‘Culpable Homicide’

Meaning:
Culpable =criminal.
Homicide = the killing of a human being by a human being.
Murder:
This word is derived from the Germanic word “Morth” which means secret killing. It is crept into English law. Murder and Manslaughter are thus
defined in English law: “It is murder for a person of sound memory and discretion unlawfully to kill any human creature-in-being and under the
Queen’s peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied by law, provided the person killed dies of the injury inflicted within a year and a
day after the same.”
Culpable Homicide
Sec. 299 defines “Culpable Homicide”. There are three Explanations and three Illustrations appended to Sec. 299, which clarify the definition.
Sec. 299. Culpable homicide:
Distinction between Culpable homicide (Sec. 299) and Murder (Sec. 300)
Culpable Homicide (S.299)
1. A person commits culpable homicide, if the act by which the death is caused is done:
Intention
a) With the intention of causing death;
b) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death Knowledge
c) With the knowledge that he is likely to cause death
2. Culpable homicide is the genus and generic term.
3. There is intention, but the intention may or may not exist. Even if exists it is not so much stronger as is evident in murder.
4. Intention to kill can be the number and nature of wounds or injuries on the body of the deceased, for example, if one dies with beatings received
twice with fists on head, it is a culpable homicide.
5. Less serious when compared with murder.
Murder (S.300)
1. Subject to certain exceptions, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which death is caused is done:
1) With the intention of causing death;
2) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused
3) With the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death;
4) With the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death and without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as is mentioned above.
2. Murder is a species.
3. There is strong intention to kill this person (victim). Generally, there shall be a plan to kill.
4. The wounding is a serious one through by stabbing with knife several times, it amounts to murder.
5. More serious than culpable homicide. It is an aggravated form of culpable homicide.
 [1] State v Rayavarapu Punnayya (1976) 4 SCC 382
[2] R  v Govinda ILR 1 Bom 342
[3] State v Daniel 1971 Ker LJ 182
[4] Rajwant Singh v State AIR 1966 SC 1874
[5] Supra note 1

Legal Provisions Regarding “Robbery” – Section 390 of IPC

“Robbery”. It explains that in all robbery there is either theft or extortion. Sec. 390. Robbery In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery:
Theft is “robbery” if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property
obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of
instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
When extortion is robbery:
Extortion is “robbery” if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion
by putting that person in fear of instant death, or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person, or to some other person, and, by so
putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
Explanation:
The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, or of instant hurt, or of instant Wrongful
restraint.
Illustrations:
(a) A holds Z down, and fraudulently takes Z’s money and jewels from Z’s clothes, without Z’s consent. Here A has committed theft, and, in order to
the committing of that theft, has voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to Z. A has therefore committed robbery.
(b) A meets Z on the high road, shows a pistol, and demands Z’s purse. Z, in consequence, surrenders his purse. Here A has extorted the purse
from Z by putting him in fear of instant hurt, and being at the time of committing the extortion in his presence. A has therefore committed robbery.
(c) A meets Z and Z’s child on the high road. A takes the child, and threatens to fling it down a precipice, unless Z delivers his purse. Z, in
consequence, delivers his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z, by causing Z to be in fear of instant hurt to the child who is there present. A
has therefore committed robbery on Z.
Sikander Kumar vs. State [1998 (3) Crimes 69 Delhi HC]
Omprakash vs. State (1978 CrLJ 797 All.)
Narayan Prasad vs. State of M.P. (AIR 2006 SC 204)
Difference between “Robbery” and “Extortion”
Robbery:
1. Extortion + presence of the offender + fear of instant violence + immediate delivery of the property. Robbery is the aggravated form of extortion
2. Robbery may be converted into dacoity, if the number of persons is increased to five.
3. Punishment is higher than Extortion.
4. Punishment: 10 to 14 years and also fine.
Extortion:
1. Extortion is the aggravated form of theft. It may change into Robbery under certain circumstances. (Sec. 390)
2. Extortion includes blackmailing.
3. Punishment is lower than Robbery.
4. Punishment: 3 years and/or fine.
Define kidnapping. How does it differ from abduction?
Abduction and Kidnapping are particular types of offences under the Indian Penal Code. A person is taken away in secret or with use of force
without his or her consent or without the consent of his guardian.
Kidnapping means stealing away of a man, woman, or child from their own country, and sending them into another. [1] The literal meaning of
kidnapping is “child stealing” and it has been given a wider connotation than its literal meaning. The major ingredient of kidnapping is that it involves
taking away of a person without his/her consent or the consent of the lawful guardian.
Kidnapping, according to Walker, is the common name for the common law offence of carrying away, or secreting, of any person against his will, or
against the will of his lawful guardians.
In common language the meaning of abduction is forcibly or fraudulently carrying away of a person. Abduction has been defined as the illegal act of
taking away a person by force, fraud or violence.
 In Bahadur Ali v. King Emperor[2] , the court held that where the accused represented himself as a police constable and kept the girl in his
possession in his own house for a ransom of Rs. 600, such an act is the offence of abduction.
 In Gurucharan Singh v. State of Haryana [3] , the prosecutrix was threatened with a pistol by the accused and forced to go with him, such
taking away was held to be abduction.
Basis Kidnapping Abduction
Kidnapping is classified in Section 359 into two categories and
Definition to the offence of Abduction is given under Section
Provision is defined in Section 360 and 361 which relates to Kidnapping
362 of the Indian Penal Code.
from India and Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship.
The offence of kidnapping relates to taking away of minors and
Age The offence of Abduction is in respect of all persons.
people of unsound mind.
Kidnapping is an offence which involves taking away or enticing Abduction involves taking away of a person by fraud or by
Means Employed
of a person. force.
Intention of the person is of no significance. Once it is Intention plays a major role in the offence of abduction. A
Intention established that that taking away either outside India or outside person is punishable only if abduction is done with an ill
the lawful guardianship is present, it amounts to kidnapping. intent or criminal intent.
Kidnapping is a substantial offence and is punishable under Abduction is merely an auxiliary act and is not punishable
Nature of Offence
Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code. unless it is done with a criminal intent.
Consent of the person who is taken outside the custody of Consent given by the person who is taken, takes the act out
Consent
lawful guardian is immaterial. of the purview of abduction.
The offence of abduction involves forcibly or fraudulently
Once a person is taken out of the country or outside the custody
Completion of the Offence taking of a person from one place to another, hence it is a
of lawful guardian, the offence of kidnapping is complete.
continuing offence.

(RAPE) Section 375 in The Indian Penal Code

1[375. Rape. —A man is said to commit “rape” who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under
circumstances falling under any of the six following descriptions: —
(First) — Against her will.
(Secondly) —Without her consent.
(Thirdly) — With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of
hurt.
(Fourthly) —With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is
another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.
(Fifthly) — With her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by
him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that
to which she gives consent.
(Sixthly) — With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. Explanation. —Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual
intercourse necessary to the offence of rape.
(Exception) —Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.] STATE AMENDMENT
Mohd. Zuber Noor Mohammed Changwadia v. State of Gujarat, 1999 Cr LJ 3419 (Guj). Penetration Mere absence of spermatozoa cannot cast
a doubt on the correctness of the prosecution case
Prithi Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1989) Cr LJ 841: AIR 1989 SC 702.
After 3 February 2013, the definition was revised through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013, which also raised the legal age of minor to
eighteen.[23]
§375. A man is said to commit "rape" if he:–– (a) penetrates his penis, to any extent, into the vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a woman or makes
her to do so with him or any other person; or (b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the
urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or (c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause
penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or (d) applies his
mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, under the circumstances falling under any of the
following seven descriptions:
Firstly. –– Against her will.
Secondly. –– Without her consent.
Thirdly. –– With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of
hurt.
Fourthly. –– With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is
another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married.
Fifthly. –– With her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him
personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome Substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to
which she gives consent.
Sixthly. –– With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age.
Seventhly. –– When she is unable to communicate consent.
Explanation 1. –– For the purposes of this section, "vagina" shall also include labia majora.
Explanation 2. –– Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the woman by words, gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal
communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific sexual act;

What is the difference between "Wrongful Restraint" and "Wrongful Confinement"?

A. Wrongful restraint:
The expression “Wrongful restraint” implies keeping a man out of a place where he wishes and has a right to be. Section 339 defines it thus:
“Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed
is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
To cite an illustration. A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass, B not believing in good faith that he has a right to stop the path, Z is
thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z. Similarly, B threatens to set a savage dog at Z if Z goes along a path along which Z has a
right to go. Z is thus prevented from going along that path. B wrongfully restrains Z.
B. Wrongful confinement:
Section 340 lays down that whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain
circumscribing limits, said “wrongfully to confine” that person.
To cite an illustration, A causes Z to go within a walled space, and locks Z in. Z is thus prevented from proceeding in any direction beyond the
circumscribing line of the wall.
A wrongfully confines Z. Similarly, A places men with firearms at the outlets of a building, and tells Z that they will fire at Z if Z attempts to leave the
building. A wrongfully confines 2

Difference between wrongful confinement and wrongful restraint:

As regards difference between the two, wrongful confinements, in the first place, is a form of wrongful restraint. It is keeping a man-within limits out
of which he wishes to go and has a right to go while wrongful restraint is keeping a man out of a place where he wishes to go, and has a right to be.
In the second place, in wrongful confinement a person is restrained from moving beyond a certain area within which he is confined, but in wrongful
restraint he is free to move anywhere other than to proceed in a particular direction.
Force:
Section 349 defines ‘force’ thus: “A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion to that
other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or charge of motion, cessation of motion as brings that substance into contract with any part of
that other’s body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contract affects that other’s sense
of feeling:
Criminal force:
Section 350 defines “criminal force”. It says: “Whoever intentionally uses force to any person without that person’s consent, in order to the
committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury,
fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.”
(i) Assault and Criminal Force:
An assault is something less than the use of criminal force, the force being cut short before that blow actually falls. It seems to consist in an attempt
or offer by a person having present ability with force to do any hurt of violence to the person of another. And it is committed whenever well founded
apprehension of immediate peril from a force already partially or fully put in motion is created.
(ii) Assault and Affray:
(1) Assault may take place either in a public place or private, but an affray must always be committed in a public place. (2) Assault is an offence
against the public peace. (3) Assault may be committed even by one person but an affray must be committed by two or more persons. (4) In the
case of an assault the punishment provided is slightly higher than that provided in the cause of an affray.
(iii) Assault and Insult:
(1) In the case of insult the law makes punishable the insulting provocation which, under ordinary circumstances, would cause a breach of the
peace to be committed. (S. 504). An assault, however, need not be intended to cause a breach of the peace.
(2) Mere words do not amount to an assault; something more than mere words are needed. It is the words which a person uses that may give to his
gestures or preparations such a meaning as may make those gestures or preparations amount to an assault. Insult may, however, be by mere
words.

Criminal Misappropriation and Criminal Breach of Trust

Section 403 and 404, IPC relate to the criminal misappropriation of property. Section 403 defines criminal misappropriation and prescribes the
punishment for the offence and section 404 deals with misappropriation of a deceased person’s property.
Section 403 of The Indian Penal Code – Dishonest misappropriation of property.
Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
Illustrations
(a) A takes property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession, in good faith, believing, at any time when he takes it, that the property belongs to himself.
A is not guilty of theft; but if A, after discovering his mistake, dishonestly appropriates the property to his own use, he is guilty of an offence under
this section.
(b) A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z’s library in Z’s absence, and takes away a book without Z’s express consent. Here, if A was under
the impression that he had Z’s implied consent to take the book for the purpose of reading it, A has not committed theft. But, if A afterwards sells the
book for his own benefit, he is guilty of an offence under this section.
It has been held that the word ‘dishonestly’ and ‘misappropriate’ are necessary ingredients of an offence under section 403. Any dispute being
about the recovery of money is purely of civil nature. Hence a criminal complaint regarding such a matter is not maintainable, U. Dhar vs State of
Jharkhand, AIR 2003 SC 974.
The words ’converts to his own use’ necessarily connote the use or dealing with the property in derogation of the rights of the owner; Ramaswami
Nadar vs State of Madras, AIR 1958 SC 56.
Ingredients
1. The property must be movable property.
2. Such property was in possession of the diseased at the time of his death.
3. The accused misappropriated it or converted into his own use.
4. The accused did so dishonesty.
The offence is non-cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable and triable by magistrate of the first class.
Criminal Breach of Trust
Section 405 IPC defines criminal breach of trust. It states that in order to constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust, it must be established that
the accused was entrusted with property or with dominion or power over the property of another and that that he dishonestly misappropriated it or
converted it to his own use.
“Entrustment” means handling over the property by one person to the another person in such a manner so that the person on whose behalf the
property is handed over continuous to be owner. [Surendra Pal Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 All 122] The word entrusted in the
section is very important unless there is entrustment, there can be no offence under the section. [Ramaswami Nadar v. State of Madras, AIR
1958 SC 56]
Section 405 IPC requires doing of something with respect to property which would indicate either misappropriation or conversion or its use or
disposal in contravention of any legal contract, express or implied. A mere dispute of civil nature will not attract the provisions of this section.
[Mohammed Sulaiman vs Mohammed Ayub, AIR 1965 SC 1319]
Difference between Criminal Misappropriation and Criminal Breach of Trust
In criminal misappropriation, the property comes into possession of the accused in some natural manner.  Whereas in criminal breach of trust the
property comes in possession of the accused either by an express entrustment or by some process.
Cheating– (Section 415, Indian Penal Code, 1860)
(ii) A takes money from various persons, who are applicants for motor driving licences, and procures licences without the necessity of
their undergoing any test by attaching forged certificates to their applications. What offence has been committed by A?
(iii) A debtor sent to his creditor a postal cover insured for Rs. 70. The creditor took delivery after signing the postal receipt but the cover
when opened contained seven one rupee notes and four blank sheets. The debtor also called upon the creditor to give credit for Rs. 70
sent by insured cover. What offence has the debtor committed?
(iv) A, an auditor, represented to B that he (A) wanted Rs. 7,000 to be given as bribe to the Income-tax Officer for avoiding assessment of
B to Excess Profits Tax. B paid the amount to A. He was not assessed to the tax. Subsequently, he found that A had not paid the money
to the Income-Tax Officer.
(i) Cheating:
Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonesty induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent
that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit
if he was not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or
property, is said to “cheat”. (S. 415).
Explanation:
A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section (Section 415) (one year with or without fine).
The essential ingredients of the offence are: (1) deception of any person and (2)(a) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person (i) to deliver any
property to any person, or (ii) to consent that any person shall retain any property; or (b) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do
anything which he would not do, etc.
The ingredients required to constitute the offence of cheating are: (1) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by deceiving
him; (2)(a) The person so deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property;
or (b) The person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived;
and (3) In cases covered by (2)(b) the act or omission should be one which causes or likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in
body, mind, reputation or property. (Ram Jus v. State of U.P., 11 S.C. J. 264).
Illustrations:
(a) A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service intentionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit goods for
which he does not mean to pay.
(b) A, by exhibiting to Z, a false sample of an article, intentionally deceives Z into believing that the article corresponds with the sample, and thereby
dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats,
(c) A, by pledging as diamonds articles which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and hereby dishonestly induces Z to lend
money.
Illustration (f) to S. 415, I.P.C. reads:
“A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him
money, A not intending to repay it A cheats.” On its plain language it is manifest from illustration (0 to S. 415 I.P.C. that what is material is the
intention of the drawer at the time the cheque is issued, and the intention has to be gathered from the facts on the record.
Where the accused paid the price of the property purchased by cheque, there would be an implied representation that the cheque is a good and
valid order for payment of the amount and that the cheque would be paid when presented for payment.
If from the circumstances it is established that the failure to meet a cheque was not accidental but was the consequence expected by the accused,
the presumption would be that the accused intended to cheat. (Bhola Nath Arora v. The State, 1982 Cri. L.J. 1482, Delhi) [Also see Ke- shavji
Madhvji v. Emperor, A.I.R. 1930 Bom. 179, Ajodhya Prasad v. Chiranjilal, A.I.R. 1957 All. 246 and Shantilal v. State, A.I.R. 1956 Madh. Bha. 19].