• • • No act is crime unless accompanied by a guilty mind Every person is innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Prosecution must also prove guilty state of mind. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Sec.8 : Gender – pronoun “ He” derivatives used for person male or female Sec.9 : Number unless contrary from context ,singular includes plural & vice versa Sec.10 : Man denotes male of any age , woman denotes female of any age Sec.11 : Person includes any company or association whether incorporated or not. Sec.32 : Words referring to act include illegal omissions Sec.33 : The word act denotes as well a series of acts as a single act , omission denotes series as single omission. Sec.40 : Offence denotes a thing / act punishable by this IPC Sec.46 : Death denotes death of a human being Sec.84-85 : Insanity ie. impairment of cognitive faculty due to disease or intoxication

Essentials Of A Crime (presumption is of innocence & not of guilt and prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
1. Guilty Mind ( presence of ) 2. Guilty Mind must accompany the act or illegal omission 3. Consequence ( forbidden )

MOTIVE ( Good or bad behind the mind ) ↓ INTENTION ( Idea with knowledge within mind ) Act done is presumed to be intent unless proved otherwise. ↓ GUILT ( of Mind ) → ( manifests itself in ) ACT → ↓ Act ( resulting in forbidden ) CONSEQUENCE ↓ Hurt ( s.319 IPC ) ↓ Grievous Hurt ( s.320 IPC ) ↓ CH ( s.299 IPC ) Culpable Homicide = Blameworthy / illegal + Death of a living being by other living being. ↓ Murder ( s.300 IPC )

Chap.299 IPC ) act not amounting to CH ↓ (s.and in s.304A) ↓ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------↓ ↓ CHAM ( amounting to murder ) CHNAM ( not amounting to murder ) .299 always in s.300 .300 .299 a ) falls in s.falls in s.punishable u/s 302 / 301 also attracts exceptions to s.and not in exceptions to s.300 ) .punishable u/s 304 (1) DEFENCES ↓ ↓ -------------------------------------------------------↓ ↓ Complete Defences ( general ) Partial Defences ( Sections 76 – 106 ) ( exceptions to Sec. XVI of IPC Offences affecting the Human Body HOMICIDE ( Death of a living being by another living being ) ↓ ----------------------------------------------↓ ↓ Unlawful Lawful ↓ ↓ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------↓ ↓ ↓ ↓ Culpable Homicide Death by Rash or negligent Excusable Justified ( s.300 .300 b ) falls in s.299 but not in s.300 & .punishable u/s 304 { 299(b)304(i) & 299(c)304(ii) } .

Most Likely – Certainly scale .negligently negligent due to lack of expected caution 3. Every CH is one of GH Every GH is not CH Every GH is Hurt But every hurt is not GH Negligence is lack of care & caution expected normally. Knowledge of consequence – presumption of law is that if you do an act . Knowledge of Fact – responsibility of prosecution to prove. Act ( S.322 ) is very foundation of Criminal Law For cases to fall under s. 1. Distinction between CH ( S. Not a man of extremes Med. Reasonable Man ( always behaving in a rationale manner ) is a legal fiction. you know (ought to know ) the consequences presumption of sound mind ie.concept) v.Legal insanity (society at large) 5. s.304A) and GH ( S.insanity (individ. Point is how much knowledge u can attribute to a person ? Assault-Type-weapons used-Injury – type of injury – consequence. it is always a question of Law based on certain facts. Higher degree of criminal element 4.e.300 or s. Inadvertent negligence. 3.Before the Supreme Court .299) – Rash or Neg.299 . Advertent negligence – knowingly negligent 2. 2. Every rash act is negligent but not all negligent acts are rash. . Death in all cases But what differs is degree of rashness & knowledge as form of mens rea and the degree of seriousness of its consequence on May – Possible –Likely . One can afford to lose emotional control resulting in minor errors of judgment but there is no excuse for impairing of cognitive faculties to the extent of losing control over one’s intent / actions. Rash = knowingly negligent act ie. decision making abilities and forgetting the forbidden consequences. Every normal person is prone / subject to irrational behavior at times due to situations / circumstances / provocations. Every one is expected to control impulses. 1.304A Common ingredient is the Act + the forbidden consequence i. Cognitive faculties presumed to be present in every one unless proved otherwise as in insanity. 4.

also the lowest punishable under the second part of Section 304. This is the greatest form of CH.300 ( Murder ) A person commits culpable homicide if the act by which the death is caused is done Subject to certain exceptions culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done - 299 • • • In the scheme of the IPC “CH” is GENUS . 2. Failure of Cog. The academic distinction between 'Murder' and 'CHNAM' has always vexed the Courts.299 but not vice-versa. proportionate to the gravity of the generic offence. 'CH of the second degree'. 300 • • • • In the scheme of the IPC 'MURDER' is its SPECIE.299 ( CH ) v Sec. The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. 3. Speaking generally. Emotional/will faculty/impulse V. . the IPC practically recognizes three degrees of CH. ‘CH of the third degree'. The following comparative table is helpful in appreciating the points distinction between the two offences. This is the lowest type of CH and the punishment provided for it is..6. if Courts losing sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the legislature in these sections. This is punishable under the first part of Section 304. 1. Sec. 'CH of the first degree'. For the purpose of fixing punishment. The confusion is caused. which is defined in Section 300 as 'murder' punishable under Section 302 / 301. allow themselves to be drawn into minute abstractions. Faculty where U prove that ability to form mens rea was impaired.300 are 'CH' s. All cases of 'murder' s. “CH” sans 'special characteristics of murder is “CHNAM”.


Only the intention of causing the bodily injury coupled with the offender's knowledge of the likelihood of such injury causing the death of the particular victim.S299 Part Whoever causes death by doing an act . If the assailant had no such knowledge about the disease or special frailty of the victim. Vivian Bose. "thirdly".CH is murder if the act by which the death is caused . or For cases to fall within this Clause (3). 1 2 Clause (b) of Section 299 IPC also corresponds with Clause (3) of Section 300 IPC but instead of the words 'likely to cause death' . it is not necessary that the offender intended to cause death. With the INTENTION of causing death. J. 3 With the INTENTION of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is SUFFICIENT in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. . notwithstanding the fact that such harm would not in the ordinary way of nature be sufficient to cause death of a person in normal health or condition. was intentionally given. or The distinguishing feature of the mens rea requisite is the knowledge possessed by the offender regarding infirmity /peculiar condition or state of health that the internal harm caused to the particular victim is likely to be fatal. (Intent + Act capable of killing→ resulting in Death ) S300 Part Except in the cases hereby excepted . Possibility covered 2 & 3 – Cases where the offender has no knowledge regarding infirmity / peculiar condition or state of health of the particular victim or the victim was of normal health. But does not postulate any such knowledge about peculiar condition or state of health of the victim on the part of the offender. so long as the death ensues from the intentional bodily injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. the words sufficient in the ordinary course of nature" have been used. or spleen or the failure of the heart. or Clause (b) of Section 299 IPC corresponds with Clause (2) of Section 300 IPC. as the case may be. Possibility covered 1 – Cases where the offender has knowledge regarding infirmity / peculiar condition or state of health of the particular victim. State of Punjab (AIR 1958 SC 465). observed that the prosecution must prove the following acts before it can bring a case under Section 300 IPC. is sufficient to bring the killing within the ambit of this clause. It is noteworthy that the 'intention to cause death' is not an essential requirement of Clause (2). Instances of cases can be where the assailant causes death by a fist blow intentionally given knowing that the victim is suffering from an enlarged liver. In Virsa Singh v. or With the INTENTION of causing such bodily injury as is LIKELY to cause death. even if the injury which caused the death. a b With the INTENTION of causing death. nor an intention to cause death or bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. or enlarged spleen or diseased heart and such blow is likely to cause death of that particular person as a result: of the rupture of the liver. or With the INTENTION of causing such bodily injuries as the offender knows to be LIKELY to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused. the offence will not be murder.

the offence would be murder. the distinction lies between a bodily injury LIKELY (conveys the sense of probable as distinguished from a mere possibility ) to cause death. what is possibility is may . it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular injury. . that it was not accidental or unintentional or that some other kind of injury was intended. and 4. even if the intention of accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. that is to say. 2. of the degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. And a bodily injury SUFFICIENT (conveys the sense that death will be the "most probable" result of the injury in the ordinary course of nature ) to cause death. according to the rule laid down in Virsa Singh's case. 3. Thus. it must establish quite objectively. and did not extend to the intention of causing death. First.1. Once these three elements are proved to be present. Fourthly it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up the three elements set out above was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. What is most likely is likely . Thirdly. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender. The distinction is fine but real. the enquiry proceeded further. Certain ( 100 % ) ↑ Most Likely(Sufficient) /Most Probably ( 90 % ) ↑ Likely / Probable ( 60 % ) ↑ Possibility ( 50 % ) ↑ May ( 35 % ) What is may is not possibility What is possibility is not likely What is likely is not most likely What is most likely is not certain Whereas what is certain is most likely. that a bodily injury is present. Secondly the nature of the injury must be proved objectively. what is likely is possibility. Obviously.

C with the KNOWLEDGE that the act is likely to cause death 4 with the KNOWLEDGE that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. If offender deprived of power of self control by grave & sudden provocation causes the death of person who gave the provocation or death of any other person by mistake or accident. When the person whose death is caused being above 18 years suffers death or takes the risk of death with his .300 : The CH is not a murder .without any premeditation and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for such self defence.. 2. exceeds the power given to him by law…. Immaterial as which party offers provocation or commits first assault. 5.will towards the victim. Exceptions to s. If offender being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice exceeds the power given to him by law and causes death by doing an act which he in good faith believes to be lawful and necessary for discharge of his duty as public servant and without the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence person or property. and without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as is mentioned above. 4. 3. If committed without any premeditation in a sudden fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without offender having taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. Such knowledge on the part of the offender must be of the highest degree of probability. It will be applicable where the knowledge of the offender as to the probability of death of a person or persons in general as distinguished from a particular person or persons – being caused from his imminently dangerous act approximates to a practical certainty. 1. the act having been committed by the offender without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. If offender.

. 1973 SC Abduction (S. HC acquits-SC upholds Extortion (s. SC 1973 State of Haryana V.361) whoever takes or entices-minor<16 if male .industrialist – mt.<18 if female or any person of unsound mind-out of keeping of lawful guardian-without the consent of such guardian . is said to abduct that person Any person at any stage Not necessarily under any guardianship Force / compulsion / deceitful means employed Continuing offence –first taken / then from one place to another Against the consent of person ( if freely given condones offence) Important for some intent Auxiliary act not punishable unless accompanied by cr intent 364-66 364 . Sate of Gjurat.Murder 364A –Ransom 365 confine 366 Woman for marriage Life or RI 10 and fine C+NB trial by Sessions Non-compoundable Savitri+Apl. Vadgama V.Magistrate+HC convicted 363-1Y RI. Santosh Rani-Jainarain-Rajaram sends daughter to fetch her .Abu etc. mens rea neutral 7 Substantive offence per se punishable u/s 363 IPC Imprisonment for 7Y and fine C+B trial by Magistrate Non-compoundable 1 2 3 S.Sessions 366&376(rape).379 Up to 3-7 yrs( Dwelling) + fine or both .to go from any place.HC only 366-SC. Extortion 1 Consent 2 Property 3 Force/Fear 4 Offence 5 Delivery of property 6 Theft (S.Vardarajan – father left her far away at relative.383) Wrongfully obtained Movable + immovable Force + Threat+ Fear of injury Committed when property is in persons possession Vitiated consent .362) whoever by force compels or by deceitful means induces any person.ASJ convicts 366 1Y RI + fine .sentence already lenient & appeal fails .Varadrajan v.Delivered to offender under force or fear of injury Extortion leads to Robbery dacoity S. State of Madras SC 1965 Thakur lal D.384 Up to 3 yrs + fine or both Theft V.378) Dishonest Intention to take it without consent Movable Severability concept also No Force Committed when property is in persons possession No consent .is said to kidnap such person from LG.SC acquitted grounds –no enticement-tele invitationwillingly go-age of discretion –educated Mohini+Apl. Raja Ram. 1 Committed in respect of minor / unsound mind person 2 Person removed from lawful guardianship 3 Person simply taken away / enticed by innocent means 4 Not a continuous offence –complete once committed 5 Consent of person kidnapped is immaterial 6 Intent of offender irrelevant ie. Kidnapping V Abduction Kidnapping (S.own consent.Taken away by offender without owners consent Theft leads to extortion S.

Theft V. Cr. Breach of Trust V.uses it Give it to friend to hold – goes away S. may have moved from person to offender in neutral manner good faith in variety of ways by casualty . Already in possession of the offender Dishonest misappropriation for converting to self use . Misappropriation (S.(puffing>cheating) Any property No Force Inducing the person so deceived to deliver the property or to consent that any person shall retain the property When the induced person delivers or parts with the property. Breach of Trust (S.417/420 Up to 1-7 yrs + fine or both . retention – no offence Dishonest misappropriation for time also CM Class notes taken not given back Common Carrier – goods sold on the way PFC deducted – not deposited Lose it . before exhausting reasonable means / time to discover and return to owner No contractual relationship Cr. Cr. Decep.someone gets it.406 Up to 2 yrs + fine or both Up to 3 yrs + fine or both Dishonest concealment of facts / impersonation Puffing v Cheating I-False credentials/credit II-Quacks-Villagers Takes to check particulars .379 Up to 3-7 yrs + fine or both Examples Rly.403) Initial honest Subsequent Dishonesty develops when property already in possession Movable No Force Prop. Delivery of property Movable No Force Possession wrongfully taken away from person / moved by offender without owners consent Offence completed when property is taken away Any property No Force Property lawfully acquired with consent of owner entrusted with offender but dishonestly misappropriated Enticement or Dominion over Prop + CM = CBT Offence complete when offender dishonestly converts property for his own use 5 Offence when complete 6 7 Remarks Theft for time also a theft Necklace removed Taken out of pocket S. 2 Property 3 Force/Fear 4 Possession .415) Deception with fraudulent Dishonest Intention at the outset.Ticket 8 Punishment Contractual relationship ie every CBT(405) includes CM (403)converse not always true Taken with consent -not returned Unless entrustment for safe subsequently.378) Dishonest Intention from outset Cr.403 itself S. Misappropriation V. Cheating 1 Intention Theft (S.405) Initial honest Subsequent Dishonest Cheating (S.goes away S.