You are on page 1of 76

CRIMES NOTES

OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN BODY

HOMICIDE
The word 'homicide' has been derived from Latin terms homi (man) and cido (cut). Literally,
homicide means the killing of a human being by another human being.

Early English common law divided homicide into two

Broad categories

1 .Felonious
2. Non Felonious

Historically,the deliberate and premeditated killing of a person by another person was a feloni
ous homicide and was classified as Murder. Non felonious homicide included
justifiable homicide and excusable homicide. Although justifiable homicide was considered
a crime.

HOMICIDES CAN BE DIVIDED INTO MANY OVERLAPPING TYPES,


INCLUDING :-

1. Murder,

2. Manslaughter,
3. Justifiable homicide,
4. Killing in war,
5. Euthanasia,
6. Execution,

Homicide (2 types)

Lawful (chapter IV - General Exception) Unlawful or Criminal

Justifiable, Excusable Manslaughter Murder

Sec.76,77,78 80,82,83,84 299,304A 300

79,81,100,103 85,87,88&92 305, 306

Chapter XVI of the IPC begins with the 'Offences Affecting Life' and deals with homicide
offences. It incorporates in four homicide offences. They are

1. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder


2. Culpable homicide amounting to murder
3. death by a rash or negligent act, and
4. Dowry death. It also deals with suicide and thugs.

1|Page
Homicide can be lawful or unlawful. Lawful homicide includes situations where a person
who has caused the death of another cannot be blamed for his death. Culpable means blame
worthy. Thus, Culpable Homicide means killing of a human being by another human being in
a blameworthy or criminal manner.

THREE DEGREES OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE

The first is, what may be called, 'Culpable Homicide of the first degree'. This is the
greatest form of Culpable Homicide, which is defined in Section 300 as 'Murder'.
The second may be termed as 'Culpable Homicide of the second degree'. This is
punishable under the first part of Section 304 part I
Then, there is 'Culpable Homicide of the third degree'. This is the lowest type of
Culpable Homicide and the punishment provided for it is also the lowest among the
punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable Homicide of this degree is
punishable under the second part of Section 304 part II.

PART A - CULPABLE HOMICIDE

Section 299 - Who ever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or
with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the
knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of Culpable
Homicide
Explanation 1 - A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under
a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other,
shall be deemed to have caused his death.

Explanation 2 - Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such
bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to
proper remedies and skillful treatment the death might have been prevented.

Explanation 3 - The causing of the death of child in the mother's womb is not
homicide. But it may amount to Culpable Homicide to cause the death of a living
child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have
breathed or been completely born.

Illustrations

(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the
knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z, believing the ground to be firm, treads
on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it. A, intending to cause, or knowing it
to be likely to cause Z's death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may
be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

(c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B, who is behind a bush; A not
knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not guilty of

2|Page
culpable homicide, as he did not intend to kill B or to cause death by doing an act that he
knew was likely to cause death.

A Practical approach to distinguish whether a particular situation would come under murder
or culpable homicide is to appreciate the facts and apply the law in stages as below :-

1. The first stage is to establish whether the accused had done an act, which has caused
the death of another person. This is obviously the most fundamental fact, which has to
be established before any further enquiry into the intention and knowledge of the
accused is gone into.
2. The second stage is to establish whether the act of the accused would amount to
culpable homicide. In other words, it has to be ascertained that a particular act which
has caused the death of a person, is not as a result of accident or any other exceptions
provided under the IPC. It has to be further established that the intention of the
accused was not merely to cause hurt or grievous hurt but homicide.
3. Once it is established that an accused has caused death either with the intention of
causing it or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, or with knowledge that his act is likely to cause death, then the next stage of
enquiry is to ascertain whether the act would fall under any of the four clauses of
s.300, IPC.
4. If it is established that culpable homicide is murder and the act falls under any of the
four clauses of s.300, then there must be a further enquiry to consider whether the act
falls within any of the five exceptions provided under s.300 IPC. If it does not fall
under any of the exceptions, then the act is murder. If the act, however, falls under any
of the exceptions, then it will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

INTRODUCTION

Sections 299 and 300, IPC, define culpable homicide is of two types :-

1. Culpable homicide amounting to murder


2. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder

The provisions relating to murder and culpable homicide are probably the most complicated
in the IPC. A murder is merely a particular form of culpable homicide. Every murder is
culpable homicide, but every culpable homicide is not murder. Culpable homicide is the
genus and murder, its species.

INGREDIENTS OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE

1. There must be death of a person


2. death should have been caused by the act of another person
3. the act causing death should have been done with
i. the intention of causing death
ii. the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death or
iii. with knowledge that such act is likely to cause death

3|Page
The definition itself provides for three circumstances, wherein the presence or absence of
certain factors in causing death is nevertheless treated as causing culpable homicide. These
circumstances are dealt with in explanations 1-3

Explanation 1 - provides for a situation where the injured person is suffering from some
disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, which quickened his death. The fact that his death was
quickened or hastened by the disorder or disease he was already suffering from, will not
reduce the guilt or culpability of the person causing the injury. In other words, the person who
caused the injury cannot escape criminal liability of culpable homicide by stating that of the
person injured did not suffer from the said disease, he would not have died.

Explanation 2 - provides for a situation wherein a person who has been injured could have
recovered and escaped death, if, he had been given prompt and proper medical treatment. In
such situations too, the fact that the injured person died because he could not avail of good
treatment, cannot be a ground for negating guilt or culpability of the person who inflicted the
injury in the first place.

Explanation 3 - is in respect of a slightly different situation. It takes into consideration death


caused to a child in the mother's womb. The law states that if the death of the child is caused
when still in the mother's womb, it is not culpable homicide. However, if any portion of the
child, comes out of the mother' s womb, even if it is not fully born, and if death to such child,
then it amount to culpable homicide.

Based upon the above definition, the following are the essential elements of Culpable
Homicide-
1. Death of a human being is caused - It is required that the death of a human being is
caused. However, it does not include the death of an unborn child unless any part of that child
is brought forth.
C.L :-Moti Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh - the deceased Gayacharan had recieved two
gunshot wounds in the abdomen which were dangerous to life and he died after three weeks.
The court observed that in order to prove the charge of Gayacharan's murder, it was necessary
to establish that he had died on account of the injuries received by him. Since there was no
evidnce to establish the cause of death, the accused could not be said to have caused the dath
of gayacharan. A crucial aspect highlighted by the court in this case was that the connection
between th eprimary cause and the death should not be too remote.
C.L :- Rewa Ram v State of Madhya Pradesh, the accused had caused mutiple injuries
with a knife to his wife, Guanvatibai. She was admitted in hospital and she developed
hyperlexia, i.e, high temperature, as a result she died. The court placed reliance on
explanation II of the section and observed that if the supervening causes are attributed to the
injuries caused, then the person inflicting the injuries is liable for causng death, even if death
was not the direct result of the injuries. There was medical evidence to show that the
hyperpyrexia was a result of her debilitated condition and this was due to the injuries she had
sustained. Thus, her death was a direct consequence of the injuries inflicted on her.
Intervening or supervening cause of hyperpyrexia was a direct result o the multiple injuries
and was not independent or unconnected with the serious injuries sustained by her. As a

4|Page
result, it was held, the accused 'had caused' her death and therefore liable for murder was
upheld.

2. By doing an act - Death may be caused by any act for example, by poisoning or by hurting
with a weapon. Here act includes even on omission of an act for which one is obligated by
law to do. For example, if a doctor has a required injection in his hand and he still does not
give it to the dying patient and if the patient dies, the doctor is responsible.

3. Intention or Knowledge - There must be an intention of any of the following -


1. Intention of causing death - The doer of the act must have intended to cause
death. As seen in Illustration 1, the doer wanted or expected someone to die. It is important to
note that intention of causing death does not necessarily mean intention of causing death of
the person who actually died. If a person does an act with an intention of killing B but A is
killed instead, he is still considered to have the intention.
2. Intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death - The
intention of the offender may not have been to cause death but only an injury that is likely to
cause the death of the injured. For example, A might intended only to hit on the skull of a
person so as to make him unconscious, but the person dies. In this case, the intention of the
person was only to cause an injury but the injury is such that it is likely to cause death of the
person. Thus, he is guilty of Culpable Homicide. However, if A hits B with a broken glass. A
did not know that B was haemophilic. B bleeds to death. A is not guilty of Culpable
Homicide but only of grievous hurt because he neither had an intention to kill B nor he had
any intention to cause any bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
3. Or the act must have been done with the knowledge (Mens Rea) that such an
act may cause death - When a person does an act which he knows that it has a high
probability to cause death, he is responsible for the death which is caused as a result of the
act. For example, A knows that loosening the brakes of a vehicle has a high probability of
causing death of someone. If B rides such a bike and if he dies, A will be responsible for B's
death. In Jamaluddin's case 1892, the accused, while exorcising a spirit from the body of a
girl beat her so much that she died. They were held guilty of Culpable Homicide.

So if a person in performing some act either :


1. expects death to be consequence thereof or
2. expects a dangerous injury to be the consequence of his act or
3. knows that death is a likely consequence of his act,
and in each case death ensues, his intention in the first two cases, and his knowledge in the
third, renders the act a homicide.

ACT OF KILLING A PERSON NOT INTENDED TO BE KILLED


In Kashi Ram v State of Madhya Pradesh, in which the accused fired a shot at a particular
member of the adversary's party but it hit another person and killed him, the supreme court
applied the doctrine of transferred malice to hold him guilty under s.304, pt II as he neither
aimed at nor intended death of the deceased.

5|Page
Negligence - Sometimes even negligence is considered as knowledge. In Kangla 1898, the
accused struck a man whom he believed was not a human being but something supernatural.
However, he did not take any steps to satisfy himself that the person was not a human being
and was thus grossly negligent and was held guilty of Culpable Homicide.

PART B - MURDER - S.300

Murder (When Culpable Homicide amounts to Murder)


Murder is a type of Culpable Homicide where culpability of the accused is quite more than in
a mere Culpable Homicide. Section 300, says that Culpable Homicide is Murder if the act by
which the death is caused is done
1. with the intention of causing death
2. or with an intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause the death of the person,
3. or with an intention of causing such bodily injury as is sufficient in ordinary course of
nature to cause death.
4. It is also Murder if the person committing the act knows that the act is so dangerous
that it will cause death or such injury as is likely to cause death in all probability and
he has no valid reason for doing that act.

SCOPE OF S.300
Section 300 defines murder with reference to culpable homicide defined in s.299. If the
special requirements provided in clause 1 to 4 of s.300 are fulfilled, culpable homicide will
then amount to murder, provided, of course, the act does not fall within any of the exceptions
provided in s.300. If an act, which falls within clause 1 to 4 of 300, also falls within one of
exceptions, then it will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

INGREDIENTS OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE AMOUNTING TO MURDER


1. Intention to cause death or
2. intention to cause bodily injury knowing that the injury caused is likely to cause death
or
3. intention of causing bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death, or
4. knowledge that the act is
i. imminently dangerous that in all probability it will cause death or bodily
injury which is likely to cause death and
ii. done without any justification for incurring the risk of causing death or the
injury.

Section 300. Murder.Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is


murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or

6|Page
(Secondly) If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender
knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or
(Thirdly) If it is done 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, or
(Fourthly) If 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.

Clause 1 - Intentionally causing death - The first clause of s.300 stipulates that when an act
including legal omission is done with the intention of causing death, then it is culpable
homicide amounting to murder. If a person administers a deadly poison to a man, then it is
clear that he has intention to kill that man. when a person sets fire to the deceased after
another had poured kerosene on his body, there cannot be any doubt that the intention of the
accused was to kill the deceased - Bandampalli v State of AP.

Clause 2 - Intentionally causing of bodily injury with knowledge that it will cause death
- Mens rea or the mental attitude contemplated under clause 2 of s.300 is twofold. First there
must be an intention to cause bodily harm. Secondly, there must be 'knowledge' that death is
the 'likely' result or consequence of such intended bodily injury. The second clause will apply
if there is first, the intention to cause bodily harm and next, there is the 'subjective
knowledge' that death will be likely consequence of the intended injury. It is said to be
subjective knowledge because it is the accused's own personal perception of the
consequences of his act. The knowledge here is subjective as opposed to the objective
requirement in cl 3of 300. Clause 3 stipulates that the bodily injury intended is sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore the requirement of clause 3 is that it
must be objectively established that the injury is sufficient in the ordinary course to cause
death. By objective, it means it is not the personal perception of the accused that matters, but
whether objectively speaking, in real terms, the injury intentionally caused is sufficient to
cause death. The essence of cl 2 is the knowledge of the accused that the act is likely to cause
death. The words 'likely' couple with 'knowledge' indicates definiteness or certainity of dath
and not a mere probability.

C.L :- In State of Rajasthan v Dhool Singh, the supreme court held the accused guilty of
murder who inflicted incised cut with a sword on the neck of the deceased, which led to
excessive bleeding and the consequential heart failure, on the ground that he knew that the
bodily injury caused by him would likely cause death of the injured.

Clause 3 - Intentional Causing of Injury Sufficient to cause death


It consists of two parts. Under the first part, it has to be shown that there was an intention to
inflict the particular injury. The second part requires that the injury intended to be inflicted
was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The essence of the clause is the
sufficiency of the injury in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. When the word

7|Page
'sufficiency' is used, it means where there is a very high probability of the injury resulting in
death.

In virsa singh v state of punjab, the sc laid down that in order to bring a case within cl 3 of
300, the prosecution must prove the following :- The court gave a four-point test which
prosecution must observe and prove in order to bring the case under this section:
a. First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present;
b. Secondly, the nature of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective
investigations
c. Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular
bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that
some other kind of injury was intended. Once these three elements are proved
to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and,
d. Fourthly, it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up
of the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential
and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.
Once these four elements are established by the prosecution (and, of course, the
burden is on the prosecution throughout) the offence is murder under s. 300, thirdly.

Clause 4 - Knowledge that act is so imminently dangerous so as to cause death


Under this clause, the act need not be directed at any particular individual nor need there be
an intention to cause the death of any particular individual. It has to merely be a reckless act,
which is imminently dangerous. Illustration (d) clearly sets out the scope of this clause.
Essential Ingredients of this clause are :
1. the act must be imminently dangerous
2. the person committing the act must have knowledge that it is so imminently
dangerous
3. that in all probability it will cause
i. death or
ii. bodily injury as is likely to cause death
4. such imminently dangerous act should be done without any reason or justification for
running the risk of causing death or such injury.

Illustrations
(a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder.
(b) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his
death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the
blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health. But if A, not
knowing that Z is labouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as would not in the
ordinary course of nature kill a person in a sound state of health, here A, although he may
intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause death, or
such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause death.

8|Page
(c) A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club-wound sufficient to cause the death of a man
in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here, A is guilty of murder, although
he may not have intended to cause Zs death.
(d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them.
A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated design to kill any
particular individual.

WHEN CULPABLE HOMICIDE IS NOT A MURDER


The exceptions of s.300 are :-
1. Grave and sudden provocation
2. Private defence
3. acts of public servants
4. sudden fights
5. consent

INGREDIENTS OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER


1. If it is committed on grave and sudden provocation, provided the provocation was not
a) voluntarily sought or deliberately caused by the accused
b) a result of any act done by public servent or in obedience to law or
c) given by any act done in the exercise of the private defence
2. If it is committed in the exercise of the right of private defence of body or of property
by exceeding, in good faith and without premeditation and without any intention of
causing harm more than that was necessary for exercising the right of private defence,
the right of self-defence.
3. If it is Committed by a public servant or a person aiding a public servant acting in
advancement of public justice by exceeding his powers conferred by law on him,
provided
a) he believed, in good faith, that the act (leading to death) was lawful
b) he thought it was necessary for discharging his duty and
c) he had no ill will towards the person whose death was caused.
4. If it is committed, without premeditation, in a sudden fight in the heat of passion
without taking any undue advantage or acting in a cruel or unusual manner
5. If it is caused to a person above 18 years of age with his consent.

Exception 1. Grave and Sudden Provocation


When culpable homicide is not murder.Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender,
whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the
death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by
mistake or accident.

The above exception is subject to the following provisos:


(First) That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an
excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.

9|Page
(Secondly) That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or
by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
(Thirdly) That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the
right of private defence.

Explanation.Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the
offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.

Illustrations
(a) A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills.
Y, Zs child. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was not given by the child, and the
death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act caused by the
provocation.
(b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y,
neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight.
A kills Z. Here A has not committed murder, but merely culpable homicide.
(c) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the
arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done
by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.
(d) A appears as witness before Z, a Magistrate, Z says that he does not believe a word of As
deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these words,
and kills Z. This is murder.
(e) A attempts to pull Zs nose, Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold of
A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence,
and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done in the
exercise of the right of private defence.
(f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending to
take advantage of Bs rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into Bs hand for that
purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only culpable homicide, but A
is guilty of murder.

INGREDIENTS OF GRAVE AND SUDDEN PROVOCATION


(1) That the accused received provocation;
(2) That the provocation was (a) grave, and (b) sudden;
(3) That he was deprived by the provocation of his power of self-control;
(4) That while thus deprived of his power of self-control and before he could cool
down he caused the death of the person who gave him the provocation.
In 1707 Lord Holt specified four categories of acts that constituted legally sufficient
provocation. These were:-
1. Hearing angry words followed by a physical assault.
2. Seeing a friend being assaulted.
3. Observing a citizen detained by force.
4. Seeing ones wife in bed with another.

10 | P a g e
The acts legally insufficient at common law to constitute provocation included:-
1. Mere words.
2. Insulting gestures.
3. Trespass to property.
4. Misconduct by a child or servant.
5. Breach of contract.

C.L :- In K.M.Nanavati v State of Maharashtra, The trail court convicted nanavati for
shooting ahuja who had illicit relationship with his wife and convicted under S.304 A of IPC
and in appeal the high court convert it into S.302 of IPC. The question was whether the act of
the accused could be said to fall within exception 1 of s.300. The supreme court laid down the
following postulates relating to grave and sudden provocation :-
1. The test of grave and sudden provocation is whether a reasonable man,
belonging to the same class of society to which the accused belongs, and placed in
the situation in which the accused was placed, would be so provoked as to lose his
self-control.
2. In India, words or gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave
and sudden provocation to an accused to an accused so as to bring his at within
the first exception to section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.
3. The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken
into consideration in ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and
sudden provocation for committing the offence.

4. The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from
that provocation and not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of time, or
otherwise giving room and scope for premeditation and calculation
The sc held that the accused , after his wife confessed to her illicit relationship with the
deceased, may have momentarily lost control. Three hours had lapsed by then and therefore,
there was sufficient time for him to regain his self control. In view of this, the court held that
the provisions of Exception 1 of s.300 were not attracted. The accused was convicted for
murder and sentenced to life imprisonment.

In Hansa Singh v State of Punjab, the accused saw the deceased commiting an act of
sodomy on his son, which enraged him and he killed the deceased. It was held that it
amounted to a grave and sudden provocation. The conviction under s.302 was set aside. He
was convicted under s.304 IPC.

In the case of R v. Duffy, the court gave a very clear definition of the term provocation
which is as follows :
Provocation is some act, or series of acts, done by the dead man to the accused, which
would cause in any reasonable person, and actually causes in the accused, a sudden and
temporary loss of self-control, rendering the accused so subject to passion as to make him or
her for the moment not master of his mind.

11 | P a g e
Exception 2. Exceeding the Right of Private Defence.
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of
private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the
death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without
premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the
purpose of such defence.

Illustration
Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A draws out a
pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other means
prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder, but
only culpable homicide.

As seen in General Exception , a person has right to self defence of property and person. This
clause is with respect of cases where a person has exceeded his right of private defence.
Before this exception to be availed it must be proved that the accused had right of private
defence as stipulated in ss. 96 to 106. The exceeding of private defence by the accused should
be done unintentionally. Only then can the accused avail of the exception provided under this
clause.

In order to apply this Exception (2) certain conditions must be fulfilled


a. The act must be done in exercise of right of private defence of person or
property.
b. The act must be done in good faith.
c. The person doing the act must have exceeded his right given to him by
law and have thereby caused death.
d. The act must have been done without premeditation and without any
intention of causing more harm than was necessary in private defence.
C.L :- Nathan v State of Madras
C.L :- Mohinder Pal Jolly v State of Punjab

Exception 3. ACT OF PUBLIC SERVANT


Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public
servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law,
and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary
for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the
person whose death is caused.

INGREDIENTS
1. The offence must be committed by a public servant or by a person aiding a public
servant
2. the act alleged must have been committed by the public servant in the discharge of his
official duties

12 | P a g e
3. he should have exceeded the powers given to him by law
4. the act should be done in good faith
5. the public servant should have believed that his act was lawful and necessary for the
due discharge of his duties and
6. he should not have borne any ill will towards the person whose death was caused.
C.L :- Dakshi singh v state- A suspected thief was arrested by a police constable and was
being taken in a train. The thief escaped from the running train. The constable pursued him.
When he was not in a position to apprehend him, he fired at him. But, in that process, he hit
the fireman and killed him. It was held that the case was covered by this exception.
when an order to shoot was given by the public servant and his subordinate carried his
orders, when there was no occasion to do so, it was held that the order of the public servant
was illegal and both cannot claim exception under this section.

Exception 4.Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a


sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having
taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

Explanation.It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits
the first assault.

INGREDIENTS
1. The murder should have been committed without premeditation
2. it should have been committed in a sudden fight
3. it should have been committed in the heat of passion
4. it should have been committed upon a sudden quarrel and
5. it should have been committed without the offender having taken undue advantage or
acted in a cruel or unusual manner.
Attack by one and preparation to attack by another constitutes a fight. However, the
exception will come into play only when a culpable homicide is committed in an
unpremeditated sudden fight. When the aggression is on only one side and other is unarmed
it is not a fight, a fight postulates a bilateral transaction in which blows are exchanged by
both the parties. It is also required that the accused has not taken undue advantage or acted in
cruel or unusual manner - Anil v State of Haryana.
C.L :- Manke Ram v State of Haryana

Exception 5. DEATH BY CONSENT


Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age
of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.

Illustration
A, by instigation, voluntarily causes, Z, a person under eighteen years of age to commit
suicide. Here, on account of Zs youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death;
A has therefore abetted murder.

13 | P a g e
The points to be proven are :-
1. the death was caused with the consent of the deceased
2. the deceased was then above 18 years
3. the consent given was free and voluntarily and was not given through fear or
misconception of facts.
A Wounded soldier requests his comrade to shoot him and thereby relieve him of his
agonising pain. The latter shoots him to death. This exception will apply, as the soldier is
certainly above 18 years of age and he gave consent to his own death.
A and B , snake charmers, induced C and D to allow themselves to be bitten by a snake,
whose fangs had been imperfectly extracted, under the belief that they would be protected
from harm. C and D died. A and B were guilty of culpable homicide under this exception.

The distinction between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and murder are

Culpable homocide Murder


A person commits Culpable Homicide if A person commits Murder if the act by which
the act by which death is caused is done death is caused is done -
1.With the intention of causing death 1.With the intention of causing death
2. with an intention to cause such bodily 2. with an intention to cause such bodily injury
injury as is likely to cause death. as the offender knows to be likely to cause
death of the person to whom the harm is caused
3. with an intention of causing bodily injury to
any person and the bodily injury intended to be
inflicted is sufficient in ordinary course of
nature to cause death
3. with the knowledge that such an act is 3. With the knowledge that the act is so
likely to cause death imminently dangerous that it must in all
probability cause death

PART C - DEATH BY NEGLIGENCE


Section 304A. Causing death by negligence.--Whoever causes the death of any person by
doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both.

The definition involves three constituents of negligence:

1. A legal duty to exercise due care on the part of the party complained of towards the
party complaining the former's conduct within the scope of the duty;
2. Breach of the said duty; and
3. Consequential damage

14 | P a g e
This section is directed at offences, which fall outside the range of s.299 and s.300, where
neither intention nor knowledge to cause death is present. This section deals with homicide
by negligence and covers that class of offences, where death is caused neither intentionally
nor with the knowledge that the act of the offender is likely to cause death, but because of
rash and negligent act of the offender. When any of these two elements, namely, intention or
knowledge is present, s.304A has no application.

RASH OR NEGLIEGENT ACT

S.304A deals with 'death' caused by a 'rash' or 'negligent' act. The doing of a rash or negligent
act, which causes death, is the essence of s.304A. 'Rashness' conveys the idea of recklessness
or doing an act without due consideration and 'negligence' connotes want of proper care.

A rash act implies an act done by a person with recklessness or indifference as to its
consequences. The doer, being conscious of the mischievous or illegal consequences, does
the act knowing that his act may bring some undsirable or illegal reults but without hoping or
intending them to occur.

A negligent act, on the other hand, refers to an act done by a person without taking sufficient
precautions or reasonable precautions to avoid its probable mischievous or illegal
consequences. It implies omission to do something, which a reasonable man, in the given
circumstances, would not do.

The term 'negligence' as used in this section does not mean mere carelessness. Section 80 of
the IPC provides 'nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune and without
any criminal knowledge or intention in doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by a lawful
means and with proper care and caution. It is absence of such proper care and caution, which
is required of a reasonable man in doing an act, which is made punishable under this section.

ABSENCE OF INTENTIONAL VIOLENCE

The essence of s.304A is that the act, which has resulted in the death of a person, should not
have been done with the intention of causing death. Voluntary and intentional acts either with
the intention to cause death or the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, will amount
to culpable homicide.

In sarabjeet singh v state of uttar pradesh, the accused was part of an unlawful assembly
and attacked the opposite party. He has come to attack the father of the deceased who was a
small child of about 5 years. With a view of causing some harm and taking vengeance on the
father of the young child threw the innocent child on the ground. The supreme court held that
the act of throwing the child on the ground could not be called as rash within the meaning of
s.304A, as he had knowedge that the act was likely to cause death. Under the circumstances,
it would amount to culpable homicide under s.299 and punishable under s.304 part II, IPC.

15 | P a g e
DEATH MUST BE THE DIRECT RESULT

In order to impose criminal liability under this section, it is essential to establish that death is
the direct result of the rash and negligent act of the accused. It must be cause causans - the
immediate cause, and it is not enough that it may be causa sine qua non - proximate cause.

Section 279 and 280 to 289, Section 304A, 336, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal code deal with
the accuseds rash and negligent conduct endangering the safety of others.

Rash Driving or Riding on Public Way

Section 279 I.P.C. states that whoever drives any vehicle or rides on any public way in
manner so rash and negligent as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury
to any other person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees or
with both.

C.L :- Baldevji v state of gujarat, the accused had run over the deceased whil ethe deceased
was trying to cross the road. The accused did not attempt to save the deceased by swerving to
the other side, when there was sufficient space. This was a result of his rash and negligent
driving. His conviction under s.304 IPC was upheld.

C.L :- In Naresh Giri v State of Madhya pradesh, wherein death and injury caused to
passengers when the bus driver attempted to cross a unmanned railway crossing and hit by a
passing train, the sc altered the charges from s.304 to 304A on the ground that his gross
negligence.

RASH AND NEGLIGENT ACT IN MEDICAL TREATMENT

C.L :- In John Oni Akerele's case, a medical practitioner had administered a medical dose of
sorbital injection to a child, because of which the child died. The doctor was charge under
s.304A IPC for criminal negligence.

C.L :- In Juggan Khan v State of Madhya Pradesh, the accused was a registered homoepath
who had administered to a patient suffering from guinea worm., 24 drops of stramonium and
a leaf of dathura without properly studying its effect. The patient died as a result. Stramonum
and dathura are poisonous. and convicted under s.304A, IPC.

Act Endangering Life or Personal Safety of Others

Section 336 I.P.C. deals with Act Endangering Life or Personal Safety of Others. It is
provided in the act that whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human
life of the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to Rs. 250/-, or
with both

The Maxim res ipsa loquitur the thing speaks for itself can be applied in case of criminal
law (negligence) only when the cause of the accident in unknown

16 | P a g e
DOWRY DEATH
Section 304B - Dowry death.--(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or
bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her
marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any
demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative
shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in
section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961 (28 of 1961).

(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

INGREDIENTS OF DOWRY DEATH SECTION 304B

To invoke Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code the following ingredients are essential:

1. The death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than
under normal circumstances. To prove this the post mortem report will be sufficient.
2. Such a death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.
3. She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative
of her husband.
4. Such cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand of dowry.
5. Such cruelty or harassment is shown to have been meted out to the woman soon
before her death.

DEMAND FOR DOWRY

The term dowry is defined in the Dowry Prohibition Act, dowry means any property or
valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-

a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or


b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to
the marriage or to any other person;

at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of the said parties,
but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law
(Shariat) applies.

EXPLANATION I - For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any presents made
at the time of a marriage to either party to the marriage in the form of cash, ornaments,
clothes, or other articles, shall not be deemed to be dowry within the meaning of this section,
unless they are made as consideration for the marriage of the said parties.

EXPLANATION II - The expression 'valuable security' has the same meaning in section 30
of the IPC.

17 | P a g e
Whom to complain / where to complain?

Section 304B, Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
for filing FIR.

A written or oral complaint in the near by police station.

1. Filing an FIR.
2. If the concerned officer refuses to take your complaint and to file the FIR you can
send complaint to the Superintendent of Police either in person or through post.
3. If he refuses to take your complaint, you can approach the Magistrate and ask him/her
to direct the police to register an FIR.
4. If the police fail to register an FIR you can file a writ petition at the High Court asking
it to direct the police to register it.
5. Mention all facts clearly in your complaint and make sure that they are taken as it is in
the FIR by the police.
6. have a right to get the copy of FIR free of cost.
7. Clearly mention the names and addresses of the culprit and his family members who
are involved in dowry death.
8. The, date, place and time of dowry death.
9. Mention clearly the details of the dowry death and the motive behind it, such as
whether property is involved or for cash or kind.
10. Mention the marks or injuries on the dead body.
11. Mention the names of the witnesses for the death, if any.
12. Any person who knows the offence can give the complaint.

It is a nonbail able and non-compoundable offence and there is no chance for


compromise.

C.L :- The Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Nikku
Ram(1995)Cri LJ 4184 (SC). interestingly started off the judgment with the words Dowry,
dowry and dowry. The Supreme Court went on to explain why it has mentioned the words
dowry thrice. This is because demand for dowry is made on three occasions:

i. before marriage;
ii. at the time of marriage; and
iii. after the marriage.

The supreme court in this case explained that though the definition of 'dowry' is stated as
'property or valuable security given or agreed to be given..' demands made after marriage
could also be a part of the consideration because an implied agreement has to be read to give
property or valuable securities, even if asked after the marriage as a part of consideration or
the marriage.

C.L :- Baldev Singh v State of Punjab, the supreme court held that demand for wife's share
in estate of her late father and the consequential pressure put on her by her husband, leading
to her suicidal death, does not amount to 'demand for dowry' under s.304B IPC. Same ratio

18 | P a g e
was held in the case of K.Prema S Rao & State of Andhra Pradesh v Yadla Srinivasa
Rao.

CRUELTY

Section 304B does not explain the term 'cruelty'. However s.498 IPC explains as to what
amounts to 'cruelty'. S.498A explains cruelty to mean:

a) any wilful 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. The explanation of cruelty as given in s.498A can be relied on for the
purposes of s.304B as well. (Kaliyaperumal v State of Tamil Nadu)

SOON BEFORE

Section 304B uses the words that it should be shown that 'soon before' her death, the woman
was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. Soon
before is a relative term and it would depend upon circumstances of each case and no
straitjacket formula can be laid down as to what would constitute a period soon before the
occurrence. There must be existence of a proximate and live link between the effect of cruelty
based on dowry demand and the concerned death. The term 'soon before' is left to the
determination of the courts based on the facts and circumstances of each case. There must be
existence of a proximate and live-link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand
and the concerned death. If the alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and had become
stale enough not to disturb the mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no
consequence.1

C.L :- Rajinder Amar Singh v State of Haryana, the Punjab high court set aside conviction
of the accused on the ground that the unnatural death of his wife, though took place within
seven years of the marriage, occured after about two years after his demand for dowry.

C.L :- Uday Chakrabothy v State of West Bengal, wherein the wife of the accused died of
burn injuries within two years of her marriage, the supreme court considered the entire period
of two years as 'soon before' as the marriage did not survive even for two years.

SECTION 113B - PRESUMPTION AS TO DOWRY DEATH


When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of
a women and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such
person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry; the court
shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
In the case of State of Punjab v. Iqbal Singh AIR 1991 SC 1532. the Supreme Court
clarified the position as to why the necessity to introduce Section 113-B in the Indian
1 Kaliyaperumal v state of Tamilnadu

19 | P a g e
Evidence Act was felt The legislative intent is clear to curb the menace of dowry deaths, etc.
with a firm hand. It must be remembered that since crimes are generally committed in privacy
of residential houses and in secrecy, independent and direct evidence is not easy to get. That
is why the legislature has by introducing Section 113-B in the Evidence Act tried to
strengthen the prosecution hands by permitting a presumption to be raised if certain
foundation facts are established and the unfortunate event has taken place within seven years
of marriage.
This period of seven years is considered to be the turbulent one after which the
legislature assumes that the couple would have settled down in life. When the question at
issue is whether a person is guilty of dowry death of a woman and the evidence discloses that
immediately before her death she was subjected by such person to cruelty and/or harassment
for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. Section 113-B, Evidence Act provides that
the court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death.
A conjoint reading of Section 113-B of the Act and 304-B I.P.C. shows that there must
be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or
harassment. Prosecution has to rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to
bring it within the purview of the death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances.
The presumption, thus, makes the traditional criminal law dictum that an accused is
presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty inapplicable to dowry death cases. It helps the
prosecution to overcome the difficulty proving case against the accused.2

SUICIDE

2 Kaliyaperumal v State of TN, 2004

20 | P a g e
Section 305. Abetment of suicide of child or insane person.-- If any person under eighteen
years of age, any insane person, any delirious person, any idiot, or any person in a state of
intoxication commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with death or [imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 306. Abetment of suicide -- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the
commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Suicide has not been declared as a crime by the IPC but an attempt to commit suicide is
punishable under s.309. An abetment to commit suicide is also made punishable under s.305
and 306 IPC.

These sections are based on a reasonable public policy to prevent other persons involvement,
instigation and aiding in terminating one's life. The offence of abetment must confirm to the
definition of the term 'abetment' given in s.107. There must be instigation, cooperation or
intentional assistance given to the would-be suicidee.

Before a person can be convicted for abetment of suicide, it must first be established that
such other person has committed suicide.

C.L :- Tej Singh v State, Encouraging a widow to commit sati has been held to be abetment
of suicide. The accused were members of the crowd, who had joined the funeral procession
from the house of the decease to the cremation ground. The accused started shouting 'sati
mata ki jai'. It was held that all those person who joined that procession were aiding the
widow in committing sati.

PRESUMPTION AS TO ABETMENT

Section 113A of the Evidence Act, which was inserted in the year 1983 by the criminal law
amendment lays down presumption of abetment. Under this section, when it is found that a
woman has been subjected to cruelty as defined in s.498A, IPC, by her husband or his
relatives, and she is shown to have committed suicide within a period of seven years from the
date of her marriage, then the court may presume that such suicide had been abetted by her
husband or such relative of her husband.

ATTEMPT TO MURDER AND CULPABLE HOMICIDE

21 | P a g e
Section 307 - Attempt to murder --Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge,
and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of
murder, 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 hurt is caused to any person by
such act, the offender shall be liable either to [imprisonment for life], or to such punishment
as is hereinbefore Mentioned.

Attempts by life-convicts -When any person offending under this section is under sentence
of [imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.

Illustrations

(a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death ensued A
would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section.
(b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert
place. A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does
not ensue.
(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A
fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence defined in this section, and, if by such firing
he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided by the latter part of the first paragraph
of] this section.
(d) A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food
which remains in A's keeping; A has not yet committed the offence in this section. A places
the food on Z's table or delivers it to Z's servants to place it on Z's table. A has committed the
offence defined in this section.

SCOPE OF SECTION 307


Section 307 deals with the offence of attempt to commit murder. In order to constitute an
offence under this section, two elements are essential.
1. First, the intention of knowledge to commit murder.
2. Secondly, the actual act of trying to commit the murder.
Thus it must have both the necessary mens rea and actus reus. In other words, for offences
under this section, all the elements of murder exist, except for the fact that death has not
occurred. It is sufficient if there is present an intention to commit homicide coupled with
some overt act in execution thereof.

ACT MUST BE ONE CULPABLE OF CAUSING DEATH


C.L :- In Jai Narain Mishra v State of Bihar, the accused was responsible for causing
injury on the head of the victim with a farsa. The injury was described as a simple injury.
Though the weapon used by the offender was one which was likely to cause death, the
supreme court held that the accused could not be held guilty under s.307 IPC. Instead, his
conviction was changed to one under s.327 IPC. Thus, even if an act was done with the
intention to commit murder, but if the act was not capable of causing death, the offence will
not fall under this section. However, it may be punishable under s.300 read with s.511 IPC.

22 | P a g e
However, an accused charge under s.307 cannot be acquitted merely because the injuries
inflicted on the victim were in the nature of simple hurt. The determinative factor is intention
or knowledge and not the nature of injury - Ratan Singh v State of Madhya pradesh.

INTENTION

The words 'such intention' found in s.307, refer to the intention referred to in s.300. It means
1. intention to cause such bodily injury, which the offender knows is likely to cause
death
2. intention to cause death
3. intention to cause such bodily injury, which is sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death.
Thus, the intention to cause death is the essence of the offence of attempt to murder. Intention
is something which precedes the actual attempt. It has to be proved independently of the act
or the actus reus. Once the necessary intention to commit murder is established, the ultimate
result of the attempt will be immaterial, unless of course, the attempt results in murder, in
which case, it will fall under s.300 IPC. If intention is not proved, then the accused cannot be
convicted under this section.
However, the intention is something which can be gathered from circumstances like the
nature of the weapon used, the words used by the accused at the time of the act, the motive of
the accused, the parts of body where the injuries are caused, the nature of injuries and the
severity and persistence of the blows given etc.

KNOWLEDGE
The word 'intention' and the term 'knowledge' used in s.307 IPC, refer to knowledge as found
in s.300 clause (4). The term 'knowledge' refers to the 'knowledge' of the offender that the at
done by him is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probabiltiy cause death or such
bodily injury, as is likely to cause death.
C.L :- In Liyakat Mian v State of Bihar, the accused shot a person from very close quarters
causing injuries on the abdomen and the left arm. It was held that from these circumstances,
the knowledge that the injury caused by him would result in death could be imputed to the
accused. The accuse was convicted under s.307 IPC.

MEANING OF ATTEMPT
A person commits the offence of 'attempt to commit a particular offence' when :
1. he intends to commit that particular offence
2. having made preparations and with the intention to commit the offence, he does an act
towards its commission.

Section 308 - Attempt to commit culpable homicide.--Whoever does any act with such
intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he
would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine,
or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be punished with

23 | P a g e
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine,
or with both.
Illustration

A, on grave and sudden provocation, fires a pistol at Z, under such circumstances that if he
there by caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A
has committed the offence defined in this section.

S.307 linked with S.300 IPC and .308 linked with the offence of culpable homicide defined
under s.299 IPC.

S. 309. Attempt to commit suicide.--Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act
towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a
term which may extend to one year or with fine, or with both.

As stated earlier, suicide is as such no crime under the IPC. However, attempt to commit
suicide is made punishable under this section. Mens rea is one of the essential elements of
this offence.

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF S.309

The constitutional validity of s.309 was initially struck down as a cruel and irrational
provision and violative of art 21 of the constitution, in the case of P Rathinam v Union of
India. However, in Gian Kaur v State of Punjab, the P Rathinam dictum was reversed and
a constitutional bench of the supreme court upheld the constitutional validity of s.309, by
indicating that it does not violate arts 14, 19 and 21 of the constitution. It held that the 'right
to life' under art 21 of the constitution does not include 'right to die'.

INTENTION - Intention to commit suicide is essential in order to constitute an offence under


this section

HUNGER STRIKE - The essential requirement of the offence, namely, the intention to kill
oneself, is absent and hence, it cannot amount to an offence under this section. Thus, only
incases where the accused intends to preserve to the end, refuses all nourishment and reaches
such a stage that there is imminent danger of death ensuing, can he be held guilty of the
offence of attempt to commit suicide - Ram Sunder Dubey v State, 1962.

THUGS

24 | P a g e
Section 310 - Thug.--Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall have been
habitually associated with any other or others for the purpose of committing robbery or child-
stealing by means of or accompanied with murder, is a thug.

Section 311 - Punishment.--Whoever is a thug, shall be punished with imprisonment for


life], and shall also be liable to fine.

OFFENCES RELATING TO CHILDREN


SECTION 312 - CAUSING MISCARRIAGE -

Whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry, shall if such miscarriage be not
caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine,
or with both; and, if the woman be quick with child, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanations - A woman who causes herself to miscarry, is within the meaning of this
section.

Section 313:- Causing miscarriage without womans consent

Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section without the consent of the
woman, whether the woman is quick with child or not, 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.

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

Whoever, with intent to cause the miscarriage of a woman with child, does any act which
causes the death of such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;

If act done without womans consent and if the act is done without the consent of the
woman, shall be punished either with imprisonment for life, or with the punishment above
mentioned.

Explanations - It is not essential to this offence that the offender should know that the act is
likely to cause death.

Sections 312-14 deal with causing of miscarriage and aggravated forms of the offence, where
miscarriage is caused without the consent of the woman and where it results in the death of
the woman.

ESSENTIAL INGREDIRENTS

25 | P a g e
VOLUNARILY CAUSING MISCARRIAGE

The provision is applicable to cases where the miscarriage is voluntarily caused and not as a
result of any accident or mishap. S.39 of the IPC defines 'voluntarily' to mean intending to
cause an effect or employing means which a person knows or has reason to believe is likely
to cause the intended effect. This, intention to cause miscarriage or mens rea is essential
ingredient of the offence. It includes such acts as administering medicine to a pregnant
woman which causes abortion.

WOMAN WITH CHILD AND WOMAN QUICK WITH CHILD

The sections use the terms 'woman with child' and 'woman quick with child'. The meaning of
the words 'woman with child' simply means a pregnant woman. The moment a woman
conceives and the gestation period or the pregnancy begins, then the woman is said to be with
child. However the factum of pregnancy is essential ingredient. If a woman was under a
misconception that she was pregnant and took an abortive and another helped her, neither of
them are guilty because she was not pregnant in the first place.

The term 'quick with child' refers to a more advanced stage of pregnancy. 'Quickening' is the
perception by the mother that the movement of the foetus has taken place or the embryo has
taken a foetal form. Causing miscarriage to 'quick with child' is considered as more grave
offence and given punishment for 3 years.

MISCARRIAGE

The term miscarriage has not been defined under IPC. Modi's Medical Jurisprudence states,
'Legally, miscarriage means the premature expulsion of the product of conception, and ovum
or a foetus from the uterus, at any period before the full term is reached. Miscarriage is used
when a foetus is expelled from the fourth to the seventh month of gestation before it is viable.

CONSENT OF WOMAN

Section 312 envisages a situation where the miscarriage is caused with the consent of woman.
Thus, the woman herself, whose miscarriage was caused, is also liable to be punished under
the section.

CAUSING MISCARRIAGE RESULTING IN DEATH OF WOMAN

As per s.314 of IPC, when an act is done with the intention of causing miscarriage, but which
act results in death, then it is an offence liable for imprisonment for a term upto 10 years. A
direct nexus between act done by the accused and the death of the woman needs to be proved.

EXCEPTIONS

S.312 exempts person who cause miscarriage in good faith for the purpose of saving the life
of the woman. In such situations, the person is not liable under this section. The medical
termination of pregnancy act 1971, a women can legally get her pregnancy terminated by a
registered medical practitioner, if, the continuance of her pregnancy would cause risk or

26 | P a g e
injury to her life, either physical or mental, or if the foetus revealed abnormalities. After the
enactment of the Act, the provisions in IPC become subservient to the Act because of the
non-obstante clause in s.3, which allows abortions or miscarriage by a registered medical
practitioner under certain circumstances - Dr Jacob George v State of Kerala, 1994

INJURY TO AN UNBORN CHILD

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

Whoever before the birth of any child does any act with the intention of thereby preventing
that child from being born alive or causing it to die after its birth, and does by such act
prevent that child from being born alive, or causes it to die after its birth, shall, if such act be
not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or
with both.

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

Whoever does any act under such circumstances, that if he thereby caused death he would be
guilty of culpable homicide, and does by such act cause the death of a quick unborn child,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Illustrations

A, knowing that he is likely to cause the death of a pregnant woman, does an act which, if it
caused the death of the woman, would amount to culpable homicide. The woman is injured,
but does not die; but the death of an unborn quick child with which she is pregnant is thereby
caused. A is guilty of the offence defined in this section.

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF S.316

Act to be before the birth of the child - The act done before the birth of the child should
result in preventing the child from being born alive or cause it to die after his birth. If the act
of killing the child is done after its birth, this section is not attracted, because it will then be a
case of murder or culpable homicide.

Intention - Under 315, act should be done with the intention of preventing the child from
being born alive or cause it to die after its birth. If the act is done in good faith for the purpose
of saving the life of the mother, then no offence is made out.

Causing death of quick unborn child by Act amounting to Culpable Homicide - S.316 is
a graver variation of s.315. Under s.315, the act is done with the intention to cause the death
of the unborn child. But under s.316, the act is done with the mens rea or the intention to
commit culpable homicide (presumably of the mother), which act though does not result in
the actual death of the mother, nut results in the death of the quick unborn child. If the act of

27 | P a g e
the accused actually results in the death of the victim mother, then the offence committed wil
be culpable homicide - Motia v State of Rajasthan.

ABANDONMENT AND EXPOSURE OF AN INFANT

Section 317:- Exposure and abandonment of child under twelve years, by parent or
person having care of it

Whoever being the father or mother of a child under the age of twelve years, or having the
care of such child, shall expose or leave such child in any place with the intention of wholly
abandoning such child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

Explanations

This section is not intended to prevent the trial of the offender for murder or culpable
homicide, as the case may be, if the child die in consequence of the exposure.

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT

Child to be under 12 years - This section is applicable only to childrens below 12 years
because they are not in a position to protect themselves. The primary responsibilty is cast on
the parents and adults, who may have custody of the child to bring up the child and to provide
adequate care for children of tender age. It applies equally to legitimate and illegitimate.

Responsibility is on Both father and mother or person having care of such child - Both
mother and father are duty bound to care for the child under s.317. The section makes no
difference between children born in wedlock or outside the wedlock. Persons having care of
such child include duty care centres, creches, orphanges, etc.

Exposing or Leaving with intention to Abandon - The words 'expose or leave' mean
leaving the child in danger, neglecting the child and not giving the child adequate protection
from natural elements like cold, heat and other hazards. It is leaving the child without
protection

Death of child as a consequence of the exposure - When the exposure and abandonment of
the child under 12 years of age, results in its death, then the father, mother or person in whose
care the child has been left in, will be liable for murder or culpable homicide as given in the
explanation to the section. However the death of the child should be in consequence of
exposure. A woman deserted her illegitimate child of 10 days under circumstances where the
child could and did obtain food. However, the child died of natural cause after 4 days. It was
held that the mother was not guilty of murder.

CONCEALMENT OF BIRTH OF A CHILD

28 | P a g e
Section 318:- Concealment of birth by secret disposal of dead body

Whoever, by secretly burying or otherwise disposing of the dead body of a child whether
such child die before or after or during its birth, intentionally conceals or endeavors to
conceal the birth of such child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS

Secret disposal of bodies of children - Registration of Births and Deaths Act 1969

Dead body of child - As per this section, the secret burying or disposal should be of the 'dead
body of the child'. This means that the child should not be in the stage of a mere embryo or
foetus but should have reached such a stage of development and maturity that it may be born
alive and capable of living. Further, the child should be dead. If the child were alive at the
time of secret disposal, then no offence under this section is made out - Radha v state of
rajasthan.

Conceals or Endeavours to Conceal Birth - The secret disposal of the body of the child
should be with the intention to conceal or attempt to conceal the birth of the child. When the
birth of the child was known to a number of persons in the hospital then it was held that there
was no concealment of birth.

GRIEVOUS HURT

29 | P a g e
Section 320 of the IPC - 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.
4. Privation of any member or a joint.
5. Destruction or permanent impairing of 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 body pain or unable to follow his ordinary
pursuits.
Emasculation means depriving a male of masculine vigor. So, this clause is not applicable
to female victims. This could be done by castration, by cutting the male organ, or by causing
injury to testis or to the spinal cord at the level of 2nd to 4th lumbar vertebrae to result in
impotence.
"Permanent does not mean that it should be incurable. For instance, loss of sight occurring
due to corneal opacity resulting from injury to the cornea may be curable by corneoplasty but
being permanent by itself constitutes a grievous hurt and chances of treating by corneoplasty
do not lower its gravity. The gravity of injury lies in its permanency because it deprives a
person of the use of the organ of sight and also disfigures him. Permanent privation of sight
can be caused by gouging out of eyes, poking eyes, chemicals, etc.

"Permanent privation of hearing" may be caused by a blow on the head or the ear, or by
blows which injure the tympanum or auditory nerves or by trusting something or pouring hot
liquid into the ear which causes deafness. Even, permanent partial loss of hearing is
considered as grievous.

The term member means any organ or limb of a subject responsible for performance of a
distinct function. It includes eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, hands, feet, etc.

"Disfiguration" means doing a man some external injury which cause change in
configuration and personal appearance of the subject, but does not weaken him. Age, sex,
occupation of the subject is immaterial.

"Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth" causes great pain and suffering to the injured
person and hence it is considered grievous hurt.

Hori lal and Anr vs. State of U.P - For application of this clause it is not necessary that a
bone should be fractured through and through or that there should be a displacement of any
fragment of bone. Any break or splintering of the bone, rupture or fissure in it would amount
to fracture. Although fracture has not been defined in sec 320 IPC, but as per Supreme Court
judgment in the case of Hori lal and Anr vs. State of U.P. (1969), incised wound to the bone
is to be consider as fracture, hence, grievous hurt. Before giving opinion, it has to be proved
that, the tooth was not originally loose and injury caused fracture or dislocation of tooth. An
injury can be said to endanger life if it is in itself that it put the life of the injured in danger.

30 | P a g e
There is thin line between degree of body injury "dangerous to life" and "likely to cause
death". So, The line separating Grievous Hurt and Culpable Homicide is very thin.

In Grievous Hurt, the life is endangered due to injury while in Culpable Homicide; death is
likely to be caused. However, acts neither intended nor likely to cause death may amount to
grievous hurt even though death is caused.

C.L :- Moreover, in Niranjan Singh V State of Madhya Pradesh, the Court observed that
the term endangers life is much stronger than the expression dangerous to life. The mere
fact that a man has been in hospital for twenty days is not sufficient; it must be proved that
during that time he was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.

A disability for twenty days constitutes grievous hurt; if it constitutes for a smaller period,
then the offence is hurt. "Ordinary pursuits" means acts which are a daily routine in every
human beings day to day life like eating food, taking bath, going to toilet, etc. Where there is
no intention to cause neither death nor knowledge that death is likely to be caused from the
harm inflicted, and the death is caused, the accused would be guilty of grievous hurt if the
injury caused was of serious nature, but not of culpable homicide.

Mere hospitalisation for more than 20 days does not ipso facto turn the 'hurt' into 'grievous
hurt'. Therefore, if the victim has not co-operated or not consented for operation, the 'hurt'
caused would not be 'grievous hurt' and the accused therefore cannot be held guilty for
causing 'grievous hurt'.

S.322 - VOLUNTARILY CAUSING GRIEVOUS HURT

Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be
likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes 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 Zs face,


gives Z a blow which does not permanently disfigure Zs face, but which cause Z to suffer
severe bodily pain for the space of twenty days. A has voluntarily caused grievous hurt.
Explanation - The offence of grievous hurt is not caused unless the offender both causes
grievous hurt and intends, or knows himself to be likely, to cause grievous hurt; Ramkaran
Mohton v. State, AIR 1958 Pat 452.

S.323 - PUNISHMENT FOR VOLUNTARILY CAUSING GRIEVOUS HURT

Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt.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.

31 | P a g e
C.L :- Pandurang v State of Hyderabad, the Supreme Court held that giving a blow on the
head with an axe, which penetrates half an inch into the head, is an act which is likely to
endanger life and will be covered under Clause 8 of s.320. The accused was convicted under
s.326. The dividing line between culpable homicide not amounting to murder and grievous
hurt is very thin. In the former case, injuries must be such as are likely to cause death and in
the latter they may endanger life. (Lal Mandi v State of WB , 1995)

SECTION 324 - CAUSING HURT OR GRIEVOUS HURT BY DANGEROUS


WEAPONS

Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means.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 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 of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

SECTION 326 - VOLUNTARILY CAUSING GRIEVOUS HURT BY DANGEROUS


WEAPONS OR MEANS

Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or meansWhoever, 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
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.

Where a dangerous weapon has been used to cause a simple hurt, then s.324 will apply - Ved
Praash v State of Haryana, 1996

Where a dangerous weapon has been used to cause a grievous hurt as defined in s.320, then
s.326 will apply - Re Natraja Goundan 1939

What weapon becomes a 'dangerous weapon' depends upon the facts of each case and no
generalisation can be made - Prabhu v State of Madhya Pradesh 2008

SECTION 326A - CAUSING GRIEVOUS HURT BY USE OF ACID (Latest


Amendment under the Criminal Law Ordinance, 2013)

32 | P a g e
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 which may extend
to ten lakh rupees

Provided that any fine imposed under this section shall be given to the person on whom acid
was thrown or to whom acid was administered.

Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the
treatment of the victims.

Provided further that any fine imposes under this section shall be paid to the victim.

SECTION 326B :- VOLUNTARILY THROWING OR ATTEMPTING TO THROW


ACID

Whoever throws or attempts to throw acid on any person or attempts to administer acid to any
person, or attempts to use any other means, with the intention of causing permanent or partial
damage or deformity or burns or maiming or disfigurement or disability or grievous hurt to
that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall
not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to
fine.

Explanation 1: For the purposes of section 326A and this section, acid includes any
substance which has acidic or corrosive character or burning nature, that is capable of
causing bodily injury leading to scars or disfigurement or temporary or permanent
disability.

Explanation 2: Permanent or partial damage includes deformity, or maiming, or


burning, or disfiguring, or disabling any part or parts of the body of a person.

Explanation 3: For the purposes of section 326A and this section, permanent or
partial damage or deformity shall not be required to be irreversible.

So, after the present amendment, following changes took place: Earlier only
permanent disfiguration of face is alone considered as grievous hurt. But now even
disfiguration of any part of the body by throwing or administering acid is also
considered as grievous hurt.

After insertion of 326A & 326B, even temporary or permanent disability due to
throwing or administering of an acid is covered under grievous hurt. Moreover, the
damage or deformity shall not be required to be irreversible.

The words "any hurt which endangers life" means that the life is only endangered and
not taken away. Stabbing on any vital part, squeezing the testicles, thursting lathi into

33 | P a g e
rectum so that bleeding is caused, have all been held as Hurts that endanger life and
thus Grievous Hurts.
As with Hurt, in Grievous Hurt, it is not a physical contact is not necessary.

The line separating Grievous Hurt and Culpable Homicide is very thin. In Grievous
Hurt, the life is endangered due to injury while in Culpable Homicide, death is likely
to be caused. Thus, acts neither intended nor likely to cause death may amount to
grievous hurt even though death is caused.

C.L : Laxmi V UOI, 2013 - Recently, the supreme court, noticing that victims compensation
scheme prepared in pursuance of s.357A of CrPC by some states and union territories is un-
uniform and inadequate and realising that victims of acid attack need to undergo a series of
plastic surgeries and other corrective treatments, has directed all states and union territories to
pay a compensation of at least 3 lac rupees to every victim of acid attacks as the after care
and rehabilitation cost. Of this amount, a sum of 1 lac rupees is to be paid to the victim within
15 days of occurrence of the incident or being brought to the notice of the state or union
territory, as the case may be, to facilitate immediate medical attention and expenses and the
balance of 2 lac rupees be paid as expeditiously as may be possible and positively within two
months thereafter.

WRONGFUL RESTRAINT AND WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT


Section 339 - Wrongful restraint.--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.

34 | P a g e
Exception.-The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith
believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of
this section.

Illustration

A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass. A not believing in good faith that he has
a right to stop the path. Z is thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z.

INGREDIENTS

1. Voluntary obstruction of a person, and


2. the obstruction must be such as to prevent that person from proceeding in any
direction in which he has a right to proceed.

In wrongful restraint, physical presence of accused is not always necessary. Obstruction to


vehicle alone does not constitute 'wrongful restraint' as defined in s.339 as obstruction of a
person only comes within its purview.

C.L :- Raja Ram v State of Haryana, a woman and a 13 year old boy were summoned to
the police station for interrogation. The proviso to s.160, CrPC, provides that no woman or
make under 15 years of age should be summoned to the police station for interrogation.
Instead, they must be interrogated at the place where they reside. The accused, a police
officer, was found guilty of infringing s.160 CrPC. It was held that in view of this, detaining
of a woman and a 13 year old boy in the police station would amount to wrongful restraint
and punishable under S.341 of IPC.

Section 340 - Wrongful confinement.--Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a


manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is
said "wrongfully to confine" that person.

Illustrations

(a) A causes Z to go within a walled space, and locks Z. Z is thus prevented from proceeding
in any direction beyond the circumscribing line of wall. A wrongfully confines z.

(b) A places men with firearms at the outlets of a building, and tells Z that they will fire at Z
if Z attempts leave the building. A wrongfully confines Z.

INGREDIENTS

1. Wrongful restraint of a person


2. the restraint must be to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain
circumscribing limits beyond which he/she has right to proceed. There must be total
restraint and not a partial one.

C.L :- Dhileep Bhikaji v State of Maharashtra, the police officer who illegally confined a
person for five days in a chapter case under s.107 of the CrPC is held guilty under S.342 IPC.

35 | P a g e
Section 341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.--Whoever wrongfully restrains any person
shall be punished 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.

342. Punishment for wrongful confinement.--Whoever wrongfully confines any person


shall be punished with simple 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.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN WRONGFUL RESTRAINT AND WRONGFUL


CONFINEMENT

In wrongful confinement, a person is restrained from proceeding in direction beyond a certain


area; in wrongful restraint, he is restrained from proceeding in some particular direction,
though free to proceed elsewhere. Punishment for the offence of wrongful restraint is milder
than that is stipulated for wrongful confinement.

FORCE AND CRIMINAL FORCE AND ASSAULT


Section 349 - Force - A person is said to use force to another if he

causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or


if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of
motion as brings that substance into contact with any part of that other's body, or

36 | P a g e
with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or
with anything so situated that such contact affects that other's sense of feeling:
Provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of
motion, cause that motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the
three ways hereinafter described:

First.-By his own bodily power.


Secondly.-By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or change or
cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or on the part of
any other person.
Thirdly.-By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move.
The term 'force' as defined in this section contemplates force used by a human being on
another human being. It does not contemplate the use of force against inanimate objects -
Sadashiv Mondal v Emperor, 1915. This is clear from the use of the word 'another' in the
section. Thus, a motion or change of motion or cessation of motion caused to property
without affecting a human being is not the 'use of force to another' within the meaning of this
section - Bhupinder Singh v State 1997.

Section 350 - Criminal Force - Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that
person's consent,
in order to the committing of any offence, or
intending by the use of such force to cause, or
knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or
annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that
other.
Illustrations

(a) Z is sitting in a moored boat on a river. A unfastens the moorings, and thus
intentionally causes the boat to drift down the stream. Here A intentionally causes
motion to Z, and he does this by disposing substances in such a manner that the
motion is produced without any other action on any person's part. A has therefore
intentionally used force to Z; and if he has done so without Zs consent, in order to the
committing of any offence, or intending or knowing it to be likely that this use of
force will cause injury, fear or annoyance to Z, A has used criminal force to Z. -
Exemplifies motion in s.349
(b) Z is riding in a chariot. A lashes Z's horses and thereby causes them to quicken
their pace. Here A has caused change of motion to Z by inducing the animals to
change their motion. A has therefore used force to Z; and if A has done this without
Z's consent, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten
or annoy Z, A has used criminal force to Z. - 'change of motion'
Z is riding in a palanquin. A, intending to rob Z, seizes the pole and stops the
palanquin. Here A has caused cessation of motion to Z, and he has done this by his
own bodily power. A has therefore used force to Z; and as A has acted thus

37 | P a g e
intentionally, without Zs consent, in order to the commission of an offence. A has
used criminal force to Z. -'cessation of motion'

Z is bathing. A pours into the bath water which he knows to be boiling. Here A
intentionally by his own bodily power causes such motion in the boiling water as
brings that water into contact with Z,or with other water so situated that such contact
must affect Z's sense of feeling, A has therefore intentionally used force to Z; and if he
has done this without Z's consent intending or knowing it to be likely that he may
thereby cause injury, fear or annoyance to Z, A has used criminal force - indicates
'other' sense of feeling

A incites a dog to spring upon Z without Z's consent. Here, if A intends to cause
injury, fear or annoyance to Z, he uses criminal force to Z - indicates that brings
substance into contact with any part of that other's body.

In brief, force is the exercise of one's energy upon another human being and it may be
exercised directly or indirectly. So , if A raises his stick at B and the latter moves away. A
uses force within the meaning of this section. Similarly, if a person shouts, cries and calls a
dog or any other animal and it moves in consequence, it would amount to the use of force.

Criminal force is equivalent to 'battery' in English law, which means the intentional infliction
of force by one person upon another against the latter's consent.

The essential ingredients of the section are :-

1. there must be use of force as defined by s.349


2. such force should be used intentionally
3. the force must be used against a person
4. it should have been used without the consent of the person against whom it is
used.

As seen in the definition of 'force', criminal force is also concerned with the use of force on a
human being alone and not against immovable property or other inanimate objects. Further,
the section contemplates the physical presence of the person on whom the force is used.

Thus the use of force which causes motion, change of motion or cessation of motion to
another person, done without the consent of such person, in order to commit an offence, or
cause injury, fear or annoyance to the said person, will amount to criminal force. No bodily
injury or hurt need be caused.

The word 'intentional' excludes all involuntary, accidental or even negligent acts. An
attendant at a bath, who from pure carelessness turns on the wrong tap and causes boiling
water to fall on another, could not be convicted for the use of criminal force.

The word 'consent' should be taken as defined in s.90 IPC.

Section 351 - Assault - Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or
knowing it to be likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to

38 | P a g e
apprehend that he who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that
person, is said to commit an assault.

Explanation.-Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses
may give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures or
preparations amount to an assault.

Illustrations

(a) A shakes his fist at Z, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby
cause Z to believe that A is about to strike Z. A has committed an assault.

(b) A begins to unloose the muzzle of a ferocious dog, intending or knowing it to be


likely that he may thereby cause Z to believe that he is about to cause the dog to
attack Z. A has committed an assault upon Z.

(c) A takes up a stick, saying to Z, "I will give you a beating. Here, though the words
used by A could in no case amount to an assault, and though the mere gesture,
unaccompanied by any other circumstances, might not amount to an assault, the
gesture explained by the words may amount to an assault.

INGREDIENTS

The essential ingredients of assault are

1. the accused should make a gesture or preparation to use criminal force


2. such gesture or preparation should be made in the presence of the person in respect of
whom it is made
3. there should be intention or knowledge on the part of the accuse that such gesture or
preparation would cause apprehension in the mind of the victim that criminal force
would be used against him.
4. such gesture or preparation has actually caused apprehension in the mind of the
victim, of use of criminal force against him

GESTURE OR PREPARATION

According to this section, the mere gesture or preparation with the intention or knowledge
that it is likely to cause apprehension in the mind of the victim, amounts to an offence of
assault. The explanation to the section provides that mere words do not amount to assault,
unless the words are used in aid of the gesture or preparation which amounts to assault.

The following have been held to be instances of assault,3

1. pointing of a gun, whether loaded or unloaded


2. fetching a sword and advancing with it towards the victim
3. Lifting one's lota or lathi
4. Throwing brick into another's house
5. advancing with a threatening attitude to strike blows.
3 Kwaku Mensah v king 1946

39 | P a g e
CAUSE APPREHENSION OF ASSAULT

Another essential requirement of assault is that the person threatened should be present and
near enough to apprehend danger. For instance, if A pointed a gun at B, which B knew to be
unloaded, then B could not have been under fear of any harm. In order to constitute the
offence of assault, it is essential that the person apprehends that there will be use of criminal
force against him.

Mere threat to an assault is not an assault. The question whether a particular act amounts to
an assault, or not, depends on whether the act has caused reasonable apprehension in the
mind of the person that criminal force was imminent. As stated earlier, the words or the
action should not be threat of assault at some future point in time. The apprehension of use of
criminal force against the person should be in the present and immediate.

Section 352 - Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave
provocation -- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person otherwise than on
grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may
extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

Explanation.-Grave and sudden provocation will not mitigate the punishment for an offence
under this section, if the provocation is sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an
excuse for the offence, or if the provocation is given by anything done in obedience to the
law, or by a public servant, in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant, or if
the provocation is given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private
defence. Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to mitigate the offence, is a
question of fact.

ASSAULT OR CRIMINAL FORCE TO DETER PUBLIC SERVANT

Section 353 - Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his
duty - Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the
execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person
from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or
attempted to be done by such person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public serv-
ant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
two years, or with fine, or with both.

INGREDIENTS

1. The victim must be a public servant


2. When assaulted, he must have been acting
(a) in execution of his official duty
(b) and the assault was intended to deter him from discharging his duty; or
(c) it was in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by him in the
lawful discharge of his duty.

40 | P a g e
C.L :- Rama Rao v State
C.L :- Durgacharan Naik v State of Orissa

Section 354 - Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty.--
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to
be likely that he will there by outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

C.L :- Aman Kumar v State of Haryana - In order to seek conviction under S.354, the
prosecution has to prove not only that the accused assaulted or used criminal force to the
woman but also that he did it with either the intent to outrage her modesty or the knowledge
that it would outrage her modesty. Hence, an act of pulling a woman, removing her dress
coupled with a request for sexual intercourse, amounts to outraging modesty of the woman as
the act exhibits his determination and desire

C.L :- Rupan Deol Bajaj v K.P.S.Gill

C.L :- In State of Punjab v. Major Singh - three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court
considered the question, What is a womans modesty? and it held The essence of a
womans modesty is her sex. The modesty of an adult female is writ large-on her body. Young
or old, intelligent or imbecile, awake or sleeping the woman possesses a modesty capable of
being outraged. Whoever uses criminal force to her with intent to outrage her modesty
commits an offence punishable under Section 354. The culpable intention of the accused is
the crux of the matter. The reaction of the woman is very relevant, but its absence is not
always decisive, as, for example, when the accused with a corrupt mind stealthily touches the
flesh of a sleeping woman. She may be an idiot, she may be under the spell of anaesthesia,
she may be sleeping, she may be unable to appreciate the significance of the act;
nevertheless, the offender is punishable under the section.

SECTION 354A - SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND PUNISHMENT FOR SEXUAL


HARASSMENT

(1) A man committing any of the following acts

(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual overtures; or

(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or

(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or

(iv) making sexually coloured remarks,

41 | P a g e
shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment.

(2) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause (iii) of
sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years, or with fine, or with both.

(3) Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or
with fine, or with both.

SECTION 354B - ASSAULT OR USE OF CRIMINAL FORCE TO WOMEN WITH


INTENT TO DISROBE

Any man who assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets such act with the
intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked in any public place, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three fine.
years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

SECTION 354C - VOYEURISM

354C. Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in
circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed either by
the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or disseminates such
image shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term
which shall not be less than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be
liable to fine, and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of
either description for a term which shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to
seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation 1.For the purpose of this section, "private act" includes an act of watching
carried out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide
privacy and where the victim's genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed or covered only in
underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the victim is doing a sexual act that is not of a
kind ordinarily done in public

Explanation 2.Where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any act, but not to
their dissemination to third persons and where such image or act is disseminated, such
dissemination shall be considered an offence under this section

SECTION 354D - STALKING

354D. (1) Any man who

(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal
interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or

(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic
communication; or

42 | P a g e
(iii) watches or spies on a woman in any manner,

that results in a fear of violence or serious alarm or distress in the mind of such woman, or
interferes with the mental peace of the woman, commits the offence of stalking:

Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that

(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man accused of
stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and detection of crime by
the State; or

(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by
any person under any law; or

(iii) in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.

(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to five
years, and shall also be liable to fine..

Sections 354A, 354C and 354D are thus, aimed at protecting women against certain indecent
acts of men. These provisions, in ultimate analysis, do legislatively articulate the acts that are
considered offensive not only to women, but also to public morality and decent behaviour.

KIDNAPPING ANF ABDUCTION

Section 359 - Kidnapping.--Kidnapping is of two kinds : kidnapping from [India], and


kidnapping from lawful guardianship.

Section 360 - Kidnapping from India.Whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of
[India] without the consent of that person, or of some person legally authorised to consent on
behalf of that person, is said to kidnap that person from 1[India].

The term 'India' has been defined in s.18, IPC, as the territory of India excluding the state of
Jammu and Kashmir. The words used in this section are 'beyond the limits of India'. This
means that the offence under this section is complete, the moment a person is taken outside
the geographical territory of India. By the same, it a person is apprehended before he crosses

43 | P a g e
the Indian border, then the offence will not be complete. At best, it may amount to an attempt
to commit the offence of kidnapping from India under s.360 IPC. Till then, he has a locus
paenitentia.

Section 361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship.Whoever takes or entices any minor
under [sixteen] years of age if a male, or under [eighteen] years of age if a female, or any
person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of
unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person
from lawful guardianship.

Explanation.The words lawful guardian in this section include any person lawfully
entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person.

(Exception) This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith
believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself
to be entitled to lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or
unlawful purpose.

This section deals with taking away of minor children from lawful guardianship. It is
equivalent to what is termed 'child stealing' in england. The object of this section is to protect
minor children and persons of unsound mind from being seduced, harmed or otherwise
exploited by others. It is to afford protection and security to the wards. It also naturally
recognises the right of the guardians to control and take charge of their wards who may be
minors and/or persons of unsound mind.

All that is required to bring an act within the purview of this section, is to 'take or entice' a
minor or a person of unsound mind from keeping of the lawful guardian.

C.L :- S.Varadharajan v State of Madras, a girl who was on the verge of attaining majority,
voluntarily left her father's house, arranged to meet the accused at a certain place and went to
the sub-register office. There was no evidence whatsoever that the accused has 'taken' her out
of the lawful guardianship of her parents, as there was no active part played by the accused to
persuade her to leave the house. It was held that no offence under this section was made out.

C.L :- State of Haryana v Raja Ram, the words keeping of the lawful guardian, in the
context, connotes the idea of charge, protection, maintenance and control. It is not necessary
that the minor should be under physical possession of the guardian.

Section 363 - Punishment for Kidnapping

Whoever kidnaps any person from 1[India] or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine.

C.L :- Chandrakala v Vipin menon, the sc declined to convict the father, who was accused
of kidnapping, his minor daughter who was living with her maternal grandfather due to

44 | P a g e
strained relationship between her parents, on the ground that the accused was the natural
guardian of the child.

Section 364 - Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder.Whoever kidnaps or abducts


any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so disposed of as to be put
in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life] or rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Illustrations

(a) A kidnaps Z from [India], intending or knowing it to be likely that Z may be sacrificed to
an idol. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

(b) A forcibly carries or entices B away from his home in order that B may be murdered. A
has committed the offence defined in this section.

INGREDIENTS

a) The accused kidnapped the person


b) the person was kidnapped in order
i. that he may be murdered or
ii. that he might be disposed of in such manner as to be put in danger of being
murdered

Section 364A - Kidnapping for ransom, etc.Whoever kidnaps or abducts

a) any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and
threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or
b) by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to
death or hurt, or
c) causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or [any foreign
State or international inter-governmental organisation or any other person] to do or
abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

INGREDIENTS

1. Accused kidnapped, abducted or detained a person


2. he kept such a person under custody or detention
3. the kidnapping, abduction or detention has been for ransom4.

Section 366 - Kidnapping, abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage, etc.
Whoever kidnaps or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing
it to be likely that she will be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or in order that
she may be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be
forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either

4 Ransom is a a sum of money to be demanded to be paid for releasing a captive, prisoner or detenu.

45 | P a g e
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; 1[and
whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of authority
or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that
she may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse
with another person shall be punishable as aforesaid].

Abduction for forcible sexual intercourse or forcible marriage, or seduction for illicit
intercourse is the main ingredient of this section. The essence of the crime is compulsion. The
intention of the accuse to compel a woman to marry or to submit to sexual intercourse against
her will is the basis of the section. Intention, volition or conduct of the women is irrelevant.

Section 366A - Procuration of minor girl.Whoever, by any means whatsoever, induces


any minor girl under the age of eighteen years to go from any place or to do any act with
intent that such girl may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to
illicit intercourse with another person shall be punishable with imprisonment which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.]

Section 370 - Buying or disposing of any person as a slave.Whoever imports, exports,


removes, buys, sells or disposes of any person as a slave, or accepts, receives or detains
against his will any person as a slave, 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 372. Selling minor for purposes of prostitution, etc.Whoever sells, lets to hire,
or otherwise disposes of any 1[person under the age of eighteen years with intent that such
person shall at any age be employed or used for the purpose of prostitution or illicit
intercourse with any person or for any unlawful and immoral purpose, or knowing it to be
likely that such person will at any age be] employed or used for any such purpose, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall be liable to fine.

[Explanation I.When a female under the age of eighteen years is sold, let for hire, or
otherwise disposed of to a prostitute or to any person who keeps or manages a brothel, the
person so disposing of such female shall, until the contrary is proved, be presumed to have
disposed of her with the intent that she shall be used for the purpose of prostitution.
Explanation II.For the purposes of this section illicit intercourse means sexual
intercourse between persons not united by marriage or by any union or tie which, though not
amounting to a marriage, is recognised by the personal law or custom of the community to
which they belong or, where they belong to different communities, of both such communities,
as constituting between them a quasi-marital relation.]

46 | P a g e
ABDUCTION
Section 362 - Abduction - Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces,
any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person

Section 362 merely defines the term 'abduction'. Therefore, abduction per se is not offence
under the IPC. It is an offence when it is accompanied by certain intent to commit another
offence. Force or fraud is essential to make abduction punishable.

INGREDIENTS

1. Forcible compulsion or inducement by deceitful means, and


2. the objects of such compulsion or inducement must be the going of a person from any
place.

47 | P a g e
Abduction per se is not offence. There should be an assault which is an offence agaisnt
human body and that assault should be with the intention of abducting. Abduction is an
offence only if it is done with intent to

a) murder (s.364)
b) secretly and wrongfully confining a person (s.365)
c) induce woman to compel her marriage (s.366) and
d) subject person to grievous hurt, slavery etc (s.367) and
e) steal from a person under ten years (s.369)

By Force - The term force as embodied in s.362 IPC means the use of actual force and not
merely show of force or threat of voice. Where an accused threatened the prosecutrix with a
pistol to make her go with him, it would amount to abduction under this section

Deceitful Means - Under this section, inducing a person by deceitful means to go from any
place is also an offence. Deceitful means is used as an alternative to 'use of force'.

To go from any place - An essential element of abduction is compelling or inducing a person


to go from any place.

KIDNAPPING ABDCUTION
1. Kidnapping from guardianship is Abduction may be in respect of a person of
committed only in respect of a minor any age
2. Person kidnapped is removed out of lawful No such thing necessary. It has reference
guardianship exclusively to the person abducted
3. Taken away or enticed to go away with the Force, compulsion and deceitful means are
kidnapper. The means used are irrelevant. used.
4. Consent of the person kidnapped is Consent of the person condones the offence
immaterial
5. Intent of the kidnapper is irrelevant Intent of the abductor is the all important
factor
6. Not a continuing offence. It is complete as It is a continuing offence. It continues so
soon as the minor or person of unsound mind long as the abducted person s removed from
is removed from lawful guardianship. one place to another
7. Kidnapping outside India Abduction may be anywhere within or
without
8. Kidnapping is a substantive offence Abduction is an auxiliary act. It becomes
punishable only when it is done with either of
the intents specified in s.364 to 366

48 | P a g e
PRIVATE DEFENCE
Sections 96 to 106 of the penal code state the law relating to the right of private defence of
person and property. The provisions contained in these sections give authority to a man to use
necessary force against an assailant or wrong-doer for the purpose of protecting ones own
body and property as also anothers body and property when immediate aid from the state
machinery is not readily available; and in so doing he is not answerable in law for his deeds.

The right of private defence is based on the cardinal principle that it is the primary duty of a
man to help himself. Self preservation is the prime instinct of every human being.

OBJECTIVE

Self-help is the first rule of criminal law. The right of private defence is absolutely necessary
for the protection of ones life, liberty and property. It is a right inherent in a man. But the

49 | P a g e
kind and amount of force is minutely regulated by law. The use of force to protect ones
property and person is called the right of private defence

This right is based in two principles

1. It is available against the aggressor only, and


2. The right is available only when the defender entertains reasonable apprehension.

There are three tests for ascertaining reasonable apprehension

Objective,
Subjective and `
Expanded objective tests.

1. Objective test emphasizes as to how in a similar circumstance an ordinary,


reasonable, standard and average person will respond
2. Subjective test examines the mental state based on individual attitude.
3. Expanded objective test, being a combination of aforesaid two tests, bases its inquiry
to determine whether or not the individual acted as a reasonable person.

The right of self-defence under Section 96 is not ,absolute but is clearly qualified by Section
99 which says that the right in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is
necessary for the purpose of defence.

SECTION 96. Things done in private defence.--Nothing is an offence which is done in the
exercise of the right of private defence

This section states that right of private defence is essentially a defensive right circumscribed
by the IPC and it is available only when the circumstances clearly justify it. It is exercised
only to repel unlawful aggression and not to punish the aggressor for the offence committed
by him. It is basically preventive in nature and not punitive. The exercise of the right is
subject to the restrictions mentioned in s.99 which are as important as the right itself.

RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE NOT AVAILABLE TO AGGRESSORS

The right presupposes attack or aggression by the person against whom the right is claimed.
Where the person who is attacked by the accused is not an aggressor, no right of private
defence can be claimed by the accused.

In Mannu v state of uttar pradesh, when the deceased were going to the market, they were
waylaid and attacked by the accused with dangerous weapon. Although, there were injuries
caused on the side of the accused party as well and there was also loss of a life, the supreme
court rejected the plead of self defence, holding that the accused being the aggressors were
not entitled to the right of self defence.

FREE FIGHT - In a free fight, no right of private defence is available to either party and
each individual is responsible for his own acts. Since there is either common intention or

50 | P a g e
common object in a free fight, an accused cannot be punished for having recourse to s.149 of
the IPC. Each individual is responsible for his own acts.

RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE NOT AVAILABLE AGAINST LAWFUL ACTS

It is only when A commits or threatens to commit offence against B or his property, that B
gets a right of private defence. On the other hand, if A, for instance, were to enter into B's
property for the purpose of executing an order of the court and B prevents A from entering
the property, resulting in harm or injury to A, the pleas of private defence is not available to
B. In other words, the right of private defence cannot be exercised when a person is carrying
out a lawful act.

SECTION 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-

First.--His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the
human body;

Secondly.--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.

RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE AGAINST ACTS OF LUNATICS, INTOXICATED


PERSON

SECTION 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.

Illustrations

(a) 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.

(b) 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

LIMITS OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE

Section 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

51 | P a g e
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 the
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.

Explanation 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.

Explanation 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.

Section 99 lays down the conditions and limits within which the right of private defence can
be exercised

The right must be exercised in proportion to harm to be inflicted. In other words, there is no
right of private defence:

ACTS OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

Against the acts of a public servant; and Against the acts of those acting under their authority
or direction; However this protection given to lawful acts of public servants or person acting
under their directions will not apply in cases where the actions of the public servant cause a
reasonable apprehension of death or of grievous hurt to the parties concerned.

TIME TO HAVE RECOURSE TO AUTHORITIES

S.99 further stipulates that there is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time
to have recourse to the protection of public authorities. In such a situation, a delinquent has to
approach public authorities rather than taking law into his hands.

52 | P a g e
The right of self defence of either body or property can only be at the time when there is
imminent danger or harm. If the parties had advance intimation of the impending harm, then
their remedy is to approach the appropriate authorities. Similarly, if the alleged harm is
already done, then again their remedy is to take recourse to law and not to take law unto their
hands.

RIGHT DOES NOT EXTEND TO CAUSING MORE HARM THAN NECESSARY

The quantum of harm that may be caused shall in no case be in excess of harm that may be
necessary for the purpose of defence. Where the accused continued to assault the deceased
after he had fallen down and rendered harmless,, it was held that there was no right of private
defence.

Rafiq v State of Maharashtra - When the accused was attacked with a stick by the deceased
and the accused stabbed him with the knife in the heart, it was held that the accused exceeded
his right of self defence.

The right of private defence of person or of property, thus is to be exercised subject to the
following conditions :

1. If a public servant does not cause reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt to
the person or damage to the property.
2. If there is no sufficient time for recourse to public authorities
3. no harm more than necessary to repel the attack is caused.

WHEN THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE OF THE BODY EXTEND TO


CAUSING DEATH

SECTION 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. (First) Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will
otherwise be the consequence of such assault;5
2. (Secondly) Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that
grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
3. (Thirdly) An assault with the intention of committing rape;6
4. (Fourthly) An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;
5. (Fifthly) An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;

5 State of Uttar pradesh v Zalim, when there was a verbal altercation and the deceased took off the shoe , the
accused felt insulted dragged him to the middle of the road and stabbed him. The supreme court held that
holding of a shoe could not cause reasonable apprehension of danger in the mind of the accused and the plea
of private defence was not available to the accused.
6 State of Orissa v Nirupamma Panda, a woman, who stabbed the person indulged in forced and non-
consensual sexual intercourse with her, was also given the benefits of s.100

53 | P a g e
6. (Sixthly) 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. Seventhly - An act of throwing acid or attempting to throw acid

To invoke the provisions of Section 100 of I.P.C., four conditions must exist:-
1. The person exercising the right of private defence must be free from fault in bringing
about the encounter,
2. There must be an impending peril to life or of great bodily harm,
3. There must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat,
4. There must have been a necessity for taking life.

The right to private defence of the body extends in certain situations to the extent of even
causing death of the aggressor. This is recognised by s.100 IPC. This right is subject to the
restrictions imposed under s.99.

WHEN THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE OF BODY DOES NOT EXTEND TO


CAUSING DEATH

SECTION 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.
According to this section, the right of private defence of body will only extend to causing anu
'harm', short of death.

SECTION 102 - Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the
body.The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable
apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence
though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such
apprehension of danger to the body continues.

This section provides that the right of private defence commences as soon as a reasonable
apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence,
though, the offence may not have been committed. The right of private defence continues as
long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues. Thus the right of private defence
is co-terminus with the commencement and existence of a reasonable apprehension of danger
to commit the offence

54 | P a g e
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. (First) Robbery;
2. (Secondly) House-breaking by night;
3. (Thirdly) 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;
4. (Fourthly) 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.

SECTION 104. When such right extends 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.

SECTION 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.

As per s.105, the right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable
apprehension of danger to the property commences.

SECTION 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

55 | P a g e
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.

Illustration

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.

In the exercise of right of private defence, if some innocent person is killed or injured, law
protects the man exercising the right of private defence by exempting him from criminal
liability.

C.L :- Wassan Singh v State of Punjab, there was a fight between two groups. The accused
himself received nine injuries. He shot at the assailants with his gun, which however, hit an
innocent woman bystander, killing her. The supreme court held that the accused had the right
of private defence and hence he was acquitted.

C.L :- DARSHAN SINGH V STATE OF PUNJAB

The Supreme Court laid down Guidelines for Right Of Private Defence for Citizens. It
observed that a person cannot be expected to act in a cowardly manner when confronted with
an imminent threat to life and has got every right to kill the aggressor in self defense.

The Court declared their legal position under the following 10 guidelines

1. Self-preservation is a basic human instinct and is duly recognized by the criminal


jurisprudence of all civilized countries. All free, democratic and civilized countries
recognize the right of private defense within certain reasonable limits.
2. The right of private defense is available only to one who is suddenly confronted with
the necessity of averting an impending danger and not of self-creation.
3. A mere reasonable apprehension is enough to put the right of self-defense into
operation. In other words, it is not necessary that there should be an actual
commission of the offence in order to give rise to the right of private defense. It is
enough if the accused apprehended that such an offence is contemplated and it is
likely to be committed if the right of private defense is not exercised.
4. The right of private defense commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension arises
and it is co-terminus with the duration of such apprehension.
5. It is unrealistic to expect a person under assault to modulate his defense step by step
with any arithmetical exactitude.
6. In private defense the force used by the accused ought not to be wholly
disproportionate or much greater than necessary for protection of the person or
property.
7. It is well settled that even if the accused does not plead self-defense, it is open to
consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record.
8. The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defense beyond
reasonable doubt.
56 | P a g e
9. The Indian Penal Code confers the right of private defense only when the unlawful or
wrongful act is an offence.
10. A person who is in imminent and reasonable danger of losing his life or limb may, in
exercise of self defense, inflict any harm (even extending to death) on his assailant
either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened.

C.L :- Mohinder Pal Jolly v State of Punjab

Workers of a factory threw brickbats from outside the gates, and the factory owner by
a shot from his revolver caused the death of a worker, it was held that this section did
not protect him, as there was no apprehension of death or grievous hurt.

OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY


SECTION 378. Theft.Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out
of the possession of any person without that persons consent, moves that property in order to
such taking, is said to commit theft.

Explanation 1.A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is
not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is
severed from the earth.

Explanation 2.A moving effected by the same act which affects the severance may be a
theft.

57 | P a g e
Explanation 3.A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which
prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually
moving it.

Explanation 4.A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that
animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by
that animal.

Explanation 5.The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may
be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose
authority either express or implied.

Illustrations

(a) A cuts down a tree on Zs ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of
Zs possession without Zs consent. Here, as soon as A has severed the tree in order to such
taking, he has committed theft.

(b) A puts a bait for dogs in his pocket, and thus induces Zs dog to follow it. Here, if As
intention be dishonestly to take the dog out of Zs possession without Zs consent. A has
committed theft as soon as Zs dog has begun to follow A.

(c) A meets a bullock carrying a box of treasure. He drives the bullock in a certain direction,
in order that he may dishonestly take the treasure. As soon as the bullock begins to move, A
has committed theft of the treasure.

(d) A, being Zs servant, and entrusted by Z with the care of Zs plate, dishonestly runs away
with the plate, without Zs consent. A has committed theft.

(e) Z, going on a journey, entrusts his plate to A, the keeper of the warehouse, till Z shall
return. A carries the plate to a goldsmith and sells it. Here the plate was not in Zs possession.
It could not therefore be taken out of Zs possession, and A has not committed theft, though
he may have committed criminal breach of trust.

(f) A finds a ring belonging to Z on a table in the house which Z occupies. Here the ring is in
Zs possession, and if A dishonestly removes it, A commits theft.

(g) A finds a ring lying on the highroad, not in the possession of any person. A by taking it,
commits no theft, though he may commit criminal misappropriation of property.

(h) A sees a ring belonging to Z lying on a table in Zs house. Not venturing to misappropriate
the ring immediately for fear of search and detection, A hides the ring in a place where it is
highly improbable that it will ever be found by Z, with the intention of taking the ring from
the hiding place and selling it when the loss is forgotten. Here A, at the time of first moving
the ring, commits theft.

(i) A delivers his watch to Z, a jeweller, to be regulated. Z carries it to his shop. A, not owing
to the jeweller any debt for which the jeweller might lawfully detain the watch as a security,

58 | P a g e
enters the shop openly, takes his watch by force out of Zs hand, and carries it away. Here A,
though he may have committed criminal trespass and assault, has not committed theft, in as
much as what he did was not done dishonestly.

(j) If A owes money to Z for repairing the watch, and if Z retains the watch lawfully as a
security for the debt, and A takes the watch out of Zs possession, with the intention of
depriving Z of the property as a security for his debt, he commits theft, in as much as he takes
it dishonestly.

(k) Again, if A, having pawned his watch to Z, takes it out of Zs possession without Zs
consent, not having paid what he borrowed on the watch, he commits theft, though the watch
is his own property in as much as he takes it dishonestly.

(l) A takes an article belonging to Z out of Zs possession, without Zs consent, with the
intention of keeping it until he obtains money from Z as a reward for its restoration. Here A
takes dishonestly; A has therefore committed theft.

(m) A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Zs library in Zs absence, and takes away a
book without Zs express consent for the purpose merely of reading it, and with the intention
of returning it. Here, it is probable that A may have conceived that he had Zs implied consent
to use Zs book. If this was As impression, A has not committed theft.

(n) A asks charity from Zs wife. She gives A money, food and clothes, which A knows to
belong to Z her husband. Here it is probable that A may conceive that Zs wife is authorised
to give away alms. If this was As impression, A has not committed theft.

(o) A is the paramour of Zs wife. She gives a valuable property, which A knows to belong to
her husband Z, and to be such property as she has no authority from Z to give. If A takes the
property dishonestly, he commits theft.

(p) A, in good faith, believing property belonging to Z to be As own property, takes that
property out of Bs possession. Here, as A does not take dishonestly, he does not commit
theft.

The essential ingrdients of the offence of theft as embodied in s.378 is well explained by the
supreme court in a leading decision in KN Mehra v State of Rajasthan.

Section 378 says that whoever intended to take dishonestly any movable property out of the
possession of any person without that persons consent moves that property in order to such
taking is said to commit theft. For instance- A finds a ring belonging to Z on a table in the
house which Z occupies. Here the ring is in Zs possession, and if a dishonestly removes it, A
commits theft. This section defines theft and next section prescribes punishment thereof. In
order to constitute the offence of theft, there must exist following ingredients

a) The accused must have an intention to taking dishonestly;

Note- The word dishonestly means as is used in this section, does not carry its ordinary
meaning it is a technical term which has been expressly defined in section 24 of IPC itself. A

59 | P a g e
person can be said to have said to have dishonest intention If, in taking the property, it is his
intention to cause gain, by unlawful means of the property to which the persons so gaining is
not legally entitles or to cause loss by unlawfully means of property to which the person so
losing is legally entitled

A person may be the guilty of theft of his own property if he takes it dishonestly from other
see ills. (j) and (k). where the accused took a bundle belonging to himself which was in the
possession f a police constable and for which the constable was accountable it was held that
he constable had special property in it and that therefore the accused was guilty of theft.
There is no presumption of law that husband a wife constitute one person in India for the
purpose of criminal law.

Intention is the gist of the offence. it is the intention of the taker at the time when he removes
the article that determines whether the act is theft or not. The intention to take dishonestly
exists when the taker intends to cause 'wrongful gain' to one person and 'wrongful loss' to
another. Wrongful gain or wrongful loss must be involved in dishonesty - KN Mehra v State
of Rajasthan.

C.L :- Nausha Ali Khan Case, the accused snatched some books from the hands of a
schoolboy, as he was coming out of the school and told him that the books will be returned
only if he came to the house of the accused, the object of the accused being to commit an
unnatural offence upon the boy when he got him in his own house, the accused was convicted
of the offence of theft. The court held that there was 'wrongful gain' to the accused and
'wrongful loss' to the schoolboy.

b)The subject of the theft must be some moveable property.

Explanation- if a person takes anything of another dishonestly in his possession by moving it


then only it is theft if it is not attached to the land, if a sale of trees belonging to tree others
and not cut down at the time of sale does not constitute theft. But removable of a mans trees
blown down by a storm amounts to theft.

Taking salt against the will of the government from a swamp which is government property
and is guarded by the police is theft. Electricity not being moveable property, cannot be the
subject of theft under the Indian penal code. But section 39 of the Indian electricity act 1910
brings the act of dishonest abstraction consumption or use of electricity within the meaning of
theft as understood in the Indian penal code. The calcutta high court held that water running
freely from a river thorugh a channel mad and maintained by a person is not a subject of
theft. On the other hand, the Madras High court has rule in Re Chockalingam Pillai, that
running water in irrigation canals is the subject of theft. .

Movable property is defined in s.22 as including 'corporeal property of every description,


except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is
attached to the earth.

(c) The said moveable property must be taken out of the possession of any person;

60 | P a g e
Notes-The term must be distinguished from custody. A man is said to be in possession of a
thing when he can deal with it as the owner to the exclusion of others. The property is in his
custody when he cannot deal with it as the owner, but merely keeps it for the sake of another
as in the case of a servant holding property for his master. To constitute theft the property
must have in the possession of someone and the possession of someone and then removed
from his possession.

d) without consent - The taking must be without the consent of the person in possession.
There can be no theft where the owner actually consents to or authorises the taking.

SECTION 379. Punishment for theft.Whoever commits theft shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine,
or with both.

AGGRAVATED FORMS OF THEFT

SECTION 380. Theft in dwelling house, etc.Whoever commits theft in any building, tent
or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or used for the custody
of property, 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 380 makes it more heinous to steal when the property is kept in a building, tent or
vessel used as an human dwelling or for the custody of property(warehouse). It aims at
affording greater security to property deposited in a house, etc, or kept in the abode of the
owner.

SECTION 381. Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master.Whoever,


being a clerk or servant, or being employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant, commits
theft in respect of any property in the possession of his master or employer, 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 382. Theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in
order to the committing of the theft.Whoever commits theft, having made preparation
for causing death, or hurt, or restraint, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of restraint, to any
person, in order to the committing of such theft, or in order to the effecting of his escape after
the committing of such theft, or in order to the retaining of property taken by such theft, shall
be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.

Illustrations

(a) A commits theft on property in Zs possession; and, while committing this theft, he has a
loaded pistol under his garment, having provided this pistol for the purpose of hurting Z in
case Z should resist. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

61 | P a g e
(b) A picks Zs pocket, having posted several of his companions near him, in order that they
may restrain Z, if Z should perceive what is passing and should resist, or should attempt to
apprehend A. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

S.382 deals with a case where the thief has made preparations for causing death or hurt ot
restraint to any person in order to ensure the commission of theft or his escape after
committing the theft or retain of stolen property.

EXTORTION

SECTION 383. Extortion.Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to
that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to
deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which
may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion.

INGREDIENTS

1. Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury


2. the purpose of which is to dishonestly induce the person put in fear and
3. to deliver property or valuable security.

The offence of extortion is intermediary between the offence of theft and robbery. Extortion
becomes robbery, if the offender at the time of committing the offecne puts the person in fear
and commits the extortion by causing fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful restraint.

Illustrations

(a) A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z gives him money. He thus
induces Z to give him money. A has committed extortion.

(b) A threatens Z that he will keep Zs child in wrongful confinement, unless Z will sign and
deliver to A a promissory note binding Z to pay certain monies to A. Z signs and delivers the
note. A has committed extortion.

(c) A threatens to send club-men to plough up Zs field unless Z will sign and deliver to B a
bond binding Z under a penalty to deliver certain produce to B, and thereby induces Z to sign
and deliver the bond. A has committed extortion.

(d) A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign or affix his seal to a
blank paper and deliver it to A. Z signs and delivers the paper to A. Here, as the paper so
signed may be converted into a valuable security. A has committed extortion.

SECTION 384. Punishment for extortion.Whoever commits extortion shall be punished


with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with
fine, or with both.

SECTION 385. Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion.


Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put

62 | P a g e
any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

AGGRAVATED FORMS OF EXTORTION

SECTION 386. Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt.


Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt of that
person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

In Ram Chandra v state of UP, the accused had kidnapped a boy and wrote letters to the
father of the boy stating that unless the money was paid, the boy would be killed. It was held
that an offence under s.386, IPC, was made out, because all the ransom letters disclosed that
the father of the boy was constantly under the fear that his son would be murdered.

SECTION 387. Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit
extortion.Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any
person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, 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 388. Extortion by threat of accusation of an offence punishable with death or


imprisonment for life, etc.Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of an
accusation against that person or any other, of having committed or attempted to commit any
offence punishable with death, or with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a
term which may extend to ten years or of having attempted to induce any other person to
commit such offence, 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 be one
punishable under section 377 of this Code, may be punished with 1[imprisonment for life].

SECTION 389. Putting person in fear of 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 1[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 be punishable under section 377 of this Code, may be
punished with 1[imprisonment for life].

Section 383-390 of Indian penal code deals with different types of extortion, where section
383 whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any
other, and thereby dishonestly induce the person so put in fear to any person any property to
valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable
security, commits extortion. For instance A threatens to publish a defamatory libel
concerning Z unless Z gives him money. He thus induces Z to give him money. He has
committed extortion. Thus we can find the elements of extortion.

63 | P a g e
INGREDIENTS

In fear of injury to that person or any other person


Dishonestly inducement of person to put in fear
To deliever any person ,property, of valuable security
Or anything sighned which may be converted into a valuable security
C.L :- TANULAL UDHA SINGH V EMPEROR

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEFT AND EXTORTION

1. Extortion is committed by wrongful obtaining of consent. But In theft the offender


takes without the owners consent.
2. The property obtained by extortion is not limited, Immovable property may be the
subject of extortion. Whereas in theft only movable property are the subject to theft.
3. In extortion the property is obtained by intentional putting a person in fear of injury to
that person or to any other, and thereby dishonestly inducing him to part with his
property. Whereas In theft the element of force does not arise

ROBBERY
SECTION 390. Robbery.In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.

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.

When extortion is robbery.Extortion is robbery if the offender, at the time of


committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the
extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful
restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person
so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.

Explanation.The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other


person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

Illustrations

(a) A holds Z down and fraudulently takes Zs money and jewels from Zs clothes without Zs
consent. Here A has committed theft, and in order to the committing of that theft, has
voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to Z. A has therefore committed robbery.

(b) A meets Z on the high roads, shows a pistol, and demands Zs purse. Z in consequence,
surrenders his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z by putting him in fear of instant
hurt, and being at the time of committing the extortion in his presence. A has therefore
committed robbery.

64 | P a g e
(c) A meets Z and Zs child on the high road. A takes the child and threatens to fling it down a
precipice, unless Z delivers his purse. Z, in consequence delivers his purse. Here A has
extorted the purse from Z, by causing Z to be in fear of instant hurt to the child who is there
present. A has therefore committed robbery on Z.

(d) A obtains property from Z by sayingYour child is in the hands of my gang, and will be
put to death unless you send us ten thousand rupees. This is extortion, and punishable as
such; but it is not robbery, unless Z is put in fear of the instant death of his child.

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS

1) There is attempts to cause a persons death or hurt or wrongful restrain or fear of instant
death or.

2) Of instant hurt or instant wrongful restrain.

Robbery is an aggravated form of either theft or extortion

'for that end' - S.390 will apply only if the death, hurt or wrongul restraint or fear thereof is
caused for the purpose of achieving the end object of commission of theft or carrying away
the stolen property.

SECTION 392. Punishment for robbery.Whoever commits robbery shall be punished


with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the
imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.

SECTION 393. Attempt to commit robbery.Whoever attempts to commit robbery shall


be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and
shall also be liable to fine.

AGGRAVATED FORM OF ROBBERY

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 1[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

DACOITY

SECTION 391. Dacoity.When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to


commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or
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

65 | P a g e
1. five or more persons must act in association
2. such act must be robbery or attempt to commit robbery and
3. the five persons must consist of those who themselves commit or attempt to commit
or those who are present and aid the principal actors in the commission or attempt of
such robbery.

In om prakash v state of rajasthan, the supreme court ruled that where the charge of
dacoity is against five named persons and out of them two are acquitted, the remaining three
cannot be convicted for dacoity.

SECTION 395. Punishment for dacoity.Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished


with 1[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

AGGRAVATED FORM OF DACOITY

SECTION 396. Dacoity with murder.If any one of five or more persons, who are
conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those
persons shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], or rigorous imprisonment
for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

SECTION 397. Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt.If,
at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes
grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the
imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.

SECTION 398. Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon.
If, at the time of attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, the offender is armed with any
deadly weapon, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be
less than seven years.

SECTION 399. Making preparation to commit dacoity.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.

SECTION 400. Punishment for belonging to gang of dacoits.Whoever, at any time after
the passing of this Act, shall belong to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of
habitually committing dacoity, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.

SECTION 401. Punishment for belonging to gang of thieves.Whoever, at any time after
the passing of this Act, shall belong to any wandering or other gang of persons associated for
the purpose of habitually committing theft or robbery, and not being a gang of thugs or
dacoits, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine.

66 | P a g e
SECTION 402. Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity.Whoever, at any time
after the passing of this 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.

CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY

SECTION 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property.Whoever dishonestly mis-


appropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both. Illustrations

(a) A takes property belonging to Z out of Zs possession, in good faith, believing, at any time
when he takes it, that the property belongs to himself. A is not guilty of theft; but if A, after
discovering his mistake, dishonestly appropriates the property to his own use, he is guilty of
an offence under this section.

(b) A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Zs library in Zs absence, and takes away a
book without Zs express consent. Here, if A was under the impression that he had Zs
implied consent to take the book for the purpose of reading it, A has not committed theft. But,
if A afterwards sells the book for his own benefit, he is guilty of an offence under this section.

(c) A and B, being joint owners of a horse, A takes the horse out of Bs possession, intending
to use it. Here, as A has a right to use the horse, he does not dishonestly misappropriate it.
But, if A sells the horse and appropriates the whole proceeds to his own use, he is guilty of an
offence under this section.

Explanation I.A dishonest misappropriation for a time only is a misappropriation with the
meaning of this section.

Illustration A finds a Government promissory note belonging to Z, bearing a blank


endorsement. A, knowing that the note belongs to Z, pledges it with a banker as a security for
a loan, intending at a future time to restore it to Z. A has committed an offence under this
section.

Explanation 2.A person who finds property not in the possession of any other person, and
takes such property for the purpose of protecting if for, or of restoring it to, the owner does
not take or misappropriate it dishonestly, and is not guilty of an offence; but he is guilty of
the offence above defined, if he appropriates it to his own use, when he knows or has the
means of discovering the owner, or before he has used reasonable means to discover and give
notice to the owner and has kept the property a reasonable time to enable the owner to claim
it.

What are reasonable means or what is a reasonable time in such a case, is a question of fact.

It is not necessary that the finder should know who is the owner of the property, or that any
particular person is the owner of it; it is sufficient if, at the time of appropriating it, he does

67 | P a g e
not believe it to be his own property, or in good faith believe that the real owner cannot be
found.

Illustrations

(a) A finds a rupee on the high road, not knowing to whom the rupee belongs. A picks up the
rupee. Here A has not committed the offence defined in this section.

(b) A finds a letter on the road, containing a bank note. From the direction and contents of the
letter he learns to whom the note belongs. He appropriates the note. He is guilty of an offence
under this section.

(c) A finds a cheque payable to bearer. He can form no conjecture as to the person who has
lost the cheque. But the name of the person, who has drawn the cheque, appears. A knows
that this person can direct him to the person in whose favour the cheque was drawn. A
appropriates the cheque without attempting to discover the owner. He is guilty of an offence
under this section.

(d) A sees Z drop his purse with money in it. A picks up the purse with the intention of
restoring it to Z, but afterwards appropriates it to his own use. A has committed an offence
under this section.

(e) A finds a purse with money, not knowing to whom it belongs; he afterwards discovers that
it belongs to Z, and appropriates it to his own use. A is guilty of an offence under this section.

(f) A finds a valuable ring, not knowing to whom it belongs. A sells it immediately without
attempting to discover the owner. A is guilty of an offence under this section.

To constitute the offence of criminal misappropriation prosecution, therefore, has to prove


that :-

1. the property was of the complainant - the term misappropriation of property in


possession of someone else. No criminal misappropriation of property can take place
if that property is in nobody's possession.
2. the accused misappropriated the same or converted to his own case, - the essence
of the offence of misappropriation is putting to own use or converting to own use
another's property . There cannot be misappropriation of one's own property. and
3. he did it dishonestly.

DISTINCTION BETWEEN THEFT AND CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION

1. While the initial taking in theft is always wrongful, in criminal misappropriation, it


may be innocent and lawful. It is the subsequent change of intention that converts the
lawful taking into unlawful act in criminal misappropriation.
2. In theft, there is invasion of possession of another person by the wrongdoer, whereas
in criminal misappropriation , there is no such infringement of the right of possession.

68 | P a g e
The offender is already in possession of the property and it is his unlawful
misappropriation of it that creates the offence.
3. In theft, mere moving by itself is an offence. But in criminal misappropriation te
moving may not be an offence; it may even be lawful; it is the subsequent intention to
convert or misappropriate the property that constitutes the offence.
4. In theft, the property is moved without the consent of the owner. In criminal
misappropriation, the person might have come into possession of the property with
the consent of the owner . He commits the offence only subsequently when he
converts the property to his own use.
5. Dishonest intention is common to both. In theft, this is shown by moving of the
property, while in criminal misappropriation, it is effected by actual misappropriation
or conversion. In theft, dishonest intention precedes taking, while it follows the taking
in criminal misappropriation.

AGGRAVATED FORM OF CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION

SECTION 404. Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at


the time of his death.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 persons 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 may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offender at
the time of such persons decease was employed by him as a clerk or servant, the
imprisonment may extend to seven years.

Illustration - Z dies in possession of furniture and money. His servant A, before the money
comes into the possession of any person entitled to such possession, dishonestly
misappropriates it. A has committed the offence defined in this section.

CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST

SECTION 405. Criminal breach of trust.Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with
property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his
own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any
direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal
contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or
wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits criminal breach of trust.

[Explanation [1].A person, being an employer of an establishment whether exempted under


section 17 of the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of
1952), or not who deducts the employees contribution from the wages payable to the
employee for credit to a Provident Fund or Family Pension Fund established by any law for
the time being in force, shall be deemed to have been entrusted with the amount of the
contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the payment of such contribution
to the said Fund in violation of the said law, shall be deemed to have dishonestly used the
amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as aforesaid.]

69 | P a g e
[Explanation 2.A person, being an employer, who deducts the employees contribution
from the wages payable to the employee for credit to the Employees State Insurance Fund
held and administered by the Employees State Insurance Corporation established under the
Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948), shall be deemed to have been entrusted
with the amount of the contribution so deducted by him and if he makes default in the
payment of such contribution to the said Fund in violation of the said Act, shall be deemed to
have dishonestly used the amount of the said contribution in violation of a direction of law as
aforesaid.]

Illustrations

(a) A, being executor to the will of a deceased person, dishonestly disobeys the law which
directs him to divide the effects according to the will, and appropriate them to his own use. A
has committed criminal breach of trust.

(b) A is a warehouse-keeper. Z going on a journey, entrusts his furniture to A, under a contract


that it shall be returned on payment of a stipulated sum for warehouse room. A dishonestly
sells the goods. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

(c) A, residing in Calcutta, is agent for Z, residing at Delhi. There is an express or implied
contract between A and Z, that all sums remitted by Z to A shall be invested by A, according
to Zs direction. Z remits a lakh of rupees to A, with directions to A to invest the same in
Companys paper. A dishonestly disobeys the direction and employs the money in his own
business. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

(d) But if A, in the last illustration, not dishonestly but in good faith, believing that it will be
more for Zs advantage to hold shares in the Bank of Bengal, disobeys Zs directions, and
buys shares in the Bank of Bengal, for Z, instead of buying Companys paper, here, though Z
should suffer loss, and should be entitled to bring a civil action against A, on account of that
loss, yet A, not having acted dishonestly, has not committed criminal breach of trust.

(e) A, a revenue-officer, is entrusted with public money and is either directed by law, or
bound by a contract, express or implied, with the Government, to pay into a certain treasury
all the public money which he holds. A dishonestly appropriates the money. A has committed
criminal breach of trust.

(f) A, a carrier, is entrusted by Z with property to be carried by land or by water. A


dishonestly misappropriates the property. A has committed criminal breach of trust.

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS

1. The accuse must be entrusted with property or dominion over it (ENTRUSMENT)


and
2. he must have dishonestly misappropriated the property or converted it to his own use
or disposed of it in violation of such trust. (DISHONEST MISAPPROPRIATION)
3. Dominion (control) over property

70 | P a g e
SECTION 406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust.Whoever commits criminal
breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

AGGRAVATED FORMS OF CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST

SECTION 407. Criminal breach of trust by carrier, etc.Whoever, being entrusted with
property as a carrier, wharfinger or warehouse-keeper, commits criminal breach of trust in
respect of such property, 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 408. Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant.Whoever, being a clerk or


servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity
with property, or with any dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in
respect of that property, 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 409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or


agent.Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over
property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, mer-
chant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that
property, shall be punished with 1[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.

DISHONESTLY RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY

SECTION 410. Stolen property.Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by
theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated
or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as stolen
property, 2[whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust
has been committed, within or without 3[India]]. But, if such property subsequently comes
into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be
stolen property.

SECTION 411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property.Whoever dishonestly receives or


retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be stolen
property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

In order to convict a person for the offence of receiving stolen property, it is necessary to
establish three facts :-

1. that the property in question was stolen property


2. that it was dishonestly received or retained and
3. the accused knew or had reason to believe that the property was stolen property.

SECTION 412. Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity.


Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, the possession whereof he

71 | P a g e
knows or has reason to believe to have been transferred by the commission of dacoity, or
dishonestly receives from a person, whom he knows or has reason to believe to belong or to
have belonged to a gang of dacoits, property which he knows or has reason to believe to have
been stolen, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

SECTION 413. Habitually dealing in stolen property.Whoever habitually receives or


deals in property which he knows or has reason to believe to be stolen property, shall be
punished with 1[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.

SECTION 414. Assisting in concealment of stolen property.Whoever voluntarily assists


in concealing or disposing of or making away with property which he knows or has reason to
believe to be stolen property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

CHEATING
SECTION 415. Cheating.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 or 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.

Explanation.A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this


section. Illustrations

(a) A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, intentionally deceives Z, and thus
dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay. A
cheats.

(b) A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that
this article was made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to
buy and pay for the article. A cheats.

(c) A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article, intentionally deceives Z into believing


that the article corresponds with the sample, and thereby, dishonestly induces Z to buy and
pay for the article. A cheats.

(d) A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a house with which A keeps no money,
and by which A expects that the bill will be dishonored, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby
dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay for it. A cheats.

(e) A, by pledging as diamonds article which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally
deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats.

72 | P a g e
(f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend
to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money. A not intending to repay it. A
cheats.

(g) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of
indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to
advance money upon the faith of such delivery. A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the
money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not
deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract.

(h) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has performed As part of a contract made
with Z, which he has not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A
cheats.

(i) A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in consequence of such sale he has no
right to the property, sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the
previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A
cheats.

In Ram Jas v State of UP, the SC enumerated the essential ingredients required to constitute
the offence of cheating as follows :-

1. There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving him,


2. (a) the person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or
to consent that any person shall retain any property or
(b) the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived; and
3. in cases covered by 2(b), the act or omission should be one which causes or is
likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or
property.

DECEPTION - C.L :- Swami Dhirendra Brahmachari v Shailendar Bhushan, the accused,


swami brahmachari, was held to have knowingly made false assertions to the effect of yoga
and recognised by govt of india, thereby inducing unwary students to obtain admission
paying Rs.1000 by way of caution deposit thereby cheating students.

CHEATING AND MISAPPROPRIATION - C.L:- Shankarlal Vishwakarma v State of


Madhya Pradesh, a man tricked another to deliver to him money, which was subsequently
misappropriated. The offence is cheating and not criminal breach of trust as there was no
entrustment.

SECTION 416. Cheating by personation.A person is said to cheat by personation if 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.

73 | P a g e
Explanation.The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or
imaginary person. Illustration

(a) A cheats by pretending to be a certain rich banker of the same name. A cheats by
personation.

(b) A cheats by pretending to be B, a person who is deceased. A cheats by personation.

SECTION 417. Punishment for cheating.Whoever cheats shall be punished with


imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or
with both.

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 bound, 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.

s.418 prescribes punishment for cheating by persons standing in fiduciary or financial


capacity to the person cheated, as for example, the nature of relationship between banker and
customer, the principal and agent, a guardian and ward, advocate and client and so on.

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.Whoever


cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver 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.

FRAUDULENT DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY

SECTION 421. Dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of property to prevent


distribution among creditors.Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently removes, conceals or
delivers to any person, or transfer or causes to be transferred to any person, without adequate
consideration, any property, intending thereby to prevent, or knowing it to be likely that he
will thereby prevent, the distribution of that property according to law among his creditors or
the creditors of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

MISCHIEF

SECTION 425. Mischief.Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to


cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of

74 | P a g e
any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or
diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits mischief.

Explanation 1.It is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender should intend
to cause loss or damage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed. It is sufficient if he
intends to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person
by injuring any property, whether it belongs to that person or not.

Explanation 2.Mischief may be committed by an act affecting property belonging to the


person who commits the act, or to that person and others jointly.

Illustrations

(a) A voluntarily burns a valuable security belonging to Z intending to cause wrongful loss to
Z. A has committed mischief.

(b) A introduces water into an ice-house belonging to Z and thus causes the ice to melt,
intending wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.

(c) A voluntarily throws into a river a ring belonging to Z, with the intention of thereby
causing wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.

(d) A, knowing that his effects are about to be taken in execution in order to satisfy a debt due
from him to Z, destroys those effects, with the intention of thereby preventing Z from obtain-
ing satisfaction of the debt, and of thus causing damage to Z. A has committed mischief.

(e) A, having insured a ship, voluntarily causes the same to be cast away, with the intention of
causing damage to the under-writers. A has committed mischief.

(f) A causes a ship to be cast away, intending thereby to cause damage to Z who has lent
money on bottomry on the ship. A has committed mischief.

(g) A, having joint property with Z in a horse, shoots the horse, intending thereby to cause
wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.

(h) A causes cattle to enter upon a field belonging to Z, intending to cause and knowing that
he is likely to cause damage to Zs crop. A has committed mischief.

CRIMINAL TRESPASS

SECTION 441. Criminal trespass.Whoever enters into or upon property in the


possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any
person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property,
unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person,
or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit criminal trespass.

ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT

1. Entry into or upon property in the possession of another

75 | P a g e
2. if such entry is lawful, then unlawfully remaining upon such property
3. such entry or unlawful remaining must be with intent to commit an offence or to
intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession of the property.

76 | P a g e