Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Crimes Notes
Crimes Notes
Is there any
difference between Indian Law and English Law.?
OR
Section 97 of IPC defines that the 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 :
1. First : His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human
body.
2. 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 ana attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.
Section 97 lays down that every person has a right subject to restrictions contained in section 99, to
defend his own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body.
Section 102 of IPC provides that 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.
It is clear from the wording of the section that the right commences and continues as long as
danger to body lasts. The extent to which the exercise of the right will be justified will depend not on
the actual danger but on whether there was reasonable apprehension of such danger. There must be an
attempt or threat, and consequent thereon an apprehension of danger, but it should not be a mere ide
threat. There must be reasonable ground for the apprehension.
The right of private defence of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death or any other
harm to the assailant if the offence occasioning the exercise of the right be of any of the following
descriptions, viz :
2. Even injury to innocent persons in the right of private defence against an assault is excusable.
3. Assault with the intention of committing rape, gratifying unnatural lust, kidnapping or abducting
or wrongfully confining a person causing reasonable apprehension that he will not be able to have
recourse to the public authorities for his release.
For the purpose of exercising he right of private defence physical or mental incapacity of he person
against whom the right is exercised is no bar.
2. In cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.
3. Nor does the right of private defence extend to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary
to inflict for the purpose of defence(Sec.99)
The measure of defence must bear proportion to the quantum of force used by the attacker and
which it is necessary to repel. Thus where the accused who was attacked by another with a kirpan
succeeded in disarming his opponent by taking away his weapon and showered blows after blows
including the serious once on the chest. It was held that he must be held to have exceeded the right of
self defence and was guilty under section 304 Part I of IPC.
The right of private defence provided by section 97 IPC is a right of protection and not of vengeance
or aggression. An act done in exercise of a right of private defence does not give rise to any right of
private defence in return. Case : Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab 1973.
Question No. 2 : Define criminal conspiracy and its ingredients given in Section 120A of IPC. How it
punishable.?
INTRODUCTION: The original Indian Penal Code did not have an offence by the name of criminal
conspiracy. However the need to have this offence was felt later on and this chapter V-A relating to
criminal conspiracy with only two sections in it i.e. section: 120-A which provides definition of criminal
conspiracy and Sec. 120-B providing its punishment was added in IPC by the Criminal Law Amendment
act 1913.
I) An illegal Act
II) An act which is not illegal but when it is done by illegal means.
INGREDIENTS:-
2. Agree for illegal act. The expression ‘ illegal’ has been defined in Sec.43 of the code. According to this
section, the word illegal is applicable to everything :
i) Which is an offence
Further provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence, shall amount to a
criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such
agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation : It is immaterial whether he illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement or is merely
incidental to that object. In other words, the conspirator is guilty of criminal conspiracy; whether the
illegal act is the ultimate object of the agreement or it is merely incidental to the object of the
agreement. The law does not treat these cases differently.
Case : Mohd. Usman v/s State 1981 : In this case the accused persons were selling explosive substances
without valid license for a very long time. The SC held that they were guilty of criminal conspiracy, as
they had been doing this for a very long time, which could not have been possible without an agreement
between then, and this agreement was proved by necessary implication.
ILLUSTRATION: ‘A’ the wife of ‘B’ had illicit connection with ‘C’, who wanted to murder ‘B’. Instead of
telling B that C waned to murder him, told C that B would go to lonely place on a particular day & time.
C murdered B at that particular place, date and time. Thus A and C both are guilty of the offence of
criminal conspiracy. C is also guilty of adultery and murder.
CONVICTION OF A SINGLE PERSON FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY:- An important question arises whether
a single individual can be held guilty of this offence. For criminal conspiracy, there ‘must’ be at-least two
persons. Thus the section only says that agreement must be between two or more persons and not that
the connection must be of at-least two persons.
ILLUSTRATION :- Where the prosecution case is that, four : persons had entered into an agreement to
commit murder of ‘Z’ and out of these four one is ‘D’ without a shadow of doubt. The other three might
be A,B and C or might not be A,B and C because the evidence against them is doubtly. In such case, since
two things are certain the member of conspirators was four and one of these four was definitely “D’
thus D alone is guilty of criminal conspiracy.
Case : B.H. Narasimha Rao V/s Govt. Of A.P 1995 The accused was charged for committing an offence in
conspiracy with seven other who were al acquitted. It was held that the accused could not be convicted
under section 120-B on the mere ground that he was head of a section of he branch where the fraud
was alleged to have been committed.
# Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six month or with fine or with both.
Question No. 3 : Define Murder and distinguish it from culpable homicide no amounting to murder
OR
Every murder is a culpable homicide, but every culpable homicide is not murder. Discuss.
Ans :INTRODUCTION; Homicide means the killing of a man by man. The homicide may be lawful or
unlawful. Culpable homicide means death through human agency punishable by law. All murders are
culpable homicide but all culpable homicide is not murder. There are two classes of culpable homicide :
(ii) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
(iii) With the knowledge that he is likely, by such act, to cause death commits the offence of
culpable homicide.
ILLUSTRATION
‘A’ knows that Z is behind a bush, B does not know it. A intending to cause or knowing that is 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. Here is the three explanations of this section which are
as under :-
Explanation No. 1 :- A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under disorder
decease, or bodily infirmity and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have
caused his death.
Explanation No. 2 : Where death is caused by bodily injury the person who causes such bodily injury
shall be deemed to have caused death, although by resorting to proper remedy and skilful treatment,
the death might have been prevented.
Explanation No. 3 : The causing of death of a 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.
Case: Kedar Parsad V/s State 1992: It was held by the court that the first accused was liable U/s 304 and
the other U/s 324 for causing hurt by dangerous weapon & the third U/s 323 for causing simple hurt
only.
Case:- Ghanssham V/s State of Maharashtra 1996 : The accused husband stabbed his wife on chest
resulting in her death on her refusal to have sexual intercourse with him. It was held that the act was
done in sheer frustration and anger and so his liability was based on sec. 299(2) of IPC.
Case: Sarabjeet Singh V/s St ate 1994. The accused did not have good relation with complainant on
account of sale transaction of piece of land. He went to the house and assaulted the complainant and
his wife. He also picked up the infant child of the complainant and threw him down on the ground with
force as a result of which the child died some time later. The accused was held guilty under sec. 304
Part-II. When culpable homicide amounts to murder : According to sec.300 of IPC except the
exceptions culpable homicide is murder, it the act by which death is caused:
2. It is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows that it is to be
likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused.
3. If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient ordinary cause of nature to cause death
4. If the person committed the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all
probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is like to cause death; and commits such act without any
excuse for incurring death or such injury as said above.
ILLUSTRATION:
B. A knowing that Z is labouring under such disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strike
him with the intention of causing bodily injury, Z dies in consequences of blow. A is guilty of murder.
C. A intention gives Z a sword cut sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of
nature. Z dies in consequences. Here A is guilty of murder although he may not have intended to cause
Z’s death.
D. ‘ A’ without any excuse fires a loaded cannon in to a crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is
guilty of murder although he may not have had a pre-meditated design to kill any particular individual.
Cases:-
There was a dispute between the accused and the deceased regarding the payment of money. The
accused who was a driver caused serious injuries by his mini bus and hit the deceased with great speed
in he middle portion of the body. Tyre marks were also found on the thighs of the deceased. It was held
that it was an intentional killing and Sec.300 (1) was applicable.
Accused caused the first injury on the stomach of the deceased by Rampuri Knife with a blade of more
than six inches long. While the deceased started running away from the place to save himself, the
accused gave another blow by the same knife on his back. The injuries caused his death. The SC held
that the accused was guilty of murder and Sec.300 (3) was applicable.
Case: - Lakha Singh V/s state of Rajasthan: The accused was held guilty on the basis of cause (3) of
section 300 of IPC.
Case: Dulal Hazara V/s State 1987: The accused tied the mouth and throat and hands of the deceased
causing her death by asphyxiation due to throttling, he was held guilty of murder. He knew that his act
was so imminently dangerous as to cause death probability.
Thus except the exceptions cases culpable homicide is murder, if the circumstances described above any
of the four clauses are present. In other words, only these four classes of culpable homicide are murder
and any other kind of culpable homicide continues to be culpable homicides and does not become
murder.
EXCEPTIONS OR WHEN CULABLE HOMICIDE IS NOT MURDER
Five exceptions have been provided u/s 300 wherein causing death does not amount to murder. If any
of these exceptions is held to be applicable in a case, the conviction of the accused in that case would be
for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In this sense, therefore, these five exceptions are
partial defences to murder thus following are the exceptions:-
1. Grave and sudden provocation: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offended, who deprived
of the self control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of a person, who gave the
provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. Thus for the first exception
following things are necessary :-
c) By reason of such provocation the offender have been deprived of the power of self control.
d) The death must be of that person who gave the provocation or any other person by mistake or
accident.
ILLUSTRATION: Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A on this sudden 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.
Ajit Singh v/s State l991 : In this case the accused found his wife and a neighbours in a compromising
position and shot both of them dead. It was held that he was acting under provocation and is liable for
sudden provocation.
2. RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE;- For the application of this exception the following conditions must
be fulfilled :-
B. Act must be done in exercise of the right of private defence of person or property.
C. The person doing the act must have exceeded in his right given to him by law and thereby
caused death.
D. The act must be done without premeditation and without any intention of causing more harm
then was necessary for the purpose of such defence.
a. Offence must be committed by public servant or by some other person acting in the aid of a
public servant in advancement of public justice,
b. Public servant or such person must have exceeded the power given to him by law.
c. Death must be caused by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful & necessary
for discharge of his duty.
d. The act must have been done without any malafide intention towards the person whose death
is caused.
Case : Dakhi Singh V/s State 1955.: It was held by the Court that he was entitled to have the benefit of
this exception and so he was liable only for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
d. It must be committed without the offender’s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel
or unusual manner.
Explanation :- It is immaterial in such cases where party offers the provocation or commits the first
assault.
Case :- State v/s Jodha Singh 1989: A quarrel between accused and the deceased parties changed in to a
sudden fight in which weapon were used by both parties resulting in injuries on both sides and death of
the deceased. This exception was held to be applicable.
5. Death caused with the 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 caused Z, ( a person under l8 years of age) to commit suicide.
Here on account of Z’s death (he was incapable of giving consent to his own death). A has, therefore
abetted murder.
Case :- Dashrath Paswan V/s State 1958 : The accused could not passed the Xth Class examination for
three years in a row and become frustrated and decided to commit suicide and informed his wife who
asked him to kill her first which he did, the exception was held to apply.
One of the most complex matters under the code is to distinguish between culpable homicide and
murder. The first real attempt in this regard was made in the case :-
Case : Reg. V/s. Govinda 1876 (Bom): In this case the accused kicked his wife who was 15 years old and
gave her a few blow on the body with the result she fell down on the ground. Then he put one knee on
her chest and struck her a few more blow resulting in her death. The lower court convicted him of
murder. There were different opinions amongst the two judges of the High Court and consequently the
matter was referred to a third Judge, Justice Melvil, who held the accused guilty under clause (2) of
sec.299 for culpable homicide and sentenced him u/s 304 part I on the grounds that the death was
caused with the intention on the part of the accused to cause such bodily injury as was likely to cause
death. Justice Melvil discussed the two sections clause by clause and attempted to bring out the
difference between the two offence clearly in following manner :--
Answer :-INTRODUCTION: Kidnapping and abduction are particular types of offences under the law of
crime. Under these offences, a person is taken away secretly or forcible without his consent or without
the consent of authorised guardian. Under kidnapping a person is kidnapped from lawful custody. Under
section 359 of IPC, there are two types of kidnapping :-
Section 360 says that whoever conveys any person beyond the limit of India without the consent of that
person or of any person legally authorised to consent on behalf of that person, is said to kidnap that
person from India. Age limit is immaterial. This has two essentials :
(ii) Such conveying must be without the consent of that person or of the person legally authorised to
give consent on behalf of that person.
Sec. 361 says that 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
guardianship 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. The word lawful guardian here mans any person
lawfully interested with care or custody of such minor or other person.
3. EXCEPTIONS :- There is one exception of this section, 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 the lawful custody of such child unless such act is committed for an
immoral or unlawful purpose.
Take or entice away :- Take away or entice away means to induce a person for going to another place.
The object of this Sec. Is to protect minor children from being reduced ( to corrupt) for improper
purpose.
Guadian consent :- The kidnapping must be without the consent of the guardian. The consent may be
expressed or implied. Thus, to attract this sec. there must be taking or enticing away any minor or
unsound mind person out of lawful guardianship.
ABDUCTION
Section 362 says that whoever by force compels or by any deceitful induces any person to go from any
place, is said to abduct that person. This section may read with section 364, 365 and 360.
2. The object of such compulsion or inducement must be going of a person from any place. Thus
abduction is an offence under sec.362. If by force a person compels or even by fraudulent means induce
any other person to go from any place taken is called abduction.
PUNISHMENT FOR KIDNAPPING UNDER SEC. 363 :
Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from Lawful guardianship shall be punished with
imprisonment or either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall be liable to
fine.
KIDNAPPING ABDUCTION
mind.
The minor is removed from the when he is first taken from one
Another.
UNIT IV
Question No. 11:- What is defamation? What defences are available to a person who is charged with the
offence of defamation.? OR
Can a wrongful act of a defamation constitute an offence? What are the defences available to the
alleged wrong-doer? Describe.
Answer : INTRODUCTION:-
Defamation is a crime against the reputation of a person. Defamation is also a tort. It is one of the most
important rights of a person or right of his reputation. If any person by way of libel i.e. written words or
by salener i.e. spoken words lowers the reputation of a person then it is called defamation. The
reputation must be lowered among the reasonable person including relation of a person.
DEFINITION OF DEFAMATION :-
Section 499 of IPC says that whoever by words, spoken or written or by sign or by visible representation,
makes or publishes any imputation concurring any person invading to harm or knowing or having reason
to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person is said, except in the case of
hereinafter accepted, to defamed that person.
3. Such imputation must be made or published with the intention of harming or with the
knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the reputation of such person.
1. PERSON :- Person means the person who publishes are the person who makes an imputation.
Person includes like editor or a journal, the printer or the writer of the articles in the paper.
2. PUBLICATION :- The expression ‘makes or publishes’ has to be understood. The meaning of this
expression is publication. Publication of the defamatory statement is essential. If a person merely writes
out a defamatory matter but does not publish, then the same will not be defamation. Publication means
the defamatory statement, must come into the notice of third person. Because the reputation of a
person remains in the eye of third person. Publication may be done by :-
1. An act which conveys the defamatory statement to a third person.
Thus, this communication of defamatory matter to the person defamed and to the third person is
necessary.
A case Krishana Nand v/s Emperor : The Allahabad High Court held that the publication to a third person
was deemed to be necessary. However, in case of best land, the presumption being that it was needed
by other. Its sending or pasting ward amount to publication.
1. Explanation No. 1:- If any amount of defamation is against the deceased person and the
imputation would harm the reputation of that person of living and is intended to be harmful to the
feelings of the family or relatives.
4. Explanation No.4 :- No estimate is said to harm a person’s reputation unless that imputation
directly or indirectly in the estimation of others, lowers the normal instinctual character of that person
in respect of caste or if his calling in respect of his caste lowers, the creditor of that person in a locality
or in a state is generally considered as disgraceful. Such as A draws a picture of Z running with B’s watch
intending to cause it to be believed that Z has stolen B’s watch. This is defamation unless it falls within
one of exception.
EXCEPTIONS :
1. True statement : It is not defamation if any thing which is true concerning only person if it is for
the public interest or welfare good. The imputation should be in good faith and for public.
2. Public conduct of public servant:- It is not defamation to express, in good faith any opinion
whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in discharge of his public sanctions or respecting his
character so far as his character appears in that conduct and not further.
3. Public quotation: It is not a defamation to express in good faith any opinion whether respecting
the conduct of any person so far his character appears in that conduct and no further.
4. Publication of court proceedings. It is not defamation to publish a substantial true report of the
proceedings of court of justice.
5. Conduct of witness in the court:- It is not a defamation to express in good faith any opinion
whatever respecting the writ of any case, civil or criminal which has been decided by a court of justice or
respecting the conduct of any person. Along with witness or any agent in any such case or respecting the
character of such person as far as his character appears in the conduct and no further.
6. Merit of public performance :- It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion
respecting the merit of any performance. Which is submitted to the judgment of public or respecting the
authority that appear in such performance and no further.
7. Censure passed in good faith:- It is not a defamation of a person to pass, In good faith any
censure on the conduct of that person in consented matter.
8. It is not defamation to perform in good faith, an accusation against any person to any of these
who has lawful authority over that person with respect to subject matter or within this exception.
9. It is not defamation to make an imputation if the impanation is made in good faith for the
protection of the interest of the person making it.
10. It is not defamation to convey a caution that is intended in the good faith of the person.
These are the exceptions to the offence of defamation. Under these exceptions no offence of
defamation is proved.
Under section 500 of IPC it is provided that the punishment for the offence of defamation , which is
simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.
Q. No 9:- What do you mean by Kidnapping? Distinguish between Kidnapping and Abduction.
OR
Section 360 says that Kidnapping from India end. Section 361 defines that Kidnapping from lawful
guardianship. The offence of abduction is defined under section 362 of IPC.
Section 359 of IPC says that there are two types of kidnapping:-
1. Kidnapping from India: Under section 360 of IPC :- This section provides that whoever conveys
any person beyond the limit of India without the consent of that person or any person legally authorised
to consent on behalf of that person, is said to kidnap that person from India. Age limit immaterial. This
section has two essentials :-
II) Such conveying must be without the consent of that person or the person legally authorised
to give consent on behalf of that person.
2. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship 361 IPC:- It defines as that 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 guardianship 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.
The word lawful guardian here means any person lawfully interested with care or custody of such minor
or other person.
3. Exception :- There is one exception of this sec. 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 the lawful custody of such child unless such act is committed for an
immoral or unlawful purpose.
#.Take or Entice Away:- means to induce a person for going to another place. Object of this section is to
protect minor children from being reduced ( to corrupt) for improper purpose.
#. Guardian consent: The kidnapping must be without the consent of the guardian. The consent may be
expressed or implied. Thus to attract this section there must be taking or enticing away any minor or
unsound mind person out of lawful guardianship.
ABDUCTION
Section 362 of IPC says that whoever by force, compels or by any deceitful means induces any person to
go from any place ,is said to abduct that person.
ii) The object of such compulsion or inducement must be the going of a person from any place.
Thus abduction is an offence under section 362. If a person compels or even by fraudulent means induce
by .other person to go from any place taken is called abduction.
Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship shall be punished with
imprisonment or either description for a term which may be extended to seven years, and shall be liable
to fine.
KIDNAPPING ABDUCTION
Minor is removed from the first taken from one place to and
Unit No. 1
Answer :- INTRODUCTION :- A crime may be committed by one or more persons involved in crime then
their liability depends upon the extent of their participation. Thus this rule of joint liability comes into
existence. But there is an important fact which is that the law has a knowledge about the abettor, who
has given help to another in crime. This rule is very ancient and was applied in Hindu Law also. In English
Law, criminals are divided in four categories, but in India there is only one distinction between the doer
and his helper who is known as abettor. The crime of abetment come under section 107 to 120 of the
IPC. Section 107 defines ‘abetment of a things’ and section l08 defines about the abettor.
2. By conspiracy.
3. By aids.
BY INSTIGATION ANY PERSON TO DO THAT THINGS :- According to the first clause of section 107 a
person abets of thing that instigates any person to do that thing. A person is said to instigate another
when he incites, urges, encourages, provokes, counsels, procures or command him to do something.
ILLUSTRATION :-
A Police Officer is authorised by a warrant from a court of justice to apprehend Z. B knowing that fact
and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z and thereby intentionally causes A to
apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.
A newly wedded girl died of burns. The father of deceased had stated in FIR that the deceased
committed suicide because of harassment and constant taunt for insufficient dowry. It was held by the
SC that the deceased had committed suicide at the instigation of her husband and in laws and it was not
a case of accidental death.
2. ABETMENT BY CONSPIRACY
The second clause of this section states that a person abets the doing of a thing who engages with one
or more other persons in conspiracy for the doing of that thing. If an act or illegal omission takes place
in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to doing of that thing then it is called abetment by
conspiracy. If an act or illegal omission takes place in prurience of that conspiracy.
ILLUSTRATION :-
A concerts with B a plans for poisoning Z. It is agreed that A shall administer the poison. B then explains
the plan to C mentioning that a third person is to administer the poison, but without mentioning A’s
name. C agrees to procure the poison and deliver it to B for the purpose explained ‘A’ administers the
poison and Z dies. Here A and C have not conspired together, yet C has therefore committed the
offence and is liable for punishment.
The deceased & his wife had strained relationship. The wife had illicit intimacy with the accused. The
deceased was scheduled to go to ‘Sadhu” on a particular day. The wife told the accused about this
programme even though she knew that the accused was waiting for the opportunity to kill her husband
and taking the opportunity he killed him. It was held that the wife was not guilty of abetment by
conspiracy, even though her conduct was open to censure.
3. ABETMENT BY AIDING:
The third clause of the section says that,” A person abets the doing of thing who intentionally aids by
any act in the illegal omission of the doing of that thing.
EXPLANATION :- Whoever either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act does anything in
order to facilitate the commission of that act thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid
the doing of that act.
ILLUSTRATION :- If the servant keeps the gate open of the master’s house so that thrives may enter and
thieves do not come, he cannot be held to have abetted the commission of theft.
A case: Ram Kumar v/s State of H.P. 1995. The 19 years old prosecutrix was taken to the police station
by the accused that kept watch over her husband while she was raped by the co-accused. In this
custodial rape the accused turned deaf ears towards the cries of the prosecutrix and did nothing to help
her. The SC implied abetment of the accused for abetment of rape.
1. When he abates the commission of an offence : Example : Where he abets ‘B’ to commit
murder of ‘Z’. Here A is an abettor.
2. When the abets the commission of an offence it is committed by a person capable by law to
commit an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.
Example : “A” abets B, a five year old child, to commit murder of Z, he is still an abettor under the 2nd
category because even though the child will not be guilty of anything by virtue of the protection given to
him by section 82 of the IPC.
EXLPLANATION No.1 :- The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence
although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act.
Explanation No.2 :- To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the particular act of
abettor should be committed.
ILLUSTRATION :- ‘A’ instigates B to Murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers from
wound. A is guilty of instigation B to commit murder.
Explanation No. 3 :- It is not necessary that the abettor & the person abetted must have same guilty
intention or knowledge.
ILLUSTRATION :- ‘A’ with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic to commit an act which would be an
offence if committed by a person capable by law lof committing an offence and having the same
intention as A. Here A, whether the act be committed or not is guilty of abetting an offence.
EXPLANATION NO. 4 :-The abetment of an offence being an offence the abetment of such an abetment
is also an offence.
ILLUSTRATION :- ‘ A ‘ instigates B to instigate C to murder Z. B accordingly instigates C to murder Z and
C commits that offence in consequences of B’s instigation. B is liable to be punished for his offence with
the punishment for murder and as A instigated B to committed the offence. A is liable to the same
punishment.
EXPLANATION NO 5 ;-It is not necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy
that the abettor shoulbigamyd concert the offence with the person who commits it. It is sufficient if he
engages in the conspiracy.
ILLUSTRATION : ‘ A’ concerts with B a plan of poisoning Z. It is agreed that A shall administer the poison.
B then explains the plan to C mentioning that a third person is to administer the poison but without
mentioning A’s name C agrees to procure the poison & deliver lit to B the purpose of its being used in
the matter explained. ‘A” administers the poison, Z dies in consequence, Here though A and C did not
conspired together, Yet C has been engaged in the conspiracy in pursuance of which Z had been
murdered. C has therefore committed the offence defined in the section and is liable to the punishment
of murder.
Unit No. iv
Question No. 13 :-What are the ingredients of the offence of “Bigamy”? Discuss in detail. OR
What are the several offences set out in the IPC relating to Marriage ? OR
What is bigamy? Under what circumstances would a woman, who in the life-time of one husband,
marries another, not be guilty of bigamy.?
Answer : INTRODUCTION :-
OFFENCES RELATING TO MARRIAGE :- The following are the provisions in the Indian Penal Code dealing
with the offences relating to marriage.
Under section 494 defines the offence of bigamy as under: “ Whoever having a husband or wife living,
marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such
husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.”
In Bigamy case, the second marriage as a fact, that is to say, the essential ceremonies constituting it
must be proved. Admission of marriage by the accused is not the evidence of it in bigamy case. Under
section 494 and 109 of IPC the evidence of witness called to prove the marriage ceremonies showed
that the essential ceremonies had not been performed. On admission of the accused in a written
statement that the parties married after the first marriage was dissolved & was not justified, In a case
Kanwal Ram v/s Himachal Pradesh Administration 1966.
An another case of Shanti Dev Barma v/s Kanchan Prava Devi 1991 Orissa,“it was held that No plea was
raised that the second marriage was performed as per custom which dispensed with ‘saptapadi’ oral
evidence was adduced that the accused and his alleged second wife were living as husband and wife. It
was not found sufficient to draw an inference as to performance of ceremonies essential for valid
marriage. The accused was entitled to be acquitted.
The exception to section 494 provides the circumstances where a woman in the life-time of
one husband or vice versa can marry another without incurring the offence of bigamy. It provides that
section 494 does not extend :-
a) To any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by a court of
competent jurisdiction.
b) To any person who contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife, it such
husband or wife at the time of the subsequent marriage shall have been continually absent from such
person for the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive
within that time, such marriage can takes place.
Chapter-IV
Question :-14: What is an attempt to commit offences. Discuss in the light of section 511 of IPC. OR
How far are attempts to commit offences punishable under section 511 of IPC? What must be proved in
order to support the conviction of an attempt under this section.? OR
What are the different stages of the commission of an offence and how far each of them is punishable?
(b) Distinguish between ”preparation to commit an offence” and “attempt to commit an offence.”
Answer: INTRODUCTION:-
ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT OFFENCES : Section 511 lays down that,” whoever attempts to commit an
offence punishable by this code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence
to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where
no express provision is made by this code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with
imprisonment of any description provided for the offence.
The points which require proof under the above section they are as follows :-
1. That the accused attempted to commit some offence punishable with imprisonment for life or
imprisonment or he attempted to cause such and offence to be committed.
2. That in attempting to do the above act he did some act towards the commission of the offence.
ILLUSTRATION :-
a) A makes an attempt to steal some jewels by breaking open a box, and finds after so opening the
box that there is no jewel in it. He had done an act towards the commission of theft, and therefore is
guilty under this section.
b) A makes an attempt to pick pocket of Z by thrusting his hand into Z’s Pocket and fails to pick the
pocket with the result A found nothing in the pocket of Z and was held guilty of an offence under this
section.
There are three stages for the commission of a crime in the section number 511 of IPC, which are as
under :-
ii) Preparation to commit it and attempt to commit it. The crime is when complete is successful.
It consists the evil intention or design to commit the crime. Mere intention or evil design not followed
by an act, does not constitute an offence. The will cannot be taken for the deed, unless there has been
some external act showing the progress made towards maturing the crime. The judges cannot look into
the breast of the criminals.
As clear from the above heading that preparation to commit a crime, It is devising or arranging the
means or measures necessary for commission of an offence. Mere preparation to commit an offence is
punishable only in three cases :-
Preparation widely differs from attempts. Attempt is therefore, preparation plus something more.
Attempt begins where preparation ends. A preparation is generally not punished while every attempt is
the reason being that a preparation apart from its motives would generally be a harmless act.
It is impossible to show in most cases that the preparation was directed to a wrongful end
or was done with an evil motive or intention. An attempt is however made punishable because every
attempt, although it fails to achieve the result, must create alarms which of itself is an injury and the
moral guilt of the offender is the same as if he had succeeded.
There are however some exceptional cases where the contemplated offence may be so
grave that it must be nipped in the bud at its earlier stage. Such as :-
2. There are also a few cases where even mere preparation is made punishable because they
cannot by the very nature of things be meant for innocent purposes e.g. provision against making
mending buying or selling or being in possession of instruments for counterfeiting coins, or making the
dies or other instruments used in the manufacture of coin.
3. There are also a few acts which although in reality are mere preparation have been regarded as
substantive offence, viz., possession of counterfeit coins, false weights and forged documents.
Question No.15: What is criminal trespass.? Critically examine the essential ingredients of criminal
trespass with special reference to Section 441 of IPC. OR
Can an owner himself be guilty of criminal trespass of his own property.? Explain with the help of cases.
OR
A entered the house of K at night to carry on an intrigue with the grown up unmarried daughter of B,
having taken precautions not to let his presence in the house be known to anyone. A was surprise and
caught by B. Is ‘A’ guilty of any offence? Give full reasons for your
Answer.: INTRODUCTION :-
Criminal trespass is dependent not upon the mere nature of the act, but upon the intention of the
offender. As to what intentions constitute criminal trespass enumerated in the section itself, and
beyond these no other intention will constitute criminal trespass. In other words, not all intents of the
offender will constitute criminal trespass but only those mentioned in the section.
“ Whoever trespass into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence
or to 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 the intent to commit an offence is said to commit ‘criminal trespass.”
ii) If such entry is lawful, then unlawfully remaining upon such property.
iii) Such entry as above in Sr.No.(ii) above remaining unlawfully there must be with the following
intentions :-
a) To commit an offence.
It should be noted that the use of criminal force is not at all a necessary ingredient to constitute criminal
trespass. The entry upon the property of another relates to immovable corporeal property and not
incorporeal property such as a right of ferry or fishery. The property must be in the actual possession of
another person. The offence of criminal trespass can only be committed against the person who is in
actual physical possession of the property. It is not necessary that the owner of the property be present
there. The criminal trespass can be done even in the absence of owner of property.
In order to establish that the entry on the property was with the intention to annoy or insult, it
is necessary for the court to be satisfied that causing such annoyance or insult was the aim of entry.
That in deciding the case whether the aim of entry was the causing of such annoyance or insult, the
court has to consider all the relevant circumstances and to include the probability of something also
being the dominant intention which prompted the entry. as in the case of Mathuri v/s State of Panjab
1964-65.
In another case of Rash Bihari Chartterjee v/s Fegu Shaw 1979 S.C:- It was held that the law does not
require that the intention must be to annoy person who is actually present at the time of the trespass.
In order to submit the reasons in support of the problem given in the question it is
submitted as under :-
That in the given case ‘A’ is not guilty of any offence for it could not be said that he intended to cause
annoyance to B within the meaning of section 441 IPC, referred to case of Abdul Majid 1938 Lahore.
This is inferred from the circumstances that A had taken all precautions not to let his presence in the
house known to any one and also that he was not forbidden to enter the house. The purpose of
carrying on an intrigue with an unmarried grown up daughter is not illegal nor is it an offence.
However if B had expressly forbidden A from entering his house, then the position would
have become different. A’s entry would then have been in direct defiance of an express order and an
intention to annoy B could be inferred from it.
Unit-IV
Question No. 16:-What is the law relating to cruelty by husband or relatives of the husband of the
woman? How is it punishable.?
OR
Are you satisfied with the definition of Section 498-A enshrined in the IPC? Discuss the relevance and
constitutionality of Section 498-A also.
Answer : INTRODUCTION :- Chapter XXA comprising Section 498-A which punishes cruelty by the
husband or relatives of the husband to the woman has been inserted by the Criminal Law(Second
Amendment)Act 1983, in Act No. 46 of 1983 it received the assent of the President on
25th.December,1983 and the same was published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary, dated
26.12.1983.
The new provision seeks to curb atrocities on women including those arising out of dowry
demands. The extremer reticence of Indian women to expose the bestiality and cruelty perpetrated on
them led the crusading members to raise the matter in the Parliament which led to the passing of the
Criminal Law (First and Second ) Amendments, 1983 Section 498-A. Therefore envisages that if a
husband or the relatives of the husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty, he shall be liable
to punishment for three years and fine.
Whoever being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three year and shall also be liable
for fine.
(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 or health( whether mental or physical) to the woman.
(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.
Unit-II
The accused struck a woman, carrying an infant in her arms violently over her head and shoulders. One
of the blows fell on the child’s head causing death. Of what offence is the accused guilty.?
OR
The accused demanded one anna from the deceased which the latter owed him. The deceased promised
to pay later and the accused thereupon kicked him twice on the abdomen and the deceased collapsed
and died. Of what offence is the accused guilty.?
Answer :- INTRODUCTION :-
Hurt generally means injury on the body of a person. It is such an injury which causes bodily pain or
disease or infirmity or fracture or disfigurement of face etc.
KINDS OF HURT
1. Simple Hurt.
2. Grievous Hurt.
1. Simple Hurt :- simple hurt is defined under section 319 of IPC whereas the grievous hurt has
been defined under section 320. Simple hurt causes simple injury with simple bodily pain, while
grievous hurt causes serious injury and serious pain in the body too.
Section 319 says that,” whoever causes bodily injury or pain or disease or infirmity by an act to any
other person, such act is called simple hurt.
a) Bodily Pain:- The words show that there must be some pain in the body of a person. It means mental
paid does not come under bodily pain. Any such injury which causes pain on any external part of body
comes under simple hurt.
b) Disease : Disease means any illness. By such act which creates weakness and if a man comes into
contract of any disease then it will come under simple hurt.
c) Infirmity:- Infirmity means by illness. By such act which creates weakness in the body, comes under
simple hurt.
d) To any other Person : The hurt must be caused to any other person not to himself. In this way, in a
simple hurt there is no need of physical contact. A hurt may be caused by any mean or method. Such
hurt must cause bodily pain or disease or infirmity. Such hurt must be caused to another person and not
to himself.
e) Section 319 does not show that there must be direct physical contact with another person for
committing simple hurt.
2. Grievous Hurt : There are various kinds of grievous hurt which have been defined in section 320
in IPC. Thus a hurt is more than a slightly causing harm as defined in section 95 of IPC and less the
culpable homicide. If the hurt results into death land fulfils the conditions of section 299 then it
becomes culpable homicide, otherwise it grievous hurt.
a. Emasculation : The destruction of private organ of a human being is known as emasculation. Any
injury which makes a person incapable for functioning of the private organ, person comes under
grievous hurt.
b. Permanent privation of the sight of either eye if there is privation or separation or destruction
either eye of a person, is grievous hurt.
c. Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear. Similarly the destruction or separation of
either ear is grievous hurt. Here the power of hearing must be affected. The eye and ears are the main
functional organs of a human being. They have is an important role in the life.
d. Privation of any member or joint: Privation of any member or joint also comes under grievous
hurt.
e. Destruction or permanent loss of the power of any member or joint:- If there is destruction of
any member of joint of the body then it is also a grievous hurt or if any member or joint fails to work
properly then also it will comes under grievous hurt.
f. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face :- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face
means to cause such an injury on the head or face that they look bad or head becomes crucial.
g. Fracture or dislocation of Bone or tooth:- When any bone or tooth is dislocated it means they
loss their original place. Fracture of any bones comes under grievous hurt.
h. When there is an such hurt which endangers to life or which causes paid continuously for a
period of 20 days.
Endanger to life mean there must be death from such hurt. If the death is caused by grievous then it will
not be culpable homicide or murder because there is no intention to cause death. So any hurt to create
danger to life is also called grievous hurt.
In the case of Palani Goudon v/s Emperor Madras. It was held by a full bench of the Madras High Court
that the accused was guilty of either murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder. However
Their Lordship held that on the facts found the accused could not be convicted either of murder or
culpable homicide, he could of course be punished both of his original assault on his wife and for his
attempt to create false evidence by hanging her. He was convicted under section 326 Of IPC.
Section 323 : Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt is one year or fine or with both.
Section 325: For voluntarily causing grievous hurt, the punishment is 7 years with fine.
Section 326: Whoever except the case provided for by sec.335 voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means
or any instrument for shooting or cut or any instrument which is used as a weapon of offence is likely to
cause death or by means of fire. Punishment imprisonment of life, it is ten years with fine.
Section. 319.
Injury.
4. The types of injury are bodily Important organs of the body like eye,
Unit-IV.
Question No.18:-Define Adultery and distinguish it from rape?
OR
Discuss fully the law relating to offence of Adultery. Is the present law satisfactory or does it need
change in the present day context?
Answer :- INTRODUCTION :- Adultery is an act which requires the consent of both the parties. The male
offender alone is liable to punishment and the married woman is not liable even as an abettor.
DEFINITION OF ADULTERY
Under Section 497 of IPC it is defines that,” whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and
whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or
connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the
offence of adultery.
The offence under the act 497 of IPC is limited to adultery committed with a married woman.
It does not constitute an offence of adultery if one has sexual intercourse with a widow or an unmarried
woman. Even in the case of a married woman the adulterer is not liable if the husband consents to it.
Adultery is altogether differs from rape in several ways, which are described as under :-
ADULTERY RAPE
By a husband with his own wife . if she is below fifteen years of age.
4 Adultery is an offence relating Rape is an offence against the person
UNIT-III
Question No.19:- Discuss the ingredients of theft with the help of decided case? Also distinguish
between theft and extortion.
Answer :- Theft is an offence in which moveable property of a person is taken away without his consent.
Such property must be taken away dishonesty. Thus in theft there would be a moveable property. It
should be taken dishonestly and without the consent of the owner. Theft has been defined in Section
378 of IPC. Simultaneously the punishment for the commitment of act of theft has also been defined in
Section 379 of IPC.
“ Whoever intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person
without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking is said to commit theft.”
INGREDIENTS OF DEFINITION
4. The property must be taken away from the possession of a person. In other words there must
be a possession of that property.
5. Such property must be taken away without the consent of such person.
A. Dishonest Intention:- It is also called as malafied intention which can be representation in the
form of mensrea. This mensrea is the base of the theft. The petitioner must prove that a thing was taken
away with the dishonest intention.
However intention is a mental element which is difficult to prove but circumstantial
evidences are considered for this purpose. The main measurement of dishonest intention is to make a
wrongful loss to another person then such act is considered to be done with dishonest intention.
B.MOVABLE PROPERTY:- The subject of theft is movable property. Immovable property cannot be
stolen. A movable property is a property which is able to move easily or which is not immovable. It
means the thing permanently attached to the earth is immovable property, is not the subject of theft. It
becomes capable of being the subject of theft when it is severed from the earth.
C. Be taken away out of Possession of another Person:- The property must be in the possession of
another person from where it is removed. There is no theft of wild animals, birds or fish while at a large
but there is a theft of tamed animals.
ILLUSTRATION :- ‘A’ finds a ring lying on the road which was in the possession of any person. A by
taking it commits no theft, though he may commit criminal misappropriation of property.
D. IT SHOULD BE TAKEN WITHOUT CONSENT OF THAT PERSON:- The consent may be express or
implied and may be given either of the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose
express or implied authority.
ILLUSTRATION NO. 1:- ‘A’ being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z’s library in Z’s absence, and takes
away a book without Z’s express consent for the purpose of merely reading it (with the intention of
returning it)Here it is probable that A may have conceived that he had Z’s implied consent to use Z’s
book. If this was A’s impression, A has not committed theft.
ILLUSTRATION NO.2:- ‘A’ asks charity from Z’s 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 Z’s wife is authorised to give
away alms. If this was A’s impression. A has not committed theft.
ILLUSTRATION NO.3 :- ‘A’ is the paramour of Z’s wife and she gives A, the valuable property, which A
knows that these belongs to her husband Z, although she has not authority from Z to give the same. If
takes the property dishonestly, he commits theft.
ILLUSTRATION NO.4:- A sees a ring belonging to Z lying on the table in Z’s house. 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
rings, commits theft.
The punishment for committing theft in Indian Penal Code under section 379 for offence of theft is an
imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine or both.
ESSENTIALS OF EXTORTION
3. Such injury may be for the person who is put under the fear or for any other persons in which
the former person has interest.
4. Such force should be shown with a view to take a thing for property or valuable security or sign
or seal or a document.
Thus if the above elements are present then it is an offence of extortion, dishonest intention is also an
essential element of extortion. Dishonest intention is measured from the circumstances and facts of
each case. Anything taken from a person at the point of pistol is an e.g. of extortion.
ILLUSTRATIONS :-
I) ‘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.
II) ‘A’ threatens Z that he will keep Z’s child in wrongful confinement unless Z will sign and deliver
to A a promissory note binding Z to pay money to ‘A’. Z signs and delivers the note. ‘A’ has committed
the offence of extortion.
A has committed the offence of extortion. Punishment for EXTORTION under section 384 of IPC,”
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.
THEFT EXTORTION
Obtaining of consent.
Offence of extortion.
Owner.
UNIT-II
Question :20 : Define “wrongful restraint” and “Wrongful confinement” and distinguish between the
two.
Answer :- INTRODUCTION:-
The expression “wrongful restraint” implies keeping a man out of a place where he wishes and has a
right to be.
DEFINITION,”WRONGFUL RESTRAINT”
According to section 339 of Indian Penal Code it lays down that, ”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 restraint that person.”
ILLUSTRATION:-
‘A’ obstruct a path along which Z has a right to pass. B not believing in good faith that he has a right to
stop the path, Z is thereby prevented from passing A wrongfully restrains Z.
Similarly B threatens to set a salvage dog at Z if Z goes along a path along which Z has a right
to go. Z is this prevented from going along that path. B thus wrongfully restrains Z.
WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT
According to section 340 of Indian Penal code it is lays down that,” 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.”
ILLUSTRATION NO 1:-
A causes Z to go within a walled space, and locks Z in. Z is thus prevented from proceeding in any
direction beyond the circumscribing line of the wall. A wrongfully confines Z.
ILLUSTRATION NO.2 :-
Similarly, A places men with firearms at the outlets of a building, and tells Z that they will fire at Z if Z
attempts to leave the building. A wrongfully confines Z.
Or both.
Q. No. 10: What do you mean by Extortion? When does extortion amount to Robbery? Discuss.
ANS: INTRODUCTION :- The chief elements of extortion are the intentional putting of a person in fear of
injury to himself or another and dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver to any person
any property or valuable security.
DEFINITION OF EXTORTION
Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear or any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby
dishonesty induces the person so put in fear to deliver any person any property or valuable security or
anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits ‘Extortion’ under
section 383 of IPC.
ESSENTIALS OF EXTORTION
According to section 383 of IPC the following are the essentials of extortion :-
3. Such injury may be for the person who is put under the fear or for any other persons in which
the former person has interest.
4. Such force should be shown with a view take a thing or property or valuable security or sign or
seal or a document.
5. There must be a dishonest intention.
Thus if the above elements are present then it is an offence of Extortion dishonest intention is also an
essential element of extortion.
DISHONEST INTENTION IS MEASURED FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF EACH CASE.
Any thing taken from a person at the point of pistol is an example of extortion.
a) ILLUSTRATION :- ‘A’ threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z gives him
money. He thus induces Z to give him money. A committed Extortion.
b) ‘A’ threatens ‘Z’ that he will keep ‘Z’s child in wrongful confinement unless Z will sign and deliver
to A, a promissory note binding ‘Z’ to pay money to ‘A’. Z signs and delivers the note to A. A has
committed the offence of extortion.
Whoever commits the offence of extortion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both.
Under section 390 of IPC 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, or 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.
1. Theft plus violence causing or attempting to cause death, hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of
instant violence.
2. Extortion plus offender present plus fear of instant violence plus immediate delivery of the thing
is extorted.
ILLUSTRATION :- ‘A’ holds Z down, and fraudulently takes Z’s money and jewels from Z clothes without
Z’s consent. Here A has committed theft, and in order to committing of that theft has voluntarily caused
wrongful restraint to Z. A has therefore committed robbery.