I. Common Intention: sec.

34
1. Substantive Rule
Suresh v. State of Uttar Pradesh: 3 conditions need to be fulfilled
i. A criminal act by several persons: Barendra Kumar Ghosh
v. King Emperor, the term “criminal act” must be read alongside
sec. 33 of the IPC where the term “act” is defined as inclusive of
a “series of acts”. Therefore, sec. 34 deals with separate acts,
similar or diverse, by several persons, if all are done in
furtherance of the common intention of all.
ii. The criminal act must be done in furtherance of the
common intention of all:
- Pre-arranged plan: Mahboob Shah v. Emperor,
Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad.
- Distinct from similar intention: Mahboob shah and
Pandurang
- May develop during the course of the occurrence and
could develop on the spot: Pandurang case
iii. There must be participation by all persons
- For violent crimes presence is necessary, for non-
violent crimes, it is not necessary: Desai v. State of
Bombay, Shreekantiah v. State of Bombay.
2. Standard of evidence
i. Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad: circumstantial evidence
can be resorted to in order to prove common intention,
however the inference drawn out of the evidence ought to be
a necessary inference which conclusively determines that the
accused shared a common intention.
ii. The conduct of the parties both before and after the
commission of the act is relevant in order to draw the
inference: Pandurang.
 II. Common Object: sec. 149
1. Difference between common object and common intention
i. Actus reus:
34- participation.
149- membership.
ii. Mens rea
34- common intention.
149- common object.
2. Cases
i. Mizaji and others v. State of UP
Since the act of shooting was done in the prosecution of the common object of the unlawful
assembly, that is to take control over the land, the whole assembly will be held liable. The
members of the assembly were ready to use all means necessary in order to take possession of
the land and further, were in possession of lethal weapons.
ii. Bhimrao v. State of Maharashtra
37 people went outside a man’s Home, their object was to simply assault him. However, a
few entered the man’s house and killed him. The whole 37 people are not laible under 149 as
their common object was to simply assault, the other man adopted a different common object
and killed the man.
iii. Masalti v. state of UP
Gang war between 2 village factions. Few of the men in one faction shot some members of
the other faction dead. Court convicted the faction guilty as the common object was to kill the
members of the other faction.
III. Mistake of fact
1. Cases
i. State of Orissa v. Bhagaban Barik
The accused and deceased had strained relationship over cattle-grazing. The deceased had
one day gone to the pond to fetch his bell metal utensils. The accused gave him a lathi blow.
The accused raised the plea that his own utensils had earlier been stolen and suspecting the
deceased to be a thief hit him. The court applied the “good-faith test” to reach the conclusion
that the accused had not taken the necessary due care and caution, and therefore could not
employ the defense under 79.
 ii. Chaman Lal v. Emperor
Under sec. 76, an accused cannot be held liable if such an accused was bound by law to
perform an act. Therefore, the actions of a subordinate fulfilling the orders of his/her senior
generally fall under sec. 76. However, in order to gain the benefit of sec. 76, the accused must
either demonstrate that the order given by the superior was :
- Legal, or;
- The circumstances made him, in good faith, believe
that the orders were legal and he was bound by law to
obey them.
In this case, prison officials mercilessly beat and tortured a few convicts, their actions lead to
the death of 2 prisoners. The court was of the opinion that in light of the circumstances of the
case, the order given by the superior officer was manifestly illegal and therefore ought not to
be complied with. Hence, the defence of 76 cannot be raised.
iii. Waryam Singh v. Emperor (honest belief)
A man went with his wife to the cemetery. The man spotted a ghostily figure and
immediately attacked it. The man had various superstitions and no motive to kill the
deceased. Court gave him the benefit of sec. 79.
iv. Bonda Kui v. Emperor
Saw sister-in-law dancing naked with a broomstick, woman killed her. Defence granted.
v. Chirangi v. state
Thought son is tiger, killed sun. comment: should have been brought under insanity and not
79.
vi. Ram Bahadur Thapa v. state of Orissa
Passing though an aerodrome notorious for ghost related activities. Saw a will-o-wisp and
attacked people. Killed those people.
vii. DPP v. Morgan
A man after heavy drinking invited his 3 friends to have sexual intercourse with his wife. The
man had told the other three men that his wife would scream and protest however, all of it
was in order to sexually arouse her. The men went in and dragged the wife and raped her. She
also sustained injuries in the process. The court held that “an honest though mistaken belief
of consent” would be a defence to rape, nonetheless convicted the three men.
Note: Not applicable in India as section 79 requires the honest belief to be “genuine”, such a
genuine belief implies that due care and caution has been taken.
IV. Unsound mins
i. M’Naghten rules
The house of lords in M’Naghten laid down the following 3 rules
a) There exists a presumption of sanity
b) At the time of committing the particular act, it must be shown that the
person was so insane as to as not to know the nature of the act, or if
he/she did know it, or did not know that the act was contrary to law or
wrong.
 c) The test for unsoundness of mind lies in the ability to distinguish between
right and wrong, such a test does not apply in abstract, but in regard to the
particular act committed.
ii. Sec. 84 implies that in order to raise the defence of insanity, a person
must evince that he was in an unsound state of mind, and due to such
an unsound state of mind was incapable of knowing the nature of the
act; or that the act was wrong or contrary to law
iii. Unsound mind: the state where the cognitive faculty of the accused is
diminished to such an extent that he is incapable of knowing the
nature of the act, or what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law.
iv. Ashiruddin Ahmad v. King
A man killed his 5 years old son as sacrifice to god. He had a dream that he was in heaven,
and god had commanded him to sacrifice his son. The accused claim the defence under sec
84. The court held that to to take the defence of section 84, the accused has to fulfil any of the
following three conditions
a) He was incapable of knowing the nature of the act.
b) He was incapable of knowing that the act was contrary to law.
c) He was incapable of knowing that the act was “wrong”.
The court held that the man did not fulfill the first two conditions but only fulfilled the third
conditions, hence by virtue of fulfilling one of the conditions, he can take the defence of sec.
84.
Note: in Lakshmi v. state, the decision of Ashiruddin Ahmed was overturned. The reason is
described in the following text
v. Lakshmi v. State
A man was addicted to Ganja and wine. He regularly used to extort money from his relatives
and used to hit his mother and wife. To prevent him form doing so, the deceased chained him
up however the accused escaped. He later came and killed the deceased. The court declared
that the decision laid down in Ashiruddin was bad law. It was held that the aforementioned
decision had ignored the term “incapability”. The court distinguished between “knowing” and
the “capability to know”. It was held that capability corresponded to potentiality, while
actually knowing was a consequence of it. The court held that only when the cognitive
faculty and reasoning of a person, have been diminished to such an extent that the person is
incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that the act is wrong, or contrary to law, can the
defence of 84 be raised.
vi. Shri Ram v. State of Maharashtra
A grandfather killed his grand-daughters. He had been getting fits of lunacy and was unable
to sleep for a long time. The court held that the defense would be given to him, noting that
the accused had no motive to kill.
vii. Durham v. United States
Declaring that the accused suffered from mental insanity is not enough, it has to be proved
that the act could not be committed if the person was not suffering through insanity.
V. Irresistible impulses
I. Smith case
Uncontrollable impulses should be as such as to overcome the cognition and the faculty of
reasoning with an individual so as to deprive the person with the power to choose.
(differentiated between irresistible impulses and insanity)
iii. R v. Byrne
A man killed and mutilated a young girl. He claim that he was a sexual psychopath and had
unnatural urges since he was a child. These urges were irresistible and could not be controlled
by him. The court held that irresistible urges do not constitute insanity and hence the accused
cannot get complete defense. However, there must exist diminished responsibility under the
Homicide Act of 1957
iv. Srikant Anand Rao v. State of Maharashtra
Man killed his wife while she was washing clothes in the washroom. The man was suffering
through paranoid schizophrenia. The court declared that to get benefit of sec. 84, standard of
evidence is balance of probabilities. Factors such as murder in broad day-light, no motive, no
attempt to run, etc., along with the fact that the accused was suffering through the disease
show that the case was not a case of extreme anger but, insanity.
VI. Intoxication
1. Section 85 and 86 of the IPC deal with intoxication
i. 85- if a person is intoxicated without his knowledge or against his
will, such a person cannot be held liable for an offence if by virtue
of the intoxication, he is not able to understand the nature of the act
or whether the act is wrong or contrary to law.
ii. 86- for crimes which require special knowledge or intent, an
intoxicated person shall be presumed to possess the same level of
knowledge had he not been drunk, if he was intoxicated without his
will or knowledge. Note: intention shall not be presumed here.
2. Section 86 has two exceptions
i. Offences requiring specific intention
ii. Intoxication leading to insanity.
3. Cases
i. R v. Hardie
The defendant set light to a wardrobe after consuming some out of date valium tablets which
had been prescribed to his partner. He took the valium tablets as he was feeling stressed as his
partner had asked him to leave their home. He was charged with arson at his trial he stated
that he remembered nothing of starting the fire due to his intoxicated state but accepted that
he must have started it as he was the only one in the room when it started. The court held that
since:
- The drug wasn’t consumed recklessly
- The drug was legal and within prescribed quantity
- The natural effect of the drug was to sedate and not
excite.
The accused will not be held liable.
ii. R v. Allen
The accused consumed some wine believing it to have low alcohol content, however the
alcohol content was high. The accused claimed that the intoxication was not voluntary. The
court did not accept the argument. The court held that wrongful believe that the drink
consumed less alcohol is no defence, the accused voluntarily consumed the drink knowing it
to be alcohol.
iii. R v. Kingston
Barry Kingston was involuntarily drugged by a friend. While Kingston was intoxicated, his
friend encouraged him to perform sexual acts on a 15 years old boy. The incident had been a
set up by his friend. Kingston was convicted of indecent assault. Kingston’s defence was that
if he had not been drugged, he would not have acted the way he did. The court held that
although Kingston was drugged, the effects of the drug merely reduced his inhibition as a
“drugged intention” was still an intention. The affect of the intoxicant should be such, as to
completely diminish the ability of the accused to judge the nature of the act, or whether the
act was wrong or contrary to law.
iv. DPP v. Beard
The appellant whilst intoxicated raped a 13 years old girl and put his hand over her mouth to
stop her from screaming. She died of suffocation. The accused was liable for culpable
homicide regardless of forming a specific intention. The court held that, if the jury found that
the intoxicant wasn’t strong enough so as to prevent the formation of intention by the
accused, the accused will be held liable for murder and not just manslaughter.
v. DPP v. Majewski
The defendant, Robert Stefan Majewski, committed a series of assaults while under the
influence of alcohol and drugs (220 pills of Dexedrine and 8 pills of Nembutal). He attacked
the landlord and several customers at a public house; subsequently he attacked the police
officer who drove him to the police station following his arrest, and a police inspector at the
station. He was charged with four counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and three
counts of assault on a constable in the execution of his duty. He tried to rely on his
intoxication as a "defence" to the charges.
Dismissing his appeal, the House of Lords held that he could not rely on intoxication, as it is
no defence. It was however recognised that certain offences require a mens rea element
termed specific intent. The requisite mens rea can be disproved if the defendant can prove that
he was so intoxicated as to be incapable of forming such an intent.
There is no definite authority or fixed rule on what constitutes a specific intent offence. It is
established that murder is[2] but manslaughter is not;[3] there are also specific intent elements in
wounding with intent.[4] As a general rule, it can be said that, where recklessness will suffice
as mens rea, the crime is one of basic intent.[5] An alternative model is that specific intent is
when the mens rea goes beyond the actus reus, i.e. the defendant contemplates consequences
beyond their physical actions.
In the instant case, it was held that assault occasioning ABH is a crime of basic intent. Even
when too intoxicated to form a specific intent, the Lords held that one can still form basic
intent,[7] and thus the defendant's appeal was dismissed.
Even where intoxication can disprove mens rea, this is not the same as a defence (a
justification or excuse for committing the offence); rather it is a denial that all the necessary
elements to constitute an offence – namely actus reus and simultaneous mens rea – were
present.
VII. Private defense
i. Amjad khan v. State
A communal riot broke out between Sindhi refugees and local Muslims. The Sindhi mob
started banging at the accused door. The accused fired two shots killing one person. The court
held that there existed a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt in the present
circumstances, and therefore, the right to self-defence in order to cause death was valid.
ii. Vishwanath v. State of UP
A man forcefully attempted to take his wife home with him from her father’s house. The
brother of the woman stabbed the man in the heart and raised self-defence under sec. 100
clause fifthly. The prosecutor raised the plea that since right to self-defence can be exercise
only against “offences against the body”. Abduction was not an offence per se within the
aforementioned chapter but was simply defined under sec. 362 of the IPC. Hence, the
defendant was liable. However, the court disagreed and used sec. 362 stating that the term
was used in its ordinary meaning, and the attempt to drag her out of her father’s house
constituted assault.
iii. Darshan Singh v. State of Punjab
Page 184 of PSA Pillai.
VI. Hurt
1. Cases
i. Emperor v. Anees Baig
A boy gave sweets to a young girl through another boy mixed with Dhatura (a poison). He
thought that it was a love potion. the boy also offered the sweets to other people, all of whom
started showing symptoms of poisoning and had to be admitted into the hospital. The court
held that although no intention can be inferred from the conduct of the accused, he none-the
less ought to have known the poisoning effects of Dhatura. Therefore, he did possess
knowledge that his act is likely to cause disease to the victims. (knowledge from a reasonable
man’s point of view is taken).
ii. R v. Burstow
The defendant had a brief relationship with a woman She ended the relationship and he could
not accept her decision and embarked on a campaign of harassment against her over a period
of 8 months. He made silent telephone calls, abusive telephone calls, he appeared at her
house, took photos of her, distributed offensive cards to her neighbours and hate mail. As a
result, she suffered a severe depressive illness. The court held that hurt does not restrict to
bodily pain and also covers infirmity of the organs as well.
iii. Mohammad Rafi v. Opposite party (1930)
A man using a pen kife made a cut on the back of the neck of another man. The wound
started bleeding and in order to stop it, the man used a dirty cloth. Due to the dirty cloth, the
wound had become septic and he died after a few days. The question before the court was
whether the attack on the back of the neck could be constituted as “hurt which endangers
life”. The court held that, injury itself should be of a character that it endangers the life of a
person. The injury was not in terms of its scale, size or dimension to endanger the life of a
person.
iv. Alavi v. State
The accused struck the victim with a knife in the forearm which also punctured the victim’s
radial artery. The punctured artery led to a haemorrhage, and death of the victim. The court
convicted the accused.
v. Mohinder Singh v. Emperor
A man made a Gandasa wound on the leg and a blow with the wooden handle. The man
suffered tetanus infection and died. The court held that the wound in itself was not serious
enough to qualify under the section concerning grievous hurt and therefore, the accused was
only liable for causing simple hurt.
VII. Culpable homicide
1. Cases
i. Tulsa
The accused wanted to escape her paternal home and ran away with her lover. She mixed
Dhatura in her family food and ran away. The victims got really ill but did not die. The court
did not convict the accused of murder. Rule: death was not caused.
ii. Ganesh Dooley
A snake charmer wanted to prove his efficiency over the snake and hadn’t removed the
snake’s poisonous fangs. He placed it over the head of the victim, the snake bit the victim,
and the victim died. The court convicted the snake charmer for culpable homicide.
iii. Punnai Fatemah
A snake charmer thought he could cure snake bites and asked for volunteers. One of the
volunteers was bitten and could not be saved. The man was held liable for culpable homicide.
iv. Beloom Hijra
A transgender performed a surgery to emasculate a man, even though the transgender had
very limited skill in doing so. As a result, the man died. The transgender was held liable for
culpable homicide.
v. Subarao Kaviraj
Performed operation on the victim using an ordinary kitchen knife, the victim died. the
accused was held liable for culpable homicide.
vi. Jameludin
The parents got their 18 year old daughter for exorcism to the accused. The accused
proceeded to beat her up violently, which resulted in her death. The accused were held liable
for culpable homicide.
vii. Katabdi Mandal
The accused hit a 9 year old child so violently that her
viii. Gurumulu
An elderly lady was sleeping under a tree. A robber came and proceeded to cut her nostrils in
order to steal her nose-rings. As a result of excessive bleeding, the woman died. held, the man
cannot be held liable for homicide as such an injury is not likely to cause death.
VIII. Murder
The conditions for murder are as follows
1. Act which causes death is done with the intention of causing death
i. Case: Venkalu v. State of Hyderabad
The victim was locked in the hut with no possibility of escape or rescue. Afterwards, the hut
was set ablaze. The court indicted the accused for murder.
2. Causing such bodily injury with the knowledge that it will cause death
First, there must be an intention to cause cause bodily harm. Second, there must be
“knowledge” that death is likely consequence of such a bodily harm.
3. Intentional causing of injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course
of nature
First, there must exist and intention to inflict the PARTICULAR bodily injury. Second, the
bodily injury should be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The
existence, nature and sufficiency of the bodily injury to cause death must be assessed from an
objective stand-point. IMPORTANT: the intention to cause the PARTICULAR injury which
is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death is required, an intention to cause a
less grave injury is not sufficient to convict the accused. (Virsa Singh case) (State of AP v.
Punnaiya) (R v. Govinda)
i. Virsa Sigh case [classic law on 300 (3) as per Rajinder v.
Harayana]
For 300(3) to be applicable, the following conditions need to be fulfilled
- It must be established, objectively, that a bodily injury
is present.
- The nature of the injury needs to be proved
objectively
- There must be established, an intention to inflict the
particular bodily injury
- The injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature, objectively
IX. Theft
1. cases
i. KN Mehra v. State of Rajasthan
A cadet and another took flight of a plane at 5 AM in the morning and landed in Pakistan.
Neither were they allowed to board the particular plain, nor were they allowed to board the
plain at that point in time. They also did not follow the necessary procedures before taking-
off and did not respond to any communications from the station. The court held that
- Absence of consent and presence of dishonest
intention is necessary
- Temporary deprivation is sufficient to constitute
wrongful loss/gain
- Dishonest intention is necessary
ii. Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan
The accused was a superintendent in the chief engineer’s office. He asked the clerk to remove
a file which he took home for a friend. The friend removed certain papers and replaced them
with others. The next day, the file was replaced. The court held
- Temporary deprivation was sufficient to constitute
theft
- Although no wrongful gain was accrued to the
accused, there was wrongful loss to the department
and hence, theft could be constituted.
 X. extortion
It has two elements. First intentionally putting a person in fear of injury, Second, the purpose
for the aforementioned condition should be to dishonestly induce that person to deliver
property or valuable security to any person. (Dhananjay v. State of Bihar)
1. Cases
i. State of Karnataka v. Basaugowda
The accused demanded that his wife deliver her ornaments to him and placed her in a fear of
injury. The wife was forced to deliver the goods. Husband was held liable.
XI. Robbery
Theft waali robbery- If during the process of theft, the accused causes to any person- death,
hurt or wrongful restraint. Or fear of the aforementioned three. The transaction should be a
part of the theft, an act of the above three conditions, though unrelated to the theft, will not
constitute robbery.
1. Cases
i. Maharashtra v. Joseph Kohli
A man shared animosity with an eatery owner. He threw burnig cloth, crackers and stones
into the eatery. He also stole some material from the shop. The court concluded that the stone
pelting, throwing burning cloth, etc. were separate acts and their “ends” were not to commit
theft. Therefore, robbery in the present case cannot be constituted.

Extortion waali robbery- fear of instant death, instant hurt, or instant wrongful restraint by
being in the presence of such a person