Ipc PDF

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies
&
School of Law
An ISO 9001:2008 Certified Quality Institute
(Recognized by Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Affiliated to GGS Indraprastha University, Delhi)
Class : BALLB
Paper Code :205
Subject :IPC 1
Unit 1
GENERAL INTRODUCTION NATURE AND DEFINITION OF CRIME I.

NATURE OF CRIME WHAT IS A CRIME? We must answer this question at the
outset. In order to answer this question we must know first, what is law because the
two questions are closely interrelated. Traditionally, we know a law to be a
command enjoining a course of conduct. The command may be of a sovereign or
of political superiors to the political inferiors; or it may be the command of a
legally constituted body or a legislation emanating from a duly constituted
legislature to all the members of the society. A crime may, therefore, be an act of
disobedience to such a law forbidding or commanding it. But then disobedience of
all laws may not be a crime, for instance, disobedience of civil laws or laws of
inheritance or contracts. Therefore, a crime would mean something more than a
mere disobedience to a law, "it means an act which is both forbidden by law and
revolting to the moral sentiments of the society." Thus robbery or murder would be
a crime, because they are revolting to the moral sentiments of the society, but a
&
School of Law
disobedience of the revenue laws or the laws of contract would not constitute a
crime. Then again, "the moral sentiments of a society" is a flexible term, because
they may change, and they do change from time to time with the growth of the
public opinion and the social necessities of the times. So also, the moral values of
one country may be and often are quite contrary to the moral values of another
country. To cite a few instances, heresy was a crime at one time in most of the
countries of the world, because in those days it offended the moral sentiments of
the society. It was punished with burning. But nobody is punished nowadays for
his religious beliefs, not even in a theocratic state. The reason is obvious. Now it
does not offend the moral sentiments of the society. Adultery is another such
instance. It is a crime punishable under our Penal Code, but it is not so in some of
the countries of the West. Then again suttee, i.e., burning of a married woman on
the funeral pyre of her deceased husband, was for a long time considered to be a
virtue in our own country, but now it is a crime. Similarly, polygamy was not a
crime in our country until it was made so by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. This
Act, it may be stated, does not apply to Mohammedans or Christians. But
Christians are forbidden to practise polygamy under their law of marriage, while
Mohammedans are yet immune from punishment for polygamy. All these instances
go to show that the content of crime changes from time to time in the same country
and from country to country at the same time because it is conditioned by the
moral value approved of by a particular society in a particular age in a particular
country. A crime of yesterday may become a virtue tomorrow and so also a virtue
&
School of Law
of yesterday may become a crime tomorrow. Such being the content of crime, all
attempts made from time to time beginning with Blackstone down to Kenny in
modern times to define it have proved abortive. Therefore, the present writer
agrees with Russell when he observes that "to define crime is a task which so far
has not been satisfactorily accomplished by any writer. In fact, criminal offences
are basically the creation of the criminal policy adopted from time to time by those
R.C Nigam, LAW OF CRIMES IN INDIA 25-37 (1965) sections of the
community who are powerful or astute enough to safeguard their own security and
comfort by causing the sovereign power in the state to repress conduct which they
feel may endanger their position". But a student embarking on study of principles
of criminal law must understand the chief characteristics and the true attributes of a
crime. Though a crime, as we have seen, is difficult of a definition in the true sense
of the term, a definition of a crime must give us "the whole thing and the sole
thing," telling us something that shall be true of every crime and yet not be true of
any other conceivable non-criminal breach of law. We cannot produce such a
definition of crime as might be flexible enough to be true in all countries, in all
ages and in all times. Nevertheless, a crime may be described and its attributes and
characteristics be clearly understood. In order to achieve this object, we propose to
adopt two ways, namely, first, we shall distinguish crime from civil and moral
wrongs, and secondly, we shall critically examine all the definitions constructed by
the eminent criminal jurists from time to time.
&
School of Law
II. DISTINCTION BETWEEN MORAL, CIVIL AND CRIMINAL WRONGS In

order to draw a distinction between civil and criminal liability, it becomes
necessary to know clearly what is a wrong of which all the three are species. There
are certain acts done by us which a large majority of civilised people in the society
look upon with disapprobation, because they tend to reduce the sum total of human
happiness, to conserve which is the ultimate aim of all laws. Such acts may be
called wrongs, for instance, lying, gambling, cheating, stealing, homicide,
proxying in the class, gluttony and so on. The evil tendencies and the reflex action
in the society of these acts or wrongs, as we have now chosen to call them, differ in
degree. Some of them are not considered to be serious enough as to attract law's
notice. We only disapprove of them. Such wrongs may be designated as moral
wrongs, for instance, lying, overeating or gluttony, disobedience of parents or
teachers, and so on. Moral wrongs are restrained and corrected by social laws and
laws of religion. There are other wrongs which are serious enough to attract the
notice of the law. The reaction in the society is grave enough and is expressed
either by infliction of some pain on the wrongdoer or by calling upon him to make
good the loss to the wronged person. In other words, law either awards punishment
or damages according to the gravity of the wrong done. If the law awards a
punishment for the wrong done, we call it a crime; but if the law does not consider
it serious enough to award a punishment and allows only indemnification or
damages, we call such a wrong as a civil wrong or tort. In order to mark out the
distinction between crimes and torts, we have to go deep into the matter and study
&
School of Law
it rather elaborately. Civil and Criminal Wrongs: We may state, broadly speaking,
first, that crimes are graver wrongs than torts. There are three reasons for this
distinction between a crime and a tort. First, they constitute greater interference
with the happiness of others and affect the well-being not only of the particular
individual wronged but of the community as a whole. Secondly, because the
impulse to commit them is often very strong and the advantage to be gained from
the wrongful act and the facility with which it can be accomplished are often so
great and the risk of detection so small that human nature, inclined as it is to take
the shortest cut to happiness, is more likely to be tempted, more often than not, to
commit such wrongs. A pickpocket, a swindler, a gambler are all instances.
Thirdly, ordinarily they are deliberate acts and directed xv by an evil mind and are
hurtful to the society by the bad example they set. Since crimes are graver wrongs,
they are singled out for punishment with four-fold objects, namely, of making an
example of the criminal, of deterring him from repeating the same act, of
reforming him by eradicating the evil, and of satisfying the society’s feeling of
vengeance. Civil wrongs, on the other hand, are less serious wrongs, as the effect
of such wrongs is supposed to be confined mainly to individuals and does not
affect the community at large. Secondly, the accused is treated with greater
indulgence than the defendant in civil cases. The procedure and the rules of
evidence are modified in order to reduce to a minimum the risk of an innocent
person being punished. For example, the accused is not bound to prove anything,
nor is he required to make any statement in court, nor is he compellable to answer
&
School of Law
any question or give an explanation. However, under the Continental Laws an

accused can be interrogated. Thirdly, if there is any reasonable doubt regarding the
guilt of the accused, the benefit of doubt is always given to the accused. It is said
that it is better that ten guilty men should escape rather than an innocent person
should suffer. But the defendant in a civil case is not given any such benefit of
doubt. Fourthly, crimes and civil injuries are generally dealt with in different
tribunals. The former are tried in the criminal courts, while the latter in the civil
courts. Fifthly, in case of a civil injury, the object aimed at is to indemnify the
individual wronged and to put him as far as practicable in the position he was,
before he was wronged. Therefore he can compromise the case, whereas in
criminal cases generally the state alone, as the protector of the rights of its subjects,
pursues the offender and often does so in spite of the injured party. There are,
however, exceptions1o this rule. Lastly, an act in order to be criminal must be done
with malice or criminal intent. In other words, there is no crime without an evil
intent. Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which means that the act alone does
not make .a man guilty unless his intentions were so. This essential of the crime
distinguishes it from civil injuries. Criminal and Moral Wrongs: A criminal wrong
may also be distinguished from a moral wrong. It is narrower in extent than a
moral wrong. In no age or in any nation an attempt has ever been made to treat
every moral wrong as a crime. In a crime an idea of some definite gross undeniable
injury to some one is involved. Some definite overt act is necessary, but do we
punish a person for ingratitude, hard-heartedness, absence of natural affection,
&
School of Law
habitual idleness, avarice, sensuality and pride, which are all instances of moral
lapses? They might be subject of confession and penance but not criminal
proceeding. The criminal law, therefore, has a limited scope. It applies only to
definite acts of commission and omission, capable of being distinctly proved.
These acts of commission and omission cause definite evils either on definite
persons or on the community at large. Within these narrow limits there may be a
likeness between criminal law and morality. For instance, offences like murder,
rape, arson, robbery, theft and the like are equally abhorred by law and morality.
On the other hand, there are many acts which are not at all immoral, nonetheless
they are criminal. For example, breaches of statutory regulations and bye laws are
classed as criminal offences, although they do not involve the slightest moral
blame. So also “the failure to have a proper light on a bicycle or keeping of a pig in
a wrong place," or the xvi neglect in breach of a bye-law to cause a child to attend
school during the whole of the ordinary school hours; and conversely many acts of
great immorality are not criminal offences, as for example, adultery in England, or
incest in India. However, whenever law and morals unite in condemning an act, the
punishment for the act is enhanced. Stephen on the relationship between criminal
law and morality observes: The relation between criminal law and morality is not
in all cases the same. The two may harmonise; there may be a conflict between
them, or they may be independent. In all common cases they do, and, in my
opinion, wherever and so far as it is possible, they ought to harmonise with and
support one another. Everything which is regarded as enhancing the moral guilt of
&
School of Law
a particular offence is recognised as a reason for increasing the severity of the

punishment awarded to it. On the other hand, the sentence of the law is to the
moral sentiment of the public in relation to any offence what a seal is to hot wax. It
converts into a permanent final judgement what might otherwise be a transient
sentiment. The mere general suspicion or knowledge that a man has done
something dishonest may never be brought to a point, and the disapprobation
excited by it may in time pass away, but the fact that he has been convicted and
punished as a thief stamps a mark upon him for life. In short, the infliction of
punishment by law gives definite expression and a solemn ratification and a
justification to the hatred which is excited by the commission of the offence, and
which constitutes the ll1oral or popular as distinguished from the conscientious
sanction of that part of morality which is also sanctioned by the criminal law. The
crill1inal law thus proceeds upon the principle that it is ll1orally right to hate
crill1inals, and it confirms and justifies that sentill1ent by inflicting upon criminals
punishments which express it. Criminal Law and Ethics: Let us also distinguish
criminal law from ethics. Ethics is a study of the supreme good. It deals with
absolute ideal, whereas positive morality deals with current public opinion, and
law is concerned with social relationship of men rather than with the individual's
excellence of character. The distinction between law and morality has been
discussed already. We may now bring out the distinction between law and ethics
by citing two illustrations. Your neighbour, for instance, is dying of starvation.
Your granary is full. Is there any law that requires you to help him out of your
&
School of Law
plenty? It may be ethically wrong or morally wrong; but not criminally wrong.
Then again, you are standing on the bank of a tank. A woman is filling her pitcher.
All of a sudden she gets an epileptic fit. You do not try to save her. You may have
committed an ethical wrong or a moral wrong, but will you be punished
criminally? However, with the growth of the humanitarian ideas, it is hoped that
the conception of one's duty to others will gradually expand, and a day might arrive
when it may have to conform-to the ideal conduct which the great Persian Poet.
Sheikh Saadi, aimed at, viz.: “If you see a blind man proceeding to a well, if you
are silent, you commit a crime.” This was what the poet said in the 13th century.
But we may have to wait for a few more decades, when we might give a different
answer to the question: “Am I my brother's keeper?" Are Crimes and Torts
Complementary? In the foregoing, we have drawn a clear distinction between
crimes and civil injuries. In spite of those distinctions, however, it should be
remembered that crimes and torts are complementary and not exclusive of each
other. Criminal wrongs and civil wrongs are thus not sharply separated groups of
acts but xvii are often one and the same act as viewed from different standpoint,
the difference being not one of nature but only of relation. To ask concerning any
occurrence, "is this a crime or a tort?" is, to borrow Sir James Stephen's apt
illustration, no wiser than it would be to ask of a man, "Is he a father or a son? For
he may be both." In fact, whatever is within the scope of the penal law is crime,
whatever is a ground for a claim of damages, as for an injury, is a tort; but there is
no reason why the same act should not belong to both classes, arid many acts do.
&
School of Law
In fact, some torts or civil injuries were erected and are being erected into crimes,
whenever the law-making hand comes to regard the civil remedy for them as being
inadequate. But we cannot go so far as to agree with Blackstone when he makes a
sweeping observation that "universally every crime is a civil injury." This
observation of Blackstone is proved incorrect in the following three offences which
do not happen to injure any particular individual. First, a man publishes a seditious
libel or enlists recruits for the service of some foreign belligerent. In either of these
cases an offence against the state has been committed but no injury is caused to
any particular individual. Secondly, an intending forgerer, who is found in
possession of a block for the purpose of forging a trade mark or engraving a
banknote or for forging a currency note, commits a serious offence but he causes
no injury to any individual. Thirdly, there are cases where though a private
individual does actually suffer by the offence, yet the sufferer is no other than the
actual criminal himself who, of course, cannot claim compensation against himself,
for example, in cases of attempted suicide. However, in England as elsewhere the
process of turning of private wrongs into public ones is not yet complete, but it is
going forward year to year. For instance, the maiming or killings of another man’s
cattle were formerly civil wrongs but they were made crimes in the Hanoverian
reign. Then again, it was not until 1857 a crime for a trustee to commit a breach of
trust. So also, incest was created a crime in 1908. In fact, the categories of crimes
are not closed. In our own country, since Independence, many acts have now been
enacted into crimes which we could not even have conceived of, for instance,
&
School of Law
practice of untouchability or forced labour or marrying below a certain age and so

on. A socialistic state does conceive of many anti-social behaviours punishable as
crimes more frequently. We must remember that crime is a relative concept and a
changing one too. Different societies have different views as to what constitutes a
criminal act and the conception of a crime may vary with the age, locality and
several other facts and circumstances. For example, people were burned for heresy
a few centuries ago, but in modern times no civilised nation punishes a man on the
ground that he professes a different religious view. Then again, adultery is a crime
according to our penal code, while it is a civil wrong according to English law.
Maine's Dictum and its Criticism: Before we pass on to examine the definitions
constructed from time to time by jurists as regards crime, we may examine the
well-known generalisation of Sir Henry Maine as regards the conception of crime
in ancient communities. He observes: Penal law of ancient communities is not the
law of crimes: it is the law of wrongs. The person injured proceeds against the
wrongdoer by an ordinary civil action and recovers compensation in the shape of
money damages, if he succeeds. xviii In support of this observation, he cites a good
many instances of compounding of murder by payment of blood money. The idea
underlying was that homicide could be purged by the blood money being paid to
the relatives of the deceased. The conception that crimes are wrongs against the
community is of a comparatively modern growth in the European countries and not
in ancient India where it was the dominant feature of the time. The generalisation
of Maine, therefore, does not apply to ancient Indian law, based as it is on a study
&
School of Law
of the Roman law and the old Germanic systems of law. In these systems of law,
acts which are not treated as offences were treated as civil wrongs and were
requited by payment of compensation. If we examine closely the penal law of the
ancient Hindus, we find that the penalty imposed on the offender was usually not
in the nature of compensation to the injured party. Moreover, Maine's
generalization has recently been pronounced to be incorrect by a modern research
scholar, Sir A.S. Diamond. He observes: Partly from a chapter in Maine's Ancient
Law (Chapter X) has been drawn a widespread conception that there is no
separation in crimes and civil injuries in primitive law. But this is not so: the
distinction is universal, from the time when civil and criminal laws are first found,
until the end of the primitive law. III. DEFINITIONS OF CRIME Now we shall
examine the definitions of crime given to us by the eminent jurists and see how far
they have succeeded in constructing a true definition of crime. Sir William
Blackstone in his classical work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume
IV, which is devoted to “Public Wrongs or Crimes,” attempted to define crime at
two different places in his work. We shall examine both these definitions given by
him. At one place, he states that crime is an act committed or omitted in violation
of a public law forbidding or commanding it. Here in defining crime Blackstone
uses "public law." Now what is meant by public law? It has several accepted
meanings. For instance, Austin takes public law as identical with constitutional
law. In that sense, the definition given by him would cover only political offences
which are only a very small portion of the whole field of crime. If we were to
&
School of Law
follow Austin and interpret the definition given by Blackstone as violation of our
constitutional law, namely, Articles 21 and 31, which guarantee protection of one's
life, liberty and property, even then the definition of crime would remain too
narrow. The Germans, on the other hand, interpret "public law" to mean both
constitutional law and criminal law. In this sense, the definition given by
Blackstone ceases to define because we shall be using criminal law in defining a
crime. Then again, some take "public law" to mean positive law or municipal law,
which would mean all laws made by the state. In that sense, the definition given by
Blackstone obviously become too wide, for then crime will include every legal
wrong or violation of law. Therefore, this definition given by Blackstone is not
satisfactory. Now we pass on to the second definition given by the same jurist,
Blackstone. He defines crime as “a violation of the public rights and duties due to
the whole community considered as a community.” This definition has been
slightly altered by the learned editor of Blackstone, Serjeant Stephen, who
expresses it thus: xix A crime is a violation of a right considered in reference to the
evil tendency of such violation as regards the community at large. As regards the
reconstructed definition, it might be observed that it introduces a new error,
namely, it limits crimes to violations of rights only, whereas Blackstone applied it
to a violation of both a right and a duty. Instances of a violation of a duty
amounting to crimes are numerous, for example, being in possession of house-
breaking tools by night or possession of counterfeit coins. Undoubtedly the idea
incorporated in the definition given by Blackstone as well as by his learned editor
&
School of Law
Stephen is very important, namely, that crimes are breaches of those laws which
injure the community. The same was the idea which was noted by the Roman
jurists as well. Therefore they called crimes delicta publica and the criminal trials
judicia publica. Indeed, if only a rough, general description of crime were to be
given then public mischief could be made the salient feature of the crime, but this
alone would not suffice for a definition. It would be a vague fact for a definition of
a crime. There are many things which are only breaches of contract and are
injurious to the community but they are not crimes, for example, the negligent
management of the affairs of a company, which may bring about a calamity to the
community greater than that produced by a thief stealing an article. The latter is a
crime, while the former is only a wrong and not a crime. On the other hand, a
conduct may amount to a crime, though instead of bringing an evil to the
community it may bring some good to the community. For instance, constructing a
sloping causeway, though it might facilitate the landing of passengers and goods, is
an offence of common nuisance. Therefore, the definition of crime that it is a legal
wrong, if it tends to cause evil to the community, is not correct. It is, of course, an
instructive general description of it. Some jurists define crime as those legal
wrongs which violently offend our moral feelings. As we have seen already, law
and morality do not always go together. This definition, moreover, breaks down in
man) cases, for example, in treason offences. Such offences are hardly considered
immoral or disgraceful, yet they are very serious offences. Treason, as Sir Walter
Scott says, "arises from mistaken virtue, and therefore, however highly criminal,
&
School of Law
cannot be considered disgraceful," a view which has even received legislative

approval. Then again, mere omission to keep a highway in repair shocks nobody,
yet it is crime. On the other hand, many grossly cruel and fraudulent breaches of
trust are merely civil wrongs, for example, a man who stands by the river and
watches a child drowning. He is a known swimmer but does not plunge into water
to save the child. He may be guilty of committing a grossly wicked immoral act
which may arouse universal indignation but he will not be held guilty of
committing a crime nor even a civil wrong. In France, however, he may be held
guilty but not so under English criminal law, or under the Indian Penal Code. Of
course, it would be different with a father who owes a duty to a son while not a
grandfather. Some jurists define crime according to the interference by the state in
such acts. In civil cases the state does not interfere until actual wrong has been
committed, and even then it does not interpose unless proceedings are initiated by
the person actually affected by it. In criminal matters the state maintains an
elaborate police staff to prevent offences and if one is committed an action may be
instituted by the state without the cooperation of the party injured. Of course, to
define crime in this way is only to bring out the contrast between civil xx and
criminal wrongs, which, howsoever genuine it may be, cannot be the correct basis
of a definition for two reasons. First, because civil proceedings are often taken to
obtain injunction against some anticipated wrong which has not yet been
committed while, on the other hand, some criminal acts are so trivial that the police
do not interfere before hand to prevent them. Secondly, there are some crimes for
&
School of Law
which a prosecution cannot be initiated by any private person without the

permission from the state, for example, printing or publishing demoralising,
indecent details of a judicial proceeding. Austin has, in defining crime, observed:
A wrong which is pursued at the discretion of the injured party and his
representatives is a civil injury: a wrong which is pursued by the sovereign or his
subordinates is a crime. It may be observed that his definition is not of substance
but of procedure only. Moreover, under the Indian Penal Code there are several
offences which cannot be pursued except by the injured party, for example,
offences of criminal elopement under Section 498 of the Penal Code which can
only be tried on a complaint being lodged by the husband. Professor Kenny
modifies Austin and defines crime to be "wrongs whose sanction is punitive and is
in no way remissible by any private person, but is remissible by the Crown alone,
if remissible at all." This definition of crime as given by Professor Kenny is also
open to criticism. Professor Winfield points out that the word "sanction," used in
the definition must means punishment and the word "remissible" must refer to
pardon by the Crown and observes that it is on the word "remissible" that the
definition breaks down, for the only way in which the Crown can remit a
punishment is by pardon. It may be observed that, under English common law,
crimes which are pardonable are only those which are against the public laws and
statutes of the realm. Then again, this definition fails when it is applied to our own
law because there are very many offences under the Indian Penal Code which are
compoundable without even the intervention of the Court or, in other words, where
&
School of Law
the punishment can be remitted by the private individual. Therefore, this definition
of Professor Kenny also breaks down. An American author has defined crime to be
the commission or omission of an act which the law forbids or commands under
pain of a punishment to be imposed by the state by a proceeding in its own name.
This definition seems to be less open to criticism than others, Professor Paton
observes: In crime we find that the normal marks are that the state has power to
control the procedure, to remit the penalty or to inflict the punishment. Similarly
Professor Keeton says: A Crime today would seem to be any undesirable act which
the state finds it most convenient to correct by the institution of proceedings for the
infliction of a penalty, instead of leaving the remedy to the discretion of some
injured person. Thus we have seen that all attempts to define crime have proved
abortive and would indeed be a barren research, We can only describe it and may
state that in a crime we find at least three attributes, namely, first, that it is a harm
brought about by some anti-social act of human being, which the sovereign power
desires to prevent; secondly, the preventive measures taken by the state appear in
the form of a threat of a sanction or punishment; and xxi thirdly, the legal
proceedings, wherein the guilt or otherwise of the accused is determined, are a
special kind of proceedings governed by special rules of evidence. IV. TEST OF
CRIMINALITY Now what is the test of criminality or criminal liability? The true
test of criminal liability has had a gradual development. In the very beginning only
the most serious crimes were recognised and were singled out for punishment. The
list of crimes at that time was short. In the next stage we find that the machinery
&
School of Law
for administration of justice was refined and developed, and procedural laws for
the trial of criminal cases were also reformed. In this process of development we
find that certain fundamental principles were evolved. The first was that nobody
should be held liable unless he had the evil intent to commit it, and the second was
that the accused was to be presumed to be innocent unless he was proved to be
guilty. The former principle assumed a Latin garb and became known as actus non
facit reum, nisi mens sit rea, and was first cited as a principle by Lord Kenyon C.J.
in Fowler v. Pedger thus: "It is a principle of natural justice and of our law that
actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea." This principle has even in modern times
been accepted to be a leading doctrine of criminal law, for Lord Goddard C.J.
observed in a case in 1949: "actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea is a cardinal
doctrine of the Criminal Law." This maxim which has been accepted not only by
the courts of England but also our own courts recognise that there are two
necessary elements in a crime, namely, first, a physical element, and, secondly, a
mental element. The former is known technically as actus reus and the latter as
mens rea. These are the tests of criminality known to our law and to the laws of
England. The actus reus may be an act of commission or an act of omission. It may
be punishable by a statute or by common law. The actus reus may be the
disobedience of the orders of a competent tribunal or may even be of a rule made
by an executive. But in order that the actus reus may be punishable it must
generally be accompanied by a guilty mind. However, in some cases, law awards a
punishment although the actus reus is not consummated. They are known to us as
&
School of Law
attempt, conspiracy or even some cases of preparation, which we have discussed at

length elsewhere in this work." V. TRADITIONAL AND MODERN APPROACH
TO CRIME As we have seen above, the traditional approach to crime had been to
formulate a definition of crime. Therefore, all the eminent jurists beginning with
Blackstone down to Kenny attempted to define crime, but, as we have seen, they
all failed to bring in within the narrow compass of a definition the flexible notion
of a crime, because it was conditioned by the changing moral values and social
opinions of the community from time to time. Moreover, the traditional approach
to crime may have well suited a society which had not developed into a complex
society. The crimes known to them in the beginning at that stage of the society
may have been fewer in number which could have been roped in the four corners
of a definition. With the rise of industrial revolution and rapid means of
communications and modern scientific investigations, crimes also have taken a
new turn. Not only that they have multiplied in number but also they have grown
more complex and even scientific. Formerly, we knew only crimes arising out of
greed, land and lust. But now such crimes have been relegated to the category of
traditional crimes. Modern crimes committed by persons xxii belonging to the
higher social status by beguiling people or practising fraud or misrepresentation or
by adopting other known or unknown ways to amass money by fair means or foul
have all appeared. Therefore, a modern approach to combat such crimes has
become absolutely necessary. Defining crime, being a traditional approach, has to
be given up. The modern conception is that crime is a public wrong, i.e., wrong
&
School of Law
which offends against the public generally. The modern approach is not to bother
about a definition of a crime but to lay stress on its functions. In other words, the
modern approach is a functional approach to crime. The Wolfendon Committee
Report (1958) has spotlighted the functional approach to crime in England, and
lays down clearly both positively and negatively what it should be and what it
should not be. It observes that the function of criminal law is to preserve public
order and decency, to protect citizens from what is offensive or injurious and to
provide sufficient safeguards against exploitation and corruption of others,
particularly those who are young, weak in body or mind, inexperienced, or in a
state of physical, official or economic dependence. This is the positive aspect of
the functional approach to criminal law.This crux of the modern approach lies in
what is its negative aspect which is expressed thus: It is not the function of the law
to intervene in the private lives of citizens or to seek to enforce any particular
pattern of behaviour further than is necessary to carry out the above purposes. The
purposes mentioned here are defined and described in the above paragraph
defining the positive approach. In defining the positive aspect of this approach, two
general terms have been used, namely, "offensive" and "injurious," about which
doubts may be expressed and therefore the committee observes by way of an
explanation thus: Opinions will differ as to what is offensive or injurious or
inimical to the common good and as to what constitutes exploitation or corruption
and those opinions will be based on the prevailing moral, social or cultural
standards. This explanation fits in with the growing needs of the society. Of
&
School of Law
course, it goes without saying that criminal law will not concern itself with what a
man does in private unless it can be shown to be so contrary to the public good that
the law ought to intervene in its function as the guardian of that public good. Then
again, no useful purpose can be served by legislating against an activity which you
cannot satisfactorily control. Therefore, it becomes clear that private morality or
immorality is not the concern of law. It appears that we are again reverting to what
Blackstone told us about four hundred years ago that crime is a public wrong
because the modern notion of criminal law is concerned with behaviour which is
normally reprehensible and is inimical to law and order. Therefore, a search for a
definition of crime, being a traditional approach to crime, should now in modern
times be given up as being a barren search and instead the real search should be for
the norms, ethics and practical expediency. Herein lies the distinction between the
traditional and the modern approach to criminal law.
CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF CRIME ELEMENTS OF A CRIME The two

elements of crime are mens rea and actus reus. Apart from these two elements that
go to make up a crime, there are two more indispensable elements, namely, first, “a
human being under a legal obligation to act in a particular way and a fit subject for
the infliction of appropriate punishment,” and secondly, “an injury to another
human being or to the society at large.” Thus the four elements that go to constitute
a crime are as follows: first, a human being under a legal obligation to act in a
particular way and a fit subject for the infliction of appropriate punishment:
secondly, an evil intent or mens rea on the part of such human being; thirdly, actus
&
School of Law
reus, i.e., act committed or omitted in furtherance of such an intent; and fourthly,
an injury to another human being or to society at large by such an act. A Human
Being: The first element requires that the act should have been done by a human
being before it can constitute a crime punishable at law. The human being must be
“under a legal obligation to act, and capable of being punished.” . Mens Rea: The
second element, which is an important essential of a crime, is mens rea or guilty
mind. In the entire field of criminal law there is no important doctrine than that of
mens rea. The fundamental principle of English Criminal jurisprudence, to use a
maxim which has been familiar to lawyers following the common law for several
centuries, is “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”. Mens rea is the state of mind
indicating culpability, which is required by statute as an element of a crime. It is
commonly taken to mean some blameworthy mental condition, whether constituted
by intention or knowledge or otherwise, the absence of which on any particular
occasion negatives the intention of a crime. The term ‘mens rea’ has been given to
volition, which is the motive force behind the criminal act. It is also one of the
essential ingredients of criminal liability. As a general rule every crime requires a
mental element, the nature of which will depend upon the definition of the
particular crime in question. Even in crimes of strict liability some mental element
is required. Expressions connoting the requirement of a mental element include:
‘with intent’, ‘recklessly’, ‘unlawfully’, ‘maliciously’, ‘unlawfully and
maliciously’, ‘wilfully’, ‘knowingly’, ‘knowing or believing’, ‘fraudulently’,
‘dishonestly’, ‘corruptly’, ‘allowing’, and ‘permitting’. Each of these expressions
&
School of Law
is capable of bearing a meaning, which differs from that ascribed to any other. The
meaning of each must be determined in the context in which it appears, and the
same expression may bear a different meaning in different contexts. Under the
IPC, guilt in respect of almost all offences is fastened either on the ground of
intention or knowledge or reason to believe. All the offences under the Code are
qualified by one or the other words such as wrongful gain or wrongful loss,
dishonestly, fraudulently, reason to believe, criminal knowledge or intention,
intentional co-operation, voluntarily, malignantly, wantonly. All these words
describe the mental condition required at the time of commission of the offence, in
order to constitute an offence. Thus, though the  Edited from: R. C. Nigam, LAW
OF CRIMES IN INDIA 38-43 (1965); V. Suresh and D. Nagasaila (eds.), P.S.
ATCHUTHEN PILLAI’S CRIMINAL LAW 42-47 (9th edn., 2006) xxiv word
mens rea as such is nowhere found in the IPC, its essence is reflected in almost all
the provisions of the code. The existence of the mental element or guilty mind or
mens rea at the time of commission of the actus reus or the act alone will make the
act an offence. Generally, subject to both qualification and exception, a person is
not criminally liable for a crime unless he intends to cause, foresees that he will
probably cause, or at the lowest, foresees that he may cause, the elements which
constitute the crime in question. Although the view has been expressed that it is
impossible to ascribe any particular meaning to the term mens rea, concepts such
as those of intention, recklessness and knowledge are commonly used as the basis
for criminal liability and in some respects may be said to be fundamental to it:
&
School of Law
Intention: To intend is to have in mind a fixed purpose to reach a desired objective;

it is used to denote the state of mind of a man who not only foresees but also
desires the possible consequences of his conduct. The idea foresees but also desires
the possible consequences of his conduct. The idea of ‘intention’ in law is not
always expressed by the words ‘intention’, ‘intentionally’ or ‘with intent to’. It is
expressed also by words such as ‘voluntarily’, ‘wilfully’ or ‘deliberately’ etc.
Section 298 IPC makes the uttering of words or making gestures with deliberate
intent to wound the religious feelings punishable under the Act. ON a plain reading
of the section, the words ‘deliberate’ and ‘intent’ seem synonymous. An act is
intentional if, and in so far as it exists in idea before it exists in fact, the idea
realizing itself in the fact because of the desire by which it is accompanied.
Intention does not mean ultimate aim and object. Nor is it a synonym for motive.
Transferred intention: Where a person intends to commit a particular crime and
brings about the elements which constitute that crime, he may be convicted
notwithstanding that the crime takes effect in a manner which was unintended or
unforeseen. A, intends to kill B by poisoning. A places a glass of milk with poison
on the table of B knowing that at the time of going to bed B takes glass of milk. On
that fateful night instead of B, C enters the bedroom of B and takes the glass of
milk and dies in consequence. A is liable for the killing of C under the principle of
transferred intention or malice. Intention and Motive: Intention and motive are
often confused as being one and the same. The two, however, are distinct and have
to be distinguished. The mental element of a crime ordinarily involves no reference
&
School of Law
to motive. Motive is something which prompts a man to form an intention.

Intention has been defined as the fixed direction of the mind to a particular object,
or determination to act in a particular manner and it is distinguishable from motive
which incites or stimulates action. Sometimes, motive plays an important role and
becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and, therefore, motive behind the
crime become a relevant factor for knowing the intention of a person. In Om
Prakash v. State of Uttranchal [(2003) 1 SCC 648] and State of UP v. Arun Kumar
Gupta [(2003) 2 SCC 202] the Supreme Court rejected the plea that the prosecution
could not signify the motive for the crime holding that failure to prove motive is
irrelevant in a case wherein the guilt of the accused is proved otherwise. It needs to
be emphasised that motive is not an essential element of an offence but motive
helps us to know the intention of a person. Motive is relevant and important on the
question of intention. xxv Intention and knowledge: The terms ‘intention’ and
‘knowledge’ which denote mens rea appear in Sections 299 and 300, having
different consequences. Intention and knowledge are used as alternate ingredients
to constitute the offence of culpable homicide. However, intention and knowledge
are two different things. Intention is the desire to achieve a certain purpose while
knowledge is awareness on the part of the person concerned of the consequence of
his act of omission or commission, indicating his state of mind. The demarcating
line between knowledge and intention is no doubt thin, but it is not difficult to
perceive that they connote different things. There may be knowledge of the likely
consequences without any intention to cause the consequences. For example, a
&
School of Law
mother jumps into a well along with her child in her arms to save herself and her
child from the cruelty of her husband. The child dies but the mother survives. The
act of the mother is culpable homicide. She might not have intended to cause death
of the child but, as a person having prudent mind, which law assumes every person
to have, she ought to have known that jumping into the well along with the child
was likely to cause the death of the child. She ought to have known as prudent
member of the society that her act was likely to cause death even when she may
not have intended to cause the death of the child. Recklessness: Intention cannot
exist without foresight, but foresight can exist without intention. For a man may
foresee the possible or even probable consequences of his conduct and yet not
desire this state of risk of bringing about the unwished result. This state of mind is
known as ‘recklessness’. The words ‘rash’ and ‘rashness’ have also been used to
indicate this same attitude. Negligence: If anything is done without any advertence
to the consequent event or result, the mental state in such situation signifies
negligence. The event may be harmless or harmful; if harmful the question arises
whether there is legal liability for it. In civil law (common law) it is decided by
considering whether or not a reasonable man in the same circumstances would
have realized the prospect of harm and would have stopped or changed his course
so as to avoid it. If a reasonable man would not, then there is no liability and the
harm must lie where it falls. The word ‘negligence’, therefore, is used to denote
blameworthy inadvertence. It should be recognized that at common law there is no
criminal liability for harm thus caused by inadvertence. Strictly speaking,
&
School of Law
negligence may not be a form of mens rea. It is more in the nature of a legal fault.
However, it is made punishable for a utilitarian purpose of hoping to improve
people’s standards of behaviour. Criminal liability for negligence is exceptional at
common law; manslaughter appears to be the only common law crime, which may
result from negligence. Crimes of negligence may be created by statute, and a
statute may provide that it is a defence to charges brought under its provisions for
the accused to prove that he was not negligent. Conversely, negligence with regard
to some subsidiary element in the actus reus of a crime may deprive the accused of
a statutory defence which would otherwise have been available to him. Advertent
negligence is commonly termed as wilful negligence or recklessness. In other
words, inadvertent negligence may be distinguished as simple. In the former the
harm done is foreseen as possible or probable but it is not willed. In the latter it is
neither foreseen nor willed. In each case carelessness, i.e. to say indifference as to
the consequences, is present; but in the former this indifference does not, while in
the latter it does prevent these xxvi consequences from being foreseen. The
physician who treats a patient improperly through ignorance or forgetfulness is
guilty of simple or inadvertent negligence; but if he does the same in order to save
himself trouble, or by way of a scientific experiment with full recognition of the
danger so incurred, his negligence is wilful. It may be important to state here that
the wilful wrong doer is liable because he desires to do the harm; the negligent
wrong doer is liable because he does not sufficiently desire to avoid it. He who will
excuse himself on the ground that he meant no evil is still open to the reply: -
&
School of Law
perhaps you did not, but at all event you might have avoided it if you had
sufficiently desire to do so; and you are held liable not because you desired the
mischief, but because you were careless and indifferent whether it ensured or not.
It is on this ground that negligence is treated as a form of mens rea, standing side
by side with wrongful intention as a formal ground of responsibility. Actus Reus:
To constitute a crime the third element, which we have called actus reus or which
Russell1 has termed as “physical event”, is necessary. Now what is this actus
reus?2 It is a physical result of human conduct. When criminal policy regards such
a conduct as sufficiently harmful it is prohibited and the criminal policy provides a
sanction or penalty for its commission. The actus reus may be defined in the words
of Kenny to be “such result of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent.”3 Such
human conduct may consist of acts of commission as well as acts of omission.
Section 32 of our Penal Code lays down: “Words which refer to acts done extend
also to illegal omissions.” It is, of course, necessary that the act done or omitted to
be done must be an act forbidden or commanded by some statute law, otherwise, it
may not constitute a crime. Suppose, an executioner hangs a condemned prisoner
with the intention of hanging him. Here all the three elements obviously are
present, yet he would not be committing a crime because he is acting in accordance
with a law enjoining him to act. So also if a surgeon in the course of an operation,
which he knew to be dangerous, with the best of his skill and care performs it and
yet the death of the patient is caused, he would not be guilty of committing a crime
because he had no mens rea to commit it. As regards acts of omission which make
&
School of Law
a man criminally responsible, the rule is that no one would be held liable for the
lawful consequences of his omission unless it is proved that he was under a legal
obligation to act. In other words, some duty should have been imposed upon him
by law, which he has omitted to discharge. Under the Penal Code, Section 43 lays
down that the word “illegal” is applicable to everything which is an offence or
which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes a ground for a civil action; and a
person is said to be “legally bound to do whatever it is illegal in him to omit.”
Therefore, an illegal omission would apply to omissions of everything which he is
legally bound to do. These indicate problems of actus reus we have discussed in
detail elsewhere. However, the two elements actus reus and mens rea are distinct
elements of a crime. They must always be distinguished and must be present in
order that a crime may be constituted. The mental element or mens rea in modern
times means that the person’s conduct must be voluntary and it must also be 1
Russell, op. cit, p. 27 2 It includes not only the result of active conduct (i.e. a
deed), but also the result of inactivity. 3 Kenny, Outlines of Criminal Law (17th
Ed.), p. 14. xxvii actuated by a guilty mind, while actus reus denotes the physical
result of the conduct, namely, it should be a violation of some law, statutory or
otherwise, prohibiting or commanding the conduct. Injury to Human Being: The
fourth element, as we have pointed out above, is an injury to another human being
or to society at large. This injury to another human being should be illegally caused
to any person in body, mind, reputation or property. Therefore, it becomes clear
that the consequences of harmful conduct may not only cause a bodily harm to
&
School of Law
another person, it may cause harm to his mind or to his property or to his
reputation. Sometimes, by a harmful conduct no injury is caused to another human
being, yet the act may be held liable as a crime, because in such a case harm is
caused to the society at large. All the public offences, especially offences against
the state, e.g. treason, sedition, etc. are instances of such harms. They are treated to
be very grave offences and punished very severely also. We may state again that
there are four essential elements that go to constitute a crime. First, the wrongdoer
who must be a human being and must have the capacity to commit a crime, so that
he may be a fit subject for the infliction of an appropriate punishment. Secondly,
there should be an evil intent or mens rea on the part of such human being. This is
also known as the subjective element of a crime. Thirdly, there should be an actus
reus, i.e. an act committed or omitted in furtherance of such evil intent or mens rea.
This may be called the objective element of a crime. Lastly, as a result of the
conduct of the human being acting with an evil mind, an injury should have been
caused to another human being or to the society at large. Such an injury should
have been caused to any other person in body, mind, reputation or property. If all
these elements are present, generally, we would say that a crime has been
constituted. However, in some cases we find that a crime is constituted, although
there is no mens rea at all. These are known as cases of strict liability. Then again,
in some cases a crime is constituted, although the actus reus has not consummated
and no injury has resulted to any person. Such cases are known as inchoate crimes,
like attempt, abetment or conspiracy. So also, a crime may be constituted where
&
School of Law
only the first two elements are present. In other words, when there is intention
alone or even in some cases there may be an assembly alone of the persons without
any intention at all. These are exceptional cases of very serious crimes which are
taken notice of by the state in the larger interests of the peace and tranquillity of
the society.
&
School of Law
&
School of Law
&
School of Law
Class : BALLB
Paper Code :205
Subject :IPC 1
UNIT 2
Introduction
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 one’s own body and property as also another’s 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.
Self-help is the first rule of criminal law. The right of private defence is absolutely
necessary for the protection of one’s life, liberty and property. It is a right inherent in
a man. But the kind and amount of force is minutely regulated by law. The use of
force to protect one’s property and person is called the right of private defence[i].
150 years ago, during colonialism, an enthusiastic Macaulay proposed a right of

private defence in his draft code with the ambitious project of encouraging a ‘manly
spirit’ among the ‘natives’. The ideal Indian would stand his ground in the face of
danger and not hesitate to defend his own body or property or that of another. He
would respond with defensive force to prevent certain crimes, even to the extent of
causing death. As a general idea, the right of private defence permits individuals to
use defence
&
School of Law
Private Defence: Meaning And Types

The expression ‘private defence’ that has been used in the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
has not been defined therein. Thus, it has been the prerogative of the judiciary to
evolve a workable framework for the exercise of the right. Thus in India, the right of
private defence is the right to defend the person or property of himself or of any other
person against an act of another, which if the private defence is not pleaded would
have amounted to a crime. This right therefore creates an exception to criminal
liability. Some of the aspects of the right of private defence under the IPC are that no
right of self-defence can exist against an unarmed and unoffending individual, the
right is available against the aggressor only and it is only the person who is in
imminent danger of person or property and only when no state help is available. The
right of private defence is a natural right which is evinced from particular
circumstances rather than being in the nature of a privilege[iii].
However, the most important principle is that the right of private defence requires that
the force used in the defence should be necessary and reasonable in the circumstances.
But, in the moments of disturbed mental condition, this cannot be measured in golden
scales. Whether the case of necessity exists must be determined from the viewpoint of
the accused and his act must be viewed in the light of the circumstances as they
appear on such occasion. Specific limitations have also been provided for when the
right cannot be validly exercised and also the provision specifies clearly the cases in
which the right can extend to the causing of death of the aggressor. The reasonable
apprehension can only be justified if the accused had an honest belief that there is
danger and that such belief is reasonably warranted by the conduct of the aggressor
and the surrounding circumstances. This brings in an iota of an objective criterion for
establishing ‘reasonableness.’ The imminence of danger is also an important
prerequisite for the valid exercise self-defence[iv]. Thus, there should be a reasonable
belief that the danger is imminent and that force must be used to repel it.
Nature Of The Right
It is the first duty of man to help himself. The right of self-defence must be fostered in
the citizens of every free country. The right is recognized in every system of law and
its extent varies in inverse ratio to the capacity of the state to protect life and property
&
School of Law
of the citizens. It is the primary duty of the state to protect the life and property of the
individuals, but no state, no matter how large its resources, can afford to depute a
policeman to dog the steps of every rouge in the country. One thing should be clear
that there is no right of private defence when there is time to have recourse to the
protection of police authorities. The right is not dependent on the actual criminality of
the person resisted. It depends solely on the wrongful or apparently wrongful
character of the act attempted and if the apprehension is real and reasonable, it makes
no difference that it is mistaken. An act done in exercise of this right is not an offence
and does not, therefore, give rise to any right of private defence in return[v].
Private Defence In The Indian Legal

System
Jeremy Bentham, an English Legal Luminary, once opined, “This right of defense is
absolutely necessary. The vigilance of the Magistrates can never make up for
vigilance of each individual on his own behalf. The fear of the law can never restrain
bad men so effectually as the fear of the sum total to individual resistance[vi]. Take
away this right and you become, in so doing, the accomplice of all bad men.” This
right is based on two principles,
• It is available against the aggressor only, and

• The right is available only when the defender entertains reasonable
apprehension.
There are three tests for ascertaining reasonable apprehension; they are the objective,
subjective and expanded objective tests. While objective test emphasizes as to how in
a similar circumstance an ordinary, reasonable, standard and average person will
respond, the subjective test examines the mental state based on individual attitude.
However, 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.
Right of private defence serves a social purpose and the right should be liberally
construed. Such a right is not only a restraining influence on corrupt characters but
also encourages manly spirit in a law abiding citizen. It should not be narrowly
&
School of Law
construed as it necessitates the occasions for the exercise of this right as an effective
means of protection against wrong doers.
The Right to private defence of a citizen, where one can practically take law in his
own hands to defend his own person and property or that of others, is clearly defined
in Section 96 to Section 106 of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 96 talks about things done in private defence – Nothing is an offence, which is
done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
Right of private defence cannot be said to be an offence in return. 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. It is well settled that in a free fight, no right of private
defence is available to either party and each individual is responsible for his own acts.
The right of private defence will completely absolve a person from all guilt even when
he causes the death of another person in the following situations, i.e
• If the deceased was the actual assailant, and

• If the offence committed by the deceased, which occasioned the cause of the
exercise of the right of private defence of body and property falls within
anyone of the six or four categories enumerated in Sections 100 and 103 of the
penal code.
Section 97 talks about 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 for criminal trespass.
&
School of Law
This Section limits exercise of the right of private defence to the extent of absolute
necessity. It must not be more than what is necessary for defending aggression. There
must be reasonable apprehension of danger that comes from the aggressor. This
Section divides the right of private defence into two parts, i.e. the first part deals with
the right of private defence of person, and the second part with the right of private
defence of property[vii].
Section 99 lays down the acts against which there is no right of private defence: –
There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the
apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a
public servant acting in good faith under color of his office, though that act, may not
be strictly justifiable by law.
Section 99 lays down the conditions and limits within which the right of private
defence can be exercised. The first two clauses provide that the right of private
defence cannot be invoked against a public servant or a person acting in good faith in
the exercise of his legal duty provided that the act is not illegal[viii]. Similarly, clause
three restricts the right of private defence if there is time to seek help of public
authorities. And the right must be exercised in proportion to harm to be inflicted. In
other words, there is no right of private defence:
• Against the acts of a public servant; and

• Against the acts of those acting under their authority or direction;
• When there is sufficient time for recourse to public authorities; and
• 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.
• Section100 specifies 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: —
First-Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will
otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
&
School of Law
Secondly-Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous

hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
Thirdly- An assault with the intention of committing rape;
Fourthly- An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;
Fifthly- An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;
Sixthly- An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under

circumstances that may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to
have recourse to the public authorities for his release.
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:-
• The person exercising the right of private defense must be free from fault in
bringing about the encounter,
• There must be an impending peril to life or of great bodily harm,
• There must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat,
• There must have been a necessity for taking life.
Section101 prescribes 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[ix].
Section102 is very important as it deals with the 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
&
School of Law
such apprehension of danger to the body continues. The apprehension of danger must
be reasonable, not fanciful. For example, one cannot shoot one’s enemy from a long
distance, even if he is armed with a dangerous weapon and means to kill. This is
because he has not attacked you and therefore there is no reasonable apprehension of
attack. In other words, there is no attack and hence no right of private defence arises.
Moreover the danger must be present and imminent[x].
Section103 specifies 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: Robbery, House-breaking by night, Mischief by fire committed
on any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent of vessel is used as a human
dwelling, or as a place for the custody of property, 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 103 provides the right of private defence to the property whereas Section 100
is meant for exercising the right of private defence to the body of a person. It justifies
homicide in case of robbery, house breaking by night, arson and the theft, mischief or
house trespass which cause apprehension or grievous harm. If a person does not have
possession over the property, he cannot claim any right of private defence regarding
such property[xi]. Right to dispossess or throw out a trespasser is not available to the
true owner if the trespasser has been successful in accomplishing his possession to his
knowledge. This right can be only exercised against certain criminal acts that are
mentioned under this section.
Section104 tells us 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
&
School of Law
mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing to the wrongdoer of any harm other
than death. This Section cannot be said to be giving a concession to the accused to
exceed their right of private defence in any way[xii]. If anyone exceeds the right of
private defence and causes death of the trespasser, he would be guilty under Section
304, Part II. This Section is corollary to Section 103 as Section 101 is a corollary to
Section 100.
Section105 prescribes the 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 affected his retreat with the property or either the
assistance of the public authorities is obtained, or the property has been
recovered[xiii]. 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 of 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.
Section106 talks about right of private defence against deadly assault when there is
risk of harm to innocent person: –
If in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault, which reasonably
causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot
effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person his right or
private defence extends to the running of that risk.
Evolution of the Right of Private Defence

&
School of Law
In Roman law, homicide was considered to be an act by which the life of a human-
being was taken away. There were two degrees of criminal homicide, namely, murder
and manslaughter, and two degrees of homicide that did not expose a person to
punishment, namely, justifiable and excusable. Self-defence was placed in the
category of justifiable homicide. In self-defence violence was lawful: ‘Vim enim vi
defendere omnes leges emniaque jure permittunt’ (A man, therefore, incurs no
liability, if he kills another’s slave who attacks him.)[xiv]. The Justinian code and the
Twelve Tables reiterated this right of private defence- the Code holding that no
greater force than what was sufficient to ward off the threatened danger was permitted
and the Tables on the other hand, allowing killing in such a case without restrictions
regarding it to be permissible self-redress rather than self-defence.
Under English law the status of the right of self-defence underwent a series of changes
through the ages. In the ancient period, there was absolute liability even for homicide
committed se defendendo. In the Medieval period, the theory of pardon developed and
it became excusable, whereas in the Modern Age, homicide committed in self-defence
is treated as justifiable, because it is presumed that such an act is not backed with evil
intent. In the early days, the law regarded the word and the act of the individual but it
did not search the heart of the man. It was the age of strict liability[xv]. Man was held
responsible for his acts irrespective of his intentions. His mental state was not taken
into account when determining liability for the commission of the crime. It was the
external conduct and the injury upon which liability was imposed. The accidental
injuries and the injuries inflicted during self-defence, also attracted liability. Thus,
criminal liability was not related to the evil intention of the actor.
However, in the 13th century there was a shift from strict liability and emphasis was
laid on the mental element. During this period, killing was justified in a few
exceptional cases. One who killed in misadventure, or in self-defence was still guilty
of a crime, although he deserved a pardon from the King[xvi]. During the Medieval
period, though the accused obtained pardon yet he forfeited his goods for the crime
committed in self-defence. The moral sense of the community could not tolerate
indefinitely the idea that a blameless self-defender was a criminal. Ultimately, the jury
was allowed to give a verdict of not guilty in such cases. Pardon of the King soon
became a formality in such cases and thus grew the concept of excusable homicide.
The act of pardon was a kind of excuse[xvii]. The word excuse itself denoted the
condonation of wrong committed by the offender. Blackstone perceived the essence of
&
School of Law
excuses to be ‘the want or defect of will’. This all changed in the modern period. In
modern times, there is a presumption that there is no mens rea in the homicides
committed in self-defence and as such it has become a justifiable general defence in
law. Thus, now no criminal liability is attached to the accused in such cases. This is in
conformity with the provisions of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human
Rights.
Thus, in modern times every evolved legal system has accepted the right of self-
defence as a universal one.
Private Defence In Various Legal

Systems
English Law
As the common law system does not provide a statutory definition of self-defence, it
is often the opinions of legal authorities that are relied upon. Black’s Law Dictionary
enumerates two elements that are necessary to constitute self-defence, namely=
• Accused does not provoke difficulty, and

• There must be impending peril without convenient or reasonable mode of
escape.
On the other hand Glanville Williams’ analysis of the elements is more

comprehensive: –
• The force is threatened against the person,

• The person threatened is not the aggressor,
• The danger of harm is imminent,
• The force is unlawful,
• The person threatened must actually believe that a danger exists, that the use of
force is necessary and that the kind and amount of force being used is required
in the circumstances, and that the above beliefs are reasonable[xviii].
&
School of Law
American Law
The position under American law is also very similar. Great importance is given to the
following concepts when dealing with the concept of self-defence.
• Requirement of reasonableness (a reasonable and honest belief is essential),

• Only that amount of force should be used which reasonably appears necessary
to prevent the threatened harm.
Thus, it can be seen that in the various legal systems of the world, there are certain
common established principles pertaining to self-defence.
Judicial View on Private Defence

The protection of life and property is axiomatic in every civilized society and because
it is impossible for the State to do so on every occasion – as law enforcement officers
cannot be omnipresent, the individual is given the right of private defence. The right
of private defence legally accords to the individuals the right to take reasonably
necessary measures to protect themselves under special circumstances. Notably, on
the execution of the private defence provisions in the Penal Code, the framers said
“we leave it still in a very imperfect state…we are inclined to think that it must always
be one of the least exact parts of every system of criminal law[xix].” This suggests
that they recognized the necessity for latent ambiguity to allow judges the flexibility
to read and apply the provisions so as to achieve fairness.
However, the local courts have overlooked this discretion conferred upon them and
instead opted for a far too restrictive (and even unreasonable) interpretation of the
provisions to the extent where private defence is hardly adequate as a defence,
defeating the intention of the provision. The inconsistency between the judicial
interpretation and the intention of the Code framers is exemplified in the interpretation
of “reasonable apprehension” under Sections 100 and 102[xx]. Evidently, the local
courts have adopted a strict objective approach in determining “reasonable
apprehension”, ignoring its inherent ambiguity. This is in contrast to the current
English law that judges the nature of the danger wholly according to that of the
accused’s perception (purely subjective test).
&
School of Law
Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab[xxi]
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. A bench comprising Justices Dalveer Bhandari and Asok Kumar
Ganguly, while acquitting a person of murder, said that when enacting Section 96 to
106 of the IPC, the Legislature clearly intended to arouse and encourage the spirit of
self-defense amongst the citizens, when faced with grave danger.“ The law does not
require a law-abiding citizen to behave like a coward when confronted with an
imminent unlawful aggression. As repeatedly observed by this court, there is nothing
more degrading to the human spirit than to run away in face of danger. Right of
private defense is thus designed to serve a social purpose and deserves to be fostered
within the prescribed limit[xxii].”
The court laid down ten guidelines where right of self-defence is available to a
citizen, but also warned that in the disguise of self-defence, one cannot be allowed to
endanger or threaten the lives and properties of others or for the purpose of taking
personal revenge. The apex court concluded by saying that a person who is under
imminent threat is not expected to use force exactly required to repel the attack and
his behaviour cannot be weighed on “golden scales.”
The Court declared their legal position under the following 10 guidelines[xxiii]:
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.
&
School of Law
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.
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.
Yogendra Moraji v. State[xxiv]
The Supreme Court discussed in detail the extent and the limitations of the right of
private defence of body. One of the aspects emphasized by the court was that there
must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat for the person confronted
with an impending peril to life or of grave bodily harm except by inflicting death on
the assailant. This aspect has create quite a confusion as it indirectly suggests that
once should first try to see the possibility of a retreat than to defend by using force,
which is contrary to the principle that the law does not encourage cowardice on the
part of one who is attacked. But another viewpoint is that this retreat theory in fact is
an acceptance of the English common law principle of defence of body or property
under which the common law courts always insisted to look first as to whether the
accused could prevent the commission of crime against him by retreating.
Nand Kishore Lal v. Emperor[xxv]
Accused who were Sikhs, abducted a Muslim married woman and converted her to
Sikhism. Nearly a year after the abduction, the relatives of the woman’s husband
came and demanded that she return. The accused refused to comply and the woman
&
School of Law
herself expressly stated her unwillingness to rejoin her Muslim husband. Thereupon
the husband’s relatives attempted to take her away by force. The accused resisted the
attempt and in so doing one of them inflicted a blow on the head of the woman’s
assailants, which resulted in the latter’s death. It was held that the right of the accused
to defend the woman against her assailants extended under this section to the causing
of death and they had, therefore, committed no offence.
Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab[xxvi]
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.
Mithu Pandey v. State[xxvii]
Two persons armed with ‘tangi’ and ‘danta’ respectively were supervising collection
of fruit by labourers from the trees that were in the possession of the accused persons
who protested against the act. In the altercation that followed one of the accused
suffered multiple injuries because of the assault. The accused used force resulting in
death. The Patna High Court held that the accused were entitled to the right of private
defence even to the extent of causing death.
Jassa Singh v. State of Haryana[xxviii]
The Supreme Court held that the right of private defence of property would not extend
to the causing of the death of the person who committed such acts if the act of trespass
is in respect of an open land. Only a house trespass committed under such
circumstances as may reasonably caused death or grievous hurt is enumerated as one
of the offences under Section 103.
Conclusion
In general, private defence is an excuse for any crime against the person or property.
It also applies to the defence of a stranger, and may be used not only against culpable
but against innocent aggressors.
&
School of Law
The defence is allowed only when it is immediately necessary-against threatened

violence. A person who acts under a mistaken belief in the need for defence is
protected, except that the mistake must be reasonable. In principle, it should be
enough that the force used was in fact necessary for defence, even though the actor
did not know this; but the law is not clear. There is no duty to retreat, as such, but
even a defender must wherever possible make plain his desire to withdraw from the
combat. The right of private defence is not lost by reason of the defender’s having
refused to comply with unlawful commands.
The force used in defence must be not only necessary for the purpose of avoiding the
attack but also reasonable, i.e. proportionate to the harm threatened; the rule is best
stated in the negative form that the force must not be such that a reasonable man
would have regarded it as being out of all proportion to the danger[xxix].
The carrying of firearms and other offensive weapons is generally forbidden, but (1) a
thing is not an “offensive weapon” if it is not offensive per se and is carried only to
frighten; (2) a person does not “have it with him” if he merely snatches it up in the
emergency of defence.
The right of defence avails against the police if they act illegally, but the defender
cannot take benefit from a mistake as to the law of arrest or self-defence[xxx]. The
traditional rule is that even death may be inflicted in defence of the possession of a
dwelling.
The occupier of premises may use necessary and reasonable force to defend them
against a trespasser, or one reasonably thought to be a trespasser; and it seems that
even a licensee (such as a lodger) can eject trespassing strangers. It is a statutory
offence to set spring guns or mantraps, except in a dwelling house between sunset and
sunrise. It has not been decided whether the exception operates to confer an
exemption from the ordinary law of offences against the person. Such defences as
spikes and dogs are lawful if reasonable [xxxi]. Guard dogs must, by statute, be kept
under full control, except in private houses or on agricultural land.
Thus, we can see the right of private defence is very helpful in giving citizens a
weapon which in a case that it’s not misused is subject to certain restrictions, helps
them protect their and others’ lives and property.
&
School of Law
[i] http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l470-Private-Defence.html.
[ii]https://www.academia.edu/1437252/Private_Defence_in_Collection_of_Essays_m
arking_the_150th_Anniversary_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code_Ashgate_2011.
[iii] www.legalsutra.com/…/right…private-defence/Criminal-Law-Right-of-Private-
defence.
[iv]http://laws.puchd.ac.in/includes/theses/2010/20101012155857-
Summary%20%20Dharam%20Pal%20Punia.pdf .
[v] http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l470-Private-Defence.html.
[vi] www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Public-and-private-defences.php.
[vii] http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l470-Private-Defence.html.
[viii] www.indiankanoon.org/.
[ix] www.legalsutra.com/…/right…private-defence/Criminal-Law-Right-of-Private-
defence.
[x] http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l470-Private-Defence.html.
[xi] www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Public-and-private-defences.php.
[xii] scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2000/01/01/selfdefence/ .
[xiii] http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l470-Private-Defence.html.
[xiv] http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l470-Private-Defence.html.
[xv]http://www.icidr.org/ijalsg_vol3no1_april2012/The%20Pragmatic%20Nature%20
of%20Private%20Defence%20under%20Criminal%20Jurisprudencein%20Nigeria.pd
f.
&
School of Law
[xvi] scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2000/01/01/selfdefence/.
[xvii] www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Public-and-private-defences.php.
[xviii]http://www.icidr.org/ijalsg_vol3no1_april2012/The%20Pragmatic%20Nature%
20of%20Private%20Defence%20under%20Criminal%20Jurisprudencein%20Nigeria.
pdf.
[xix]https://www.academia.edu/1437252/Private_Defence_in_Collection_of_Essays_
marking_the_150th_Anniversary_of_the_Indian_Penal_Code_Ashgate_2011.
[xx] http://www.legalserviceindia.com/.
[xxi] Criminal Appeal 1057 of

2002 http://indialawyers.wordpress.com/2010/01/17/supreme-court-lays-down-
guidelines-for-right-of-private-defence-for-citizens/ .
[xxii] http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l470-Private-Defence.html.
[xxiii]http://indialawyers.wordpress.com/2010/01/17/supreme-court-lays-down-
guidelines-for-right-of-private-defence-for-citizens/.
[xxiv] AIR 1980 SC 660.
[xxv] AIR 1924 Pat 789.
[xxvi] AIR 1979 SC 577.
[xxvii] 1967 CrLJ 102 (Pat).
[xxviii] 2002 CrLJ 563(SC).
[xxix] http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/right-of-private-defense-in-india-07062/.
[xxx] scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2000/01/01/selfdefence/
[xxxi]http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l470-Private-Defence.html.
&
School of Law
The Criminal Defense of Intoxication

The Criminal Defense of Intoxication
Intoxication is a defense available to criminal defendants on the basis that,

because of the intoxication, the defendant did not understand the nature of his
or her actions or know what he or she was doing. The intoxication defense
applies in very limited circumstances and typically depends on whether the
intoxication was voluntary or involuntary and what level of intent is required by
the criminal charge.
Involuntary Intoxication
Involuntary intoxication occurs when someone is tricked into consuming a

substance like drugs or alcohol, or when someone is forced to do so. For
instance, a woman who has a date rape drug placed in her drink without her
knowledge is involuntarily intoxicated. Involuntary intoxication may also occur
as a result of an allergy to, or the unintended effects of, a legal prescription
medication.
If a charged crime is a specific intent crime, meaning that the criminal

defendant must have had the specific intent to commit the crime in question,
involuntary intoxication can be a defense to criminal charges if it prevents the
defendant from forming the intent that is required. For instance, the defendant
may not understand the nature of his or her actions or may be deemed
incapable of obtaining the state of mind necessary to commit the crime. A
common example is the crime of assault, which requires an intent to cause
harm. If an individual becomes violent as a result of an involuntary intoxication
and commits an assault, he or she may be able to argue that the intoxication
prevented him or her from forming the intent to cause harm.
&
School of Law
Involuntary intoxication can also be a defense to a general intent crime if the

defendant can establish that the involuntary intoxication acted similarly to an
insanity defense and prevented the defendant from understanding the nature
of his or her actions or differentiating between right and wrong.
Voluntary Intoxication
Establishing a defense of voluntary intoxication is much more difficult than

involuntary intoxication. Under prevailing legal standards, voluntary
intoxication is an applicable defense only for certain crimes, and, even in
those circumstances, juries are far less likely to accept a defense of
intoxication when the defendant brought the intoxication upon himself or
herself.
Unlike involuntary intoxication, voluntary intoxication is never a defense to a

general intent crime. However, voluntary intoxication may be used as a
defense to specific intent crimes if, as with involuntary intoxication, it prevents
the defendant from forming the criminal intent necessary to commit the crime.
Thus, a defendant could argue voluntary intoxication as a defense
to burglary because he was so intoxicated that he was unable to form an
“intent to commit a crime therein.” However, in most states, the crime of
voluntary intoxication is an affirmative defense, which means that the burden
is on the defendant to prove that he or she lacked the necessary intent.
In some cases, the defense of voluntary intoxication does not completely

absolve the defendant of liability but instead reduces the overall culpability for
the crime. Thus, the defendant might find charges reduced to a lesser crime if
he or she successfully proves that intoxication limited his or her intent or
comprehension of the crime.
tatement of Problem
What is the nature and scope of intoxication under Section 85 and Section 86 of Indian Penal Code?
&
School of Law
The topic that I have selected falls under the category of defenses. In certain instances due to
circumstances or other reasons that are beyond an individual’s control he indulges in criminal behavior.
This also forms an integral part of the law because as it is imperative to punish the guilty, not even a
single innocent man must be convicted. The defenses have been specially formulated so that they are
able to meet every circumstance. Though a defense does not rescue an individual from liability totally, it
does reduce the severity of his punishment for he can be convicted for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder rather than murder. Intoxication is one such defense.
I will start with dealing with the origin of the concept, meaning the legal stand on the issue as it has
been. As the basic doctrine has been laid down in the British cases, I will deal with the British aspect
first. The project will be divided in two sections, one that will deal with the British perspective and the
other that will deal with the Indian perspective. Intoxication is codified in section 85 and 86 of the Indian
penal code.
I will be dealing with intoxication and its subsidiary aspects. Criminal law can be broadly segregated to a
section dealing with offences and another one dealing with defenses. The offences committed
constitute that section of criminal law in which the individual actively commits a crime. The very core
aspect of this section is that the criminal must have the intention or mens rea to commit the crime.
Criminal law, unlike its contemporary, civil law lays great emphasis on the intention of an individual.
Both the sections of my project will deal with the legal stand on the voluntary as well as the involuntary
intoxication. I will deal minutely with both the grounds and after expounding the legal stand on both the
sides will sum up with a critical analysis and comparison of the law in the two countries.
The British Perspective
Voluntary Intoxication
Even though voluntary intoxication means that someone has consumed intoxicating substances with
their own free will, he may still have a defense to the offence with which he is charged. The intent in
case of a crime is very important and even though a person maybe voluntarily intoxicated, the very fact
&
School of Law
that he is unable to form the required intent works in his favor. The severity of the punishment is
reduced due to this defense; for instance, an individual will be punished for the crime of manslaughter
rather than the more serious crime of murder. A crime requiring specific intent may be reduced to one
requiring basic intent. An intoxicant does not have any separate ‘class’ but it refers to any substance,
which has an effect on the consciousness or the decision-making capacity of a person.
What amounts to a state of intoxication?
It was in DPP v Beard that the rule for what amounts to a state of intoxication was laid down. Lord
Birkenhead: where a specific intent is a specific element in the offence, evidence of a state of
drunkenness rendering the accused incapable of forming such an intent should be taken into
consideration in order to determine whether he had in fact formed the necessary intent to constitute
the particular crime. Where a specific intent is necessary, if a man is able to prove that he was so
intoxicated that he was unable to form the intent, he cannot be convicted of that particular offence.
Basic Intent/ Specific Intent Dichotomy
The rule was laid down by lord Simon of Glaisdale. However he laid down a very complicated rule. To
sum it up briefly and simply, the rule provides that some offences do not require a specific intent or
motive. Even a basic intent of recklessness or negligence would be sufficient in some crimes. For
instance, in case of manslaughter no specific intent is required.
The Rationale Behind the Defence of Intoxication
The laws in the early nineteenth century concerning intoxication were very stringent. In fact, according
to a statement made by Earl of Birkenhead, voluntary intoxication was considered an aggravation rather
than a defence. If a person was consuming alcohol, knowing fully well that it would impair his ability to
think clearly, then he will be situated in no better condition than a sober man in the judgment of his
criminal conduct.
Thankfully, the rule has been mercifully relaxed and a person’s punishment, though cannot be
eradicated completely, can be reduced in severity. Further illustrations can be provided with the help of
case studies.
&
School of Law
Case Laws
R v Lipman
Facts: Both the defendant as well as the victim was addicted to drugs, and on the eve of sixteenth
September 1967, both took a quantity of a drug known as LSD. Early in the morning of eighteenth
September, the defendant, who is a resident of U.S.A, booked out of his hotel and left the country. The
next day, the landlord of the victim found her dead in her room. She had been struck on the head
severely and the cause of death had been suffocation due to a sheet that had been crammed in her
mouth. The defendant, when he was charged with his crime said that the drug had made him imagine
that he was in the center of the Earth fighting snakes and in that state of mind he had killed the victim.
Judgment: the judgment in this case was that since for a charge of manslaughter, no specific intent is
required, hence in this case self-induced intoxication will not serve as a defence. Acquittal is not
possible, and a charge of manslaughter was inevitable.
Reasoning: the defendant cannot be charged with murder because he had no intention to cause any sort
of grievous bodily harm, and without the necessary mens rea, he cannot be convicted of murder. On the
other hand, in case of a charge of manslaughter, there is no specific intention required, so in the present
case that charge can be easily made. All crimes do not require a particular motive and they provide
punishment even in the case of negligence or reckless conduct. In this case the conduct was clearly
reckless for the defendant was aware that it was a drug and that it would deprive him of his senses.
DPP. v Majewski
Facts: in this case, Robert Stephan Majewski appeals against his conviction on seventh November 1973
when under the influence of drugs he had made three attempts of assault causing bodily harm and
threatened a constable who was on duty.
&
School of Law
Judgment: in this case, the judges came to the conclusion that in a case of assault, no specific intention
is required and the defendant is guilty as charged.
Reasoning: the reasoning that I have provided is of three judges.
Lord Elwyn Jones LC: According to Lord Elwyn Jones, voluntary intoxication has always been a factor
prevalent in crimes such as assault but the rate of self-induced intoxication has escalated alarmingly.
The courts, or rather the judges in Britain between crimes requiring basic intent and specific intent have
introduced a dichotomy. Hence, what we actually have to decode is what is the mental element
required in a case of assault.
He has quoted Lord Simon of Glaisdale5 - I take assault as an example of a crime of basic intent where
the consequence is very closely connected with the act. The actus reus of assault is an act which causes
another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence. The mens rea further corresponds. He
further elucidated that what the prosecution in the present case had to prove was that the accused
foresaw his act would cause some kind of apprehension to the defendant, or he was reckless with his
act. In case of assault, not only the foresight, but the prevalence of the recklessness also constitutes the
mens rea.
There is still heated debate as to what extent it is right to let a person goes free because he is on a ‘trip’
due to drugs. Under the early law of England as it prevailed in the nineteenth century, one could never
use voluntary manslaughter as a defence. This view propagated that any person who consciously
destroys his ability to think reasonably cannot use it as a defence, rather it is an aggravation. However,
now this severity has been tempered, from 1819 onwards to as it stands today. In case of an offence
requiring basic intent, it is not sufficient for a person to claim that he was intoxicated.
Lord Salmon: He admits that it seems rather arbitrary to excuse one form of intention, while another
form in condemned. This however is the most reasonable rule because it is neither too strict nor too lax.
Neither part of the rule can be removed without making the rule inconsistent as a whole. The rule will
lose its integrity if this is done and will reach one of the extremes if this is done. As we are well aware it
is very difficult to apply absolute logic in affairs that deal with human nature because human nature
never follows absolute logic. If a person were to be redeemed from punishment merely because he was
drunk, the effect on the morale of the society would have been disastrous. Hence when a person does
what Lipman does he should not be allowed to go free, for the simple reason that this would make the
&
School of Law
common man regard the law with contempt. He should not be punished for the crime as a sober man
would be, but he still deserves some form of punishment.
Lord Russell of Killowen: There are two extreme views that are prevalent. Some people believe that the
law should regress back to what it had been in the early nineteenth century. At that time voluntary
intoxication was considered an aggravation rather than a defence. There are others who take a contrary
view and say that a man who is intoxicated cannot be considered guilty, because he is incapable of
forming an intention. This will be considered technically correct, for a crime does require the element of
mens rea, but it will never appeal to a man who has been beaten up by a drunken goon.
Is Voluntary Consumption Per Se Reckless All The Time?
R v Hardie
Facts: Shortly after nine fifteen at night on second January 1982, fire broke out in a wardrobe in the
bedroom of the ground floor flat at 55 Bassingham Road, London Sw10. At that time, Mrs. Jeannette
Hardie, with whom the appellant had been residing, occupied the flat. Shortly before the above stated
date, second January, Mrs. Jeannette had requested the appellant to leave because their relationship
had broken down. He did not wish to do so at all, but he reluctantly packed his baggage on the morning
of second January. At lunchtime, the appellant discovered two bottles in a cabinet, one of which
contained valium. The appellant claimed that he had never taken valium before, and he was very
distressed around twelve in the afternoon and took it to calm his nerves. He had taken about four
tablets after that and Mrs. Hardie had said that they would not harm him because they had expired.
Thereafter he had gone to the bedroom and it was very evident that he must have started the fire
because there was nobody else in that room. Te appellant claimed that it was due to the effect of the
Valium and he did not remember anything.
Judgment: The judge directed the jury in effect that as the Valium was voluntarily self-administered, it
could not serve as a defence.
&
School of Law
Reasoning: I will expound the reasoning of Judge Parker because he has pointed out some very
important criticisms in this judgment. The authority on which the judgment was based was R v Caldwell,
stated that intoxication, when it is self-induced can only serve as a defence when a charge is one of
specific intent. In this case however, the charge also included recklessness. In this case Parker ponders
whether the taking of Valium in the circumstances that it was can be termed as self-induced.
The court has dealt with two parallel cases; R v Majewski was a case of intoxication due to the
consumption of alcohol under the influence of non-medically prescribed drugs while R v Caldwell was a
case of plain and simple drunkenness. Both were considered voluntary intoxication. In this case, Judge
Parker is not satisfied with the judgment because Valium is not a drug, which causes any kind of
aggressive or reckless conduct under normal circumstances. Here, the appellant cannot fall in the same
category as the others.
Involuntary Intoxication
According to DPP v Majewski, the case that I have already dealt with previously, even in case of a crime
requiring basic intent, one can claim involuntary intoxication as a defence depending upon the facts of a
particular case. In case of a situation of automation, the party would not be blamed at all. For instance,
if some third party mixes LSD in one person’s food and that person causes harm under the influence of
that LSD, the third person that has mixed the LSD is entirely to blame. If an individual has to escape from
a crime which requires a specific intent it will be very easy because the principle has been clearly laid
down in DPP v Majewski, but if he has to escape from a crime of basic intent he will have to rely on both
DPP v Majewski as well as R v Hardie
Mistake Regarding Nature of Subsatnce Consumed
R v Allen
Facts: The accused was convicted of indecent assault. He defended himself by saying that he was so
drunk at that time that he had been unable to comprehend what he had been doing. He had been given
a drink by a friend in a public house, and had been later offered wine. He had not realized that the wine
had high alcohol content, and the accused had consumed it without being aware of that fact. It was in
that state of mind that the accused had committed assault.
&
School of Law
Judgment: The judge in this case held that involuntary intoxication couldn’t serve as a defence in a crime
of the nature that the accused had committed.
Reasoning: In this case, there is nothing to prove that the intoxication was involuntary; for the accused
had consumed the alcohol with his friend, and it seemed that he had done so willingly enough.
Moreover the argument that was given by the accused was that he was not aware of the alcohol
content of the wine that he had drunk and it had a much higher content than he had expected. He
cannot be absolved from liability on this basis.
Involuntary Consumption of Intoxicants Falling Short of Intoxication
R v Kingston
Facts: The facts are very simple. The respondent was in dispute over business matters with a couple
named Foreman, who employed Penn to obtain damaging information which they could use against the
respondent, who was a homosexual with Pedophiliac tendencies. As part of the plan Penn invited the
youth to his room. According to the evidence that the youth gave, he remembered nothing between a
time when he was sitting on the bed, still in Penn’s room, the following morning. It was the case for the
prosecution, which the jury by their second verdict must have accepted, that the boy fell asleep due to a
drug administration. The respondent committed gross sexual acts with the boy, and Penn took
photographs as it had been planned.
Judgment: In this case the accused was charged as guilty because he was not intoxicated enough not to
have formed the required intent, even though the intoxication is of an involuntary nature.
Reasoning: The first ground of defence that was adopted was that the accused lacked the required
moral element, because the law provides that even though an act is intentional, the intent rises out of
circumstances, which are beyond the control of the accused. When he is not to be blamed the necessary
mens rea is not present. However, this is a lacuna in the law because it has been strongly condemned.
The more sensible approach is that crime consists of an act or an omission.
&
School of Law
In this case, such conduct was present; hence the argument of absence of moral fault cannot be
considered. The second defence, which was adopted by the accused, was that since the intoxication was
of an involuntary nature, he could not be considered guilty. However, this defence can also be done
away with easily because as well because we are already well aware of the basic intent and specific
intent dichotomy. If the Majewski case is considered, then the crux of the matter would be that if an
individual is intoxicated to such an extent that he is unable to form the intent required for the crime
then he will be acquitted. Alternatively, if he is fully capable of forming the required intent then he
cannot even appeal that he was intoxication as a defence.
If a new line of defence was to be recognized, it will add a lot of discrepancies to the existing law. The
defence maybe eventually able to come to terms with the practical conditions, but that will take a long
period of time and a lot of understanding as well as amendments. Though it is very necessary for the law
to adapt itself to the social conditions, yet it is also necessary that it does not lose its realism and
deprive the common man of justice.
The Dutch Courage Rule
As we are already well aware, alcohol has already been associated with crimes of the most heinous
nature. Men consume alcohol not only to get an artificial high, but also to get what is popularly known
as a ‘kick’, or to go on a ‘trip’ of their own. A lot of times men resort to alcohol due to depression, or
when somebody has hurt his or her frail egos. When an individual is depressed or nervous he takes
alcohol either to soothe his nerves, or he does so to escape from reality into a world of oblivion where
he can escape from his pain or a problem that is causing him depression. In that state of mind he is far
from reality and he imagines himself dealing with his problem very bravely and overcoming it. This kind
of drinking puts an individual into a stupor. There is also a third category of drinkers that needs to be
considered. Sometimes an individual takes to drink to provide him with courage. Drinking causes an
individual to become aggressive and lose his sense of self-restraint. It deprives him of his sense of
reason to such an extent that he may not even realize that what he is doing is against the law. He may
plan or decide what he has to do before he starts drinking, and he may use the drink to provide him with
the ‘Dutch courage’ to commit the deed.
Ac For Northern Ireland v Gallagher

&
School of Law
Facts: The accused had a grievance against his wife. She had obtained a maintenance order against him
and she had got him detained in a mental hospital. The husband decided to kill his wife, and hence
having made up his mind, he purchased a knife and a bottle of whiskey to acquire the courage to
commit the deed or to be able to put his conscience to rest after the deed had been committed. He
committed the deed and consumed much of the whiskey, before or after the commission is yet to be
ascertained.
Judgment: The accused was held to be guilty as charged because he had formed the intention before
getting intoxicated.
Reasoning: In this case, two conflicting opinions have been expressed, one by the chief justice and the
other one by the M’Naghten rules. The object of the Chief Justice was to emphasize on the state of mind
of the accused before the consumption of the whiskey, which in this case clearly shows that he
possessed the required mens rea for he had made up his mind to kill his wife. But according to the
M’Naghten rules, the crucial time for the judging of the intent is the time of the commission of the act.
In this case a further complication is created due the accused being a psychopath. This does not mean
that he can avail himself of the defence of insanity, but it can be possible that alcohol has the effect of
triggering off the disease. The most important discerning feature of this case is that the accused had
already made up his mind to kill his wife, even before he had even touched alcohol. This is far worse
than the situation of a man who forms the necessary intent after getting drunk. A brief summary of the
general law and its exceptions can be provided as follows:
The illustration of the general principle of how drunkenness produces a defect of reason is:
Drunkenness may impair a man’s senses to think clearly to such an extent that he will not even be aware
of the consequences of his actions. He cannot use this as a defense because by now everyone is very
well aware of the effect of alcohol and the fact that too much of alcohol is dangerous
2) He may lose his ability to distinguish between what is morally right or wrong.
There are two prevalent exceptions to the general rule:

&
School of Law
If a man is charged with a crime that requires a specific intent then he can plead intoxication as a
defence. But, though this defence will suffice in case of murder it will not extricate liability in case of a
charge of manslaughter.
Is a man brings on a disease of the mind due to drinking, such as delirium; he can be excused from
liability. Sometimes due to heavy drinking individual contracts some form of disease and even in this
case he can be excused from liability.
In this case, none of the above stated exceptions can be applied because the accused had already
formed his intention and merely used alcohol as a means to give him enough courage to commit the
deed. Merely because the man is a psychopath, he cannot be excused from liability. The facts have
made the situation in this case very clear. The man formed the intent to kill his wife when he was
perfectly sober, and he cannot use alcohol as a pretext or defence. It was self induced and purposely
consumed, especially to summon the necessary aggression and courage required to commit the deed.
The Indian Perspective
As is well known, the Indian Penal Code is the foundation for the criminal law in India, and Section 85
and 86 deal with intoxication.
Section 85: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of
intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or
contrary to the law: provided that the thing that intoxicated him was administered to him without his
will or against his knowledge.
To further elucidate, a person who is under the influence of intoxicating substances cannot be charged
of a crime if he was:
Incapable of knowing the nature of the act.

&
School of Law
That he was doing something in conflict with the laws of his country.
The important clause to be considered in this section of our penal code is that the intoxicating substance
must be administered against the will of the individual
Voluntary drunkenness, under normal circumstances, cannot serve as an excuse for the commission of a
crime13. However, drunkenness does not make the accused worse, because it does not worsen the
nature of the crime committed. Drunkenness can be compared to a situation of madness for which the
madman is to blame14. Though the accused is not able to exercise restraint, which he would have under
the normal circumstances, he cannot be excused from his act.
In England as well, voluntary intoxication is not a very strong defence.
Nevertheless, voluntary drunkenness can protect an individual in two cases:
There are some crimes which demand the explicit requirement of a specific intent. In such cases, when
the accused has had so much to drink that he is unable to form the necessary intent, then he cannot be
blamed for the commission of the crime. The punishment of the accused can be reduced due to this
defence from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. We are all well aware of the
effects of alcohol on the human mind. Since time immemorial, alcohol has been associated with crimes
of the worst possible kind, and we are all familiar with the deranged state of an alcoholic. A case can be
cited at this instance. In a case of wife burning, the accused had consumed alcohol, and after having a
tiff with his wife, had set her on fire after pouring kerosene on her. She had resisted the flames, and had
tried to run away, upon which he had grabbed her and set her aflame again. The way the law deals with
any criminal situation depends on the facts of a particular case, and here the facts prove that the
husband was not intoxicated enough to be unaware of what he was doing and the fact that he pulled
the wife back and doused her with kerosene proves this. Hence in this case the accused was convicted
for murder.15
&
School of Law
In some instances the mind of the individual becomes diseased due to drinking, and the disease is to
such an extent that he becomes incapable of taking responsibility for his own acts or even thinking
clearly for that matter. The principle rests in the M’Naughton rules that were relied upon in such a case.
A common example of a mental state caused due to excessive drinking is ‘delirium tremens’. If a man
gets drunk due to the tricks or fraud of another person, he will be excused.
The Penal code has cited two English cases to elucidate the point. The first one is the famous case of
DPP v Beard, in which the accused ravished a girl who was thirteen years of age. While raping her, he got
so carried away that he placed his hand on her throat and the other one on her mouth resulting in death
due to suffocation. The defence given was that the accused was that the accused was so drunk that he
was unable to comprehend the severity of his act. The accused was convicted for murder, for the act
due to which she died, suffocation, was very different and independent from the act of rape.
Section 86: In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or
intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the
same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which
intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
There is always certain guilty knowledge or intention, which forms part of the definition of many
offences; this section deals specially to find solutions for such cases. A person who is intoxicated is
considered to have the same level of knowledge as a person who is sober. Cases have to be differently
judged because some focus on the intent of the individual while others focus on the knowledge that the
individual possesses. It must be borne in mind that though an intoxicated person is credited with the
same knowledge as a similar sane person, this presumption cannot be made for his intent.
Drunkenness does not make a very big difference to the knowledge with which a man is credited, and a
very popular argument based on the above stated notion is that since a person will have knowledge of
his deed, he also has the intention to commit it. However, this does not apply to a case where an
individual is so drunk that he is unable to from the required intent. In case of R v Kingston, the case that
&
School of Law
I have already elucidated, the principle that we follow as well as was laid down that if an individual was
able to form the required intent even though he was intoxicated, he will be convicted.
So far as the question of knowledge is concerned, the court must adopt the same stand as given to a
normal human being, but the question of intent adds complications. Thus, in a case where the accused
slit the abdomen of his friend, he was excluded from liability due to section 86 of the Indian Penal Code,
simply because he was not able to form the necessary intent.
Basudev v. State of Pepsu
A retired military officer was charged with the murder of a young boy of 15 or 16. Both of them and
others of the same village attended a marriage party. All of them went to the house of the bride to
attend the mid-day meal. Some had settled down in their seats and some had not. A military who was
very drunk and intoxicated, asked the young boy to step aside a little so that he may occupy a
convenient seat. But, when he did not move, the military officer whipped out a pistol and shot him in
the abdomen. The injury proved fatal. The evidence showed that the accused sometimes staggered and
sometimes was incoherent in his talk. But it was shown that he was capable of moving himself
independently and was capable of talking coherently as well. The evidence proved that he came on his
own to the house of the bride and that he made the choice of his own seat after injuring the deceased,
he attempted to get away and was secured a short distance from the scene. When he was secured, he
realized what he had done and asked for forgiveness. All these facts, according to the SC, go to prove
that there was no proved incapacity on the accused to form the intention to cause bodily harm sufficient
in the ordinary course of the nature to cause death. In view of his failure tom prove such incapacity, the
law presumed that he intended the natural and probable consequences of his act. In other words, he
intended to inflict bodily injuries on the deceased and the bodily injuries so intended to be inflicted, was
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The accused was found guilty of murder.
Mavari Surya Sathya Narayan v. State of AP
The accused and the deceased were married for 11 years. He was an alcoholic and quarreled often with
her. One day he came home drunk and asked her to sign on some blank papers. When she refused, he
pulled her by her hair and dragged her into the room and attempted to set fire on her. The deceased put
&
School of Law
out the flames and tried to run away. The accused again pulled her, poured kerosene and set fire to her.
The deceased died of the burns. The Andhra Pradesh High Court, relying on the SC decision in Basudev v.
State of Pepsu, held that having regard to the facts, it couldn’t be said that the accused was in total loss
of mental power and hence the provisions of s.85 will not apply.
Venkappa Kannappa Chowdhari v. State of Karnataka
The accused, quarrelsome by nature, was addicted to liquor. The son of the accused died in a motor
accident. The accused wanted the compensation amount of 10000, which was in the name of the
accused’s wife. On the day of the decision, he came home drunk and asked his wife to withdraw the
fixed deposit amount. When his wife refused to comply, he beat her, took a tin of kerosene oil, sprinkled
it on her and set her on fire. His wife screamed and the neighbors took her to the hospital. A dying
declaration was recorded. The accused took the plea of incapacity due to intoxication u/s 85 IPC. His
plea was rejected because he had voluntarily consumed alcohol. He was convicted and sentenced to life
imprisonment.
Conclusion
After much research on the topic, it can be said that intoxication is not a very strong defence, and even
if it serves to mitigate the severity of a punishment, it cannot exculpate a person from liability. This is
essential because absolute and cold logic cannot be applied to human affairs, as they require certain
flexibility in their dealing. A common man will not have much regard for the law if a drunken man
batters him, and the man gets away with his conduct merely because he was too intoxicated to think
clearly.
In India as well, the law that has been followed till date has its foundation in the British law. The first
categorical difference is that in case of British law, the defence of intoxication is not codified under any
specific section, while under the Indian law it has been clearly codified in sections eighty-five and eighty-
six of the Indian Penal Code.
&
School of Law
In Indian law, the clause that the drug has to be administered against the will of the individual is given
much more importance than it is under the British law. Also, the dichotomy between specific intent and
basic intent is given a lot of importance in case of British law. The severity of the punishment an
individual can be given is reduced due to this.
In Indian law as well this exception is applicable, as well as an exception in case the individual’s mind is
diseased. This portion of our law is very similar to the British law; as a matter of fact the cases that have
been cited as authority are also British.
The second factor that can be considered in the case is that in the Indian criminal law, the difference has
been made very clear between the intention and knowledge of an individual. Even in British law, the
specific intent and the basic intent dichotomy has been elaborated, but they have not given an exclusive
difference between the knowledge and intent.
The English law has evolved over a series of cases and it has come a long way from the rigid law that it
was earlier. In the early nineteenth century, alcohol would never have been able to serve as a defence.
Rather it would have had a reverse effect and this shows us how much the law has progressed in this
aspect over a period of time.
Introduction
What is the necessity defense exactly and how and under what circumstances might it
work in law of tort? As in the case of Baender v Barnett a fire broke out in a
maximum security prison, and the prisoners, threatened by death, break out of their
cells. Surely they are not guilty of the crime of escape? Here’s a situation where most
of us would agree that necessity could be a defense and that the prisoners who broke
out of their cells “out of necessity” ought not to be convicted for escape[1].
The defense of necessity recognizes that there may be situations of such
overwhelming urgency that a person must be allowed to respond by breaking the law.
Necessity is based on maxim salus populi suprema lex, i.e. ‘the welfare of the people
is the supreme law’. Necessity typically involves a defendant arguing that he
committed the crime in order to avoid a greater evil created by natural forces.
&
School of Law
Necessity as a justification (warranted or encouraged conduct where the defendant is

found not culpable). Necessity is an affirmative defense that a defendant invokes the
defense against the torts of trespass to chattels, trespass to land or conversion. The
early trial which took place was Regina v. Dudley and Stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273
DC[2].
Meaning and Definition
Necessity as a defense is defined under section 81 in Indian Penal Code as:
“Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other
harm.—Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge
that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause
harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person
or property.”
Factors affecting necessity
Affirmative defense
A defendant typically invokes the defense
Against intentional torts of trespass to chattels, , trespass to land or conversion.
With the necessity defense there will always be a prima facie violation of the law.
A tort is a civil wrong for which unliquidated damages have to be compensated by the
defendant even if he did in case of necessity. The defense of necessity is only
applicable when the defendant is able to justify his unlawful acts. It seems to be
generally assumed that, if the defense of necessity succeeds, that is the end of the
matter.
To present the defense at trial, defendants must need to meet the burden of provision
of the four elements:
They were forced with a choice of evils and choose the lesser evil.
&
School of Law
They acted to prevent imminent harm
They reasonably anticipated a direct casual relationship between their conduct and the
harm to be averted.
And, they had no legal alternatives to violating the law.[3]
These elements suggests that defense to the liability for unlawful activity where the
conduct cannot be avoided and one is justified in the particular conduct because it will
prevent the occurrence of a harm that is more serious.
Historically the principle has been seen to be restricted to two groups of cases, which
have been called cases of public necessity and cases of private necessity. The act of
plaintiff distinguishes the necessity of defense with other defenses. But the better
view is that necessity should be used by defendants who rationally chose an illegal
course of action that is the lesser of two evils.
Types of necessity
Public Necessity
Public necessity pertains to action taken by public authorities or private individuals to

avert a public calamity. The action consists in destroying or appropriating another’s
property.[4] The classic example of public necessity is the destruction of private
property to prevent the spread of fire [5]or disease [6]and hence to avert an injury to
the public at large. Public necessity is in operational where the police trespass on
damage. Private property in order to apprehend a criminal suspect or gain access to
the site of an emergency[7]. The principle behind public necessity is that the law
regards the welfare of the public as superior to the interest of individuals and when
there is a conflict between the latter must give way[8]. Public necessity serves as an
absolute defense. The first case which was filled with reference to public necessity
was Surocco v Geary.[9]
With this illustration public necessity is being defined. “A ship which had run into
difficulties found it necessary to discharge her cargo of oil, thereby polluting beaches
which belong to the plaintiff. Since the discharge of the oil was necessary to save the
crew, and not only the ship, it was accepted that the defense of necessity applied.
&
School of Law
Private Necessity
Private necessity arises from self interest rather than from a community at large. It
takes place when the defendant wants to protect his own interest. It does not serve as
an absolute defense unlike in the case of public necessity. Private necessity can be
explained with the following example. If defendant entered upon his neighbor’s land
without his consent, in order to prevent the spread of fire into his own land. The
principle applied for private necessity is “necessitas inducit privilegium quod jura
private”, meaning ‘Necessity induces a privilege because of a private right’. This
maxim makes it clear that private defense its more kind of a privilege enjoyed by
many person. The earliest case of private defense was Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp.
Co.
There is, however, a third group of case, which is also properly described as founded
upon the principle of necessity and which is more pertinent. These cases are
concerned with action taken as a matter of necessity to assist another person without
his consent. To give a simple example, a man who seizes another and forcibly drags
him from the path of an oncoming vehicle, thereby saving him from injury or even
death, commits no wrong.
These are concerned not only with the preservation of the life or health of the assisted
person, but also with the preservation of his property (sometimes an animal,
sometimes an ordinary chattel) and even with certain conduct on his behalf in the
administration of his affairs.”
Importance of Necessity
Necessity incorporates flexibility into laws that would have been lead to unjust results
(that is, punishment of desirable conduct) if applied mechanically[10]. The defence of
necessity applies to situations where torture is morally justified. Like in the case of a
prisoner who breaks the prison and runs away because he was mentally and physically
tortured by the prison authorities. Necessity provides relief in situation pertaining to
this. Necessity” defense has the effect of allowing one who acts under the
circumstances of ‘necessity’ to escape criminal liability. Perhaps the necessity defense
should be thought of as a moral provision for mala in se offenses. Mala in se offenses
generally protect against harms to others, and to the extent that the necessity defense
&
School of Law
defines situations in which one may harm others. The shape of the defense should
track our moral judgments about when it is morally permissible for a person to harm
others.
Limiting the Necessity Defense
Necessity defense restricts the ways in which private citizens may use force that
harms another’s interest, the limited scope of the necessity defense is one of many
tools that help sustain the state’s monopoly on legitimate violence exists to empower
individuals where individuals are supposed to be powerless; it cannot be used to
confer powers on the state as well. Most importantly it entirely depends appropriately
for a government body to examine what is allowed under the necessity defense and
seek guidance as to what it is allowed to do. After all, the government’s power is
greater than what is allowed to private individuals under the necessity defense, and the
greater state’s monopoly on violence must necessarily include the lesser individual’s
use of violence. The necessity defense can be asserted only when compatible with the
particular federal crime at issue[11].
How necessity defense looked up by courts?
If a court determined that a given offense was regulatory in nature, the statute
authorizes a necessity defense. If none were present, the defense would not be
allowed[12]. The necessity defense, by its nature, challenges and undermines that the
given situation needed to choose from the two evils. It carries the implication that
violation of a given rule is positively desirable, thus turning it in to a standard.
Common law necessity requires that the harm be truly imminent. The allowing
defendants to use the necessity defense in regulatory cases will tend to distract courts
from the employment of other common law defenses. The cases where courts have
expressly ruled on the necessity defense’s availability, either on the facts or as a
matter of law, can be roughly divided into three main categories: a court may (1) grant
a jury instruction on necessity and allow the defendant to present evidence concerning
it; (2) find the defense incompatible with the offense involved; or (3) find that the
defendant failed to meet his burden of production on at least one element of the
defense.
&
School of Law
Trespass to Chattels, Land or conversion
With the necessity defense there will always be a prima facie violation of the law. The
violation will consist of trespass, conversion or other kinds of infringement of
property rights. Under the necessity doctrine, there is a weighing of interests: the act
of invasion of another’s property is justified under the necessity doctrine only if done
to protect or advance some private or public interest of a value greater than, or at least
equal to, that of the interest invaded. A major issue associated with both private and
public necessity is whether compensation is owed to the aggrieved party whose
property is damaged, appropriated or destroyed. There is a general sense in the
doctrine of necessity that one has the qualified privilege to intentionally trespass onto
the land of another in order to prevent serious harm to oneself, to one’s own land, to
one’s chattels, or to the person, land, or chattels of another. However, compensation
must ordinarily be paid for any harm done in the process. The Comment to this
section states that when necessary to prevent serious harm, a person is privileged “to
break and enter or to destroy a fence or other enclosure and indeed a building,
including a dwelling only when the defendant’s action are reasonable.
Conclusion
The conclusion that one can reach is that necessity considers circumstantial morality
and provides one to be saved from his circumstantial offence. Necessity else than been
a new defence is also an evolving concept, which one can see through the Vincent
case and as well as R v. Dudley and Stephens case, which cleared some essentials
regarding it. The way it will evolve will depend on, how the judiciary interprets it in
future cases. There is no doubt that, it has attracted some critical criticism and which
also do make some sense as it was in obiter dicta in R v. Dudley and Stephens, where
it was said not every necessity can be ground for necessity otherwise, there will be
utter chaos and nothing else, this inference of the judge seems very true.
Edited by Neerja Gurnani
[1] Baender v Barnett, 255 US 224 (1921).
[2] Regina v. Dudley and stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273 DC[2].

&
School of Law
[3] Schoon, 971 F2d at 195, citing United States v Aguilar, 883 F2d 662, 693 (9th Cir
1989).
[4] BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY 1059 (8th ed. 2004) (defining public necessity);
see also
Surocco v. Geary, 3 Cal. 69 (Cal. 1853)
[5] RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 204 (Entry to Arrest for Criminal

Offense), RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 196 (Public Necessity).
[6] Surocco, 3 Cal. at 71; Conwell v. Emrie, 2 Ind. 35, 35 (1850); Field v. City of Des
Moines, 39 Ia. 575, 575 (1874)
[7] . Seavy v. Preble, 64 Me. l20 (l874).
[8] United States v. Schoon, 971 F.2d 193, 196
[9] (1853) (1853), 3 Cal 69, 58 Am Dec 385 (Cal SC)
[10] Alan M. Dershowitz, Is It Necessary to Apply “Physical Pressure”
[11] Oakland Cannabis, 532 US at 491 (“The [necessity] defense cannot succeed
when the legislature itself has made a ‘determination of values.’”).
[12] United States v Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative
Accident-Exception in Indian Penal Code

Sec. 80. Accident in doing a lawful act:
Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune and without any
criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner
by lawful means and with proper care and caution.
&
School of Law
A. Object:
Sec. 80 provides exemption from criminal liability to an act done by accident
of misfortune and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a
lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and
attention.
B. State Government of M.P. vs. Rangaswamy (AIR 1952 Nag. 268):

A Heyna, wild animal was moving in the villages and causing injuries and
deaths to small children. The people frightened with it. They complained to the
authorities. The Government deputed certain officers.
While they were wandering in the forests in search of Heyna, they saw a
moving animal behind the bushes. It was a rainy day and the vision was not
clear.
The officers thought that it was the Heyna. It was common that no people
would be moving in that area and in particularly in that rainy time. The
accused, one of the officers, fired at the moving object. The result was that the
death of a human being. The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that the
accused was protected under Sec. 80.
C. State of Orissa vs. Khoraghasi (1978 CrLJ 105 Ori.)

The accused was a tribal. He went into the forest to hunt the animals. He shot
an arrow with a bona fide intention that he aimed at an animal. But the arrow
caused the death of a human being. The Orissa Divisional Bench of the High
Court acquitted the accused under Sec. 80.
D. Bhupendrasinha A. Chudasama vs. State of Gujarat (SC 1998 SCC

603)
Brief Facts: The accused and the deceased were police constable and head-
constable. They were posted to protect a dam site. The accused killed his
&
School of Law
colleague in the night by firing at a close range without knowing the identity of
his target. The accused pleaded the defence of Sec. 80. The trial Court
convicted him under Section 302.
On appeal, the Supreme Court confirmed the conviction under Section 302,
and held that the accused acted without proper care and caution, and that the
act of accused could not come under an accident or misfortune or it was not a
lawful act.
&
School of Law
Class : 4th semester
Paper Code :205
Subject :IPC
Unit 3
INTRODUCTION
Criminal Intention is the highest form of blameworthiness of mind or mens rea.

Intention occupies a symbolic place in criminal law. As the highest form of mental
element it applies to murder and the gravest form of crimes in criminal justice
system. The term ‘intention’ is not defined in Indian Penal Code but section 34 of
IPC deals with common intention. The intention made among several person to do
something wrong and act done in that manner in which it was formulated comes
under sanction of section 34 of IPC. Section 34 deals with a situation, where an
offence requires a particular criminal intention or knowledge and is committed by
several persons. Each of them who join the act with such knowledge or intention is
liable in the same way as if it were done by him alone with that intention or
knowledge. The liability of individuals under this circumstance is called Joint
Liability. The principle of Joint Liability defined in section 34 is as follows:
Section 34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention –

When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common
intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if
it were done by him alone.
In this article the act is referred, which is defined under article 33 as:
&
School of Law
Section 33. ‘Act’, ‘Omission’. – the word ‘act’ denotes as well a series of acts as a
single act: the word ‘omission’ denotes as well a series of omissions as a single
omission.
It is clear from s.34 and s.33 that the term criminal act refers to more than a single
act and would cover an entire series of acts.
Section 34 to section 38 in chapter II of IPC dealing with ‘General Explanation’

state the conditions in which a person may be held constructively liable for the acts
committed by the other members of group.
The chapter VIII of Indian Penal Code refers to ‘Offences against the Public
Tranquillity’ from section 141 to section 160. Offences against public tranquillity
also known as ‘Group Offences’ and lead to disturbance of public peace. S.141
defines ‘Unlawful Assembly’ for which there should be five or more persons, and
the object should be common to all. If five or more persons are doing wrong act
with common objective then liability on each person will be same as it is done by
him alone. This liability on each person is called ‘Group Liability’. Section 149 of
IPC imposes group liability on each and every members of assembly and defined
as follows:
Section 149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed

in prosecution of common object —If an offence is committed by any member of
an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or
such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in
prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that
offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
To impose this section under group liability there should be an unlawful assembly,
which is defined under s.141. And the offence should be committed in prosecution
of common object.
COMMON INTENTION
&
School of Law
Common intention implies a pre arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to
the plan. Common intention comes into being prior to the commission of the act,
which need not be a long gap. To bring this section into effect a pre-concert is not
necessarily be proved, but it may well develop on the spot as between a number of
persons and could be inferred from facts and circumstances of each case.
In Amrik Singh’s Case[i] it has been further held that though common intention
may develop in course of the fight but there must be clear and unimpeachable
evidence to justify that inference. In the case Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad[ii] ,
Supreme court emphasised on this point that prior concert need not be something
always very much prior to the incident, but could well be something that may
develop on the spot, on the spur of the moment. In this case Ramchander Shelke
(deceased) with his wife’s sister went to the field. While Ramchander went to river
side the five persons including three appellant (Pandurang, Tukia, and Bhilia )
attacked on him. According to eyewitnesses, Pandurang, Tukia and Bhilia were
holding axes and other two accused Tukaram and Nilia had sticks in their hands.
The deceased died on the spot. In this case different eyewitnesses told different
story. The trial court convicted each of accused of charge s.302 with s. 34 and
sentenced to death. Appeal lied in High court and conviction of Pandurang, Tukia,
Bhilia was maintained but other two accused persons sentence was commuted to
transportation for life. When the matter came up to Supreme Court, the learned
judge said that each are liable for their own act. The Apex Court set aside the death
sentence of Pandurang and convicted him instead under s.326, and sentenced for
10 years rigorous imprisonment. The Supreme Court altered the sentence of Tukia
and Bhilia to transportation for life. The Supreme Court elaborated in this case
that:
“In a case like that, each would be individually liable for whatever injury he
caused but none would be vicariously convicted for the acts of any of the others; if
the prosecution cannot prove that his separate blow was a fatal one, he cannot be
convicted of the murder, however clearly an intention to kill could be proved in
this case….”
&
School of Law
The essence of liability to be found in existence of common intention is that the

criminal act complained against was done by one of the accused persons in
furtherance of common intention of all, if this is shown, then the liability for the
crime may be imposed on any one of the persons in the same manner as if the act
were done by him alone.[iii]
In the case of Mahboob Shah v. Emperor[iv], the appellant Mahboob shah was of
age 19 and was convicted by Session Judge of the charge s.302 with s.34 for the
murder of Allah Dad. The Session court sentenced him for death. The High Court
of Judicature also confirmed the death sentence. On appeal before Lordship, the
conviction for murder and sentence of death was quashed. It was contended before
appellant that – “when Allah Dad and Hamidullah tried to run away, Wali Shah
and Mahboob Shah Came in front of them… and fired shots” and so there was
evidence of forming common intention at the spur of the moment. Their Lordship
was not satisfied upon this view and humbly advised His Majesty that the appellant
having succeeded in his appeal, his appeal should be allowed and his conviction
for murder and the sentence of death set aside.
Common Intention and Similar Intention
Common intention does not mean similar intention of several persons. To

constitute common intention it is necessary that the intention of each one of them
be known to the rest of them and shared by them. This section 34 is only a rule of
evidence and does not create a substantive offence. This section only applies with
other penal sections which deal with the punishment of the offence.
In the case of Dukhmochan Pandey v. State of Bihar[v] , the complainant had sent
about 20 labours to his field for transplanting paddy. On the mid day the accused
party came as a mob of about 200 people armed with various deadly weapons.
They asked labourers to stop the work, and when the complainant objected to this,
the two accused directed the mob to kill labourers. The mob started assaulted the
labourers as a result of this two labours died. When the police party reached, the
mob fled from the spot. The death was established to have caused by injuries
&
School of Law
inflicted by shock and haemorrhage caused by injuries inflicted with sharp pointed
weapons.
The Supreme Court in this case held that: “Common intention which developed at
the spur of the moment is different from the similar intention actuated a number of
person at the same time….the distinction between a common intention and similar
intention may be fine, but is nonetheless a real one and if overlooked, may lead to
miscarriage of justice….”
Mere presence of accused together is not sufficient to hold that they shared the
common intention to commit the offence in question. It is necessary that the
intention of each one of ‘several persons’ be known to each other for constituting
common intention.
Inferences
From the various interpretations of Apex Court and guideline given in different
cases, some inferences could be drawn to impose Joint Liability under section 34.
These are –
1. To establish common intention premeditation of minds is necessary. There

should be prior meeting of minds which activated common intention and
criminal act should have been done in furtherance of common intention.
2. There may be situation in which premeditation was not present, but intention
developed at the spur of the time, but it should must been shared among one
another.
3. To prove common intention is a very hard, because it is the mental thinking
of the accused at that point of time. So it has to be culled out from the facts
and circumstances of each case.
4. There is a difference between common intention and similar intention, and
s.34 can be invoked only when the accused shares common intention and not
one the similar intention.
&
School of Law
5. Unless common intention is proved, individual will be liable for his own act
and not otherwise. They will be deal as under s.38 of IPC. And if there is
any doubt, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.
Cases
One of the earliest cases came before the court under s.34 under the principle of
Joint Liability was Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor[vi]. This case is also
known as the ‘Post Master Case’. In this case, the accused Barendra with other
three persons went to Shankaritola post office at about 3.30 pm on the 3rd August
1923 armed with firearms. The accused stood outside the post office while others
three entered the post office through the backdoor of office. They asked post
master Amrita Lal Roy to give the money which he was counting. When he
refused, then others three opened fire from the pistol and fled from the place. As a
result of which he died almost immediately. Seeing others running the accused also
ran away by air firing with his pistol. But he was chased and caught by post office
assistant. He was charged with others under s.302 (murder to post master) and
s.394 (causing hurt in doing robbery) with s.34 in common intention of all. He
contended that he was only standing guard outside the post office and he did not
have the intention to kill the post master. Calcutta High Court confirmed his
conviction of murder under s.302 with s.34. In the appeal before the Privy Council,
Lord Sumner dismissed the appeal against the conviction and held that – “criminal
acts means that unity of criminal behaviour which results in something for which
an individual would be responsible, if it were all done by himself alone, that is, in
criminal offence.”
The other important case came before the Supreme Court was Rangaswami v. State
of Tamil Nadu[vii]. The occurrence took place at about 11.45 pm on 16.08.1973 in
Big Bazar Street, in which one Jayaram was murdered. In this case session court
convicted A-1 under s. 302 and sentenced him to death. A-2 and A-3 were charged
under s. 307 with s.34, and sentenced rigorous imprisonment of 8 years by session
judge. While High Court considering the fact altered the decision of session court
and enhanced the sentence of A-2 and A-3 to imprisonment for life under s. 302
with s.34. And the death sentence of A-1 was modified for imprisonment for life.
&
School of Law
Against this conviction A-3 appealed in Supreme Court and contended that he was
only in friendly relation with A-1 and A-2 but he did not shared common intention
with them. It was by mere chance that he appeared at the spot of occurrence and he
did not participated in offence. In this case, there was a prior enmity between
deceased and A-1 and A-2, because the deceased was accused of murdering the
brother of A-1, and he was actually on the bail. Supreme Court held that even
though the presence of A-3 was established but he did not share common intention
and he was unfamiliar with the plan. Therefore he was acquitted all of the charges.
The other case before Supreme Court was Muthu Naicker and others v. State of
Tamil Nadu[viii]. The dispute arose among the village community of Karpakkam
village when accused no. A-11 Kuppu Naicker who has a well in land bearing
Survey No. 102, wanted to lay a pipe-line to take water to the field bearing No.
186/2 belonging to his wife, Dhanammal. There was another well sunk by the local
Panchayat in Survey No. 170 for the use of the village community and when A-11
wanted to take water from his well in Survey No. 102, an apprehension was
entertained by the residents of the village that there would not be enough water in
the well in Survey No. 170 and there would be water shortage. Gripped by this
apprehension, a majority of the village community resisted the attempt of A-11 to
take water by laying pipelines. Some villagers approached to collector on March 6,
1967, the collector suspended the permission granted to A-11 to lay the pipe lines.
A-11 and his companions ignored the order of collector and continued the digging
of channel. The matter arose on 27 November 1968 at around 2.30 pm when
deceased Gajarajan brother of P.W. 31 was returning from Madras by bus, a crowd
of 50-60 persons including A-1 to A-23 and A-28 attempted to waylay the
deceased. Deceased tried to escape but was chased by them and encircled by the
crowd near a well and was attacked. After completing the investigation police
submitted challan against 28 accused for various offences. The learned session
judge giving the benefit of reasonable doubt, rejected the prosecution case and
acquitted all the accused. The state of Tamil Nadu preferred an appeal in High
Court of Madras against A-1 to A-27. While the acquittal of A-28 was considered
as final. The High Court convicted A-1 to A-7 and A-19 for charge under S.302
with S.34 and sentenced them for life imprisonment. They preferred criminal
&
School of Law
appeal in Supreme Court. The conviction of accused A-1, A-2, A-4, A-5 under
S.302 with S.34 was confirmed and sentenced to life imprisonment. While
conviction of A-3, A-6, A-7, A-19 under this charge of S.302 was set aside and
were charged with others under Hurt and Grievous Hurt differently. Supreme
Court held that in a local community when something unusual occurs, a good
number of people appear on the scene not with a view to participate in occurrence
but as a curious spectators. In such event mere presence in unlawful assembly
should not be treated that person concerned was a member of unlawful assembly.
COMMON OBJECT
The offence dealing with Group Liability or Vicarious Liability of members comes
under Chapter VIII of the Indian Penal Code. This chapter deals with offences
against Public Tranquillity from s.141 to s.160. The first section of this chapter
s.141 defines Unlawful Assembly, for which there should be five or more persons
and some common objects for which they have made that assembly. The section
141 is:
Section 141. Unlawful assembly —
An assembly of five or more persons is designated an “unlawful assembly“, if the

common object of the persons composing that assembly is—
First – To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any
State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public
servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or
Second – To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or
Third – To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or
Fourth – By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to

take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the
enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of
&
School of Law
which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right;

or
Fifth – By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any

person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally
entitled to do.
Explanation – An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may

subsequently become an unlawful assembly.
From this section we can say that, to constitute an unlawful assembly the following
ingredients is necessary –
1. There should be an assembly of five or more persons.

2. There must be a common object for them.
3. Common object must be one of the five ingredients, specified in the above
section.
When the number of the persons reduces from five for trial for the reason that
some were acquitted for the charges then the s. 141 will become inapplicable. But
if there is clear indication that some other unidentified persons are involved in the
crime then this section can be applied. In Ram Bilas Singh v. State of Bihar[ix],
Supreme Court held that:
“it is competent to a court to come to the conclusion that there was an unlawful
assembly of five or more persons, even if less than that number have been
convicted by it if: (i) the charge states that apart from the persons named, several
other unidentified persons were also members of the unlawful assembly whose
common object was to commit an unlawful act …..(ii) or that the first information
report and evidence shows such to be the case even though the charge does not
states so. (iii) or that though the charge and prosecution witnesses named only the
acquitted and the convicted accused persons there is other evidence which
discloses the existence of named or other persons”
&
School of Law
The other ingredient of this section is common object. Object means the purpose,
and it will be common when it is shared by the members of the unlawful assembly.
Common object may be formed at any stage by all or few members of the
assembly. The explanation of this section shows it clearly. However common
object is entertained in the human mind so there can be no evidence to prove
directly about this. It is a question of the fact and can be culled out on the basis of
facts and circumstances of each case. It can be determined from the nature of the
assembly, the kinds of arms and their uses by it, behaviour and the language of the
members of the assembly used before and after the incident. If only four out of the
five assembled person have common object and not fifth, then that assembly is not
an unlawful assembly. Simple onlooker or family of the parties cannot become the
member of unlawful assembly unless they actively participated or encouraged the
violence.
In Moti Das v. Bihar[x], Supreme Court held that pre-concert is not necessary. An
assembly may be lawful in beginning but may turn into unlawful later.
Being a member of Unlawful assembly is itself a crime and s.143 prescribes the
punishment of six months, or fine, or both for being a member of that assembly.
The section which imposes the liability on each person of the offence committed
by the members of the assembly is section 149 of IPC. The section 149 of IPC is:
Section 149. Every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed

in prosecution of common object — If an offence is committed by any member
of an unlawful assembly in prosecutionof the common object of that assembly, or
such as the members of that assemblyknew to be likely to be committed in
prosecution of that object, every person who,at the time of the committing of that
offence, is a member of the same assembly, isguilty of that offence.
In Bhudeo Mandal v. State of Bihar[xi], the Apex Court held that before
convicting any person with the aid of s.149, the evidence must clearly establish not
only the common object, but also show that the common object was unlawful. In
Ram Dhani v. State[xii], there was a dispute over land and the complainant party
&
School of Law
resorted to cutting crop grown by the accused party. The later were more than five
in number and assembled to prevent the cutting. The court held that – the persons
acting in self defence of the property cannot be members of an unlawful assembly.
And so they could not be said to form an unlawful assembly.
The word ‘knew’ is used in second part of the s. 149, which implies more than
possibility but less than might have known. An offence committed in prosecution
of common object would generally be offence which the members of the assembly
knew was likely to be committed[xiii]. This phrase means that the offence
committed was immediately connected with the common object of the unlawful
assembly, of which the accused were members. The word ‘in prosecution of
common object’ means that the offence committed was immediately connected
with the common object of the assembly or in order to attain common object.
Cases
In Rambilas Singh and others v. State of Bihar[xiv], the case of prosecution was
that deceased Kumar Gopal Singh found A-2, A-16 and a female relation of them
plucking Khesari crops from his field. And so he abused them and snatched away
the plucked plants and their baskets. In retaliation for it the 16 accused persons had
lay in wait for him on that night and attacked him at about 9.30 P.M. when he was
returning home with his brother PW-22 and two other witnesses PWs 1 and 18
after attending a barat. PW-22 stated that 16 persons surrounded Kumar Gopal
Singh and then Dinesh Singh inflicted a stab injury on the neck of Kumar Gopal
Singh as a result of which he died. The Session Judge acquitted all the persons A-1
to A-15 who were charged under s.302 with s.149, but convicted A-16 (Dinesh
Singh) who was charged directly under s.302. In High Court A-1 and A-9 were
acquitted while A-2 and A-6 died during pendency of the appeal. The High Court
convicted the rest of the accused A-3, A-4, A-5, A-7, A-8, A-10 to A-15. On
appeal further Supreme Court set aside the conviction of accused by High Court
under s.302 with s.149 and held that in order to convict persons vicariously under
Section 34 or Section 149 IPC, it is not necessary to prove that each and every one
of them had indulged in overt acts. Even so, there must be material to show that the
overt act or acts of one or more of the accused was or were done in furtherance of
&
School of Law
the common intention of all the accused or in prosecution of the common object of
the members of the unlawful assembly. In this case, such evidence is lacking and
hence the appellants cannot be held liable for the individual act of Dinesh Singh.
In another case of Ram Bilas Singh v. State of Bihar[xv], court held that an
accused person cannot be held liable vicariously for the act of an acquitted person.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMMON INTENTION AND COMMON OBJECT
Both the section 34 and s.149 imposes vicarious liability on each person for acts
not necessarily done by them. However there is a difference in the scope and
nature of operation of the two offences. The charge of s.149 is substituted by s.34
of IPC, especially when some accused are acquitted and number of the accused
falls below five. In this case the court would have to carefully examine the
evidence to see whether some element of common intention exists for which he
can be made liable under s.34. The main differences between the two sections are
as follows:
 Section 34 does not create any specific offence but only lays down the
principle of joint criminal liability. Whereas s.149 creates specific offence
and being a member of an unlawful assembly is itself a crime, which is
punishable under s.143.
 ‘Common intention’ used in s.34 is not defined anywhere in IPC, while

‘common object’ in s.149 must be one of the five ingredients defined in s.
141 of IPC.
 Common intention requires prior meeting of mind and unity of intention and
overt act has been done in furtherance of the common intention of all.
Common object may be formed without prior meeting of mind when the
common object of the members of the unlawful assembly is one but
intention of participants is different. It only requires that criminal act has
been done in furtherance of common object.
&
School of Law
 For invoking s.34 it is sufficient that two or more persons were involved.
However there have to be minimum five persons to impose s.149.
 The crucial factor of s.34 is ‘participation’ while there is no need of active
participation in s.149 of IPC.
PROPOSALS FOR REFORM
The Fifth Law Commission of India[xvi] in its report proposed suggestions for
reform of s.34 to clear ambiguity. It proposed that, for better understanding the
phrase ‘several persons’ be substituted by ‘two or more persons’.
Fifth Law Commission[xvii]also proposed to substitute the Third object of s.141

‘to commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence’ with ‘to commit
any offence punishable with imprisonment’ to clear ambiguity.
CONCLUSION
Fixing vicarious liability under s.34 or s.149 depends on their method adopted to
furnish the crime. There are two sections dealing with ‘common intention’ and
‘common object’ under two chapters of IPC ‘General Explanation’ and ‘Of
Offences Against Public Tranquillity’ respectively. Sometimes there arises
difficulty in proving with evidences that whether they shared common intention or
not. And also that how many people were the members of Unlawful Assembly
with their common object same. However these ambiguities were removed by the
Supreme Court in different cases, after determining its facts and situation of each
case.
To clear and better understanding, Law Commission of India also gave many
suggestions to Legislature for amendment of some part of statute.
Even after so much effort there arises problems of which law will be applicable
amongst the two in some crucial cases, and investigators and charge sheet filers
makes mistakes in this regard.
&
School of Law
BIBLIOGRAPHY
 P S A Pillai’s – CRIMINAL LAW – 11th Edition

 Ratanlal & Dhirajlal – THE INDIAN PENAL CODE – 33rd Edition
 Criminal Law: Cases and Materials – Sixth Edition – K D Gaur
 indiankanoon.org – (CASES)
Edited by Sinjini Majumdar
[i] Amrik Singh v. State of Punjab 1972
[ii] AIR 1954 SC 706
[iii] Mahboob Shah v. Emperor (1945) 47 Com LR 941
[iv] ibid
[v] AIR 1998 SC 40
[vi] AIR 1925 PC 1
[vii] AIR 1989 SC 1137 ; 1989 Supp (1) SCC 686
[viii] AIR 1978 SC 1647
[ix] 1964 Cr LJ 673 (SC)
[x] (1954) Cr LJ 1708 (SC)
[xi] AIR 1981 SC 1219
[xii] 1997 Cr LJ 2286
[xiii] Chanda v. State of U.P. AIR 2004 SC 2836 ; the expression ‘in prosecution
of common object’ and the word ‘knew’ used in s. 149 were explained.
&
School of Law
[xiv] AIR 1989 SC 1593
[xv] (1964) Cr LJ 673 (SC)
[xvi] Law Commission of India (Forty Second report: Indian Penal Code) 1971
[xvii] ibid
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.
SECTION 107 IPC ‘ABETMENT OF THING’:
A person abets the doing of a thing by instigation:-
1. Instigate any person to do that things
2. By conspiracy.
&
School of Law
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.
EXPLANATION :- A person who by wilful misrepresentations or by wilful

concealment of a material fact, which he is bound to disclose, voluntary causes or
procures or attempts to cause or procures a thing to be done, is said to instigate the
doing of that things.
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.
Case: Gurbachan Singh v. Sat Pal Singh, AIR- 1990
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
&
School of Law
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.
A case : Rup Devi v. State : 1955.
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
&
School of Law
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.
Case law: Ram Kumar v. 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.
&
School of Law
SECTION 108 OF IPC: ABETTOR:
A person can become an abettor in two ways:-
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 he 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.
To define the abettor the explanation must be read as:-
EXPLANATION 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.
ILLUSTRATION:- ‘A’ instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of

abetting B to commit murder.
Explanation 2:- To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the
particular act of abettor should be committed.
&
School of Law
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 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 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 should bi concert the offence with the
person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy.
&
School of Law
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.
Ram Kumar vs. State of H.P. (1996 SCC 100)
The prosecutrix-a young girl aged 19 years and her husband were arrested by
head constable and a constable. They took wife and husband to the police
station. They confined the wife in a room and her husband in another room.
While the constable was guarding in front of the room, where the husband sat,
the head constable raped the wife. She cried. Her husband and constable
heard her cries.
The trial Court convicted the head constable under Sec. 376, and the
constable who aided for the offence under Sec. 376 (2)(a) read with Sec. 107.
On appeal the High Court upheld the conviction.
The High Court held that the conduct and the consistency of the accused
constable were towards facilitating the crime as otherwise he would have
reacted on hearing the cries of the helpless prosecutrix, his turning deaf ears
to her cries was the finale on his conduct and he must be assumed to have had
this end in mind when he dragged the prosecutrix forcibly to the police
station.
&
School of Law
F. “To abet” means “to help in doing something (usually wrong)”, it is

synonymous with instigation, encouragement and incitement.
The person who does the offence directly is called the “Principal”, and-the
persons who help the principal are called “Accessories”. Offenders of
Abetment and Conspiracy are “Accessories before or at the fact”. The
accessories are of three kinds:
(a) Accessory before the fact;
(b) Accessory at the fact; and
(c) Accessory after the fact.
G. Essentials to constitute offence of abetment:
While disposing,
“Goura Venkata Reddy vs. State of A.P. (2003) 12 SCC 469), the Supreme Court
held: “Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a
separate and distinct offence provided in the Act as an offence. A person abets
the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2)
engages with one or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that
thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word “instigate”
literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do
anything. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as
provided in the three clauses of Section 107.”
Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120B of IPC)
Punishment of Criminal Conspiracy:

&
School of Law
As per Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, “(1) whoever is a party
to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or
upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the
punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had
abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal

conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months,
or with fine or with both.”
For purposes of punishment, Section 120B divides criminal conspiracies into

two classes: (i) A party of a conspiracy to commit a serious offence is punished
in the same manner as if he had abetted the offence, (ii) conspiracies to
commit any other offence and conspiracies to commit illegal acts other than
offences are subjected to imprisonment for a term upto six months with or
without fine or both.
Section 120B of the code is required to read with Section 196 of the code. It
mandates a Court not to, without prior sanction of the State Government or
the District Magistrate, take cognisance of a criminal conspiracy to commit an
offence punishable with imprisonment of a term more than two years.
&
School of Law
No prior sanction of the concerned State Government or of the District

Magistrate is required when the criminal conspiracy related to an offence
punishable with imprisonment for two or less than two years’ imprisonment.
For initiating criminal proceedings parties to a conspiracy made abroad,
requires sanction of the Central Government. A conspiracy hatched in India
to commit an unlawful act outside India does not require sanction of the
Central Government.
Nature and Scope of the Law of Criminal Conspiracy:
1) Conspiracy is a substantive offence. The offence of criminal conspiracy

exists in the very agreement between two or more persons to commit a
criminal offence.
2) ‘Agreement’ is the rock bottom of criminal conspiracy. Its essence is the

unlawful combination.
3) To constitute a conspiracy, meeting of minds of two or more persons for

doing an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is the first and primary
condition.
&
School of Law
4) If there are more than two persons involved in a conspiracy and one or
some of the other accused had been acquitted, the remaining accused (even if
it is one) could be convicted under Section 120B of the IPC.
5) The gist of the offence of criminal conspiracy is to break the law.
6) The essence of the agreement to break the law is the agreement to do an

illegal act. By virtue of Section 43 of the IPC, everything : (i) which is an
offence; (ii) which is prohibited by law; and (iii) which furnishes a ground for
civil action is an ‘illegal act’.
7) The essentials of a single conspiracy require that there must be a common

design and a common intention of all to work in furtherance of the common
design.
8) When an offence is committed by different persons acting in the same

manner but independently, it cannot be said that there was necessarily a
conspiracy.
9) It is not necessary for all the conspirators to know each other.

&
School of Law
10) Every conspirator is liable for all the acts of the co-conspirators, even if
some of them had not actively participated in the commission of the offence.
11) When the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it is not necessary
for the prosecution to establish that each of the conspirators had the
knowledge of the conspired act.
12) Where the agreement between certain persons is a conspiracy to do or

continue to do something which is illegal, the entire agreement must be viewed
as a whole.
13) Conspiracy is a continuing offence and it continues to subsist and

committed, if one of the conspirators does an act or a series of acts now and
then.
Proof of Conspiracy:
1) A conspiracy is always hatched in secrecy. It is a matter of common

experience that direct evidence to prove conspiracy is rarely available. It is
therefore impossible to adduce direct evidence of the same. The offence can
only be proved largely from inferences drawn from acts or illegal omissions
committed by the conspirators in pursuance of a common design.
&
School of Law
2) Conspiracy is generally a matter of inference to be deduced from special

acts or illegal omissions of the accused done in pursuance of the common
intention of the conspirators and the apparent criminal purpose in common
amongst them. There must be some evidence on record which establishes such
a common design.
3) As direct evidence is generally difficult to adduce in cases involving

conspiracy charge, the prosecution generally depend on circumstantial
evidence relying on evidence of acts of various parties to infer that they were
done in reference to their common intention.
4) It is not necessary to prove that the perpetrators expressly agreed to do or

cause to be done an illegal act as the agreement could be proved by necessary
implication.
5) Conspiracy can be proved by circumstantial evidence, as it is the only type

of evidence that is normally available to prove conspiracy.
6) The conditions for assessing the evidence of co-conspirators as laid down in

Section 10 of the Evidence Act, 1872 are:
i) There should be prima facie evidence regarding the involvement of two or

more people in forming an agreement;
&
School of Law
ii) Then, anything said, done or written by any one of them in reference to the
common intention will be evidence against the other; and
iii) Anything said, done or written by the conspirator after the common
intention was formed by any of them would be admissible.
Procedure:
As regards procedure if the offence falls under Clause I of Section 120-B, the
procedure to be followed is applicable to that offence which is the object of the
conspiracy – that is to say, it is cognizable warrant or summons bailable or
non bailable as the offence which is the object of the conspiracy.
It is not compoundable and is triable by the Court of Session if the offence

which is the object of the conspiracy is triable exclusively by such Court; in
the case of all other offences it is triable by the Court of Session or a
Magistrate of the first class. If the offence falls under clause 2, a warrant or a
summons may issue in the first instance. It is bailable and not compoundable
and triable by a Magistrate of the first class.
Principles governing the law of conspiracy as laid down by the Supreme

Court of India:
&
School of Law
In State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini [AIR 1999 SC 2640], when the main accused
herself has admitted in her confessional statement that she had played a vital
role in conspiracy for murder of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi and her confession is
corroborated by other material and witness evidence, there is no need of
interference in conviction under Sections 300 and 120-B of the IPC. In this
case the Supreme Court framed the following principles governing the law of
conspiracy after reviewing the judicial pronouncement on the law of
conspiracy:
1) Offence of criminal conspiracy is committed when two or more persons

agree to do or cause to be done an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means.
2) Not only the intention, there has to be an agreement to carry out the object
of the intention, which is an offence. Only entertaining a wish is not sufficient
to convict a person for criminal conspiracy though it may be an evil wish.
3) Acts subsequent to the achieving of objects of conspiracy may tend to prove

that a particular accused was a party to the conspiracy.
4) As conspiracy is hatched in private or in secrecy, its objects are to be

inferred from the circumstances and from the conduct of the accused.
&
School of Law
5) Conspirators may be enrolled one after another in chain. It is not the part
of the crime of conspiracy that all the conspirators need to agree to play the
same and active role.
6) There has to be two conspirators and there may be more than that. To
prove the charge of conspiracy, it is not necessary that the intended crime was
committed or not.
7) It is not necessary that all conspirators should agree to the common

purpose at the same time.
8) Prosecution has to produce evidence not only to show that each of the
accused has knowledge of object of conspiracy, but also the agreement.
9) It is the unlawful agreement and not its accomplishment, which is the gist
or essence of the crime of conspiracy though it is not formal or express.
10) A Criminal Conspiracy is a partnership in crime and that each conspiracy

consists of a joint and mutual agency for a prosecution of a common plan.
&
School of Law
11) A man may join a conspiracy by word or deed. One who commits an overt
act with knowledge of the conspiracy and others standing by conspirators are
guilty.
12) A conspiracy is not broken into several conspiracies when a new member
joins the conspiracy. It continues from the time of agreement to the time of its
termination.
13) In the absence of proof, relatives or spouses providing food or shelter

cannot be treated as members of a criminal conspiracy even though they may
have knowledge about such a conspiracy.
14) In absence of evidence that accused had even knowledge of any

conspiracy, the mere association with the main accused would not make him
member of conspiracy because agreement is a sine qua non of offence of
conspiracy.
&
School of Law
&
School of Law
&
School of Law
Class : 4TH SEMESTER
Paper Code :205
Subject :IPC
Unit 4
Mere denunciation of crime is not enough; it must be pushed to its logic end that
crime does not pay by punishing the offenders.
Punishment means, “It is the redress that the commonwealth takes against an
offending member” Punishment is some sort of social censure and not necessarily
involving physical pain. H Kelson in his General Theory of Law and State
described “sanction is socially organized consists in a deprivation of possession-
life, freedom, or property”
According to Jeremy Bentham punishment is evil in the form of remedy which

operates by fear. Johan Finnish has said that delinquent behavior of a person needs
to be taught lesson not with melody but with iron hand. “There is the need of
almost every member of society to be taught what the requirement of the law—the
common path for pursuing the common good—actually is: and {relatively!} Vivid
drama of the apprehension, trial, and punishment of those who depart from that
stipulated common way” Various reasons justify punishment but criminal law as
sanctions has one important object, is to eradicate the self-help and private
sanctions. Once society realizes that there is need of sanction, it must be applied
collectively, officially, legally and publicly.6 Different authors have offered
various theories of punishment but those can be broadly classified as non-
utilitarian and utilitarian. What distinguishes these theories is their focus and goals:
&
School of Law
utilitarian theories are forward looking concerned with the future consequence of
punishment; non-utilitarian theories are backward looking, interested in the past
acts and mental states; and mixed theories are both forward and backward looking.
Punishment is awarded to reduce crimes and used as means to an end, is the claim
of the utilitarian. George Hegel and Immanuel Kant criticized and rejected the
utility theory, presented the contrast retributive theory of punishment, which is of
non-utilitarian on the premises that punishment is not means to an end but end in
itself. This tug of war between the George Hegel and Immanuel Kant on one side
and Jeremy Bentham on the other side is carried even by 20th century scholars. In
1949, Lord Denning appearing before the Royal Commission on ‘Capital
Punishment’ expressed the following view: “The punishment inflicted for grave
crimes should adequately reflect the revulsion felt by the great majority of citizen
for them. It is a mistake to consider the object of punishment as being deterrent or
reformative or preventive and nothing else … The ultimate justification of any
punishment is not that it is a deterrent, but that it is the emphatic denunciation by
the community of a crime: and from this point of view, there are some murders
which, in the present state of public opinion, demand the most emphatic
denunciation of all namely the death penalty.”
Scholar of Criminal law Professor Glanville Williams of Cambridge University,

applauses the utilitarian opinion that punishment is either preventive or deterrent.
Both schools agree punishment is essential but disagree in respect of its purpose.
Utility doctrine has further classified punishment as Preventive (Restraint),
satisfactory (compensatory), reformative (Therapeutic or corrective), and
deterrent.Retributive theory of punishment Vengeance theory- It is a concept of
primitive society which consists of injury inflicted by way of retaliation by victim
of crime on actor of crime, which requires the existence of victim as well as a
wrong doer. Its idea is severity of punishment where victim of crime inflicts the
retaliatory harm that expunges the crime. Modern legal system has given up the
&
School of Law
vengeance theory because of its heinous, barbaric and uncivilized nature of

punishment.
Retributive theory Retributive theory is based on rights, desert and justice. The
guilty deserve to be punished, and no moral consideration relevant to punishment
outweighs the offender’s criminal desert is the philosophy of retributive
theory.Retributive theory replaces private punishment by institutlising punishment
on the structure of law and state in organized manner. Unlike vengeance theory,
retributist focuses on the wrong doer not on the victim of wrong which makes
difference between the ‘lex talionis’ and ‘jus talionis’. Immanuel Kant who
discussed the concept of punishment in the first half of The Metaphysics of
Morals, for him just actions are deduced from the concept of morals and
punishment should satisfy the rationality of moral and justice. Guilt is a sufficient
condition for justifying punishment. It is worth to quote his famous lines. “Even if
a civil society were to dissolve itself by common agreement of all its members (for
example, if the people inhabiting an island decides to separate and disperse
themselves around the world), the last murder remaining in the prison must be
executed, so that everyone will duly receive what his actions are worth and so that
the bloodguilt thereof will not be fixed on the people because they failed to insist
on carrying out the punishment; for if they fail to do so, they may be regarded as
accomplices in this public violation of justice.” For Kant, human being is free
man, and enjoys rights in the legal system based on the dignity of humanity. When
any person interferes with the others right, he forfeits and gives up his own right
and submits him to others interference in his life as legitimate. Kant calls it as
‘moral authorization’- Befugins to interference. Violator of Criminal Law has
derived benefit because other persons have obeyed Criminal Law; therefore, he
owes debt to society in the form of punishment, which is condition for his re-entry
into the community.This analysis takes closer to another principle of expiation.
&
School of Law
The penalty of wrong doing is a debt, which offender owes to his victim. When
punishment has been endured, the debt is paid, the liability is extinguished.
Doctrine of just desert based on principle that criminal having committed crime in
the past deserved to be punished. The worlds ‘deserved’ puts limitation on the
power of inflicting harm and makes it just or fair that exhibit the humanitarian
aspect of the theory, which is the base for wider acceptability in society.
Retributive is no exception to the principle. Every theory has demerits. Weakness
of retribution is focusing more on criminal, his guilt, suffering and his feelings
likely to glorify them. Total rejection of claim of victim of crime, potential victims
and potential criminals undermines the nature of Criminal Law. This theory
focuses on what had happened but does not on what has to be done in future for
prevention of crimes because some time punishment ought to be considered as
means to end. Kant categorically rejected punishment as means to end because it
amounts use of man for others, which is against the principle of human dignity.
Retributist fails to take notice of Criminal law’s future direction. Retribution is not
cruel because it treats a criminal with dignity.
It gives him chance to expiate his crime by suffering. The doctrine of desert,
fairness, and proportionality reject cruel, barbaric, and uncivilized punishment of
vengeance theory. Retributive theory puts substantial limitation on punishment.
When the law and State inflicts harm on the wrong doer in fair manner, how
retributive theory is called reflection of vengeance theory. Law condemns the act
of criminal by awarding punishment, if incidentally that satisfy the vengeance of
victim of crime, the retributive theory cannot be criticized for that because they
never claimed it. Hegel has rightly objected by saying retributive is nothing but
concept of vengeance is superficial.17 The following are the merits and demerits of
the retributive theory
. Merits
&
School of Law
1. The theory is very simple. Punishment is an end in itself but Utility theory is
means to an end. Therefore, utilitarian theories are evaluated on parameters of
success and failure. This question does not arise in retributive theory.
2. Retributive punishment is neither cruel nor barbaric but civilized because

inflected punishment is proportionate to the crime that is just. Utility theory
recommends more punishment than the profit of crime.
3. Retributive is impartial and neutral. By inflecting proportionate punishment to

the crime, it considers the interest of wrongdoer and society equal. Reformative
theory gives more weight to interest of criminal and deterrent theory priority would
be social interest than criminal.
4. Retributive is based on the Roman doctrine of Poena sous tenere debet actors et
non alios means punishment belongs to the guilty, and not others. It punishes
voluntary acts and excludes involuntary acts based on less blame worthy acts like,
act of insane person or immature person. Utilitarian demands punishment for every
kind wrongful act either intended or unintended. So innocents are likely to be
punished which is harsh.
5. Retributist always treat the human being with dignity and honor by saying that
the punishment is an end in itself not means to an end. However utilitarian treat the
person either as a commodity or animal because his punishment used as means to
teach lessons to others to prevent crimes, which degrades the human value. 6.
Hallmark of retributive theory lies in its nature of mercy. Once criminal pays his
debt to the society in the form of punishment, his sin is expiated and admitted back
to mainstream of society again. This kind of philosophy is missing in the deterrent
punishment.
&
School of Law
Demerits: 1. Retributist have failed to elaborate any guidelines or principles for

proportionate punishment that makes difficult task for judges to measure
punishment for crimes.
2. Object of punishment is not only punishing the criminal but to prevent the
crime in future also. Punishment is means to an end not an end itself.
3. Kant philosophy of murder warrants death sentences as not acceptable to the

Modern civilized society. The retributive theory propagates human being feelings
that justice is most essential for sustaining legal order in society. This is what
reflected by the Indian society in Ruchika and Jessay cases.
In Ruchika’s case, the trial court pronounced six months sentences for retired DGP
of Haryana S.P. Rathore for molesting a girl of 13 years , Ruchika, who later
committed suicide. Judgment of trial court shocked the Indian civil society and
condemned it with one voice that forced the prosecution to file appeal in the High
court that enhanced the sentence to 18 months. In Jessica Lal murder case where
Manu Sharma and others murdered her in an open bar, trial court acquitted all the
accused on ground that there was no evidence. People were shocked, stunned and
criticized the judgment of the court. Delhi High Court by considering the outrages
and stunning remarks of people conducted the proceedings on daily basis and
passed sentences of life imprisonment on the accused, which is confirmed by
Supreme Court on appeal.Two cases clearly send message that people’s hunger for
justice, if not honoured, the society will not honour Criminal Law. Hart has put the
same logic in different words, “Sanctions are therefore required not as the normal
motive for obedience, but as guarantee that those who would voluntarily obey shall
not be scarified to those who would not. To obey without this, would be to risk
going to wall.
&
School of Law
Retributive theory based on the doctrine of Roman law, nulla poens sine leges and
nulla peona sine crimen which means no punishment outside the law, and no
punishment except for crime.Undue sympathy to impose inadequate punishment
would do more harm to the justice system that undermines the public confidence in
the efficacy of the law.
Sentencing process should be stern where it should be, and tempered with mercy
where it warrants to be, otherwise departure from Just desert principle results into
injustice.Any attempt to down play the importance of retributive as vengeance
concept is unfair. Retributive upholds and preserves the greater social values.
Failure to satisfy the public sense of justice may lead to loss of respect for
authority and human beings likely to take justice into their own hand that would be
reverting the clock back to primitive society
Utility theory of punishment Utilitarian believes the punishment is means to an end

and seeks to punish the offenders to discourage or deter future wrongdoing. Great
jurist Jeremy Bentham who was instrumental behind the utility theory said, “The
principal end of punishment is to prevent like offences. What is past is but one act:
the future is infinite. The offence already committed concerns only a single
individual; similar offences may affect all. In many cases it is impossible to redress
the evil that is done; but it is always possible to take away the will to repeat it; for
however great may be the advantage of the offence, the evil of the punishment may
be always made to out-weight it.”
Reduction or prevention of crime has to be ultimate object of punishment that has

to look forward not backward as presented by retributist. These theories can be
categorized as, Reformative, (corrective or therapy) Deterrent, preventive and
compensatory. Reformative theory of punishment The object of punishment has
been considerably under the process of changes from the last centuries because of
&
School of Law
the Welfare State concept. Let us give human touch to Criminal Law and reduce
the brutalities of punishment is today’s philosophy of law.24 Reformist looks at
sanction as instrument of rehabilitation and tries to mould the behavior of criminal
on the premises that criminal is not born but made by the environment of society.
Therefore, it is the responsibility of society to reform him by adopting certain
suitable methods. The increasing understanding of the social and psychological
causes of crime has led to growing emphasis on reformation rather than deterrence.
Less frequent use of imprisonment, abandonment of short sentences and attempt to
use prison as training rather than a pure punishment, and greater employment of
probation, parole and suspended sentences are evidence of reformative trend.This
approach rejects the deterrence and retributive elements of punishments and
impeccably advocates reformative approach on simple idea that, ‘we must cure our
criminal, not kill them’.
The reformative theory is reaction to the deterrent theory, which has failed to take
into consideration of the welfare of criminal. The real objection to reformation is
simply that it does not work.High hopes of reformative theory never materialized
and met with repeated failure. Reformation requires combination of too many
disciplines and their attempt has failed to deliver goods yet hunt is on for right
combination to make theory fruitful.
Researchers have concluded that no known or effective methods for reformation of

convicted criminal had been demonstrated “we know nothing about deterrent or
reformative effects of any mode or variety of treatment”.
There are number objections against reformative theory. 1. Reformative theory

expects better infrastructure and facilities in prison, proper co-ordination between
different discipline and persistent effort on their part to mould criminal. It requires
huge investments which poor country cannot afford it. 2. Millions of innocent
people who have high regards for law are finding difficult to get basic amenities
&
School of Law
postulates ethical justification for providing better facilities inside prison.30 3.

Moreover, the rationality of the theory is more towards incentives for the
commission of crime rather than prevention. 4. Reformation can work out on those
people who can be reformed, there are people who cannot be reformed like
hardcore criminal, highly educated and professional criminals. . This theory
neglects potential offenders and persons who have committed crime but not within
the arms of law. Further, it overlooks the claims of victims of crimes.. Corrupt
social environmental is responsible for crime but not individual responsibility, is
the philosophy of reformative which is hard to digest. Nevertheless, it would be
unfair to dismiss the noble concept of reformation as a total failure. All are familiar
with the instances in which unskilled, uneducated and apparently incorrigible
criminals have developed skills in prison, which have transformed them into highly
useful persons.
Deterrent theory of punishment The act that takes away the power of committing
injury is called incapapaction, is in the form of remedy operated by the fear should
be the object of punishment which is called deterrent theory. Bentham went to the
extent of depriving the criminal’s power of doing injury by awarding death
sentences. Bentham treats the committed offences as an act of past, that should be
used as opportunity of punishing the offenders in such a way that the future
offences could be prevented.35Glanville Williams says deterrence is the only
ultimate object of punishment. “Punishment (sanction) is before all things
deterrent, and the chief end of the law of crime is to make the evildoer an example
and warning to all that are like minded with him.”This kind of threat is commonly
described as ‘specific’ or ‘individual’ deterrence. Specific deterrence works in two
ways. First, an offender would be put in prison to prevent him from committing
another crime for specific period. Second, this incapacitation is designed to be so
unpleasant that it will discourage the other offender from repeating his criminal
behavior. When individual deterrence is used as means to send message across
&
School of Law
society is called ‘general’ or ‘community’ deterrence. The higher percentage of

criminal being caught and punished would enhance the credibility of sanctions.
Crime does not pay and honesty is the best policy. That is the message deterrent
theory tries to communicate to society. Once deterrent as painful sanction is
accepted, it would oppose better facilities in prison as suggested by the reformist.
Utility of deterrent theory Imprisonment as deterrent factor may provide temporary
relief as long as criminal is inside the prison because motive of crime cannot be
destructed by fear factor. Sanction as pain some time produces ironical results. It is
thought that punishment would deter offenders, in reality it hardens the criminals
because once criminals accustomed with punishment, deterrence loses its strength
on such criminals.
Under these circumstances, reliance on rehabilitation and prison reformation

would give better result. The most effective deterrent punishment is death
sentences, where as imprisonment has not only deterrent value but reformative
also. The strongest criticism against deterrent is that it has failed to reduce crimes.
Should it be given up? The conclusions are based on the percentage of crime rate
which are available. The tragedy of deterrent theory is that number of criminals it
has failed to deter measures its efficacy but not by number it has in fact deterred.38
The classic illustration from earlier times is the number of pickpockets went up
when people gathered to watch public hanging of pickpocketers.
It is difficult to collect the data of persons who have deterred. The success of
Deterrent theory can be measured by taking into consideration of data when there
is breakdown of law and order. Just consider the number of crimes committed
aftermath Indira Gandhi assassination. Same thing happened in Gujarat when the
Godhra incidence took communal shape which led to break down of law and order.
Therefore, the question in case of pickpocketers is not how many pickpockets exist
in spite of the penalty against them, but how many more would have been there
&
School of Law
without such penalty. Glanville Williams holds the same view by saying that how
much worse off we should be if we had no social provision for punishing evildoers.
3. The life of police and prison staff cannot be put into risk by not awarding death
sentences to danger criminals.
4. If danger criminals are not hanged, they are likely to repeat the offence after
their release.
5. Where death sentence is abolished, the crime rate is very low but that cannot be
in India.
6. Public opinion is substantially in favour of capital punishment otherwise, it leads

to lynching.
7. Imprisonment of criminals leads to problem of prison administration and

taxpayer money has to be utilized for maintenance of criminals that is unjust. 8.
Capital punishment is a painless and less cruel than life imprisonment.
There are some justifiable grounds for abolition of death sentences.
1. It is revengeful.
2. Destruction of life is not a wish of God or nature.
3. It is immoral. Society has no right to take life that is incompatible with modern
morality and human rights.
4. India believes in non-violence philosophy.
5. Death sentence is unjust for the family of offender. Irretrievable error of justice
is most practical reason for its abolition.
&
School of Law
Unlike life imprisonment, executed death sentences would not give opportunity to
judiciary to correct its error of judgment. In the late 1990s, a powerful new
challenge to death penalty emerged the risk of executing innocent people. Aided
particularly by the availability of DNA testing, more than 116 death row prisoners
have been exonerated (declared to be not guilty) and realized from prison from
1977 to 2004 in USA.44 This information leads to the logic that some other
innocent might have been executed. Abolitionist of death sentence encases on this.
The main reason for earlier day’s death sentences is lack of prison infrastructure.
With arrival of means and facilities to confine criminals indefinitely, even for life,
abolitionist started questioning ethical proprietary of death sentences and right of
society to take life in order to protect life.
Many experts have questioned whether a capital punishment has any greater
deterrent value than a sentence of life in prison without parole. When criminals are
sentenced for life, long sentences inside the prison without liberty, luxurious
comfort, isolated from family, friends, and society that would be more ideal painful
deterrence than death. Inconsistency in awarding death sentences strengths the
argument of abolitionist. USA Supreme Court in Furman v. Georgia by
highlighting these remarks and suspended death sentences in 1972. It is worth to
quote Justice William Doughlas Words, It is the poor, the sick, the ignorant, the
powerless, and the hated who are executed…[The law] leaves to the uncontrolled
discretion of judges and juries the determination of whether defendants committing
these crimes should die or be imprisoned…These discretionary statutes are
unconstitutional.
Indian Supreme Court has laid down that death sentences would be given in ‘rarest
of rare cases.’ Further Court held that the judges discretionary power to impose the
death sentences, are well guided by the Indian Penal Code, Indian Evidence Act
and Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 which do not offend Articles 14 and 21 of
the Constitution. Yet people’s mind is not free from the fact that it is judges who
&
School of Law
decide between life and death of criminals because even in similar cases there is
different findings.
In Dhanjay’s case who raped and killed a 14 year girl was given death sentence. In
State of Maharashtra v. Mansing, the accused who had committed rape and
murder of 8 year minor girl was awarded life imprisonment by Supreme
Court.48In another similar case, the Supreme Court awarded life imprisonment.
Abolitionist maintains that death sentences statistics reveal that criminal justice
system disproportionately singles out least advantaged members of society for
execution. Those who are wealthier, more educated and more socially connected
rarely, if ever, receive death penalty; in their view the message is actually
conveyed that there are two standards of justice. Certainty of punishment is much
more important than the severity of punishment otherwise death sentences would
not have the desired result. Factors like appeal, revision, mercy petition and delay
in execution of death have diminished the deterrence of death and ultimately
became Constitutional grounds for converting the death sentences to life
imprisonment.50Another ground against death sentences is that, it is carried in
private and relatively low number of execution that lessens the deterrence value of
punishment. Counter argument is that, it is in fact the result of abolitionist’s
opposition. State tries to satisfy the opponents of death sentences. Hence, it is
executing privately and rarely. Bentham justifies death sentences in extraordinary
occasions like civil wars. When life itself is at risk, any threat of lesser sanction
and confinement is unlikely to have any great impact on the soldier tempted to
save his life by deserting the battle of war field.
Terrorist incidence, like 9/11 and 26/11 demand nothing shorter than death
sentences.America’s 2/3rd population supported the death sentences.54 India has
not abolished death sentences even though it has signed the International
Covenants on Political and Civil Rights. Proponents of death sentences believe that
the law should place less value on the life of convicted murder than on victim.
&
School of Law
Indian Law Commission observed, “[A]rgument that may be valid in respect of

other countries may not necessarily be valid for India. Unlike Western Countries,
education, prosperity, homogeneity and viability are sadly absent in many parts of
India. Punishment should bear a just proportion to the crime. Therefore, capital
punishment is only punishment for those who have deliberately violated the
sanctity of human life”.
Further, it said, even if the principle of abolition is accepted the time is not yet ripe
in India. Law Commission concluded that State has every right to execute certain
violent criminals in order to uphold and preserve greater social value. Failure to
satisfy the public sense of justice may lead to loss of respect to authority of law.
Preventive theory of punishment Even utilitarian like Bentham advocated the
preventive remedies which tend to prevent offences.That some individual need to
be restrained is hardly debatable proposition. Even staunchest advocate of the
reformation theory would not contend that a convicted unreformed dangerous
criminal ought to be without restraint while he is being reformed.
The target of sanction as incapacitation is criminal himself and protection comes

by physically separating criminal from the victim and potential victim that denies
him ability and an opportunity to commit further crime. Preventive philosophy is
the best mode of punishment because it serves as effective deterrent and also useful
preventive measures. The effective of preventive theory much depends upon
promptness and proportion factors.58The delay in inquires or investigation by the
public authority makes sanction ineffective. The effectiveness of sanction is further
scaled down as courts grants bail to accused on the ground that accused presumed
to be innocent until guilt is proved. There is considerable dispute, as to who should
be restrained and how long. Confinement should involve the least restraint needed
to furnish reasonable protection against crime.
&
School of Law
The naked truth is that protection can never be absolute. Certain amount of crime is
inevitable and society must take chance against them. Effective incapacitate
depends upon various factors like, criminal’s history, background, and personality.
In spite of all these things it is not possible to predict accurately whether or not a
particular criminal will repeat crime. Incapacitation should not be disproportionate,
wasteful and expensive restraint is either permanent or is coupled with a
meaningful rehabilitative program imprisonment will not restrain criminal conduct,
but will merely postpone it
Incapacitation affects ability and an opportunity to commit criminal act, but has no
influence on emotional and criminal intent and expectation of profit. Therefore,
incapacitation is being temporary than permanent. Compensatory theory of
punishment The criminal justice system is incomplete is the major allegation made
by the victims of crime, which is in fact true. The entire focus of the criminal
justice system is on the offender, to punish him or to seek his reformation and
rehabilitation with all the resources and goodwill available through courts and
other governmental and nongovernmental agencies.62The victims of crimes are, on
the other hand, forgotten people in the system. President Gerald R. Ford sent the
following message to the American Congress in 1975,
“For too long, the law has centered its attention more on the rights of the criminal
than on the victims of the crime. It is high time we reversed this trend and put the
highest priority on the victims and potential victims” Compensation to victim of
crime rests primarily on two grounds. Firstly, a criminal who inflicted injury
against persons or property must compensate for the loss, and second, a State that
failed to protect victim must pay compensation to him. The United Nation General
Assembly in 1985 adopted the declaration known as “Basic Principles of Justice
for victims of Crime and Abuse of power” which is called as Magna Carta of
&
School of Law
Rights of victims.64 Principle 9 of the declaration provides “Government should

review their practices regulations and laws to consider restitution as an available
sentencing option in criminal cases in addition to other criminal sanctions.” Such a
duty of State towards victims is more explicitly stated under the European
Convention on the Compensation of Victims of Violent Crimes.
Article 2 of the Convention says, “When compensation is not fully available from
other sources the State shall contribute to compensate”. Such compensation is to be
awarded even if the offender cannot be prosecuted or punished. Jeremy Bentham
also recognized that compensatory remedies should be object of criminal justice,
which he called it as satisfactory remedies. Potential offender pays compensation
along with ill-gotten gain that would variably kill the motive of committing crime.
COMPENSATION therefore is of the essence of true deterrent, reformation and a
necessary condition of retribution.
Section of 357(1) of Criminal Procedure Code 1973 (CrPC) empowers court to

grant amount to victim of the offence out of fine imposed as part of the sentence.
Under section 357(3) of CrPC, court may nevertheless order accused person to pay
a certain sum of compensation to victim where no fine is imposed as part of
sentence. Compensation is payable to victim of the crime only when fine is not
imposed as part of sentence which is unfair because amount of fine is meager
compare to the compensation.
Moreover, incurred expenses of prosecution are deducted from the fine and
remaining amount is paid to victim of crime, therefore, victim gets small amount
that would not amount to justice. Courts have generally restored to sentence of fine
in addition to imprisonment but compensation provision is invoked seldom
because power is discretionary. Further, there is injustice, when ordered payment
of compensation is not complied by accused; there is no provision in law for
imposing penalty for such non-compliance. On the other hand, non-payment of
&
School of Law
fine may lead to extension of period of imprisonment. The Supreme Court in

Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab observed that if the accused is in a position to pay
the compensation to the injured, there could be no reason for the court not directing
such compensation. The Supreme Court in Delhi domestic working women’s
forum v. Union of India and others, made remarkable direction to the National
Commission for Women to draft scheme under which victim of rape would be
given compensation even though accused is not convicted. The same should be
sent to Union of India for its implementation within six months. Again, Supreme
Court highlighted the pathetic conditions of victim of crime in State of Gujarat and
another v.Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat.Justice Thomas held that Restorative and
reparative theories deserves serious consideration, victim of crime or his family
members should be compensated from the wages earned in prison by the
perpetrator. The court suggested the State to enact a comprehensive legislation in
respect of compensation payable to victim of crime.
Section 357 of CrPC has not proved to be much effective. Many persons who are
sentenced to long-term imprisonment do not pay compensation and instead they
choose to continue in jail in default thereof. Justice Wadhwa said, “Criminal
justice would look hollow if justice is not done to the victim of the crime. A victim
of crime cannot be “forgotten man” in the criminal justice system. It is he who has
suffered the most. His family is ruined particularly in case of death and other
bodily injuries. An honor which is lost or life which is snuffed out cannot be
recompensed but then compensation will at least provide some solace”. Time has
come for legislator to act on these directions, enact comprehensive legislation and
provide a security to victim of crime. In recent years, European and North
American Nations have enacted legislations to protect the interest of crime victim.
Law Commission of India said, “Victim is fortunate if he gets compensation or
even his expenses” and observed that, “Reparation to the victim of an offence has
been receiving increased attention in recent times. In part, this is due to a
&
School of Law
realization that mere punishment of the offender though it may exhaust the primary
function of the criminal law, is not total fulfillment of the role of law”.It further
recommended that Indian Penal Code should be amended by inserting
compensation provision. Malimath Committee on reformation of criminal justice
system said “system being heavily dependent on the victim, criminal justice has
been concerned with the offender and his interest almost subordinate or
disregarding the interest of victim”.74It added that increased victim satisfaction
would, in effect, enhance the efficiency of the Criminal Justice System.
&
School of Law

Ipc PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ipc PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies

Paper Code :205

GENERAL INTRODUCTION NATURE AND DEFINITION OF CRIME I.

II. DISTINCTION BETWEEN MORAL, CIVIL AND CRIMINAL WRONGS In

any question or give an explanation. However, under the Continental Laws an

a particular offence is recognised as a reason for increasing the severity of the

practice of untouchability or forced labour or marrying below a certain age and so

cannot be considered disgraceful," a view which has even received legislative

which a prosecution cannot be initiated by any private person without the

attempt, conspiracy or even some cases of preparation, which we have discussed at

CONSTITUENT ELEMENTS OF CRIME ELEMENTS OF A CRIME The two

Intention: To intend is to have in mind a fixed purpose to reach a desired objective;

to motive. Motive is something which prompts a man to form an intention.

Paper Code :205

150 years ago, during colonialism, an enthusiastic Macaulay proposed a right of

Private Defence: Meaning And Types

Nature Of The Right

Private Defence In The Indian Legal

• It is available against the aggressor only, and

• If the deceased was the actual assailant, and

Secondly-The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other

• Against the acts of a public servant; and

Secondly-Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous

Thirdly- An assault with the intention of committing rape;

Fourthly- An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;

Fifthly- An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;

Sixthly- An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under

Seventhly – an act of throwing acid or attempting to throw acid.

Section102 is very important as it deals with the commencement and continuance of

The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable

Section105 prescribes the commencement and continuance of the right of private

The Right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable apprehension

• The right of private defence of property against criminal trespass or mischief

Evolution of the Right of Private Defence

Private Defence In Various Legal

• Accused does not provoke difficulty, and

On the other hand Glanville Williams’ analysis of the elements is more

• The force is threatened against the person,

• Requirement of reasonableness (a reasonable and honest belief is essential),

Judicial View on Private Defence

Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab[xxi]

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

4. The right of private defense commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension

Yogendra Moraji v. State[xxiv]

Nand Kishore Lal v. Emperor[xxv]

Mohinder Pal Jolly v. State of Punjab[xxvi]

Mithu Pandey v. State[xxvii]

Jassa Singh v. State of Haryana[xxviii]

The defence is allowed only when it is immediately necessary-against threatened

[xxi] Criminal Appeal 1057 of

[xxiv] AIR 1980 SC 660.

[xxv] AIR 1924 Pat 789.

[xxvi] AIR 1979 SC 577.

[xxvii] 1967 CrLJ 102 (Pat).

[xxviii] 2002 CrLJ 563(SC).

The Criminal Defense of Intoxication

Intoxication is a defense available to criminal defendants on the basis that,

Involuntary intoxication occurs when someone is tricked into consuming a

If a charged crime is a specific intent crime, meaning that the criminal

Involuntary intoxication can also be a defense to a general intent crime if the

Establishing a defense of voluntary intoxication is much more difficult than

Unlike involuntary intoxication, voluntary intoxication is never a defense to a