• Indian Penal Code is divided into 23 chapters and 511 sections.

• The Indian Penal Code received the assent of the Governor General in Council on 6 October
1860.

• The maxim “Actus non Facit reum nisi mens sit rea” means the act does not constitute guilt
unless done with a guilt intent.
• As per section 23 wrongful gain is gain by lawful means of property to which the person
gaining is not legally entitled.

• Section 24 of Indian Penal code defined Dishonestly in this section, it is essential that the act
has been done by the accused with the intention of wrongful gain or wrongful loss.
• Section 33 of Indian Penal Code defines acts & omissions.

• Section 34 of IPC gives only a general definition as to what constitutes Joint liability.

• The expression in section 34 “in furtherance of the common intention of all” did not exist in
the original code, but was added by the Amending Act of 1870.
• Section 53 of IPC provides for 5 types of Punishment.

• Section 55 A defined Appropriate Government.

• Under Section 76 and 79 a mistake must be one of fact and not of law.

• In R v. Prince, 1875, man was held guilty for abducting a girl below 16 under the belief that
she was above 18.

• Section 77 of IPC talks about Act of judge when acting judicially.

• The distinction between Section 76 and Section 79 is that in the former a person is assumed
to be bound and in the latter to be justified by law.

• Section 80 of IPC, this exception excludes a person from criminal liability where such acts
occur as a result of an accident.
• As per Section 84 of IPC the person was incapable of knowing the nature of his acts and that
his actions were wrong or contrary to law.

• In Ahmed v. King, 1949, accused killed his son by thrusting a knife in his throat under the
delusion and in pursuance of command by someone in paradise, given in his dream. Not held
liable.
• As per Section 85, a person will be excused only if the thing which intoxicated him was
administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

• Section 86 talks of those cases where a specific knowledge or intention is requisite to

constitute the offence.
• Section 93 talks about communication, a person who disseminates information that causes
harm to another in good faith for the benefit of such person is excluded from liability.

• In Mrs. Veeda Meneyas v. Yusuf Khan, “Section 95 is intended to prevent penalisation

of negligible wrongs of offences of negligible character.”
• In State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup,1974, it has been observed that the person exercising the
right need not chase the attacker and then beat him.

• The ingredients of Section 141 of IPC are five or more persons, they must have a common
object, object must be one of those specified in Section 141.

• In the case of Moti Das vs the State of Bihar, it is possible that the assembly started as
being lawful but later turned out to be unlawful.
• Section 153 A deals promoting enmity between different groups.

• For section 171B which is Bribery, a person is said to give gratification when they
offer/attempt to give/ offer or attempt to procure gratification.

• Section 201 deals with two aspects: Causing disappearance of evidence, Giving false
information about the offence.
• In Kashi Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court held that mere possession of any
instrument or material for counterfeiting is sufficient to hold the accused guilty. Moreover, the
accused need not have ownership of the premises from where the materials are found.

• Chapter 13 of Indian Penal Code deals with offences relating to weights and measures.
• Section 269 of IPC covers negligent acts that are likely to spread infection of disease which are
dangerous to life.

• Section 295 A and 298 of IPC deals with outraging or wounding the religious feelings of persons.

• In the case of Nara Singh Challan v. State of Orissa (1997), it was held that Section 299 of
the Indian Penal Code is the genus and Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code is the species.
• When the person exceeds his right to private defence is covered under Exception 2 to Section
300 of IPC.

• Exception 4 and 5 to Section 300 of IPC deals with sudden fight and consent simultaneously.
• A instigated Z who was under 18 years of age, to commit suicide. Z was incapable of giving
consent to his own death. Therefore, A is guilty of murder.

• In section 304 A of IPC, i.e. causing death by negligence, the person shall be punished with
imprisonment which can extend up to two years or with fine or both.

• Section 304 B of Indian Penal Code deals with dowry death.

• In the case of Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1979, it was held by the Court
that not only the nature of the crime but also the various factors of criminals before awarding the
death penalty.

• In the case of Stephens v. Myers, it has been observed that it is not every threat, which
constitutes an assault, there must be the means of carrying the threat into effect.
• In the case of State of Haryana v. Raja Ram, it has been observed that consent of the
minor is wholly immaterial, the guardian’s consent is required to negate the charges of
kidnapping.

• Section 363 provides Punishment for kidnapping which is imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
• The main ingredients of Section 378 i.e. Theft are

1. Dishonest intention to take property.

2. The property must be movable.

3. It should be taken out of the possession of another person.

4. It should be taken without the consent of another person.

5. There must be some moving of the property in order to accomplish the taking of it.
• In case of Pyarelal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan, it has been observed that even a
temporary takeaway of the property with dishonest intention is enough to constitute theft.

• In the case of Gurcharan Singh v. The State of Punjab, it has been held that the most
ingredient element to commit extortion is that the offender induces the person and puts in fear to
deliver the property or any valuable security.
• The ingredients of Section 403 are

1. Dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use.

2. Any movable property.

3. The property must belong to the person other than the accused.

4. There must be dishonest intention on the part of the accused.

• In the case of Ram Narain Poply v. Central Bureau of Investigation, it has been held
that the in order to constitute forgery, the first essential is that the accused should have made a
false document. The false document must be made with an intention to cause harm or injury to
the public or to any class of society or to any community.

• In Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India, the SC held that if a man after renouncing the Hindu
religion has adopted the muslim religion and he without taking divorce from his wife has married
again, then this marriage is not legal. He will be punished for committing bigamy under Section
494 of IPC.
• The main objective of Section 498 A of IPC is to protect a woman who is being harassed by her
husband or relatives of the husband.

• In the case of Inder Raj Malik v. Sunita Malik, 1896 it was held that word cruelty is
defined in explanation which inter alia says that harassment of a women with a view to coerce her
or any related persons to meet any lawful demand for any property or any valuable security is
cruelty.