her to
any kind of pressure, inducement etc, i.t cannot result in an offence
under section 361 of IPC and is not punishable.

Taking and Enticing

Section 361 mentions whoever ‘takes or entices’ a minor away from
his/her guardian against the guardian’s will, is punishable with the
offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship.

93
Let’s understand the meaning of taking and enticing by looking at a few
case laws.

Biswanath Mallick v. State of Orissa (1995) Cr LJ 1416(case law)

The first case we will be looking into is Biswant Mallick v. State of Orissa

Facts
Kalyani, had been kidnapped by the accused/petitioner Biswant Mallick
when she had gone out around midnight. He first took her to Cuttack,
then to Bhubaneshwar and finally to Jeypore.
Her father lodged a complaint at the police station. During the
investigation, she was found and rescued from the house of a relative
of the accused.
The petitioner was held guilty and sentenced to two years rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100.
On the petition, the counsel for the accused argued that the girl had
attained the age of discretion (age to take decisions for herself and
understand the consequences of her act) as she was 17 years, 8 months
and 7 days old and thus kidnapping did not take place.

Issue
Clarity of Section 361 and explanation of taking and enticing as given in
the section.

Judgement
Court clarified the difference between take and entice as given in
section 361 of the Indian Penal Code.

1. The court said that the word ‘take’ means cause to go or to escort or
to get into possession. This means that in taking, the desire of the
person being taken to be taken is missing.

94
(To understand this better let’s look at an illustration. If ‘A’ is taken
away against her own consent, it is taking)

2. Enticing, on the other hand, is the act of the accused which induces
the person kidnapped to go to the kidnapper, by his/her own wish. It is
exciting hope or desire in a person to be taken away. Enticement is
completely dependant upon the mental state of the person when the
inducement happens. It is not confined to a single form of allurement
and any act which is enough to allure a minor girl is enough to
constitute allurement.

3. The court further clarified that mental attitude is immaterial (

minor’s willingness or unwillingness) is not relevant for taking.
However, in enticement, the kidnapper convinces the minor, through
allurement, to do something he/she would otherwise not do.

4. It was also held that force or fraud is not necessary to constitute

enticement or taking away.

Punishment for Kidnapping

Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code lays down the punishment for
both kinds of kidnapping (Kidnapping from India and Kidnapping from
lawful guardianship).

The punishment prescribed in this section is :

1. Imprisonment of either description which can extend up to seven
years, and

2. Fine.

Imprisonment of either term means either of the two imprisonments

prescribed in the Indian Penal Code:

95
Simple Imprisonment: This means that during the imprisonment, the
prisoner is idle and is not required to do any hard labour.

Rigorous Imprisonment: This means that during the imprisonment, the

prisoner must engage in hard labour.

Before we move forward, it is important to mention an exception laid

down in the case of Chadrakala Menon and another v. Vipin Menon. In
this case, the appellant Chandrakala was married to Vipin Menon. They
both were settled in the United States and were well employed. They
had a child who was sent to India to live with her maternal
grandparents. Unfortunately, differences arose between them and they
decided to get separated. While Vipin Menon filed an application for his
daughter’s custody, the child continued to live with her maternal
grandparents. One day, while the custody application was still to be
decided upon, Vipin Menon took his daughter away with him to a
different state. The grandparents lodged a complaint of kidnapping
against him. However, the court held that Vipin Menon was the natural
guardian of the child

Abduction
Section 362 of the Indian Penal Code defines abduction. It says that if a
person compels another person to go from one place, or induces some
person to go from one place, then the offence of abduction is
committed.

Thus, Abduction is an offence in which a person is moved from one

place, against his/her will by forceful compulsion or by use of deceitful
means. Clearly, the essentials of abduction are:

96
‘I’llustration: ‘B’ slaps and hurts ‘A’ and tells her that if she would not
leave with him, he would kill her. In this case, ‘B’ commits the offence
of abduction as he uses forceful means to take ‘A’ away from her
house.

Here, ‘A’ is the person abducted and ‘B’ is the criminal; threatening ‘A’
to kill her and slapping and hurting her amounts to use of force, and
taking her away from her house established the essentials of taking a
person away from a particular place.

Let’s understand all these essentials in depth.

Ingredients

1. By Force

Section 362 says that abduction can happen in two ways. One of these
is force. In abduction, a person is forced to go from one place to
another, against his/her will. The use of force, as mentioned in this
section, must be actual, and not just a threat of force to constitute
abduction.

In this reference, we can look at the case State of West Bengal v. Mir
Mohammad Omar.

2. Deceitful Means
According to Section 362, the other way abduction can take place is by
inducing someone to go from someplace by misleading him/her to do
something he/she would not normally do. The scope of inducement
here is very wide.

97
Illustration: ‘A’ is a man who wears the uniform of a police officer to
convince a girl, ‘B’ to come to his house with him, and because of his
misrepresentation she goes with him. In this case, ‘A’ uses deceitful
means to commit the offence of abduction.

Let’s look at case law to understand how abductions happen through

deceitful means.

To go from any place

For abduction to be completed, it is essential that the person is
compelled to go from one place to some other place, either forcefully
or by using deceitful means. It cannot be called abduction if the person
is not taken to someplace.

Now let’s discuss an important judgement given in the case of

Vishwanath v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1960 SC 67. It was held that
mere abduction is no offence at all. The guilty and wrongful intention
must be present for the offence to be punishable.

For this very reason, IPC provides for different punishments for
abduction with different intentions. Like abduction for kidnapping is
punishable in Section 363A with imprisonment up to ten years,
abduction with the intention of murder is punishable with life
imprisonment etc.

Aggravated forms of Kidnapping or Abduction

1. Kidnapping or Maiming for Begging

Section 363A of the Indian Penal Code talks about the offence of
kidnapping or maiming a minor for begging. It states that:

1. If a person kidnaps a minor or obtains custody of a minor, even

though he is not his/her lawful guardian, so as to employ the minor in

98
begging, he/she would be liable for this offence. The punishment
prescribed in Section 363A of the Indian Penal Code for this is
imprisonment up to 10 years and fine.

2 .Maim means to wound or injure a part of the body so that it is

permanently damaged. As per this section, If a person maims a minor
so that the minor can be employed in begging, he/she is liable for
imprisonment for life and fine.

3. The section also states that if a person, not being the minor’s lawful
guardian, employs a minor in begging, it will be assumed by the court
that such person kidnapped the minor. The person would have the
burden of proof to prove that he is innocent.

Section 363 A, itself, defines what begging constitutes as per this

provision. It means:

1. Asking or receiving alms (money was given to poor people) in a public

place for singing, dancing, fortune-telling, performing tricks, selling
goods, etc.

2. Entering someone’s private place to ask or receive alms.

3. Exposing any wound, injury, deformity or disease of oneself, some

other person or some animal, for obtaining or extorting alms.

4. Using a minor as an exhibit to receive or solicit alms.

Illustration: ‘A’ took away ‘B’, a 12-year-old boy, from his father,
without his consent, so as to make him beg on the streets of Delhi. In
this case, ‘A’ completed the kidnapping from lawful gu’a’rdianship as
soon as he took ‘B’ away from his father. And because it was for the

99
purpose of making him beg on the streets of Delhi, ‘A’ is guilty of the
offence under section 363 A of IPC.

2. Abducting or Kidnapping to Murder

As per Section 364 of Indian Penal Code, if a person is kidnapped or
abducted by a person with the intention or knowledge that the person
is going to be murdered or is going to be put in danger of being murder,
such person is punishable with imprisonment for life or rigorous
imprisonment for a term up to 10 years and a fine.

Illustration: ‘A’ takes away ‘B’ from his house to a forest, against B’s
consent with the knowledge that ‘B’ would be sacrificed to a deity. ‘A’ is
guilty of abduction for murder.

To understand this section better, let’s look at the case of Shri Moni
Neog and others v. the State of Assam.

3. Kidnapping for Ransom

Section 364A of IPC provides for punishment to the whoever threatens
to hurt or cause death to that person who he has kidnapped or
abducted or detained after kidnapping or abducting in order to compel
either the government or some foreign state or any other person to do
or abstain from doing an act or pay a certain sum of money. The
punishment is death or imprisonment for life, and fine, as mentioned in
Section 364A IPC. The essentials of the offence under Section 364A are:

4. Kidnapping or abduction with intent to secret and wrongful

confinement

100
Section 365 of IPC provides for punishing a person who kidnaps or
abducts someone with the intention of wrongfully and secretly
confining them with imprisonment up to 7 years and fine.

Illustration: ‘A’ takes ‘B’ away from her legal guardian, against the
consent of such guardian, with the intention of hiding her in his house.
Here ‘A’ has kidnapped ‘B’ with the intent of secret confinement, and
thus, he is punishable under section 365 of IPC.

Minor’s consent to marry her Kidnapper: Is it valid?

To look at if minor’s consent to marry her kidnapper or engage in sexual
intercourse with him is enough or not, let’s look at the case of Thakorlal
D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat.

Thakorlal D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat, 1973

Facts
1. Mohini’s parents got to know that she had been having sexual
intercourse with the appellant and reprimanded her. They also sent a
letter to him telling him to stay away from Mohini. She, however, met
him again when she had gone to Ahmedabad on a school trip and for
two months after that, they kept sending each other letters in which
Mohini had complained about her parents ill-treating her and
expressed her desire to leave her house.

2. Next month, the appellant asked her to meet him at his house and
she met him there. He made her write three letters to her father, the
appellant and the police superintendent. These letters contained
complaints of ill-treatment by her parents and also said that she had
taken Rs. 250 from the appellant and was leaving to Bombay..
He then made her sit in a cars’ dicky and took her away to someplace.
Then he had sexual intercourse with her against her wishes.

101
Meanwhile, her father filed a case. Next morning, while investigating
police came to his house to search it for Mohini. The appellant hid
Mohini in his garage and later told her to run out in the street, where
the police found him. On medical examination, no evidence of forced
intercourse was found.

Issue
Whether or not consent from Mohini absolves the appellant from his
crime?

Judgment
1. The court held that in the present case, the appellant got close to the
minor girl in the manner of making promises and giving her gifts, like
new clothes, etc. He took advantage of this closeness to entice her out
of her parent’s guardianship and thus kidnapped her.

2. The court further, clarified the legal position with respect to an

offence under section 366 of IPC and said that law seeks to protect the
minor children from being seduced into illicit activities and also the
rights of the guardians towards their children. It clarified that
kidnapping can be done by enticing or inducing minor out of the
keeping of their guardians. Hence, it was held that Mohini’s acceptance
to go with him and have intercourse with him is not enough to absolve
him from the offence.

Procuration of Minor Girl

Section 366A of the Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for any
person who induces a girl under the age of 18, to go from someplace or
to do some act, such that she will be forced or seduced to engage in
illicit intercourse with some person. Such inducement must be done
intentionally or with the knowledge that she will be forced to engage in
such acts.

102
The punishment prescribed for the same is imprisonment for up to ten
years and fine.

Kidnapping or Abducting to subject a person to Grievous Hurt

Section 367 of the Indian Penal Code states that if a person kidnaps or
abducts a person so that such person is subjected to or is put in danger
of grievous hurt, slavery or unnatural lust of any person, must be
punished with either rigorous or simple imprisonment up to 10 years
and fine.

Grievous hurt has been defined in section 320 of IPC. It includes:

1. Emasculation (Removal of male reproductive organs),

2. Permanently damaging eyesight in any eye,
3. Permanently damaging hearing in any ear,
4. Causing permanent loss of some joint,
5. Permanent disfigurement of face or the head
6. Fracture and dislocation of teeth or bone(s)
7. Any hurt which endangers the life of a person and causing the
sufferer to suffer severe body pain within twenty days of the causation
of hurt.

Wrongfully Concealing or Keeping in Confinement a kidnapped or

abducted person
Section 368 of the Indian Penal Code provides that if a person knows
that a person has been kidnapped or abducted, and wrongfully confides
such kidnapped person, would be punished as if he had kidnapped or
abducted the person with the intention to keep or confide in him/her.

103
This section can be better understood by looking at the following case:

Smt. Saroj Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 201

Trafficking and Slavery

Section 370 of the Indian Penal Code was recently amended after the
Delhi rape case in 2013. Now, it states the definition and punishments
of trafficking.

As per this section, if anyone recruits, transports, harbours, transfers or

receives a person for the purpose of exploitation commits the offence
of trafficking. This is done by :

1. Using fraud, deception or abuse of power, or

2. Using threats, or
3. Using force or coercion, or
4. Abduction, or
5. Inducement of the person extorted himself or someone who has
authority over him.

Exploitation, as mentioned in this section has a very wide ambit, and

refers to sexual exploitation, slavery or practices similar to it, servitude
or forced removal of organs.

It must also be mentioned that the consent of the victim is completely

immaterial for the offence of trafficking.

Sale or Purchase of Minors for Immoral Purposes

Section 372 of the Indian Penal Code provides that if a person sells or
allows hiring of any person under the age of 18 years, with the
intention or knowledge that such a person would be used for
prostitution or illicit intercourse, then he/she will be punished with

104
either simple or rigorous imprisonment for a period of up to 10 years
and would also be punished with fine.

Illicit purposes, as mentioned in the section, means sexual intercourse

between people who are not married or united by any union
recognised in a personal law or custom.

Illustration: ‘A’ is a brothel owner. ‘B’ sells ‘C’ to A for Rs. 1,00,000 so
that she (C) can be used as a prostitute. Here, ‘B’ has committed an
offence under Section 372 of IPC.

Forced Labour
Section 374 of Indian Penal Code states the offence of unlawful
compulsory labour. As per this section, if a person unlawfully forces
some person to provide labour against his will, then he is punished with
either simple or rigorous imprisonment for a period of up to one year,
or with fine, or with both imprisonment and fine.

Conclusion
Kidnapping and abduction are dangerous acts which harm the freedom
of a person. Section 359 to 369 go a long way in securing the liberty of
people. They give protection to children against kidnapping and
abduction. Moreover, they reinforce the rights of guardians to have
control over the children who are easily moved and convinced by the
words of conspiring adults. The number of abduction and kidnapping
cases is enormous and is only increasing. There is a dire need to
prevent these horrendous crimes and stop the culture of kidnapping
and abduction from spreading, especially when it is done for marriages,
forced sexual intercourses and forced begar etc. These children require
safe release, medical, psychological and legal assistance as such acts
take away the good days of childhood away from them as they are
subjected to mental and physical torture.

105
To overcome these offences, not only do the states need to work
together but also a co-task among nations need to be cultivated.
Moreover, it is needed to be understood that a criminal would go
around the laws, and indulge in these acts. What is required to prevent
these offences is hand in hand working of non-governmental
organisations and government bodies, and more sensitisation.

TYPES OF PUNISHMENTS SECTION OF IPC

KIDNAPPING
Kidnapping for the 10 years + fine 363A
purpose of beginning.
Kidnapping in order to 10 years + fine 364
murder.
Kidnapping for ransom 10 years + fine 364A
Kidnapping with intent 7 years + fine 365
to wrongfully confine
a person.
Kidnapping as to 10 years + fine 366
compel women to
marry.
Kidnapping as to 367
subject to a person to 10 years+ fine
grievous hurt.
Kidnapping a child 7 years + fine 369
under 10 years of age
in order to steal from
a person.

106
Abduction is only an auxiliary act and is not punishable in itself.
Therefore, there is no general punishment for abduction in the Indian
Penal Code.
But some specific types of abduction attract the following punishments:
Types of abduction Punishments Sections of IPC
Abduction in order to 10years + fine 364
murder
Abduction with intent 7 years + fine 365
to wrongfully confine
a person.
Abduction so as to 10 years + fine 366
compel a woman to
marry.
Abduction so as to 10 years + fine 367
subject a person to
grievous hurt.
Abducting a child 7 years + fine 369
under 10 years of age
in order to steal from
a person.

Difference between abduction and kidnapping

Basis of difference Abduction Kidnapping

1. Age of the 1. In case of 1. In case of
Aggrieved Person Kidnapping, the age of Abduction, there is no
the aggrieved person such thing as age. Any
as according to person either by force
Section 361 of the IPC has compelled or
is 16 in case of males induced any other
and 18 in case of person to go from any
females (as seen in place irrespective of

107
 the case of State of the age, shall be
Haryana v Raja Ram). booked with
abduction (as in the
case of Bahadur Ali v
King Emperor).
2. Removal from Here the lawful Since Abduction
Lawful Guardianship guardianship shall considers only the
include any person person who has been
who has been abducted, lawful
authorized by law to guardianship does not
take care of the come into the picture.
person who has yet
not attained the age
of majority. A lawful
guardian may be the
parents, in-laws, etc.

As Kidnapping takes
into consideration the
age of the person
being kidnapped, the
crime involves the
taking away from the
guardianship of a
lawful person who has
been authorized by
law to take care of
such minor.
3. Means 3. Kidnapping involves 3. The means used in
taking away or case of abduction may
enticement by the be force, compulsion,
kidnapper. The means or deceitful means.
used for such purpose

108
 is irrelevant.
4. Consent 4. In case of 4. In case of
Kidnapping, the Abduction, the
consent of the person consent of the person
kidnapped is abducted condones
immaterial as the the accused from the
person being offence so charged
kidnapped is a minor against him/her.
and according to law,
such person is unable
to provide for free
consent. The consent
obtained from the
person shall be a
tainted one (as seen in
the case of State of
Haryana v Raja Ram).
5. The intention of the 5. In case of 5. In case of
Accused. Kidnapping, the Abduction, the
intention of the intention of the
person kidnapping a person abducting is a
minor is immaterial so very important factor
as to the crime in determining the
committed by the guilt of the accused
accused (as in the case person.
of Queen v Prince [3]).
6. Punishment 6. Kidnapping is a 6. Abduction itself is
substantive offence. not punishable, but it
Section 363 of the IPC is made criminal
provides for a offence only when it is
punishment for committed with one
kidnapping for a or other intents
descriptive term specified in Sections

109
 which may extend to 363A, 364, 364A to
seven years and 369 of the Indian
he/she shall also be Penal Code
liable for fine.
7. Continuity of the 7. Kidnapping is not a 7. Abduction is a
Crime. continuing offence. continuing process
The offence is done as and it this the person
soon as the person so abducted is
accused removes the removed from one
person from his/her place to another.
lawful guardianship.

8. Sexual offences.
A. Section 375:- Rape.

Section 376:- Punishment for rape.

Section 376A:- Punishment for causing death or resulting in persistent

vegetative state of victim.

Section 376AB:- Punishment for rape on woman under twelve years of

age.

Section 376B:- Sexual intercourse by husband upon his wife during

separation.

Section 376C:- Sexual intercourse by person in authority.

Section 376D:- Gang rape.

110
Section 376DA:- Punishment for gang rape on woman under sixteen
years of age.

Section 376DB:- Punishment for gang rape on woman under twelve

years of age.

Section 376E:- Punishment for repeat offenders.

NOTE: REFER LATEST LAWS APP FOR COMPLETE SECTION

INFORMATION.

9. Unnatural offences.
A.
Section 377:- Unnatural offences
Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature
with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment
for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanations

Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary

for the offence described in this section.

111
UNIT 4 – OFFENCES AFFECTING THE PUBLIC HEALTH,
SAFETY, CONVENIENCE, DECENCY AND MORALS.

1. Offences relating to public health, safety, convenience,

decency and morals.
A. Chapter 14 of IPC (sec. 268 – 294A) deals with above topic.

OFFENCES RELATING TO PUBLIC HEALTH (269 -278)

Section 268:- Public nuisance

Section 269:- Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease

dangerous to life

Section 270:- Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease

dangerous to life

Section 271:- Disobedience to quarantine rule

Section 272:- Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale

Section 273:- Sale of noxious food or drink

Section 274:- Adulteration of drugs

Section 275:- Sale of adulterated drugs

Section 276:- Sale of drug as a different drug or preparation

Section 277:- Fouling water of public spring or reservoir

Section 278:- Making atmosphere noxious to health

112
OFFENCES AFFECTING THE PUBLIC SAFETY ( SEC. 279- 289)
Section 279:- Rash driving or riding on a public way

Section 280:- Rash navigation of vessel

Section 281:- Exhibition of false light, mark or buoy

Section 282:- Conveying person by water for hire in unsafe or

overloaded vessel

Section 283:- Danger or obstruction in public way or line of navigation

Section 284:- Negligent conduct with respect to poisonous substance

Section 285:- Negligent conduct with respect to fire or combustible

matter

Section 286:- Negligent conduct with respect to explosive substance

Section 287:- Negligent conduct with respect to machinery

Section 288:- Negligent conduct with respect to pulling down or

repairing buildings

Section 289:- Negligent conduct with respect to animal

OFFENCES AFFECTING THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE ( SEC. 290 – 291)

Section 290:- Punishment for public nuisance in cases not otherwise
provided for

Section 291:- Continuance of nuisance after injunction to discontinue

113
OFFENCES AFFECTING THE PUBLIC DECENCY AND PUBLIC MORALS
(SEC. 292 – 294 – A)
Section 292:- Sale, etc., of obscene books, etc.

Section 293:- Sale, etc., of obscene objects to young person

Section 294:- Obscene acts and songs

Section 294A:- Keeping lottery office

NOTE: REFER SECTIONS FROM LATEST LAWS APP OR REFER FROM THE
WEBSITE: DEVGAN.IN

2. Offences against Property.

A.

Section 378:- Theft

Section 379:- Punishment for theft

Section 380:- Theft in dwelling house, etc.

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

master

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

Section 383:- Extortion

Section 384:- Punishment for extortion

114
Section 385:- Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit
extortion

Section 386:- Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or

grievous hurt

Section 387:- Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in

order to commit extortion

Section 388:- Extortion by threat of accusation of an offence

punishable with death or imprisonment for life, etc

Section 389:- Putting person in fear or accusation of offence, in order

to commit extortion

Section 390:- Robbery

Section 391:- Dacoity

Section 392:- Punishment for robbery

Section 393:- Attempt to commit robbery

Section 394:- Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery

Section 395:- Punishment for dacoity

Section 396:- Dacoity with murder

Section 397:- Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or

grievous hurt

115
Section 398:- Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with
deadly weapon

Section 399:- Making preparation to commit dacoity

Section 400:- Punishment for belonging to gang of dacoits

Section 401:- Punishment for belonging to gang of thieves

Section 402:- Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity

Section 403:- Dishonest misappropriation of property

Section 404:- Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by

deceased person at the time of his death

Section 405:- Criminal breach of trust

Section 406:- Punishment for criminal breach of trust

Section 407:- Criminal breach of trust by carrier, etc.

Section 408:- Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant

Section 409:- Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker,

merchant or agent

Section 410:- Stolen property

Section 411:- Dishonestly receiving stolen property

Section 412:- Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission

of a dacoity

116
Section 413:- Habitually dealing in stolen property

Section 414:- Assisting in concealment of stolen property

Section 415:- Cheating

Section 416:- Cheating by personation

Section 417:- Punishment for cheating

Section 418:- Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue
to person whose interest offender is bound to protect

Section 419:- Punishment for cheating by personation

Section 420:- Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

Section 421:- Dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of

property to prevent distribution among creditors

Section 422:- Dishonestly or fraudulently preventing debt being

available for creditors

Section 423:- Dishonest or fraudulent execution of deed of transfer

containing false statement of consideration

Section 424:- Dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of

property

Section 425:- Mischief

Section 426:- Punishment for mischief

117
Section 427:- Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees

Section 428:- Mischief by killing or maiming animal of the value of ten

rupees

Section 429:- Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value

or any animal of the value of fifty rupees

Section 430:- Mischief by injury to works of irrigation or by wrongfully

diverting water

Section 431:- Mischief by injury to public road, bridge, river or channel

Section 432:- Mischief by causing inundation or obstruction to public

drainage attended with damage

Section 433:- Mischief by destroying, moving or rendering less useful a

light-house or sea-mark

Section 434:- Mischief by destroying or moving, etc., a land-mark fixed

by public authority

Section 435:- Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to

cause damage to amount of one hundred or (in case of agricultural
produce) ten rupees

Section 436:- Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent

destroy house, etc.

Section 437:- Mischief with intent to destroy or make unsafe a decked

vessel or one of twenty tons burden

118
Section 438:- Punishment for the mischief described in section 437
committed by fire or explosive substance

Section 439:- Punishment for intentionally running vessel aground or

ashore with intent to commit theft, etc.

Section 440:- Mischief committed after preparation made for causing

death or hurt

Section 441:- Criminal trespass

Section 442:- House-trespass

Section 443:- Lurking house-trespass

Section 444:- Lurking house-trespass by night

Section 445:- House-breaking

Section 446:- House-breaking by night

Section 447:- Punishment for criminal trespass

Section 448:- Punishment for house-trespass

Section 449:- House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable

with death

Section 450:- House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable

with imprisonment for life

Section 451:- House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable

with imprisonment

119
Section 452:- House-trespass alter preparation for hurt, assault or
wrongful restraint

Section 453:- Punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-

breaking

Section 454:- Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking in order to

commit offence punishable with imprisonment

Section 455:- Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking after

preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint

Section 456:- Punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-

breaking by night

Section 457:- Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in

order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment

Section 458:- Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night after

preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint

Section 459:- Grievous hurt caused whilst committing lurking house-

trespass or house-breaking

Section 460:- All persons jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass

or house-breaking by night punishable where death or grievous hurt
caused by one of them

Section 461:- Dishonestly breaking open receptacle containing

property

Section 462:- Punishment for same offence when committed by

person entrusted with custody.

120
3. Theft.
A. Chapter 17 – Of Offences Against Property (Sec. 378 to 379) deals
with only topic theft.
Section 378:- Theft

Section 379:- Punishment for theft

Section 380:- Theft in dwelling house, etc.

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

master

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

NOTE : REFEER LATEST LAWS APP OR DEVGAN.IN WEBSITE FOR

COMPLETE SECTIONS.

THEFT
Section 378 of the IPC defines theft as, “Whoever, intending to take
dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person
without that person’s consent, moves that property to such taking, is
said to commit theft”. There are five explanations to the said definition,
mentioned in the code (IPC) which are further illustrated by 16
examples.

Hence we can say that section 378 of the IPC defines ‘theft’ as the
dishonest removal of moveable property ‘out of the possession of any
person’ without the consent of that person.

121
1. Intention
Intention (be it in any form, like dishonesty) in theft plays a major role.
Hence, if B owes money to C for getting his car repaired and if C keeps
the car with him lawfully, as a security for a debt, and B takes the car
out of C’s possession, with the intention of depriving C of the property
(car) which acted as a security for B’s debt, B commits theft, in as much
as he takes it dishonestly. Thus, it can also be concluded from the
above situation that a person can be convicted of stealing his property
if he takes it dishonestly from another.

However, Section 378 (Illustration clause ‘p’) suggests that when

anything is taken under a claim of right, provided that claim is fair, good
and bona fide, the thing so taken, cannot be dishonest. Thus, such
taking cannot amount to theft.

Fine For Theft

Section 379 of the IPC, penalizes ‘theft’. It lays down the punishment
for theft as either imprisonment for a term (which may extend to three
years), or with fine, or both.

Ingredients for Theft

Theft has the following defining ingredients which must be proved in a
given case, namely:

1. Dishonest intention to take the property;

2. The property must be moveable;
3. It should be taken out of the possession of another person;
4. It should be taken without the consent of that person;
5. There must be some moving of the property to accomplish it’s
taking;
5. In the name of justification to theft, if a man in extreme want of food
or clothing steals either to relieve his present necessities, the law
allows no such excuse to be considered.

122
In other words, as per law, one can’t steal no matter what.

Movable property
The subject matter of theft must be moveable property. It must not be
a static one (immovable property). Moveable property is defined in
Section 22 of the IPC.

1. Animals
While mentioning above about the movable property in section 378, it
also includes ‘animals’ in its definition. The section itself explains the
matter related to animals.

Any animal which is a pet, i.e. any animal within the possession of the
owner is considered to be the property of the owner. Any property,
which is taken away from the owner without the consent of the owner,
amounts to theft.

Hence if A, being Z’s servant is entrusted by Z with the care of his dog
takes and sells the dog to some other party, without Z’s consent. Here
A’s act will amount to theft.

Section 379 of IPC as mentioned earlier, quotes punishment for theft as

imprisonment for a term up to three years, or fine, or both.

As in any other theft case, the procedure here remains the same. When
a person

approaches the police station with a complaint regarding the theft of

an animal (pet), the complainant must give a detailed description of the
lost animal and if possible, along with the photograph. It should be
immediately filed as an F.I.R, a copy of which should be duly signed,
stamped and dated, along with the time and should be handed to the

123
complainant. The duty officer of the police station is responsible for
making all the necessary entries. The complainant has the right to file
an F.I.R. Hence animals under movable property’s definition are
capable of theft.

2. Fish
Fish in their free state are regarded as ferae naturae (a Latin word
meaning, of a wild nature. Animal (roaming freely) is not the subject of
absolute ownership. A qualified property in such animals might be
acquired by taking or taming them or while they are on one’s estate),
but they are said to be in the possession of that person who has
possession of any area full of water like a tank. Fishes are also regarded
as being in the possession of a person who owns an exclusive right to
catch them in a fishery, but only within that spot. Thus, theft can be
said to have been committed if fish from a tank which is in the
possession of its holder, is caught by the offender without the consent
of the owner.

3. Human corpse
Dealing with a human corpse in IPC can be considered to be a special
case. There can be many arguments to support this statement like a
dead body is not a “person” in the eyes of the law. Hence, it not being a
person, removal of moveables from a dead body can not amount to
theft. To be considered theft, the movable property has to be taken out
of the possession of any person without his consent and a dead body is
not a person. Removing ornaments from the dead body hence, can not
be equated to the removal of ornaments from the possession and
consent of a person. However, the proper provision to deal with this
kind of a case is Section 403 of IPC (Criminal misappropriation).

124
4. Electricity
Theft of electricity is a cognizable offence and police can investigate
without any complaint by the electrical inspector. The investigation
does not require any complaint filed by the person aggrieved by the
theft or at the instance of the government.

Punishment for Theft

Section 379 of the IPC establishes the punishment for theft as
imprisonment up to 3 years or fine or both. Other succeeding
provisions contain more severe punishment for theft under aggravating
circumstances. For example, Section 380 of IPC punishes the
commission of theft in a building, tent or vessel used for dwelling or
residence. The object of this provision is to provide greater security to
properties in dwelling premises. The punishment for this is
imprisonment up to 7 years along with fine.

Aggravated Forms of Theft

1. Robbery
According to Section 390 of IPC, there is theft in every robbery. In other
words, robbery is an aggravated form of theft. Theft essentially means
to take a movable property out of a person’s lawful possession without
obtaining his consent. Robbery generally takes place when, while
committing theft, the offender, either attempts to actually cause or
merely cause fear of instant death/hurt/wrongful restraint to any
person.

Thus, theft becomes robbery when the offender commits any of the
above acts while committing theft. It can also happen when he
completes the theft and tries to move the property away.

125
2. Dacoity
Dacoity is the aggravated form of robbery which inturn is an aggravated
form of theft. Dacoity is said to take place when robbery is committed
by 5 or more people and they all share common intention.

4. Extortion.
A. Chapter 17 – Offences against property – (sec. 383 to 389) deals with
above topic Extortion.

Section 383:- Extortion

Section 384:- Punishment for extortion

Section 385:- Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit

extortion

Section 386:- Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or

grievous hurt

Section 387:- Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in

order to commit extortion

Section 388:- Extortion by threat of accusation of an offence

punishable with death or imprisonment for life, etc

Section 389:- Putting person in fear or accusation of offence, in order

to commit extortion

Extortion
Under the Indian penal code, the term extortion has been defined
explicitly and how it is constituted. Section 383 of the indian penal code
states that if a person intentionally puts another person in a position of

126
fear or of threat to cause him injury, or deceitfully persuade him so that
he may deliver the property or any other valuable goods to another
person or any document which has been signed and can be turned in a
valuable security. Punishment regarding extortion is enshrined under
section Section 384 of the Indian penal code.

Essentials of extortion
1. An act which causes imminent threat and injury to a person.

2. The act must be done intentionally and deceitfully.

3. Such a person tends to cause injury to another person in which he

seeks interest.

4. An unreasonable force should be shown through which a person

seeks to take the property or any other valuable goods of another
person or any document.

5. So it can be concluded if a person commits an offence which includes

the all the following points as mentioned above then the offence
committed is known as extortion.

6. Intention plays an important role. The gravity of such dishonest

intention upon the facts and circumstances of a case. For example, if A
takes any valuable stuff from B at point of a gun, then a is an offence of
extortion

Illustration

If A who kidnapped B’s child Z, demands a sum of 10,00,000 Rs. from B.

all the efforts made by B in order to know whereabouts of his child
turned out to be futile. B with all the failed attempts pay the prescribed
amount to A. A has committed the offence of extortion.

127
Queen v. Nathalirc Mirad, [(1844) 7 WR Cr 28]

In the instant case, bishop was threatened in order to expose his

illegitimate relation with a woman. This act was considered as an
offfence of extortion

Romesh Chandra Arora v. The State (AIR 1960 SC 154)

In the instant case, a boy and a girl was compelled by the accused to
take off their clothes. While they were naked several photographs were
taken by him. Later these photos were used by the accused in order to
extort money from them. This act was considered to be an offence of
extortion.

Punishment regarding the offence of extortion (section 384 of IPC)

Under section 384 of the Indian penal code punishment or extortion
has been prescribed. A person committing such offence shall be
punished with the imprisonment of 3 years or with fine or both.

Putting a person in a place while committing extortion where there is

a sense of fear in him that he might get injured
Section 385 of the Indian penal code states that a person while
committing the offence of extortion shall be punished with the
imprisonment of 2 years or fine or both if he while committing such
crime puts another person in fear of injury.

Punishment for extortion committed through putting a person in fear

of imminent threat to his life or severe hurt.
Under section 386 of the Indian penal code if any person commits an
offence of extortion while putting a person in a sense of fear of

128
imminent threat to his life which amounts to death or severe hurt to his
body shall be held liable for rigorous imprisonment of 10 years or fine.

Punishment for putting a person in fear of death or severe hurt with

the sole purpose of committing extortion
Under section 387 of the Indian penal code, it has been stated that
when a person with the sole purpose of committing extortion puts or
attempts to put another person in a position when there is a sense of
fear of death or severe hurt to his body shall be punished for
imprisonment which may extend to 7 years and is also liable to fine.

When a person commits extortion by threat of accusation of an

offence punishable with death or imprisonment of life, etc. – S.388
When a person commits an offence of extortion by threatening to
accuse or attempts to accuse another person of an offence which is
punishable with death or with life imprisonment or with the rigorous
imprisonment which may extend to ten years or if the person
attempted to persuade any other person to commit such offence shall
be punished with the imprisonment of 10 years and is also liable to pay
fine and if the offence is of such nature which is punishable under
section 377 of Indian penal code may be punished with life
imprisonment.

Section 389:- Putting person in fear or accusation of offence, in order

to commit extortion
Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to
put any person in fear of an accusation, against that person or any
other, of having committed, or attempted to commit, an offence
punishable with death or with imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence

129
be punishable under section 377 of this Code, may be punished with
imprisonment for life.

What is the difference between Theft and Extortion?

THEFT EXTORTION
1. The consent of the owner is not 1. The person while committing
taken by the person taking away the offence of extortion takes the
the property. consent wrongfully.
2. The offence of theft can only be 2. In case of extortion, the
committed in respect of properties property can either be movable or
which are of movable nature. non-movable.
3. There is no role of force in case 3. In case of extortion, the
of theft. property is obtained by putting the
person in the state of fear where
there is a threat or imminent
danger to his life.
4. While committing the offence of 4. It includes the delivery of
theft there is no delivery of the property.
property.

Conclusion
It can be concluded that the commission of both theft and extortion is
an offence punishable under the Indian penal code. There is a line
difference between both of them. Theft is an offence in which movable
property of a person is taken away and it is taken away without his
consent. Section 383 of the Indian penal code states that if a person
intentionally puts another person in a position of fear or of threat to
cause him injury, or deceitfully persuade him so that he may deliver the
property or any other valuable goods to another person or any
document which has been signed and can be turned in a valuable
security.

130
5. Robbery and Dacoity.
A. Chapter 17 of offences against property (sec. 390 to 402) deals with
above topic.

Section 390:- Robbery

Section 391:- Dacoity

Section 392:- Punishment for robbery

Section 393:- Attempt to commit robbery

Section 394:- Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery

Section 395:- Punishment for dacoity

Section 396:- Dacoity with murder

Section 397:- Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or

grievous hurt

Section 398:- Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with

deadly weapon

Section 399:- Making preparation to commit dacoity

Section 400:- Punishment for belonging to gang of dacoits

Section 401:- Punishment for belonging to gang of thieves

Section 402:- Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity

131
Aggravated Forms of Theft
1. Robbery (aggravated forms available)
2. Dacoity (aggravated forms available)

Robbery
-The action of taking property unlawfully from a person or place by
force or threat of force.

-When theft is robbery.—Theft is “robbery” if, in order to the

committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away
or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the
offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any
person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of
instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

Essential Ingredients of Robbery

Section 390 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 says that in all robbery
there is either extortion or theft. The Black law’s dictionary defines
robbery as the felonious act of taking the personal property of another
from a person or immediate presence against his will accomplished by
using force and fear, with the intention of permanently depriving the
owner of the thing.

-Causing Death, Hurt or Wrongful Restraint or Fear

Death, hurt, wrongful restraint or fear can be caused when theft is a
robbery or when extortion is robbery. These two are explained below
with the help of illustrations.

132
When theft is robbery?
Theft is a robbery when in order to commit theft, the offender
voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death, subject
him to wrongful restraint, cause hurt or induce fear of instant death,
instant wrongful restraint or cause instant hurt.

Theft can be called as a robbery when the conditions given below are
satisfied:

1. When the offender voluntarily attempts to cause death;

2. wrongful restraint;
3. fear of instant death;
4. instant wrongful restraint;
5. instant hurt.

And the above acts are done:

1. while committing the theft,

2. While carrying away the property acquired by theft, or
3. While attempting to carry away property.

For example, if A holds B down and fraudulently takes B’s money from
B’s clothes without B’s consent. Here A has committed theft and by
committing theft he has voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to B.
Therefore, A has committed robbery.

When extortion becomes robbery?

Extortion becomes robbery when the person committing the offence of
extortion put the other person in fear and commits extortion by putting
that person in fear of death, instant wrongful restraint to that person or
to some other person and by doing so induces the person so put in fear
then and there deliver the thing that has been extorted.

133
For example, if A meets B and B’s child is on a road. A takes the child
and threatens to fling it down a height unless B delivers his purse. B
delivers his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from B by causing B to
be in fear of instant hurt to the child who is present. A has therefore
robbed B. However if A obtains the property by saying that your child is
in my hand of my gang and he/she will be put to death unless you send
us ten lakh rupees. This will amount to extortion, and punishable as
such, but it would not be considered as robbery unless B is put in fear
of instant death of his child.

Punishment for Robbery

Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with all kinds of punishments related to
criminal law . Under Section 392 of this code, the punishment for
robbery is defined. This section says that any person who commits
robbery shall be punished with imprisonment which may be extended
up to ten years and shall also be liable for fine.

Further, this section says that if a person commits a robbery on a

highway then the term for imprisonment will be of 14 (fourteen) years.
Section 393 of the Indian Penal Code defines the punishment for an
attempt to commit robbery. The punishment for this is imprisonment
for up to 7 years and also liable for fine.

Section 394:- Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery

If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery,

voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly
concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall
be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.

134
Robbery is a special and aggravated form of either theft or extortion
and means felonious taking from the person of another or in his
presence against his will, by violence or putting him in fear, and it
becomes Dacoity when it is committed by five or more persons co-
jointly.

Dacoity (Aggravated Form of Robbery)

Aggravated form of robbery not only includes robbery but it also
includes theft and serious injuries to the victim. When five or more
than five persons commit or attempt to commit a robbery that is
known as dacoity. It is more of an aggravated form of robbery and
generally, the robber is armed with deadly weapons.

Dacoity is defined under Section 391 of the IPC and the punishment for
it is defined under Section 395 of the IPC. The only difference between
robbery and dacoity is a number of participants. Section 395 punishes
every member of the group in dacoity whether that person takes an
active part or not. The punishment under this section is imprisonment
up to 10 years with fine.

Dacoity
According to the dictionary of oxford, dacoity means an act of violent
robbery which is committed by an armed gang. There is only one factor
which differentiates dacoity from robbery and that is the number of
offenders. One person can also commit a robbery and more than 1
person can also commit robbery. But when 5 or more than 5 commit a
robbery it is termed as dacoity.

Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code defines robbery. It says that when
5 or more than 5 conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or
where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or

135
attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such
commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so
committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit “dacoity”.

Essential Ingredients
In order to commit dacoity, there are 3 essentials which must be there.
These essentials are:

1. There should be at least five or more than five persons;

2. They should conjointly commit or attempt to commit dacoity;
3. They should have dishonest intention.

Aggravated form of Dacoity

Aggravated form of dacoity is defined under Section 396 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. Under Section 396 aggravated form is defined as
dacoity with murder. It says that if anyone of five or more than five
persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so
committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with
death and shall also be liable to fine.

The ingredients of Section 396 are:

1. The offence of dacoity must be committed with the joint act of the
accused persons;
2. Murder must be committed in course of the commission of the
dacoity.

Offences Connected with Dacoity

Before committing any offence intention plays a very important role in
it. Under criminal law, the intention is known by Mens Rea. Mens rea
means guilty of Mind. For every criminal offence, there should be Mens
rea on the part of the offender. If put in other words it means that

136
there has to be intention to commit a crime. The term “Intention” has
not explicitly defined under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 But under IPC
Section 34 of it deals with common intention.

Section 34 of IPC defines acts done by several persons in furtherance of

common intention. This section says that “when a criminal act is done
by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, every
such person is liable for the act in the same manner as if it were done
by him alone.”

This section requires a particular criminal intention or knowledge and

the act should be committed by more than one person. Everyone who
joins the act with the knowledge of the consequences, all of them
should be made liable under this section.

-Preparation to Commit Dacoity

Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has talks about preparation
to commit dacoity. It says that whoever makes any preparation for
committing dacoity shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

-Assembling for the Purpose of Committing Dacoity

Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity is defined under Section
402 of the Indian Penal Code. It says that whoever, at any time after the
passing of the act, shall be one of five or more persons assembled for
the purpose of committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall
also be liable to fine.

-Belonging to Gangs of Dacoits

Belonging to gangs of dacoits is defined under Section 400 of the IPC. It
says that anybody who at any time after the passing of this act, shall
belong to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually

137
committing dacoity will be punished with imprisonment for life, or with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.

Judicial Pronouncements
1. Arjun Ganpat Sandbhor vs state of Maharashtra
In this case, a truck driver was killed and the truck was taken away by
the dacoits. This incident took place in darkness. The evidence of the
son of the deceased, who was in the truck at the time when the
accident took place was not free from doubt. He admitted at that time
that he used to have forgetting tendency. Test identification parade
was not held according to guidelines prescribed under Criminal Manual.
In the view of the totality of the evidence the accused was entitled to
acquittal.

2. Md Imamuddin & Anr. vs. State of Bihar

In this case, the plea was to reduce the punishment for dacoity. Some
of them were accused to commit dacoity in a running train. They were
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and two
years for respective offences. The accused remained in custody for a
substantial amount of time, about 50 per cent of the punishment. Their
punishment was reduced to half and which they have already passed
the time in imprisonment.

Conclusion
This article explains the concept of Robbery and Dacoity according to
the Indian Penal Code, 1860. But in order to understand Robbery and
dacoity, one needs to understand the concept of theft and extortion.
So, in this article before going to robbery and dacoity, theft and
extortion has been explained with the relevant examples and relevant
case laws. These are important to understand because these terms may
seem to be similar but they are different in its legal application. They

138
are often used interchangeably. This article gives an overview of all
these concepts keeping in view and according to the Indian Penal Code,
1860.

6. Cheating.
A. Cheating (Section 415-420 of IPC) this sections falls among the
chapter 17 sections 378 to 462 which deals with offences against
property.

Section 415:- Cheating

Section 416:- Cheating by personation

Section 417:- Punishment for cheating

Section 418:- Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue
to person whose interest offender is bound to protect

Section 419:- Punishment for cheating by personation

Section 420:- Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

Section 415: Cheating

Cheating is defined under this section. It says that,
“Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces
the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to
consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally
induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he
would not do omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or
omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in
body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.

139
Explanation: A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the
meaning of this section.

Illustration: A, sold an article to B saying that it is made up of gold

when it is not, intentionally deceives him and thus commits the offence
of cheating.

Constituents of Cheating
1. Acting Dishonestly
The term ‘acting dishonestly’ has been defined under section 24 of
Indian Penal Code.
It is defined as, “when the doing of any act or not doing of any act
causes wrongful gain of property to one person or a wrongful loss of
property to a person, the said act is done dishonestly.”

2. Property
Property has a much wider meaning. It does not only include money
but other things as well which can be measured in the terms of money.
The property should be in a complete ownership of the person and he
must have the full right to enjoy its possession.

3. Fraudulently
Being fraudulent means which involves deception mainly criminal
deception. It is characterized by fraud. According to section 25 “a
person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent
to defraud but not otherwise.”

4. Mens Rea
Mens rea is the intention or action to constitute a crime. It is a mental
state of an offender while committing a crime. It has to be proved
beyond any doubt that the accused has actively contributed in a crime
and that crime has affected another person’s property.

140
Section 416: Cheating by Personation.
A person is said to cheat by personation when,
“he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly
substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any
other person is a person other than he or such other person really is”.

Explanation -The offence is committed whether the individual

personated is a real or imaginary person.

Illustration: A, by falsely pretending to be a government official

deceives B, and induces B to sell his property to him for which he is not
going to pay. A cheats by personation.

Section 417: Punishment for Cheating

Cheating is punishable under this section with imprisonment up to 1
year or fine or both. Imprisonment depends upon the quantum of the
act done. If the act is not that grave, imprisonment won’t be imposed
and will charge with fine only. But when the act done is so grave that
merely fine and imprisonment won’t compensate, then the person will
be charged with a mandatory imprisonment of 7 years along with fine.

Section 418: Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue
to person whose interest offender is bound to protect.
“Whoever cheats with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause
wrongful loss to a person whose interest in the transaction to which the
cheating relates, he was found, either by law, or by a legal contract, to
protect, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both”.

Explanation: Causing loss to the aggrieved party whose interest is to be

protected by the offender, omits to do so with wrongful intention.

141
Section 419: Punishment for cheating by personation.
“Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or
with fine, or with both.”

Section 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

This section deals with offences which are committed by a person by
cheating another person and inducing him to deliver his property to the
offender.

According to this section “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”.

Constituents of Section 420

The ingredients as to constitute an offence under this section are:
1. Cheating,
2. Dishonest intention to take the property of another person or induce
him to deliver the property to alter, destroy or make any changes in the
valuable security, or
3. Deceitful or malice intention.

Modes of cheating
There are various ways through which the offence of cheating can be
committed. They are:

142
1. Caste Misrepresentation:
when a person represents himself as a member of a caste to which he
do not belong is committing an offence of cheating.

2. Showing false accounts:

when a person shows false accounts of himself or of some other person
to clear a debt, then is said to commit the offence of cheating.

3. Creating false evidence:

when a person gives false evidence regarding some event then he can
be held liable for the offence of cheating.

4. False professional qualification:

when a person shows false professional qualification to acquire a post
or job then he is said to commit the offence of cheating.

When does breach of contract amount to cheating?

Cheating Breach of contract
1. It is mentioned u/s 415 to 420 of 1. It is mentioned u/s 73 of Indian
Indian Penal Code, 1860. Contract Act, 1872.
2. It is dealt under criminal law. 2. It is dealt under civil law.
3. It is a dishonest act done in 3. It is a cause of action which
order to gain advantage over the occurs when the binding
other. agreement is not performed.
4. In it intention to deceive exists 4. In it the malice intention does
at the time when inducement is not exist from the beginning of the
made. In the beginning, only the contract. The breach is done due
person must have fraudulent to some reasons at the time when
intention regarding the promise to it is about to get binding
constitute it as an offence of
cheating.

143
Case Law: S.W. Palanitkar V. State of Bihar- 2001(10) TMI 1150-
Supreme Court
Under this case Supreme court held that to convict a person for the
offence of cheating there should be pre-existing dishonest or
fraudulent intention of the person from the beginning but in case of
Breach of Contract the dishonest intention is not present in the
beginning of the agreement.

Fraud/ Cheating
Cheating Fraud
1. It is mentioned u/s 415 to 420 of 1. Implications of fraud are
Indian Penal Code, 1860. mentioned in section 421, 422,
423, 424 of Indian Penal Code,
1860.
2. It is a dishonest act done in 2. It is a deliberate deception to
order to gain advantage over the secure unfair advantage over of
other. the other. It is done to gain by
another’s loss.
3. In order to maintain suit for 3. In order to maintain the suit for
cheating there are two situations fraud intention to deceive is
which are necessary subscribed in sufficient.
section 415 i.e. deception and
inducement.
4. Cheating is not limited only to 4. Fraud basically relates more to
contracts. contracts.

Dishonour of Cheque/ Cheating

Dishonour of Cheque is maintained u/s 138 of Negotiable Instrument
Act while the offence of Cheating is mentioned u/s 420 of Indian Penal
Code. But in some cases Dishonor of Cheque can be taken as an offence
of cheating.

144
For example, if the person who has issued the cheque has already
closed his bank account but still issues a cheque to some other person
in exchange of payment of goods he has purchased from that person, in
this case the person issuing the cheque is dishonest as he is aware of
the fact that the cheque will get bounce. The person has deceived the
other by doing so as he knew from the start about the consequences of
the same. So, this may be an example where offence u/s 420 can be
made out for dishonor of cheque.

The offences under Section 138 N.I. Act and Section 420 IPC are two
different offences altogether. Whether this offence or that offence is
made out would depend on the facts of each case. You’ll have to check
the ingredients of which particular offence are satisfied from the facts
of your case.

Legal Remedies for the offence of Cheating

1. Jurisdiction
Under section 2 of IPC it is stated that “Every person shall be liable to
punishment under this Code and not otherwise for every act or
omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which he shall be guilty
within India.”

A national of Pakistan, falsely represented himself as the businessman

of Bombay. He assured the complainant that he is having good quality
of products and he would be glad to sell them to the complainant if he
transfers the money to him. The complainant transferred the money
but did not receive anything in return.
It was held that as the offence was committed in Bombay even though
the accused is a national of Pakistan and was not physically present in
India, the courts of Bombay has jurisdiction by virtue of Section 2 of
IPC.

145
2. Cognizance of the offence
Offence of cheating is cognizable and non bailable. The trial is done by
magistrate of first class. FIR or Application can be filed u/s 156(3) and In
case of private complaint u/s 200.

3. Punishment

Minor cases
When the offence of cheating is not that severe or is a simple case of
cheating then the offender is punished with imprisonment for a term of
1 year or fine or both.
Example: ‘A’ promised ‘B’ to sell his property but instead of that sold it
to ‘C’. This case can be considered under it.

Severe cases
It covers the cases where cheating is done by guardian, trustee,
solicitor, agents, manager of Hindu family etc. In such cases
punishment is imprisonment for 3 years or fine or both.

4. Cheating by personation
In the cases where the offence of cheating has been committed along
with personation then the person if guilty u/s 416 and punished u/s
419 for imprisonment up to 3 years or fine or both.

Conclusion
Cheating is an offence under which a person induces the other to
deliver the property or commission or omission of an act done on the
part of the offender with the intention of deceiving the person. Mainly
two elements are necessary to constitute the offence of cheating i.e.
deception and inducement. Cheating is confused with various other
civil and criminal offences but it differs from each of them in some or
the other way.

146
7. Mischief.
A. (Sec. 425 to 440) deals with above topic.

Section 425:- Mischief

Section 426:- Punishment for mischief

Section 427:- Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees

Section 428:- Mischief by killing or maiming animal of the value of ten

rupees

Section 429:- Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value

or any animal of the value of fifty rupees

Section 430:- Mischief by injury to works of irrigation or by wrongfully

diverting water

Section 431:- Mischief by injury to public road, bridge, river or channel

Section 432:- Mischief by causing inundation or obstruction to public

drainage attended with damage

Section 433:- Mischief by destroying, moving or rendering less useful a

light-house or sea-mark

Section 434:- Mischief by destroying or moving, etc., a land-mark fixed

by public authority

Section 435:- Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to

cause damage to amount of one hundred or (in case of agricultural
produce) ten rupees

147
Section 436:- Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent
destroy house, etc.

Section 437:- Mischief with intent to destroy or make unsafe a decked

vessel or one of twenty tons burden

Section 438:- Punishment for the mischief described in section 437

committed by fire or explosive substance

Section 439:- Punishment for intentionally running vessel aground or

ashore with intent to commit theft, etc.

Section 440:- Mischief committed after preparation made for causing

death or hurt

What is Mischief
The definition of mischief is mentioned under Section 425 of IPC & the
punishment is prescribed under Section 426 of IPC. Further Section 427
to 440 lays down the specific punishment prescribed for aggravated
forms of mischief depending upon the nature & the value of the
property damage.

As per the Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (hereinafter

referred to as IPC) that whenever anyone performs an act either having
an intention to cause or is aware that his act is likely to bring, some
destruction or damage to any property, destroying or diminishing its
value and utility, hence, resulting in an undue loss or damage to the
public or any person is said to commit mischief.

In simpler terms, it can be understood as when an individual intends to

perform an act or has the knowledge that his/her act will create
hindrance in allowing another person to enjoy the benefit of their

148
property by one means or other, it is called a mischief. However, this
act can be even against the public or against a specific person as well.

Objective
The Law of Mischief under IPC is specifically drafted with an objective
to provide protection against the destruction of the property causing
any wrongful loss or damage to the public or an individual. It is an
extension to the legal maxim sic utretuoleadas which means “use your
own property, but not in a way that can injure your neighbour’s or
other’s property.”

Illustrations
1. “A” intentionally sets X’s home on fire causing him wrongful loss or
injury.

2. “A” a doctor deliberately prescribed wrong medicine to “B’s” cattle

with an intent to cause wrongful loss or injury.

3. “C” diverts the flow of canal in such a way to prevent “B” from
irrigating his field causing him loss by damage of crops.

4. “B” tears off some important business-related documents of A to

cause him financial loss.

5. “A” deliberately burns off the standing crop that was jointly
cultivated by “A” and “B”.

6. “B” intentionally damages a “signboard“ installed by the order of

municipality causing wrongful losses & injury.

149
Scope of Mischief
Mischief under Section 425 of IPC covers all those acts that cause any
damage or destruction to the property resulting in any wrongful loss or
damage. The scope of this section is wide and it applies in the case of
both public as well as private damages.

However, the most important point is that it will not have any
application in the cases where the element of intention is absent which
is further elaborated in this article under the heading of Ingredients of
mischief. It is also not essential that the person accused had some valid
motive behind or must have been benefited from the act of “mischief”.

But some other significant questions of consideration are whether this

act can be applied in the cases when the accused has damaged his/her
own property? Or will it cover situations when the damage caused to
the property is a consequence of an illegal act or default in payment?

When accused is the owner of the damaged property

In the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Ors., the
Court held that ownership or possession of the property is not a
deciding factor in the matter of the application of section 425 of IPC.
Thus, mischief is said to be committed even in cases when the accused
is the owner of the property provided all the other essential ingredients
mentioned are satisfied.

This is further evident from the illustrations (d) and (e) to Section 425.
According to the facts of the above case, the petitioner alleged that the
respondent removed the engines of the aircraft diminishing their value
and utility. Since the appellants had the right to possess the aircraft it
resulted in wrongful loss or injury Hence the Supreme held that the
allegations amounted to the offence of mischief as all the essential
ingredients of mischief had been satisfied.

150
Default of Payment or Illegal Act
In case of disconnection of water supply, sewerage supply, electricity
supply, telephone connection, etc., by the concerned departments
resulting from the default in payment or an illegal act after following a
due process will not come under the ambit of “Mischief”.

Ingredients of Mischief
Essentially there are three key elements to establish Mischief as per the
definition laid down in section 425 of IPC which are as follows:

1. Intention or the knowledge of the act (mens rea);

2. The act resulting in destruction, damage or change in the property or
3. situation thereof; and (actus rea)
The change must lead to diminishing the value or utility.

Intention or the knowledge of the act may result in wrongful loss or

damage (mens rea)
One of the most essential elements of all offences under IPC is that any
crime is composed of two parts- Mens Rea & Actus rea. Similarly,
“Mens rea” is required to be present in order to establish the offence of
Mischief.

The definition of the law of mischief makes it very clear that the only
way to prove the act of mischief does not essentially mean that it has to
be proved that the accused essentially had any deliberate intention to
cause unjustified damage to the property. But rather what can also
serve as sufficient proof is the fact that the individual had the
knowledge that such action of his/her can result in damage or
degradation of the property, causing wrongful loss or damage.

This can also be understood with a real-life example that if some

children while playing street cricket break-up a glass window, it will not

151
amount to mischief but will rather constitute negligence. But if those
children deliberately throw the ball to aim at the window resulting in
breaking up the glass and causing loss to the owner, then it will amount
to mischief.

Similar was the judgement pronounced in the case of Nagendranath

Roy v. Dr. Bijoy Kumar Dasburma where the court observed that mere
negligence does not constitute mischief. However in certain situations
when facts indicate that intention to cause wrongful loss was present
along with the negligence causing damage will amount to mischief.

In the case of Krishna Gopal Singh And Ors. v. the State Of U.P., it was
stipulated that if the accused has committed an act without any intent
or knowledge that the act in question is likely to cause wrongful loss or
damage to any person or the public at large, it will not fall under the
ambit of mischief as the element of “Mens rea” is absent. Similarly, if
an act is committed without free consent i.e.under some pressure or
duress it will also not amount to mischief.

In Arjun Singh v. The State (AIR 1958 Raj 347) it has been observed by
this Court:”In order to establish the offence of mischief, it is essential
for the prosecution to establish that the accused must have an
intention or knowledge of likelihood to cause wrongful loss or damage
to the public or any person.”

Wrongful loss or damage (actus rea) by diminishing the value and utility
The second important requirement is that the act must have resulted in
some wrongful loss or damage to the owner of the property depriving
him of enjoying the same. The act must have caused some damage,
injury or destruction to the property to the effect of diminishing its
value or utility. This will constitute the “actus reus” of the offence.

152
Similarly, even a change in the property can also amount to property.
For example, altering someone’s research notes. It is also very
important that the damage must be the direct consequence of the
alleged act and must not be based on some hypothetical or imaginary
relation.

In Arjuna vs. State (AIR 1969 Ori 200) case, the court found the accused
guilty for damaging the standing crops grown by the complainant on
the land belonging to the Government as it caused wrongful loss to the
government by diminishing its value.

In the case of Gopi Naik vs. Somnath (1977 CrLJ 1665 Goa), the
respondent alleged that the accused had cut their water pipe
connection causing them wrongful loss & damage. Upon investigation,
the Court found the accused guilty of the offence of Mischief as this act
has resulted in diminishing the value of the property, i.e., water supply.

Punishment for Mischief

The punishment for Mischief is prescribed under Section 426 which
states that it attracts imprisonment of a term which may extend up to
three months, or with fine, or with both, as the court may deem fit.

Nature of offence: The offence under this Section is non-cognizable,

bailable, compoundable, and triable by any Magistrate.

Aggravated forms of Mischief

Though the punishment for the offence of mischief has been laid down
as imprisonment until 3 months, or fine, or both in Section 426 of the
Indian Penal Code. However, the IPC recognizes and lists down certain
aggravated forms of mischief which have been described under
Sections 427 to Section 440, IPC. It prescribes a different level of
punishment for each category which is described as under:

153
NOTE: SECTIONS FROM LATEST LAWS APP OR DEVGAN.IN WEBSITE

8. Criminal trespass.
A. (S. 441 TO 462) deals with above topic.

Section 440:- Mischief committed after preparation made for causing

death or hurt

Section 441:- Criminal trespass

Section 442:- House-trespass

Section 443:- Lurking house-trespass

Section 444:- Lurking house-trespass by night

Section 445:- House-breaking

Section 446:- House-breaking by night

Section 447:- Punishment for criminal trespass

Section 448:- Punishment for house-trespass

Section 449:- House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable

with death

Section 450:- House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable

with imprisonment for life

Section 451:- House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable

with imprisonment

154
Section 452:- House-trespass alter preparation for hurt, assault or
wrongful restraint

Section 453:- Punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-

breaking

Section 454:- Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking in order to

commit offence punishable with imprisonment

Section 455:- Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking after

preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint

Section 456:- Punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-

breaking by night

Section 457:- Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in

order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment

Section 458:- Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night after

preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint

Section 459:- Grievous hurt caused whilst committing lurking house-

trespass or house-breaking

Section 460:- All persons jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass

or house-breaking by night punishable where death or grievous hurt
caused by one of them

Section 461:- Dishonestly breaking open receptacle containing

property

Section 462:- Punishment for same offence when committed by

person entrusted with custody

155
Introduction
Every individual has a right to the full enjoyment of their property
without any disturbance, this is the reason trespass was made an
offence. Even though trespass is ordinarily a civil wrong for which the
defendant can sue for damages, but when such trespass occurs with a
criminal intention it amounts to criminal trespass. If your enjoyment of
your property, whether movable or immovable is disturbed due to
criminal activities of any kind, be it theft or assault, you can seek
remedy under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). For instance, X unlawfully
and without Y’s permission enters into Y’s house to steal his
grandfather’s antique watch, X would be liable for theft as well as
criminal trespass. Further, the offence of criminal trespass may be
aggravated depending upon the facts of certain cases. Consider the
same example, with an additional fact that X entered Y’s property at
night or in order to enter the assaulted Y, then X would have a greater
liability. As the subject of criminal liability is so vast, the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) has discussed criminal trespass in 22 sections, commencing
from Section 441, IPC till Section 462, IPC.

Meaning of Criminal Trespass

According to Section 441 of The Indian Penal Code, whoever enters into
property in the possession of another with the intent to commit an
offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of
such property, or having lawfully entered into such property, but
remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or any such
person, or with an intent to commit an offence, is said to commit
‘criminal trespass’. Thus it can be deduced that criminal trespass occurs
when a person unlawfully without any right or an express or implied
license enters into the private property of another person or remains
into such property with a criminal intention. The object of making
criminal trespass an offence is to ensure that people can enjoy their
private property without any kind of interruption from outsiders.
Punishment for criminal trespass, as prescribed in Section 447 of IPC is

156
either imprisonment which may extend to three months, or fine which
may extend to INR 500 or both.

Ingredients of Criminal Trespass

Criminal trespass has two limbs, firstly, entering into the property of
another with criminal intent and secondly, entering lawfully but
remaining in the property with a criminal intent to harm or cause
annoyance. Thus the essential ingredients for committing Criminal
trespass are:

1. ‘Whoever enters’
To commit the offence of criminal trespass, there must be an actual
entry into the property of another by the accused person. No trespass
can occur if there is no physical instrument by the accused into the
private property of the victim. In the State of Calcutta vs Abdul Sukar,
the court held that constructive entry by a servant does not amount to
entry, under this Section as even though there was no possession in
law, there was possession in fact. For instance, X throws garbage
outside Y’s house on a daily basis, in this case, X may be liable for
nuisance but he has not committed criminal trespass as there is no
entry by X into Y’s property.

2. Property
The term property under this Section includes both movable and
immovable property. Wrongful entry into one’s car or other movable
property would have similar liability as wrongful entry into one’s house.
In Dhannonjoy v Provat Chandra Biswas, the accused drove away from
the boat of the possessor after attacking him. The court held that this
would amount to criminal trespass even though it was a movable
property. But the term property does not include incorporeal property
or something which cannot be touched, such as patent rights.

157
3. Possession of another
The possession of the property should be in the possession of the
victim and not the trespasser. Having the ownership of the property is
not necessary, mere possession is sufficient to claim criminal trespass
against the trespasser. However, it is not necessary for the person
having possession or the owner of the property to be present at the
time when the trespassing occurred, no presence of owner or
possessor would also amount to trespassing as long as the premises are
entered into by the trespasser to annoy. For instance, writing love
letters and delivering them to a girl’s house against her will would also
amount to criminal trespass, even if at the time of delivering such
letters, the girl was not at home.

4. Intention
If it is proved that the intention of the accused parties was not to insult,
harm or annoy the owners or possessors of the property, then it would
not amount to criminal trespass. The Intention is the essence of this
crime, and if there is no dominant motive to commit the crime, no
criminal trespass. The test for determining whether the entry was done
with an intent to cause annoyance or any kind of harm is to determine
the aim of a trespasser at the time of such entry.

In Punjab National Bank Ltd v All India Punjab National Bank Employees’
Federation, the court held that as the employees who were on strike
entered the bank with the intention to only put pressure on the
management to concede their demands, and there was no intent to
insult, harm or annoy any of the superior officers, their entrance into
the bank cannot amount to criminal trespass. However, if in the given
circumstances, the strikers would have stormed into the private
cubicles or offices of the superior staff with the aim of causing
annoyance to such members, then it would amount to criminal
trespass.

158
Further, it is to be proved that the intention of the accused was not
probable but an actual one, this principle was laid down in Ramjan
Misrty v Emperor. It is not sufficient to show that the person entering
into the property of another had the knowledge that his entrance
would cause annoyance, it is to be proved that there was an intention
to commit an offence, or intimidate, insult or annoy any such person
for an offence of criminal trespass to take place.

Aggravated forms of criminal trespass

The offence of criminal trespass may be committed at different
occasions having different magnitudes and penalties. Depending upon
the time of the trespass, its purpose and nature of the property
trespassed, the offence may be aggravated and specific punishments
are prescribed for those specific cases. Further, a crime may be
aggravated by the way it is committed and the end for which it is
committed.

Trespassing into the property where a man resides and stores his
belonging is an aggravated form of criminal trespassing as the greatest
safeguard is required against the habitation of people. Trespassing
against such property is known as house trespass and is governed by
Section 442 of IPC.

House trespass may be further aggravated if it is done in a way to avoid

attention, known as lurking house-trespass and is governed by Section
443 of IPC. House trespass is also aggravated when it is done violently,
knowns as house-breaking and governed by Section 445 of IPC.

House trespass of any form may be aggravated based on the time when
it is committed, an offence taking place at night is more serious than an
offence that took place during the day time. Housebreaking by night is
governed by Section 446 of IPC.

159
1. House-trespass
Section 442 of IPC, defines house-trespass as committing criminal
trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel
used as a human dwelling, place of worship or as a place for the
custody of the property. A place of human dwelling does not always
have to be a permanent resident of the defendant, temporary residents
like school or railway platforms also count as a human dwelling.
However for a building to be a human dwelling it must have some walls
or some kind of security and a mere fence cannot amount to a human
dwelling. This offence is an aggravated form of criminal trespass, thus
every house-trespass is criminal trespassing but not vice versa. As
house-trespass is against the possession of a property, it cannot take
place if the defendant is not in actual possession of the property.

As per Section 448 of IPC, the defendant guilty of house-trespass may

be imprisoned for a term not exceeding 1 year, fined for INR 1,000 or
less or both.

2. Lurking house-trespass
Section 443 of IPC, deals with a further aggravation of house-trespass,
known as lurking house-trespass. The section defines this offence as
committing house trespass and taking precautions to conceal the
offence of house-trespassing from any person who has a right to
exclude or eject the trespasser from the building which is the subject of
the trespass. In Prem Bahadur Rai v State, the court held that unless
active steps are taken by the accused to conceal his presence, no
charge under Section 443 can be made. Thus the ingredients of lurking
house-trespass would include:

1. Trespass;
2. House-trespass;
3. Concealing the house-trespass from someone who has the right to
exclude to the trespasser.

160
Therefore hiding in a porch behind a tree would fall within this section
and the trespasser, under Section 453 of IPC, would be liable to
imprisonment for a maximum of 2 years and fine as may be prescribed
by the court.

3. Lurking house-trespass by night

Section 444 of IPC, talks about an aggravated form of lurking house-
trespass, i.e trespass committed at night. Any lurking house-trespass
committed after sunset and before sunrise fall within the ambit of this
section. This offence is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding
three years and fine, according to Section 456 of IPC.

4. House-breaking
Housebreaking is also an aggravated form of house-trespass and
implies forceful entry into one’s house. Section 445 of IPC lays down 6
ways in which housebreaking can occur, namely:

1. Through passage made by the house breaker himself;

2. Through any passage not used by any person other than the intruder;
3. Through any passage opened for committing an offence of
housebreaking which was not intended by the house occupier to be
open;
4. By opening any lock;
5. By using criminal force at either entrance or departure;
6. By entering or quitting any passage fastened against such entrance
or exit. The word ‘fasteners’ implies something more than being closed,
merely pushing of door shutters would not amount to house-breaking.

The first three ways are the one in which entry is effected by using
passage which is not the ordinary means of entry or exit and the last
three ways are the ones in which entry is effected by use of force. The
entry of any part of the human body is sufficient to constitute

161
housebreaking under Section 445 of IPC if the following ingredients are
present:

1. Trespass;
2. House-trespass;
3. The entrance by the trespasser must be done in any of the 6 ways
prescribed above.

In Pullabhotla Chinniah case, the court held that the breaking open of a
cattle-shed in which agricultural implements are kept would also
amount to house-breaking. Further, making a hole in the wall to enter a
house, using a window to enter a house, assaulting the guard or
doorkeeper to enter a house, all amount to housebreaking and the
accused will be liable for imprisonment not exceeding 2 years and fine
under Section 453 of IPC.

5. Housebreaking by night
When housebreaking is committed after sunset and before sunrise, it is
considered an aggravated form of house-breaking and is governed by
Section 446 of IPC. This offence is punishable with imprisonment not
exceeding three years and fine, according to Section 456 of IPC.

6. Dishonestly breaking open receptacle containing property

Meaning and punishment for dishonestly breaking open receptacle
containing property are defined under Section 461 of IPC. The said
section punishes whoever dishonestly or with the intent of committing
mischief, breaks or open any receptacle or container used as storing
place. The offence is cognizable, non-bailable and triable by any
magistrate and the punishment for the same may extend up to 2 years,
fine, or both. The ingredients of this offence would be:

162
1. There was a closed container or receptacle;
2. It contained property or the accused believed it contained property;
3. The accused intentionally broke opened the receptacle;
4. The accused did so dishonestly;
5. The accused did so with the intent to cause mischief.

The term ‘receptacle’ signifies all kinds of vessels and not only includes
a safe box, chest or closed package but also includes a room or a part of
a room such as a warehouse, or godown. The only condition is that
such a vessel must be closed by means of chain or bolt or fastened in
any manner. The offence is said to be completed as soon as the
receptacle is broken or unfastened with dishonest attention to steal or
cause any other kind of mischief.

Conclusion
If a stranger or for that matter even a known person enters any
property in your possession with an intent to cause harm or injury, then
such a person would be liable for committing an offence of criminal
trespass under IPC and remedy can be sought by any court of law.
While determining the offence of criminal trespass it is necessary to
have an intention to commit wrong and mere knowledge would not
amount to criminal trespass. Further, the punishment prescribed for
the offence of criminal trespass would depend upon the aggravation
that occurred while the crime was committed. House-trespass is a more
serious offence than mere criminal trespass, lurking house-trespass and
house-breaking are aggravated forms of house-trespass and lastly
lurking house-trespass by night and housebreaking by night would
attract the highest kind of punishment.

163
9. Criminal misappropriation and criminal breach of trust.
A. Sec. 403 and 404 deals with criminal misappropriation topic.
Sec. 405 to 409 deals with criminal breach of trust topic.

Section 403:- Dishonest misappropriation of property

Section 404:- Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by
deceased person at the time of his death
Section 405:- Criminal breach of trust
Section 406:- Punishment for criminal breach of trust
Section 407:- Criminal breach of trust by carrier, etc.
Section 408:- Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant
Section 409:- Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker,
merchant or agent

What is Misappropriation?
Section 403 & Section 404 of the Indian penal code, 1860 deals with
Criminal Misappropriation of Property. Section 403 of the Indian penal
code deals with criminal misappropriation and prescribes the
penalization for the offence. Also, Section 404 of the Indian penal code
deals with dishonest misappropriation of a deceased person’s property.

1. Dishonest Misappropriation of Property

Section – 403 of the Indian penal code reads that, whoever dishonestly
misappropriates any movable property to his own usage, shall be
punished with imprisonment up to 2 years or with fine or both.

Illustrations
Ajay takes property belonging to Zeeshan out of Zeeshan’s possession,
in good faith, believing, at any time when he takes it, that the property
belongs to himself. Ajay is not guilty of thef. But if Ajay, after
discovering his mistake, dishonestly appropriates the property to his
own use, he is guilty of an offence under this section.

164
Ajay, being on friendly terms with Zeeshan, goes into Zeeshan’s library
in Zeeshan’s absence, and takes away a book without Zeeshan’s
express consent. Here, if Ajay was underneath the impression that he
had Zeeshan’s implicit consent to take hold of the book for the aim of
reading it, Ajay has not committed theft. But, if Ajay subsequently sells
the book for his own profit, he is guilty of an offence under this section.

Ingredients
To establish the offence of misappropriation following ingredients have
to be satisfied:

(i) the defendant embezzled property and converted the property to his
own use.
(ii) he does so dishonestly.
(iii) the property is movable; and
(iv) the movable property belonged to the complainant

The offence underneath Section 403 of the Code is non-cognizable,

bailable, compoundable with the permission of the court and triable by
any magistrate.

Finder of goods
If the intention wasn’t dishonest at the time possession was taken a
subsequent alter of intention doesn’t make the possession unlawful.
Explanation to the section emphasizes that in case of the finder of
goods if he has taken all precautions to ascertain the true owner and
kept the goods for a reasonable time for restoring it to actuality owner,
he may use the property for himself if actuality owner isn’t found. But if
forthwith misappropriate the property he would be liable underneath
the section.

165
Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by a person who
passed away:
Section 404 of the Indian penal code says that, whoever dishonestly
misappropriates or converts to his own use property, knowing that
such property was in the possession of a deceased person at the time
of that person’s decease, and has not since been in the possession of
any person legally entitled to such possession, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which can reach 3 years,
and shall also be liable to fine, and if the offender at the time of such
person’s decease was utilised by him as a clerk or servant, the
imprisonment may extend to 7 years.

Ingredients
To invoke Section 404 of the Indian penal code following ingredients
should be met.

(i) The property must be a movable property

(ii) Such property was in possession of the deceased at the time of his
death
(iii) The defendant misappropriated it or converted it to his own use
(iv) The accused did so dishonestly.

Offence underneath this Section is non-cognizable, bailable, non-

compoundable, and triable by a magistrate of the first class.

Criminal Misappropriation of Property

When an individual converts any movable property to his own use, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

2. Criminal Breach of Trust

According to Section 405, this offence requires a person to entrust a
property or dominion over it onto another. This is basically a form of

166
trust which the victim accords on the offender with respect to his
property.

Secondly, the offender must misappropriate or convert that property to

his own use. He may even dishonestly use or dispose of that property
by violating a law regulating that position of trust. This may even lead
to the violation of any express or implied contract between the
offender and the victim.

For example, A may lend his car to his friend B to use it for
transportation. B, instead, uses it for transporting illegal goods like
ivory. Here, B is guilty of criminally breaching A’s trust.

Ingredients of the Offence

Section 405 involves the following ingredients:

(1) Entrusting a person with a property or dominion over that property;

and

(2) The person entrusted

(a) dishonestly misappropriates the property or converts it to his own

use; or

(b) dishonestly uses or disposes of the property or willfully suffers

another person to do so by violating –

(i) any law regulating the discharging of that trust; or

(ii) any legal contract regulating the discharging of that trust.

167
Punishment for Criminal Breach of Trust
According to Section 406, the punishment for this offence is
imprisonment up to 3 years or fine or both. In order to prosecute the
offender, the complainant has the burden to prove his guilt.

In certain special transactions like transportation of goods, some

persons may be in positions of trusts. For example, they may work as
carriers, wharfingers or warehouse-keepers. The punishment for
breaching trust under such cases includes imprisonment up to 7 years
with fine.

Similarly, persons like office clerks and employees also enjoy a position
of trust inherently under their duties. If they criminally breach that
trust, their punishment also includes imprisonment up to 7 years with
fine.

Even public servants, bankers, merchants, brokers, attorneys or agents

enjoy positions of trust with respect to properties. For example, a
person may entrust his property with his advocate under a power of
attorney agreement. Breach of trust by such persons is punishable with
higher imprisonment up to 10 years with fine.

Basis of Difference Criminal Criminal Breach of

Misappropriation Trust

Provision under Offence of criminal Offence of Criminal

IPC,1860 misappropriation is Breach of Trust is
defined under section defined under section
403 of Indian Penal 405 of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 Code,1860
RELATIONSHIP In misappropriation, But in Criminal Breach
there is no contractual of Trust, there is a

168
 relationship contractual
relationship of the
offender regarding the
property.
POSSESSION In misappropriation, In criminal breach of
the property is trust, the property is
obtained by some obtained due to the
casualty or otherwise. truest vested by the
owner on the
offender.
Misappropriation The property is In criminal breach of
misappropriated by trust, the property is
the offender for his misappropriated for
own use. his own personal use.
A breach of trust
includes criminal
misappropriation, but
the converse is not
always true.
Nature of Property In, Criminal Whereas, in criminal
misappropriation the breach of trust, the
property is always nature of property can
movable in nature. either be movable or
immovable
Punishment Offence of Criminal Offence of Criminal
Misappropriation is Breach of Trust is
punishable with punishable with
imprisonment of imprisonment of
either description for either description for
a term which may a term which may
extent to 2 years or extent to 2 years or
with fine, or with both with fine, or with both
(Sec.403,IPC). (Sec.406,IPC).

169
UNIT 5 – OFFENCES BY OR RELATING TO PUBLIC
SERVANTS.

1. Offences by or relating to public servants.

A. Chapter IX – Of Offences by or Relating to Public Servants (sec. 161
to 171)

161 To 165A – (REPEALED)

Section 166:- Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause

injury to any person
Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of
the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public
servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by
such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with
simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with
fine, or with both.

IIIustration

A, being an officer directed by law to take property in execution, in

order to satisfy a decree pronounced in Z’ favour by a Court of Justice,
knowingly disobeys that direction of law, with the knowledge that he is
likely thereby to cause injury to Z. A has committed the offence defined
in this section.

Section 166A:- Public Servant disobeying direction under Law

Whoever, being a public servant—

170
1. Knowingly disobeys any direction of the law which prohibits him
from requiring the attendance at any place of any person for the
purpose of investigation into an offence or any other, or

2. Knowingly disobeys, to the prejudice of any person, any other

direction of the law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct
such investigation, or

3. Fails to record any information given to him under sub-section (1) of

section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in relation to
cognizable offence punishable under section 326A, section 326B,
section 354, section 354B, section 370, section 370A, section 376,
section 376A, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376E or
section 509,

shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall

not be less than six months but which may extend to two years, and
shall also be liable to fine.

Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013

Section 166B:- Punishment for non treatment of victim

Whoever, being in charge of a hospital, public or private, whether run
by the Central Government, the State Government, local bodies or any
other person, contravenes the provisions of section 357C of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.

Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013

Section 167:- Public servant framing an incorrect document with

intent to cause injury

171
Whoever, being a public servant, and being, as such public servant,
charged with the preparation or translation of any document or
electronic record, frames or translates that document or electronic
record in a manner which he knows or believes to be incorrect,
intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he may
thereby cause injury to any person, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 168:- Public servant unlawfully engaging in trade

Whoever, being a public servant, and being legally bound as such public
servant not to engages in trade, engages in trade, shall be punished
with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or
with fine, or with both.

Section 169:- Public servant unlawfully buying or bidding for property

Whoever, being a public servant, and being legally bound as such public
servant, not to purchase or bid for certain property, purchases or bids
for that property, either in his own name or in the name of another, or
jointly, or in shares with others, shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine,
or with both; and the property, if purchased, shall be confiscated.

Section 170:- Personating a public servant

Whoever pretends to hold any particular office as public servant,
knowing that he does not hold such office or falsely personates any
other person holding such office, and in such assumed character does
or attempts to do any act under colour of such office, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 171:- Wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant

with fraudulent intent

172
Whoever, not belonging to a certain class of public servants, wears any
garb or carries any token resembling any garb or token used by that
class of public servants, with the intention that it may be believed, or
with the knowledge that it is likely to be believed, that he belongs to
that class of public servants, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description, for a term which may extend to three months, or
with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both.

2. False Evidence and Offences against Public Justice.

A. Chapter XI – Of False Evidence and Offences Against Public Justice
(sec. 191 to 229A)

Section 191:- Giving false evidence

Section 192:- Fabricating false evidence

Section 193:- Punishment for false evidence

Section 194:- Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to

procure conviction of capital offence

Section 195:- Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to

procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life
or imprisonment

Section 196:- Using evidence known to be false

Section 197:- Issuing or signing false certificate

Section 198:- Using as true a certificate known to be false

173
Section 199:- False statement made in declaration which is by law
receivable as evidence

Section 200:- Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false

Section 201:- Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving

false information to screen offender

Section 202:- Intentional omission to give information of offence by

person bound to inform

Section 203:- Giving false information respecting an offence

committed

Section 204:- Destruction of document to prevent its production as

evidence

Section 205:- False personation for purpose of act or proceeding in

suit or prosecution

Section 206:- Fraudulent removal or concealment of property to

prevent its seizure as forfeited or in execution

Section 207:- Fraudulent claim to property to prevent its seizure as

forfeited or in execution

Section 208:- Fraudulently suffering decree for sum not due

Section 209:- Dishonesty making false claim in Court

Section 210:- Fraudulently obtaining decree for sum not due

Section 211:- False charge of offence made with intent to injure

174
Section 212:- Harbouring offender

Section 213:- Taking gift, etc., to screen an offender from punishment

Section 214:- Offering gift or restoration of property in consideration

of screening offender

Section 215:- Taking gift to help to recover stolen property, etc

Section 216:- Harbouring offender who has escaped from custody or

whose apprehension has been ordered

Section 216A:- Penalty for harbouring robbers or dacoits

Section 216B:- (Repealed) Definition of “harbour” in sections 212, 216

and 216A

Section 217:- Public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to

save person from punishment or property from forfeiture

Section 218:- Public servant framing incorrect record or writing with

intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture

Section 219:- Public servant in judicial proceeding corruptly making

report, etc., contrary to law

Section 220:- Commitment for trial or confinement by person having

authority who knows that he is acting contrary to law

Section 221:- Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public

servant bound to apprehend

175
Section 222:- Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public
servant bound to apprehend person under sentence or lawfully
committed

Section 223:- Escape from confinement or custody negligently

suffered by public servant

Section 224:- Resistance or obstruction by a person to his lawful

apprehension

Section 225:- Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of

another person

Section 225A:- Omission to apprehend, or sufferance of escape, on

part of public servant, in cases not otherwise, provided for

Section 225B:- Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension, or

escape or rescue in cases not otherwise provided for

Section 226:- (Repealed) Unlawful return from transportation.

Section 227:- Violation of condition of remission of punishment

Section 228:- Intentional insult or interruption to public servant sitting

in judicial proceeding

Section 228A:- Disclosure of identity of the victim of certain offences,

etc.

Section 229:- Personation of a juror or assessor

176
NOTE: REFER LATEST LAWS APP OR DEVGAN.IN WEBSITE FOR
COMPLETE SECTION INFO.

3. Offences relating to documents.

A. Chapter 18 of IPC from sec. 463 to 477A deals with offences relating
to Documents.
Section 463:- Forgery

Section 464:- Making a false document

Section 465:- Punishment for forgery

Section 466:- Forgery of record of Court or of public register, etc.

Section 467:- Forgery of valuable security, will, etc.

Section 468:- Forgery for purpose of cheating

Section 469:- Forgery for purpose of harming reputation

Section 470:- Forged document

Section 471:- Using as genuine a forged document

Section 472:- Making or possessing counterfeit seal, etc., with intent

to commit forgery punishable under section 467

Section 473:- Making or possessing counterfeit seal, etc., with intent

to commit forgery punishable otherwise

Section 474:- Having possession of document described in section 466

or 467, knowing it to be forged and intending to use it genuine

177
Section 475:- Counterfeiting device or mark used for authenticating
documents described in section 467, or possessing counterfeit marked
material

Section 476:- Counterfeiting device or mark used for authenticating

documents other than those described in section 467, or possessing
counterfeit marked material

Section 477:- Fraudulent cancellation, destruction, etc., of will,

authority to adopt, or valuable security

Section 477A:- Falsification of accounts

NOTE: REFER LATEST LAWS APP OR DEVGAN.IN WEBSITE FOR

COMPLETE SECTION INFO.

4. Offences relating to marriage.

A. Chapter 20 of IPC (Sec. 493 to 498) deals with above topic.

Section 493:- Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a

belief of lawful marriage
Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully
married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to
cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 494:- Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife

Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which
such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such
husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also
be liable to fine.

178
Exceptions

This section does not extend to any person whose marriage with such
husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of competent
jurisdiction, nor to any person who contracts a marriage during the life
of a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife, at the time of the
subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent from such
person for the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of
by such person as being alive within that time provided the person
contracting such subsequent marriage shall, before such marriage takes
place, inform the person with whom such marriage is contracted of the
real state of facts so far as the same are within his or her knowledge.

Section 495:- Same offence with concealment of former marriage

from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted
Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section
having concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage
is contracted, the fact of the former marriage, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 496:- Marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without

lawful marriage
Whoever, dishonestly or with a fraudulent intention, goes through the
ceremony of being married, knowing that he is not thereby lawfully
married, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 497:- Adultery

Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he
knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without

179
the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not
amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery,
and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such
case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.

Section 498:- Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent

a married woman
Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows
or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that
man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man,
with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or
conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to two years, or with fine, or with both.

5. Cruelty by husband and relatives of husband.

A. Chapter 20a section 498A deals with above topic.

Section 498A:- Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting

her to cruelty
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a
woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall
also be liable to fine.

Explanations

1. For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means:

180
A. any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the
woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,
limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
B. harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to
coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand
for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her
or any person related to her to meet such demand.

6. Defamation.
A. Chapter 21 of IPC (sec.499 to 502) deals with above topic.

Section 499:- Defamation

Section 500:- Punishment for defamation

Section 501:- Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory

Section 502:- Sale of printed or engraved substance containing

defamatory matter

Section 499:- Defamation

DOWNLOAD LATEST LAWS APP AND REFER FULL SECTION OR SEARCH
DEVGAN.IN WEBSITE AND REFER FULL SECTION.

Section 500:- Punishment for defamation

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

Section 501:- Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory

Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason
to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be

181
punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 502:- Sale of printed or engraved substance containing

defamatory matter
Whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance
containing defamatory matter, knowing that it contains such matter,
shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

182