Indian Penal Code (IPC Notes) Indian Penal Code (IPC Notes)

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
Indian Penal Code (IPC notes)
Criminal Law (O.P. Jindal Global University)
StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Downloaded by shajana shahul (shajanashahul@gmail.com)
lOMoARcPSD|5146188
Indian Penal Code – Notes
CRIMINAL LAW: BASIC CONCEPTS
Wrongful Act Prosecutiton

Crime (Prohibhited by (Wrong Against Punishment
Law) Society)
Theories of Punishment:
1. Preventive Disablement: Restraint on freedom / Incapacitating of ACCUSED.
2. Deterrence: To deter crime from SOCIETY and instill fear.
3. Retribution: Quid-pro-quo concept of punishment – eye for an eye type.
4. Reformation: Rehabilitation concept – making person adaptable to society again.
5. Multiple Theory Approach: Borrows the positive from all 4 theories.
ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A CRIMINAL OFFENCE

UNDER COMMON LAW
1. Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea
An act itself is not sufficient for crime without a guilty mind.
2. Actus Reus (physical element): - Legal distinction between act and omission
1
An act forbidden by law. Omission can be Actus Reus.
Omission as a subset of Act. All omissions are Act but all Act are not omissions.
Person A is drowning; Person B sees and ignores; Person A dies.

- B had a moral duty but it is not a crime.
- B had a legal duty and here there is OMISSION.
1 Om Prakash V. State of Punjab (Duty towards wife)
MOHIT KHATRI (16 JGLS) 1
3. Mens Rea (mental element)

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
Motive Intention
Guilty Mind / Blame
Aim Means/ Act to Worthy Intention:
reach that aim
- Will / Voluntariness
- For finding Criminal
Degree of Mens Rea: Liability, Intention
comes
Intention 1. Intention: Complete

Knowledge knowledge of Harm and
consequences thereof.
Reason to 2. Knowledge: No Intention,

believe but knowledge of an
Recklessness
apparent harm.
3. Reason to Believe: Not

particular information, but
Negligence some reason to believe of
the consequences of the act.
4. Recklessness: Higher
degree of negligence –
aware of consequences.
5. Negligence: Not aware of

Motive cannot establish / free criminal liability consequences.
on someone.
4. Role of common law ideas like actus reus & mens rea in a codified statute.
5. Causal chain, Causation
6. Doctrine of Transfer of malice

Transfer of Motive – A intended to kill B and ended up killing Z – although never intended to
kill Z – but due to complete intention to kill B – A liable for the death of Z.

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
COMPLITY & JOINT LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL LAW
1. Vicarious liability under criminal law: - Distinguishing common

intention and common object – How the two concepts are embodied
under IPC in different provisions.
Common Intention – Section 34
Ingredients:
• Act (criminal) done by two or more persons
• In furtherance of a common intention
• Each liable as if done by him alone.
It Entails:
1. Meeting of Mind
2. PARTICIPATION is required for common intention.
Similar Intention not same as Common Intention, hence not under S. 34.
Common Object – Section 149
Ingredients:
• Any member of an unlawful assembly
• In prosecution of a common object
• Mere MEMBERSHIP of an unlawful assembly is required
2. Unlawful assembly (Sec. 141)
Assembly of 5 or more people can be unlawful assembly, if the common object is –

• To show criminal force
• To resist execution of any law
• To commit mischief, criminal trespass
• By means any force (criminal) to any person, to take possession of land, or deprive
person from his right to enjoyment
• By criminal force compel someone to do something which he is not legally bound
3. Comparative analysis of section 34 and 149 of IPC and Same

Intention
COMMON INTENTION COMMON OBJECT
1. 2 or more persons 1. 5 persons – unlawful assembly

2. Common Intention 2. Common Object
3. PARTICIPATION 3. MEMBERSHIP

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
The rule of VICARIOUS

LIABILITY arises here. In
common intention, there is a
participation in an act in
furtherance of the common
intention. But here, just being a
member of an act in furtherance
of a common object & if
someone commit a crime, each
member is vicariously liable.
In the case of Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan, SC – clear distinction b/w 34 and 149 – 34,
prearranged plan & meeting of minds; common object does not require proof of prior
meeting.
Ø CASES & READINGS

1. Priya Patel v. State of M.P. (2006 Cr LJ 3627)
Section 34 was not enforced as common intention could not be formed at spur of the moment
for this case as a woman cannot rape a man according to the definition.
2. Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor (AIR 1925 PC 1)

Man, outside as a guard to help further any crime inside will also be liable for the same u/s 34
as his participation will be counted.
3. Mahboob Shaw v. Emperor (AIR 1945 PC 118)

S. 34 cannot be brought when same act was done by 2 people but not in furtherance of
common intention. Common Intention can form at the spur of moment, but in this case, it was
not such.
4. Mathew v. State of Travancore-Cochin (AIR 1956 SC 241)

29 members went to a police station with knife & they ended up killing 2 policemen.
The Sessions Judge acquitted them under s. 302 read with s. 149 but convicted them on the
lesser charges – State appealed against their acquittals under s. 302 read with s. 149 – High
Court allowed the appeals against their acquittals and sentenced each of them to
transportation for life.
SC - Now section 149 applies not only to offences committed in pursuance of the
common object but also to offences that members of the assembly know are likely
to be committed. It would be impossible on the facts of this case to hold that the
members of the assembly did not know that murder was likely to be committed in
pursuance of a common object of that kind by an assembly as large as the one we
have there. Accordingly, even if the common object be not placed as high as
murder the conviction on the murder-cum-rioting charge was fully justified;
These answers the main ground of appeal.

lOMoARcPSD|5146188

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
INCHOATE OFFENCES
Concept of Inchoate Offences: Attempt, Conspiracy and Abetment
1. Punishing attempt to commit a crime- Section 511
2. Stages of crime: distinguishing attempt from preparation &

mere thoughts.
• Intention – Might change

• Planning – Preparation stage
TESTS*
• Attempt – Penultimate stage of crime2
• Commission – Act committed / accomplished
Taking Aim, ante-penultimate stage of crime. Still no-attempt cannot be argued. All depends
on proximity. Another test is of Repentance.
Match-stick and haystack example – high level of repentance.
Attempt:
1. Attempt and commission dealt with the same section –
Offences – against state, assaulting governors, President with an intent to restrain the
exercise of lawful power – sedition, waging war etc.
2. Attempt and commission dealt separately –
Murder, Culpable homicide not amounting to murder, robbery etc. u/s 307, 308, 393.
3. Attempt to commit suicide u/s 309
4. Attempt to commit offences in general u/s 511
*Distinguishing Attempt from Preparation:

a. Proximity Test – Proximity of INTENTION and not distance/time/...etc.3
• Sufficiently near to the accomplishment of the substantive offence.
• Not last act he intended to do, but the last act legally necessary for him to do.
A shoots Z – Intending to kill – Misses – not caused Z’s death – A liable for attempt of
murder – as A did what was legally necessary for him to do under the circumstances.
2 Attempt in order to be criminal need not be Penultimate, but intent coupled with an
overt act in execution thereof is sufficient in law; Gaur K.D., Page 1120.
3 State of Maharashtra v. Md. Yakub

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
b. Repentance Test (Locus Paenitentiae) – So long as the steps taken by the

accused leave room for a reasonable expectation that he might of his own accord,
or fear of the consequences discontinues attempt, he will be treated at the stage of
4
preparation. Court looks at the degree of repentance.
A mixes poison in water for Z – till he doesnot give it to Z – its preparation because
there are chances of his taking steps back – hence a not guilty of an attempt to murder.
c. Social Harm Test – B/w preparation and attempt; harm to society from the act.
d. Equivocality Test – Harm speaks for themselves; Weapon in plane.

Act done – indicates beyond reasonable doubt – that its end is directed towards commission
of offence – it is attempt – or else mere preparation.
3. Impossibility of Attempts
a. External impossibility – It suggests that one has moved a step ahead of attempt to
the commission of crime itself. Due to external factors, independent of himself, the
intended act failed.
e.g. – shooting on a pile of pillows thinking it to be A.
b. Internal Impossibility – It suggests that one’s act is still step away from the actual
commission of crime, and it is due to his own reasons, that the act intended to do
failed – impossibility not independent of person.
e.g. – Giving fake poison to kill (mens rea could not be proved – innocent act)
4. ‘Conspiracy’ (120 A – 120 B)
120 A
2 or more persons agree to do or cause:
• an illegal act
• legal act but illegal means
It needs to be substantive offense – Agreement is a difference between 120A &
107.
Here attempt or commission of a crime that was conspired is immaterial. Till it
can be proved that there was conspiracy – all are liable.
Even if one is caught – but if it can be proved that there were other co-
conspirators; there was conspiracy – whether they are caught or convicted –
immaterial – the one caught will serve his/her part of punishment.
Section 120B deals with punishment.
4 Refer Textbook on IPC, Gaur, K.D., Page 1122.


lOMoARcPSD|5146188
5.
g
lOMoARcPSD|5146188
• There must be an abettor

• He must abet
• Act abetted must be an offense or leading to an offense, by a person capable
(in front of law), with the same intention and knowledge.
Section 107 – Abetment of a thing
i. By instigation
5
• Provoke/ Incite/ Encourage/ Solicits – act prohibited by law.
• Act done in furtherance not necessary.
• Mere compliance doesnot amount to it.
ii. By conspiracy
• Agreement to do an act prohibited by law.
• Some act is done in pursuance thereof.
6
• If the abettor doesnot act, not liable.
iii. By intentional aiding
• Giving Aid – Act / Omission
• Active conduct on the part of Abettor – Act must be accomplished.
• Commission of Crime necessary.
Section 108: Defines Abettor – a person who abets – an offence or commission of an act
amounting to offence – committed by a person capable in law – same intention and
knowledge as that of abettor.
• Abetment of illegal omission also amounts to offense – abettor may himself not be
bound to do that act.
• Effect of abetment is immaterial – Even if act abetted is not committed – A abets B to
kill C, B doesnot kill, still A liable – A abets B to kill C, B kills, C recovers, A liable
for abetment to commit murder.
• Person abetted to be capable of committing – not necessary – or having guilty
intention – Unsound mind, Minority to understand the nature of act – abettor alone is
liable for abetment and the offence in such cases.

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
• Abetment of abetment is offence – A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z; both are

liable for abetment (A and B).
• Abetment by conspiracy – abettor need not necessarily plan the offence with the
person abetted.
Section 109: Punishment for Abetment.
There must be abetment of offense; act abetted must be in consequence of abetment; there
must be no provision in code for the punishment of such abetment.
5 Queen v. Mohit, Sati case – people chanting Ram also punished for instigation of
suicide.
6
House theft example – servant opens the door – abettor himself doesnot come to loot.

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
Section 110: Punishment for abetment; Person abetted acts with different intention from that
of abettor – intention & knowledge immaterial – as long as act is same.
Section 111: Act (a) abetted, act (b) done; abettor liable for the act done as if he directly
abetted the act (b). Given (b) is a probable consequence of abetment.
Section 112: Cumulative punishment; act abetted + act done. A tells B to burn C’s granary –
B burns C’s granary and while doing so, he puts C’s life under danger – A liable for both
offense. – Act abetted must be probable consequence. A tells B to assault C but B Kills C in
the process – no probable consequence – A not liable.
Section 113: Punishable – even if the act donot cause intended effect – but some other effect
is caused.
Section 114: If abettor absent during commission of crime – liable for only abetment – If he
is present – liable for the offense too.
Section 115: When offenses punishable with death / life imprisonment is abetted – but
offense not committed.
Section 116: When abetted doesnot act, but abettor does, abettor is liable. In 107
(conspiracy), in example Abettor himself did not acted & hence not liable.
Section 117: When commission of offense by public or more than 10 people is abetted.
Section 118: When conceals the design (place, time, type, etc.) of an offense with the
knowledge of it being punishable by death / life imprisonment. E.g. A aware of dacoity to be
done by B at X place – misinforms the cops that it’s been carried out by C, at Z place – A
guilty under this section.
CASES & READINGS

1. R. v. Robinson [1952] 2 All ER 334
Person wants to defraud his insurance – so he makes a fake theft – on police enquiries,
jwellery was found in his house.
It was held that the act of (sending a letter to claim insurance), communication started –
attempt is made. Whether it reaches to the desired person or not is immaterial.
2. R. v. Shivpuri (1987 AC 1) House of Lords
Person charged with knowingly dealing with goods, import of which is prohibited. Instead of
the supposed Heroine or drug, it turned out to be some vegetable material. House of Lords
observed that it was sufficient to prove that the person knew that the goods concerned were
prohibited, and it is immaterial if the person is unsure of the exact nature of good till he
believed that he was dealing with prohibited substance.

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
3. Anderton v. Ryan (1985 AC 560) House of Lords
The defendant was found in possession of a video recorder. She refused to name the source,
but admitted that she believed it to be stolen. After it became clear that there was no evidence
that it was in fact stolen, she was convicted of attempting to handle stolen goods.
Held: The 1981 Act had changed the common-law position, and the mere doing of
preparatory acts which, if completed would constitute an offence, was not now sufficient. A
conviction was now prevented where the full offence could not follow from the preparatory
acts. None of the subsections would turn what was in fact an innocent act into an offence of
attempting to commit the crime, merely by the defendant’s criminal intent.
4. Emperor v. Asgar Ali Pradhania (AIR 1933 Cal. 833)
A – convicted for attempting miscarriage – administering the complainant two chemicals –

but no evidence could prove the capability of both the chemicals to do the act intended.
The appellate court acquitted the defendant – what he did was not act done towards
commission – both liquids could do no harm – failure not independent of himself –
INTERNAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
5. State of Maharashtra v Mhd. Yakub (1980) SCR (2) 1158
A with 2 others was carrying silver ingots to be smuggled out of India – Reached the shore –
unloaded the ingots from the truck (not yet loaded in ship) – custom officers reaches and
catches them – issue arises – was it attempt or preparation – if preparation – not offence
under custom act.
SC held that for attempt there must be intention, preparation, act towards commission and
must be proximate to intended result. The facts are merely suggestive and not conclusive.
Also, proximity must be in terms of intention – both are missing here – acquitted.
6. Abhayanand Mishra vs The State of Bihar AIR 1961 SC 1698
A, prepared a fake certificate to get an admit card and sit in the University MA exams –
Could not sit for exams – university was informed about fake certificate – A contested that as
he did not get to sit for exams, why is he liable.
The SC held that as soon as A dispatched the certificate and application, he entered the stage
of attempt to commit cheating – he even induced the university to get an Admit Card – Due
to some External Reasons beyond his control, he failed to sit in foe examinations – therefore
court found him guilty of attempting to commit the offense of cheating.

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
GENERAL EXCEPTIONS (76 - 106) except 91, 93, 94

1. Mistake of Fact and Law (Sec. 76 – 80)
Mistake of Facts (Sec. 76, 79) “ignorantia facit doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat”
Sec. 76 – Deals with two classes of cases where a person is excused from criminal liability
on the ground of mistake of facts viz.
a. When a person is bound by law to do something and does it,
b. When a person believes in good faith, owing to a mistake of fact and not a mistake
of law, that he is bound to do something, and does it.
Sec. 79 – Immunity to person for his act – justified by law (not bound like 76) – or by
mistake of fact in good faith believes to be justified by law.
Act of Judge (Sec. 77)
Sec. 77 – Judge acting judicially; or in good faith; believes to be following law; nothing is
an offense.
7
For fearlessness & independence of administration of justice.
Ingredients – Act of judge in discharge of his official duty; within his jurisdiction; good
faith.
Act done in pursuance of court order (Sec. 78)
Sec. 78 – Act done in pursuance of court order – till the judgement is in force; once overruled
– no protection – but if in good faith – if in good faith believes court had some jurisdiction.
Ingredients – Officer exempted – provided – acting in pursuance of judgement – in good faith
– belief in the legality of order.
Accident (Sec. 80)
Sec. 80 – Act done by – accident – without criminal intent – in doing a lawful act in a
lawful manner – proper care & caution – no negligence – exempted.
Accident – Event occurs without one’s knowledge and beyond expectation.
Even if accident takes place while performing an unlawful act, Sec. 80 would be available if
there is no causal connection between the resultant harm and act in question.
7 Chunder Narain Singh v. Birjo Bullub Gooyee


lOMoARcPSD|5146188
2. Necessity (Sec. 81)
Sec. 81 – Act done – cause harm – knowledge – no criminal intent – done to prevent
another greater harm.
Not a blanket immunity – only in exceptional cases:
• Act was done to avoid consequences which would have led to irreparable damage.
• No more harm was done than was necessary for the purpose.
• Evil inflicted was not disproportionate to evil avoided.
Ingredients:
• Act must be done without criminal intent.
• Must be done in good faith to prevent other harm to person or property.
• Must have been done to avert a greater harm.
Homicide justifiable in self-defense and when necessary for the good of society – cannot be
put where a person puts other’s life in jeopardy.
In case of theft as a defense – to prevent hunger – framers of code rejected – as it could claim
the benefit of necessity as a defense to the charge of crime of stealing.
Stephen v. Dudley
3. Insanity/ Unsoundness of mind: McNaughton Rules and beyond

Infancy and Intoxication (Sec. 82 - 86)
Infancy (Sec. 82, 83)
Sec. 82 – Nothing done by a child under 7 years of age is an offense.

Provides total immunity to children under 7 years from criminal responsibility – doli incapax
in law – minimum age to form the necessary intention to constitute crime – no understanding
of deeds.
Sec. 83 – Immunity to children above 7 years & below 12 years who have not attained
sufficient maturity to understand the consequences of his conduct.
Depends on case basis.
Grants partial immunity against prosecution and punishment for a child above 7 and under 12
years of age.
12 – 18 years of child – their cases are dealt by the Juvenile Justice Courts and Act.
Insanity (Sec. 84)
Sec. 84 – Immunity to person of unsound mind.

Cannot have the necessary mens rea to commit the crime.

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
Mc’Naughten’s Case:
Questions – What are proper questions to be submitted to jury when an insane person, is
charged with commission of crime and insanity is set up as defense; Terms of jury w.r.t. the
prisoner’s state of mind at the time when the act was committed.
Answer – Insanity: At the time of doing the act; incapable of knowing the nature of act.
Sec. 84 uses a more comprehensive term ‘unsoundness of mind’ instead of insanity.
Intoxication (Sec. 85, 86)
Sec. 85 – Intoxication caused against will – and act done by such intoxicated person
incapable of knowing the nature of act.
Sec. 86 – Intended act by intoxicated person – intoxication by will – intending to do act (a)
and does (b) – would be liable for (b) as if it was the intent – if there was intoxication by will
& accused must have some knowledge as if in sober state of mind.
4. Consent (Sec. 87 – 90, 92)
With Consent (Sec. 87 - 90)
Sec. 87 – Act not intended to cause death, or grievous hurt – or not known to be likely – to
any person 18+, given consent, implied/expressed – to suffer any harm & accordingly suffers
– the doer is not guilty of any offense.
It is important to note that immunity under section 87 will not justify causing death or
grievous bodily injury or any harm which is known by the doer to be likely. Consent may just
reduce the gravity of offense and mitigate the rigors of punishment. E.g. unlawful games,
fights with weapons.
Sec. 88 – Nothing done intending to cause death – but which may cause harm, or intended /
known by the doer to cause harm – for the benefit of the person – done in good faith and with
consent – is not an offence.
E.g. – Death while surgery which could be very probable – surgeon committed no offence.
Sec. 89 – Act done in good faith – for benefit of person below 12, of unsound mind – by
guardian or by lawful consent (expressed or implied) of the guardian or other person having
lawful charge of that person – causes harm or be intended/known by the doer to cause harm is
not an offence – provided:
• Not intentional causing/attempting of death.
• Not to any other act which would lead to death/grievous hurt other than preventing
them or curing any disease/infirmity.
• Not to voluntary causing/attempting to cause grievous hurt unless preventing/curing.
• Not to the committing of any offence abetted.
Sec. 90 – Consent not under fear/injury/misconception of facts – by insane person, children

below 12 - and if a person knows that consent was given in such consequences it is not a
consent.

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
Without Consent (Sec. 92)
Sec. 92 – Act done – good faith, for benefit of person – even without consent – when it is
impossible to obtain one or person is incapable of giving – not possible to obtain consent
from guardian in that time – if it causes any harm – person doing it is not liable – provided:
• Not intentional causing/attempting of death.
• Not to any other act which would lead to death/grievous hurt other than preventing
them or curing any disease/infirmity.
• Not to voluntary causing/attempting to cause grievous hurt unless preventing/curing.
• Not to the committing of any offence abetted.
5. Trifles (de minimis non curat lex) (Sec. 95)
Sec. 95 – Act causing slight harm, whether done by mistake, with knowledge or with clear
intention, which no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain is not an offence.
Intended to prevent penalization of offences trivial in nature – this harm has not been defined in
the code. SC held that it would depend upon nature of injuries, position of parties, knowledge
8
& intention while the offense is done and other circumstances.
6. Private Defense (Sec. 96 - 106)
When act exceeds the degree of defense required, act is no more immune by private defense.
No right of Private Defense when you have time to call the authorities – Subjective to case.
S.96: Nothing is an offense done in Private Defense.
S.97: To defend – own body/property, others body/property, any offense against human
body, any act u/d theft, robbery, mischief, criminal trespass or attempt to commit any.
S.98: Immunity to person with unsound mind. E.g. A; unsound; attempts to kill B; A not
liable; B has all rights of self-defense.
S.99: Act done by/Under direction of Public Officer – Right to private defense arises – if the
act causes apprehension of death/grievous hurt to the rights of people. If no such
apprehension/harm, no right; even if officers act not justifiable by law; he may be charged for
this separately.
S.100: When Private Defense extends to Death – Assault with: apprehension to
death/grievous hurt; intention to rape/kidnapping/abduction/wrongfully confining etc. …
S.101: If act not under sec. 100 – one can cause any harm other than death; voluntary causing
of death extends to restricts under S.99.
S.102: Right to Private Defense, till there is reasonable apprehension of danger to human
body, not after that.
S.103: Right of Private defense to property extends to causing death: robbery, breaking in at
night, mischief by fire on any building or human dwelling, theft, mischief or house trespass.
8 Veeda Menezes v. Yusuf Khan


lOMoARcPSD|5146188
S.104: If act not under sec. 103 – one can cause any harm other than death; voluntary causing
of death extends to restricts under S.99.
S.105: Right to Private Defense, till there is reasonable apprehension of danger to the
property, not after that.
S.106: Right of Private Defense, against assault with apprehension of death, could run the
risk of harm to innocent people.
A is attacked by a mob with an attempt to murder him – he cannot exercise private defense
unless he fires – many innocent in the mob could die – A commits no offense by doing so.
Ø CASES & READINGS

1. Vishwanath v. State of U.P. (AIR 1960 SC 67)
Sister and her husband (Gopal) stayed at the house of her parental house after marriage – Her
father and husband were not on good terms – Daily Fights – Gopal shifted to the matrimonial
house of his sister – One day Gopal came back & forced his wife to get out of her parental
house and move with him to another house – fight started there – Father instigated his son to
kill Gopal – he stabbed him.
HC acquitted father but not son. SC acquitted son too – defense of Sec. 100(5) – private
defense extending to death when there is an assault with an intention of Kidnapping or
Abduction – and the fact that Gopal was trying to Abduct his wife against her will.
2. Amjad Khan v. State (AIR 1952 SC 165)
Communal riot between Sindhi Refugees and local Muslims – Muslim shops were looted and
lives were lost – mob approached the shop of accused – his home was also behind his shop –
people started beating the doors of house with sticks (latthis) – before mob could break in the
accused fired two shots from his gun.
SC allowed the appeal and stated that, given the facts, it was sufficient to afford the right to
private defense. Accused had reasonable ground – death/grievous hurt to family – many lives
were already lost. Sec. 105
3. R v. Dudley and Stephen 14 Q.B.D. 273 (1884)
Shipwrecked sailors – killed a cabin boy for food – guilty of murder.

Court – Deliberate killing of a man, howsoever great the temptation might be, killing cannot
be justified – Law & Morality are not same, but absolute divorce could be fatal.
In this case, the court laid out principles on the question of conservation of man’s life in such
cases – Self-preservation as not an absolute necessity – no necessity justifies private homicide
– distinguished from public necessity and right of a man to take someone else’s life only in
cases of self-defense.

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN BODY

1. Doctrine of Transfer of malice – S 301
Public Prosecutor v. MS Moorthy (1912) 22 MLJ 333

(don’t ignore the minority opinion)
Majority Opinion: The case will fall u/s 301 for culpable homicide. For S. 299 it is
sufficient if criminal intention or knowledge on the part of the accused existed regarding any
human being, though the death of the person who actually fell victim to the accused's act, was
never compassed by him. I find nothing in the words of the section which would justify the
limited construction. The language of the section is perfectly general. Hence the accused
must be convicted u/s 299, 300, 301 and punishable u/s 302 of the IPC.
Minority Opinion: If Sec. 299 covers a general scope, then why S. 301 was constructed. If
someone intends to poison one by giving a piece of that thing particularly to him, he has no
reason to believe that it will be passed on. And for subsequent passing off of the food, the
accused cannot be held liable. Therefore S. 299 has a limited construction and this case
would neither come under sec. 299 nor sec. 301of the IPC.
2. ‘Negligence’ as criminal category and its juristic interpretation
Sec. 304-A: Death of a person by rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide
punishable for a term upto 2 years/fine/both.
Criminal Rashness is a hazardous act with the knowledge that it may cause injury, but
without any intention to cause.
Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man would do or something
which a reasonable man would not do.
Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar (AIR 1964 SC 205)
When people started using the accused’s washroom, accused made it clear to them that he did
not want them to use it. He fixed live wire inside without any warning sign. Deceased
continued to use the washroom carefully without touching the wire. One day she accidently
touched it and the voltage was so high that she died almost instantly.
It was held that charging such high level of voltage was a rash act done in reckless disregard
of consequences. Convicted u/s 304-A
Dr. Suresh Gupta v. State of NCT (2004) 6 SCC 422
The appellant who is a Doctor (Plastic Surgeon) is in the dock as an accused under Section
304 A for causing death of his patient. From the medical opinions produced by the
prosecution, the cause of death is stated to be not introducing a tube of proper size as to
prevent aspiration of blood from the wound in the respiratory passage. This act attributed to
the doctor, even if accepted to be true, can be described as negligent act as there was lack of
due care and precaution. For this act of negligence he may be liable in tort but his
carelessness or want of due attention and skill cannot be described to be so reckless or

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
grossly negligent as to make

him criminally liable. To
convict, therefore, a doctor, the
prosecution has to come out
with a case of high degree of
negligence on the part of the
doctor. Mere lack of proper
care, precaution and attention or
inadvertence might create civil
liability but not a criminal one.
Therefore, no case of
recklessness or gross
negligence can be made out u/s
304-A.
3. Culpable Homicide (s. 299/ 304) and Murder (s. 300/ 302) and
distinction between the two sections conceptually.
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1958 SC 465)
There was only one injury on Khem Singh and both Courts are agreed that the appellant
caused it. It was caused as the result of a spear thrust. To put it shortly, the prosecution must
prove the following facts before it can bring a case under s. 300, 3rdly ".
First, it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present. Secondly, the nature
of the injury must be proved; These are purely objective investigations. Thirdly, it must be
proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular bodily injury, that is to say, that it
was not accidental or unintentional, or that some other kind of injury was intended.
Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and, Fourthly, it
must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of the three elements set out
above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. It does not matter that there
was no intention to cause death or even to cause an injury sufficient to cause death.
It does not even matter that there is no knowledge that an act of that kind will be likely to
cause death. The question, so far as the intention is concerned [purely subjective], is not
whether he intended to kill, or to inflict an injury of a particular degree of seriousness, but
whether he intended to inflict the injury in question; and once the existence of the injury
is proved the intention to cause it will be presumed unless the evidence or the circumstances
warrant an opposite conclusion.
Gudar Dusadh v. State of Bihar (AIR 1972 SC 952)
The appellant was convicted. under sections 302 and 147 Indian Penal Code and was
sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life on the former count. The appellant gave a lathi
blow on the head of Ramlal as a result of which the latter fell down and died at the spot. The
only question with which we were concerned in appeal is whether the offence committed by
the appellant is murder or whether it is culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The
appellant who caused the above injury to Ramlal deceased, in our opinion, was guilty of the
offence of murder and he has been rightly convicted under section 302 Indian Penal Code. As
the injury on the head was deliberate and not accidental and as the injury was sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death, the case against the appellant would fall squarely
within the ambit of clause "3rdly" of section 300 Indian Penal Code. According to that
lOMoARcPSD|5146188
clause, culpable homicide is murder if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to
any person and the, bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death. Clause "3rdly" consists of two parts. Under the first part, it has to be
shown that there was an intention on the part of the accused to inflict the particular injury
which was found on the body of the deceased. The second part requires that the bodily injury

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
intended to be inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. So far
as the first part is concerned, the court has to see whether the injury which was found on the
deceased was the one intended by the accused or whether it was accidental without his having
intended to cause that bodily injury. Once it is found that the injury was not accidental and
that the accused intended to cause the injury which was actually inflicted and found on the
body of the deceased, the first part shall be satisfied. The court would then go into the second
part of the clause and find in the light of medical evidence as to whether the bodily injury
inflicted was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. If the court finds that
the requirements of both the parts have been satisfied, the case shall be held to be covered by
clause "3rdly" unless it falls within one of the exceptions.
Emperor v. Mt. Dhirajia ILR (1940) All. 647
Wife runs from her matrimonial house with her baby. Husband follows – Wife jumps into the
well. Baby dies – wife survives – Charged with Murder.
Held that for murder, Culpable Homicide needs to be proved. Here the intention was lacking
and in that state of hurry complete knowledge cannot be there – but must be some
knowledge. Hence guilty u/s 299 (c) and punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to
murder u/s 304.
Gyarsibai v. State AIR (1953 CrLJ 558)
Wife and Sister-in-law regularly fought. Husband said wife to leave, with 3 children. Wife
was found in well with 3 dead children.
Held that Sec. 300(4) will be applicable as wife here had other means to escape unlike
Dhirajia’s case. Hence it is culpable homicide amounting to murder and subsequently, she
would be punished u/s 302.
4. Exceptions to Murder with emphasis on ‘provocation’.
Muthu v. State (2007) 12 SCALE 795
Case where a man every day litters in front of a man’s restaurant. Continuing the same act for
a long period of time after repetitive warnings, the restaurant man shot him dead.
It was held that, every day littering filed inside the restaurant man anger and the day of the
incident he was suddenly and gravely provoked and hence it is an exception to S. 300.
KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1962 SC 605)
On finding out about illicit relations of his wife, Nanavati goes to Ahuja’s house and fires 3
rounds of bullet. The defence of S. 300 exception (1) was taken that on finding out about his
wife, Nanavati was gravely and suddenly provoked.
Held that he is guilty u/s 302. Court laid down reasonable man test and Time Gap. After
knowing about his wife, he performed all the duties as a reasonable man, took his family to
cinema, drove to Ahuja’s house, took gun etc. Hence he cannot be said to gravely and
suddenly provoked.

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
B.D. Khunte v. Union of India and others (2015) 1 SCC 286
Applying the rule, Appeal was dismissed – Appellant had settled for lesser act of retaliation –
By Beating. Grave provocation – momentary loss of one’s capacity to differentiate between
the right and wrong. Here, such anger would only constitute a motive for taking revenge.
Therefore, could not be grave and sudden provocation.
R. v. Ahluwalia (1993) 96 Cr App Reports 133
Wife suffered domestic abuse for almost 10 years. One evening her husband threatened to beat
her and burn her with a hot iron, forcefully demanding money from her. Afterwards, they went to
bed, however, wife woke up in the middle of the night, and poured caustic soda and petrol that
she had bought few days ago in a bucket. She further proceeded to throw the bucket in her
husband’s room, along with a burning stick, which resulted in him sustaining severe burns,
leading to his eventual death after 6 days of the incident. She was convicted for murder.
Held that Kiranjit’s response was the culmination of years of abuse, which does not fall
within the definition of sudden provocation, and thus her defence failed. She had enough time
time to cool down and hence is not grave and sudden provocation.
The following three elements need to be established in order to prove diminished

responsibility, as u/s. 2 of the Homicide Act: An abnormality of mental functioning caused by
a recognised medical condition; Which provides an explanation for the acts or omissions of
the defendant; Which substantially impaired his/her mental ability to understand the nature of
their actions, form a rational judgment or exercise self-control. In this case, the defense of
diminished responsibility within the meaning of Homicide Act was used at the later stage,
during the retrial as no evidence was produced at the trial court. However, this final ground of
appeal was successful.
5. Punishment for Murder
In Re Sreerangayee (1973) 1 MLJ 231
“The appellant was charged with an offence of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, in that she on 9th April, 1971 between 8 and 10 a.m. committed murder of five of her
children” She admitted to the offence. Even in the grounds of appeal to this Court she admits
commission of the offence, but pleads justification on ground of poverty – 2/- per day salary
– husband abandoned – children poorly affected with diseases.
We are of opinion that poverty cannot justify commission of grave offences. Punishment for
one year was given and the life sentence was revoked.

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
6. Kidnapping and abduction (S. 359 - 363)
Offence of kidnapping is an aggravated form of wrongful confinement, although it doesnot

include the ‘offense’ of wrongful confinement per se.
Sec. 359: Kidnapping 2 types: From India or From Lawful Guardian.
Sec. 360: From India – Conveying a person beyond the limits of India – Without the
consent of that person or someone legally authorized to consent on behalf of that person.
The offence would not be complete until the person actually reaches not only a foreign
territory but to his destination as well.
Sec. 361: From Lawful Guardian – Enticing/Taking away of Minor/unsound mind person –
Male under 16 years and female under 18 years – taking/enticing must be out of keeping of
lawful guardian & without the consent of such guardian.
Keeping: Includes times during which the minor is not actually physically with the guardian.
Lawful guardian: Different from ‘legal guardian’: includes teachers, relatives etc. who
have been entrusted with the care of the minor.
Intention of the Kidnapper is Immaterial. Consent of the person kidnapped is immaterial.

It is a substantive offense. Not a continuing offense. It is complete as soon as minor/unsound
person is removed from lawful guardian.
‘Taking’ doesnot necessarily means by force, merely means to cause to go, to escort or to get
into possession.
‘Entice’ means an inducement or allurement by giving rise to hope or desire.
Varadarajan v. State of Madras, (1965) AIR 942
The girl voluntarily joins the boy and hence it cannot be said that he has taken her away from
the keeping of her lawful guardian. The proposal to run came from girl’s side. To convict the
accused, something more should be there. Some sort of allurement or active participation of
the accused in formation of the intention of the minor to leave the house.
Sec. 362: Abduction – Whoever by force compels, or by deceitful means induces a person to
go from one place to another.
Abduction is an Auxiliary act and not a substantive offence, hence not punishable in itself.
Intention of the abductor is an important factor in determining the guilt. It is a continuing
offence. Free and voluntary consent condones abduction.

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
OBSCENITY & SEXUAL OFFENCES

1. Outraging and insulting the modesty under IPC (S. 354, 354 A)
Rupan Deol bajaj v. KPS Gill
S.C. held in favour of Mrs. Bajaj that the act of slapping on her posterior in front of guests,
amounted to outraging her modesty.
2. Common law notion of ‘sexual intercourse’ and its transformation

post 2013 amendments
Sec. 375: A man is said to commit "rape" if he-—
1. 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
2. inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis,
Sexual into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with
Intercourse him or any other person; or
3. manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration
into the vagina, urethra, anus or any of body of such woman or makes her
to do so with him or any other person; or
4. 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:
a) Against her will.

b) Without her consent.
c) 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.
d) 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.
e) 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.
f) With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age.

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
g) 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:
Provided that a woman who does not physically resist to the act of penetration shall not
by the reason only of that fact, be regarded as consenting to the sexual activity.

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
• Exception 1.—A medical procedure or intervention shall not constitute rape.

• Exception 2.—Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife
not being under fifteen years of age, is not rape.'.
Consent on the pretext of promise of marriage – Dileep Singh v. State of Bihar “such
promise to marry would be punishable only if it is established that from very inception
man never really intended to marry. If not; then he could be liable for breach of
promise.”
• False promise of remarriage will not IPSO FACTO make a person liable for rape if
woman > 18 years & impliedly consented.
Women cannot be charged for rape; however they can be charged for abetment of Rape.
Sec. 376: Punishment for Rape – Imprisonment not less than 7 years, may extend to life +
fine.
Custodial Rape – Not less than 10 years and upto life imprisonment with fine.
Sec. 376 (A): Any offence punishable under sec. 376 (1 & 2) and in course of commission
inflicts injury which causes death of a woman or causes a woman to be in a persistent
vegetative state (PVS) shall be punished with imprisonment for no less than 20 years which
may extend to imprisonment for life or with death.
Sec. 376 (C): Sexual Intercourse by person in authority [in his custody/charge/present in
premises] not amounting to rape [Custodial Intercourse where by the virtue of the power /
position, women has consented for sex] will be punished for no less than 5 years but may
extend to 10 years & fine.
Sec. 376 (E): Repeated Offender – Person convicted u/s 376 / 376 A / 376 D again is
convicted under any of these shall be imprisoned for life or with death.
• Rao Harnarayan Singh v. State AIR 1958 P & H 123
X, Tenant of the accused forced his wife to satisfy lust of the accused & his guests on eve
of entertainment party. She protested but finally under pressure of her husband she
surrendered. 3 accused raped her during night & she died almost immediately. Her
shrieks were heard all over.
H.C. laid down difference b/w ‘Consent’ & ‘Submission’:-
1. Mere act of helpless resignation due to irresistible compulsion; passive giving in is not
equal to Consent.
2. Consent requires voluntary participation after having exercised freely a choice b/w/
resistance & assent.
3. Consent in order to relieve an act of a criminal character (e.g. rape) must be an act of
reason; accompanied with deliberation after weighing both good & evil & with power to
withdraw the assent according to one’s will & pressure.

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
• Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra (1979) 2 SCC 143

Analysis: when the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, the judges brought about two
points of contention. The first of these was the age of consent issue. In this, the court decided
that there was no possible way to determine the fact that she was above 16 years of age. Second
issue was whether or not “passive submission” can be equated to consent. The Court in
this case also used her previous sexual encounters as a precedent for trying to
prove her character to be promiscuous. This shows a disreputable character and hence
consent would be given easily thereafter.
The Apex court held that since such fear of hurt or death could not be found, so consent is not
negated. The fear in clause three can be negated due to it being circumstantial evidence. The
court held that since the girl altered her position with regard to the serious allegations at her
will, the girl cannot be taken at her word. Hence, the court concluded that the act was not
rape and hence, the appellant has not committed any offence.
• Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Mahmood Farooqui (2016)
• Consent must be given and cannot be assumed . Consent must be unambiguous, it must
be communicated through mutually understandable words and actions. Body
language, non-verbal communication or previous activity cannot be taken as consent.
In this case, the judge said that the prosecutrix’s non-consent was not or could not
have been known to the appellant.
• Regardless of the past activities between the appellant and the prosecutrix, there must
be consent every time either party attempts to engage in a sexual act.
• If there is a prior connection between to party’s where they have engaged in physical
acts, a hesitant or feeble no may not be taken to be a denial of consent.
• Communication of fear. U/S 375, the accused must be aware that consent was given
under fear of injury. Judge concurred with defence that fear was never communicated
to him. Farooqui was acquitted.
• One of the main issues raised by this case was whether the actions of the prosecutrix
entailed consent.
3. Critical analysis of landmark amendments in sexual offences: 1983

& 2013
Sec. 375 A-D was substituted instead of the old law.

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
4. Unnatural offences- section 377
• Suresh Kumar Koushal & Anr vs Naz Foundation & Ors (2013)
With regard to the first issue, the petitioners argued that Section 377, on the face of it, does
not mention or classify any particular group or gender and hence is not violative of Article 14
and 15 and 21 respectively.
The Court accepted their arguments and held that Section 377 is not violative of Articles 14,
15 and 21 and that carnal intercourse, as intended and defined by the petitioners to mean
unnatural lust ought to be punished.
Justice Singhvi also said that Section 377 is a pre-constitutional legislation and if it were
violative of any of the rights guaranteed under Part III, then the Parliament would have
noticed the same and repealed the section long ago. Based on this reasoning, he declared the
section to be constitutionally valid.
So, the Supreme Court held that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code does not suffer from
any constitutional infirmity and left the matter to the competent legislature to consider the
desirability and legitimacy of deleting the Section from the statute book or altering the same
to allow consensual sexual activity between two adults of the same sex in private.
5. Notion of ‘Obscenity’ under IPC (Ss. 292-294)
Obscenity is not defined in the Indian code.
Hicklin Test
• The Hicklin’s test of obscenity examined whether the tendency of the material is to
deprave and corrupt minds that are open to immoral influences, and into whose hands
the material may fall.
• This test allowed the material to be judged on the basis of isolated parts of the work
by their influence on the most susceptible readers.
Community Standard Test
• The Community Standards Test of obscenity examined while viewing the said picture
in the background of which it was shown, and the message it conveyed to the public
and the world at large.
• Ranjit D. Udeshi vs State Of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 881
The court stated that the Hicklin test was not pertaining just to certain parts of the case here or
there but it was related to the overall story. The Supreme Court of India held that the appellant
was guilty under S 292 of the IPC as he was in possession for sale obscene material.
Hicklin Test was applied!

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
• Aveek Sarkar v. State of West Bengal (2014) 4 SCC 257
The Supreme Court held that a photograph cannot per se be called obscene unless it has the
tendency to arouse feeling or revealing an overt sexual desire.
Since the cover story of the Magazine carried the title, “posing nude, dropping of
harassment, battling racism in Germany” it was clear that the motive of such a photograph
was against Apartheid. It also held that since the breast of Barbara Fultus were fully covered
with the arm of Boris Becker the photograph was semi-nude and had no tendency to deprave
or corrupt the minds of people in whose hands the magazine Sports World or Anandabazar
Patrika would fall. The Court held that the photograph was not obscene within the meaning of
Section 292 of the IPC. It did not excite sexual passion or tended to deprave or corrupt the
minds of people in whose hands the magazine or newspaper may have fallen.
Further, the photograph and the article in which it appeared conveys the message of racial
equality and promoted love and marriage between persons of different racial backgrounds.
Accordingly, the Court found no offense under Section 292 of the IPC or Section 4 of the
Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986.
Community Standard Test was applied!
• Rahul Mookerji vs. State (NCT) of Delhi CRL.M.C. 283 of 2009

Police found a couple sitting and exchanging kisses near court, waiting for registration of
their marriage, the officer filed a complaint u/s 294 of IPC for obscene acts in public as it was
annoying for the passers by.
Court asked why would a married couple exchanging kisses in public will amount to obscenity
and trigger the coercive process of law. Hence it does not amount to obscenity u/s 294 of IPC.

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
OFFENCES AGAINST MARRIAGE
1. Mock Marriages
Sec. 493: Man, deceits woman to think that both are lawfully married and cohabits or has
sexual relations with.
This section has been generally covered u/s 375 (fourthly) which deals with rape.
Sec. 496: Whoever goes through a marriage ceremony knowing that he is not allowed.
Although the section does not talk about man and woman categorically like 493, but the
intention of the makers of legislation was to punish a man for such crimes. Woman cannot be
punished under it.
S.No. Section 493 Section 496

1 Cohabitation/sexual intercourse by Marriage ceremony is fraudulently
deceit performed with no intent of lawful
marriage.
2 Effects only Man Either Sex ??

3 Deception is necessary followed by No deception for sexual intercourse
cohabitation to hold person liable required, as a necessary condition.
2. Offence of Adultery/ Enticement

rd
Sec. 497: Adultery – 3 Man – knows or believes a woman to be married to some other man
– has sexual intercourse with her [without the consent or connivance of that man] – amounts
to adultery. Wife will not be punishable as an abettor.
Here the act is done under consent, hence doesnot amount to rape.
Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. State (AIR 1951 SC 321)
Petitioner was charged for adultery u/S 497. Argues the Constitutional validity of s. 497 by
saying that it excludes woman from any liability (even that of abettor). So violating Art. 14
(Equality) as it says no discrimination on basis of “sex”.
It was held that Sec. 497 is not in contravention of Art. 14 & 15 of the Constitution. Art. 15
(3) of the Constitution allows the state to make special provisions for women – implies S. 497
is constitutionally valid.
Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India (AIR 1985 SC 1618)

There was an ongoing divorce case – wife starts living with another man – Husband filed for
Adultery u/s 497. Wife asks the court to quash the appeal as Sec. 497 is not constitutionally
valid.
Court held that its constitutionally valid as no discrimination – woman are also given enough
freeway here.

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
3. Bigamy (Brief discussion- Elaborate study in Family law)
Sec. 494: Bigamy – marrying again during the life time of spouse unless marriage is annulled
by court of competent jurisdiction or the spouse is missing for more than 7 years.
What if Divorce is given?
Sec. 495: Whoever committing Bigamy conceals from the spouse of subsequent marriage
about his former marriage – More aggravated form of punishment than Sec. 494.
Sec. 496: Whoever goes through a marriage ceremony knowing that he is not allowed.
Although the section does not talk about man and woman categorically like 493, but the
intention of the makers of legislation was to punish a man for such crimes. Woman cannot be
punished under it.
4. Criminal Elopement
Sec. 498: Detaining a married woman with a criminal Intent to have illicit sexual intercourse.
Willingness of wife is immaterial here.
What if elopement just before marriage?

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY
Basic Element here is of ‘dishonesty’. Dishonesty in the code is the intention of causing
‘wrongful gain’ to one person or ‘wrongful loss’ to another, but in way dishonesty is
exercised, differs in different cases.
Sec. 23: Wrongful Gain
Sec. 24: Dishonestly
1. Theft- sections 378/ 379 of IPC
Sec. 378: Theft - Dishonest – removal of moveable property out of the possession – without
that person’s consent.
• To commit theft the property must be moveable and should be in the possession of that
person. Thus, it is not an offence against ownership. Taking it out of possession must
result in wrongful gain of one and wrongful loss of other. The taking / loss or gain may
not be permanent – temporary removal can also amount to theft.
• Every property is moveable except land and things attached to land or permanently
fixed to some ting which is attached to land. E.g. – Tree is attached to land, but as
soon as you cut it with a dishonest intention to remove it from someone’s possession, it
is no longer attached to land and the act can qualify as theft.
9
Electricity is not moveable property u/s 379. But theft of cooking gas / water
10
through pipeline is theft. Human Body living or dead is not subject to theft.
• The consent here may be expressed or implied from the person with whom the
possession of property lies or who has the authority to give such consent.
• There can be no theft, where there is no dishonesty.
Larceny under English Law – Property must be owned by the person – not the case here.
Possession is not same as custody. In possession, you deal with the property as owner while
in custody you cannot deal with the property and just hold it for the owner [Servant holding
property for master].
If one pawns goods to another and remove it without paying the charges to result in removal
from pawnee’s possession, it amounts to theft.11
Theft v. Mischief – In mischief only loss to other no gain to himself.
Sec. 379: Punishment of theft – Upto 3 years/fine/both.
9 Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 666.

10
Ahmed v. State, AIR 1967 Raj 190.
11
Kartkeshwar Roy v. Bansidhar Byas, AIR 1923 Cal. 594.

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
2. Extortion- section 383/ 384 of IPC

Sec. 383: Extortion - Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to himself or another –
Dishonestly inducing a person to put in fear to deliver any person, property or valuable security.
• Fear of Injury must be real to unsettle the mind of the person.
• Fear not necessarily be physical injury. Injury to character may also be an injury.
• There runs a principal of vicarious liability. If some uses force and others receive the
property, all would be guilty of extortion.
• Threat of criminal charge whether true/false amounts to extortion. 12
13
Threat to expose a Bishop of his illegal relation was considered extortion. Threat of law for
black mailing is criminal and when property or a document is obtained by such means, it is
extortion.
• For extortion, there must be fear and delivery of property. Forcibly taking signatures
doesnot amount to extortion as in extortion, there is essence of consent, although not
free and given under threat/fear.14 This distinguishes it from theft too. There is no
consent of the owner in theft; property is only moveable; no element of force by the
accused; no delivery of property by the owner.
• While in cheating there is consent, but obtained through fraud. In extortion, it is
obtained through fear.
15
• Property here is both moveable and immoveable.
Sec. 384: Punishment of extortion – Upto 3 years/fine/both.
3. Robbery as aggravated form of theft or extortion sections 390, 391,

392 & 395
Robbery in common language means to deprive a person of his/her property. The chief
distinguishing element is the presence of eminent fear of violence.
Sec. 390: In all robbery, there is either theft or extortion.
When theft is robbery:

• To commit theft / while committing theft / carrying away or attempting to carry away
the property obtained by theft, if a person voluntarily causes or attempts to cause
death / hurt / wrongful restraint / fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant
wrongful restraint.
When extortion is robbery:

• While committing extortion a person puts a fear of instant death or instant hurt or
instant wrongful restraint to that person or any other person and by such fear induces
the person to deliver up the thing extorted.
Chain snatching example?
12 Queen v. Mobaruk, (1867) 7 WR Cr. 28.

13 Queen v. Nathalirc Mirad, (1844) 1 Cox. CC 22.
14 Jadunandan Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1941 Pat 129.
15 Hyderabad State v. Beerappa, AIR 1951 Hyd 91.

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
Sec. 391: Dacoity – 5 or more persons conjointly [united and concerted action]: commits /
attempts to commit robbery or committing / attempting to commit a robbery and persons
aiding such commission or attempt is said to have committed dacoity.
Same as robbery except number of offenders. In many countries dacoity is termed as Gang
16
Robbery. All person committing robbery must share common intention.
If no force or violence is required by the dacoits or the inmates of offer no resistance, it
doesnot reduce dacoity to theft.
Sec. 392: Punishment for robbery – For a term upto 10 years and Fine. When committed on a
highway between sunset to sunrise term may extend to 14 years.
• When murder and robbery are committed, the offence falls under this section.
• When theft is committed and injuries are caused, conviction is set under this section.
Cognizable – Non-bailable – Non-Compoundable.
Sec. 395: Punishment for dacoity – Imprisonment of life or rigorous imprisonment upto a
term of 10 years and shall be liable to pay fine.
4. Misappropriation of property- section 403 - Criminal breach of trust:

sections 405/ 406
Sec. 403: Dishonest misappropriation of property – whoever dishonestly appropriates

[uses] or converts to his own use [permanent or temporary] any moveable property –
punished with imprisonment upto 2 year / fine / both.
When the property belonging to some other person comes one’s possession innocently, but
after knowing the facts and due to change in intention if any person continues to retain the
property, it becomes wrongful and fraudulent. Implies that the offender must be in the
possession of property and it must belong to the complainant.
Explanation 2: Finder of Goods – A person who finds property not in possession of another
and keep it with him for protecting it, is not guilty. But if he uses it / converts it for his own
use – after knowing the true owner or having means to discover / he misappropriates before
he has used reasonable means to send notice to owner and has kept it a reasonable time for
the owner to claim it. Reasonable means/time depends upon the facts of the case.
Finder of goods can use the goods if after reasonable precautions to ascertain the owner
and keeping the good for a reasonable time the owner is not found. But if he uses
immediately, he would be liable.
Sec. 405: Criminal breach of trust – The accused must be entrusted with that property or
had dominion over that property – dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use or
dishonestly dispose of the property as against any prior contract or violation of law
prescribing that mode.
Unless there is an entrustment, there can be no offence under this section. E.g. – In-laws
holding stridhan of bride amounts to entrustment of property. And if they misappropriate or
convert it for their benefit, this section will apply. Ministers are entrusted with equitable and
generous distribution of government benefits to the people and any breach of such
entrustment would be an offence under this section.
16 Om Prakash v. State, AIR 1956 All 163.


lOMoARcPSD|5146188
Explanation 1 & 2 About employer being entrusted with employees Provident Fund, Pension
Schemes etc. or deducts for State Insurance from employees’ wages and never submits it and
if he dishonestly misappropriates it or use it, it will amount to offence under this section.
Sec. 406: Punishment for criminal breach of trust – imprisonment upto 3 years / fine / both.
5. Cheating: Sections 415 & 420

Sec. 415: Whoever by Deceiving any person:
1. Fraudulently
a. Delivery of Property
2. Inducing Dishonesty
b. Delivery of Property
c. Consent to retention of property
3. Intentionally
a. Do or omit to do
b. Damage or harm caused by act or omission.
Damage must not be too remote. It should constitute any of these 3 categories for the offence
to fall under this section.
Dishonest concealment of facts = Deception; Cheating = deceitful practise to defraud
another of his right by some artful device.
Sec. 420: Cheating and dishonest delivery of property by anyone to any person, or to alter,
to destroy [whole/part] of any valuable security / capable of being converted to valuable
security – imprisonment upto 7 years + fine.
Ø CASES & READINGS

1. K.N. Mehra v. State (AIR 1957 SC 369)
ISSUE:
The plaintiff had to fly with his co-pilot (another trainee) as a part of a training program. But
the plaintiff with Phillips, (another trainee) was disqualified and was removed a day earlier.
They took a different they were not authorized to, and that too before the training time.
They landed in Pakistan. They contacted J.C. KAPOOR military adviser to the Indian high
commissioner in Pakistan for help to return to Delhi as they lost their way. Mr. Kapoor made
arrangements for there return journey and also arranged for the plane to be back to jodhpur.
On their way back to Delhi, they were stopped and arrested.
DECISION:
The taking out of aircraft was without the authority of the commander and before the appointed
time in the company of a person who has been discharged. Given the appellant temporary use of
the aircraft, for their own purpose and has temporarily deprived the owner of the aircraft that is
the government, of its legitimate use for its purposes. Such unauthorized conduct of the appellant
was clearly a gain or lose by unlawful means. As there was absent of consent government and
unlawfulness of the mean by which there has been a temporary law or gain using the aircraft it is
satisfied that there has been both wrongful gain to the appellant and

lOMoARcPSD|5146188
wrongful loss to the government. The appellant, K.N. Mehra was convicted under Sec. 379 of
Indian Penal Code and sentenced to simple Imprisonment for eighteen months and a 750
Rupee. And the appeal was dismissed.
2. Pyare Lal Bhargava vs State of Rajasthan AIR 1963 SC 1094

A temporary removal of office file out of the office of the Chief engineer and making it
available to private person for a day or two amounts to the offense of theft. Taking need not
be permanent It is not necessary that the taking should be of a permanent character, or that
the accused should have derived any profit. A temporary removal of an office file from the
office of a Chief Engineer and making it available to a private person for a day or two
amounts to the offence of theft.
3. R. v. Velumyl [1989] CLR 299

ISSUE: Does the contention raised by the defendant that he had an intention to return back
the money he had taken from the safe forms a considerate reason for his acquittal or not?
Whether repayment of the borrowed value cleared him of intention to permanently deprive
the company and formed a valid defense for the theft committed?
Whether the defendant had intention to permanently deprive the company of the cash
amount?
The defendant was a Director of a company and was convicted for the offence of theft
for having taken money out of the company’s safe.
The defendant who was a company manager borrowed £1050 from a safe at work without
authority and contrary to company rules and lent it to a friend. He intended to return the
money on the following Monday and therefore claimed that he had no intention permanently
to deprive the employer of his property.
His employer filed for a criminal suit for theft against him. The defendant contested the
alleged theft charge against him by claiming that he was merely borrowing the amount over
the weekend and had intention to repay it back when he got back on work on Monday and
thus had no intention to deprive his employer of their property.
The court reasoned its decision by saying that the appellant had no intention to return the
exact notes and coins he had taken out of the company’s safe, hence had an intention to
commit theft. It would have been far better for the appellant to contend that he
had an intention to return the money by paying an equivalent sum, not the exact money
He had the requisite intention permanently to deprive unless he could prove that not only he
intended to repay the value of the property borrowed but also the exact notes and coins he
had taken from the safe. Although it was proved that he had no intention to return the objects
he had taken the court did not suggested that there was a lack of dishonesty on the
defendant’s part. The Court held that the defendant wanted to deprive the company from the
money the appellant had taken. Conviction of the Lower Court was upheld and appeal
dismissed.
Tort Law and Contract Law in Crimes:

1. The principal of Vicarious Liability – Joint Liability (34 & 149)
2. The principal of Negligence – General Exception of Accident (80)
3. The mistake of facts – General Exceptions (76 onwards)

Indian Penal Code (IPC Notes) Indian Penal Code (IPC Notes)

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Indian Penal Code (IPC Notes) Indian Penal Code (IPC Notes)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

lOMoARcPSD|5146188

Indian Penal Code (IPC notes)

Criminal Law (O.P. Jindal Global University)

StuDocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university

Indian Penal Code – Notes

CRIMINAL LAW: BASIC CONCEPTS

Wrongful Act Prosecutiton

2. Deterrence: To deter crime from SOCIETY and instill fear.

3. Retribution: Quid-pro-quo concept of punishment – eye for an eye type.

4. Reformation: Rehabilitation concept – making person adaptable to society again.

5. Multiple Theory Approach: Borrows the positive from all 4 theories.

ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A CRIMINAL OFFENCE

An act itself is not sufficient for crime without a guilty mind.

Person A is drowning; Person B sees and ignores; Person A dies.

- B had a legal duty and here there is OMISSION.

1 Om Prakash V. State of Punjab (Duty towards wife)

MOHIT KHATRI (16 JGLS) 1

3. Mens Rea (mental element)

Intention 1. Intention: Complete

Reason to 2. Knowledge: No Intention,

3. Reason to Believe: Not

5. Negligence: Not aware of

5. Causal chain, Causation

6. Doctrine of Transfer of malice

MOHIT KHATRI (16 JGLS) 2

Downloaded by shajana shahul (shajanashahul@gmail.com)

COMPLITY & JOINT LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL LAW

1. Vicarious liability under criminal law: - Distinguishing common

Common Object – Section 149

2. Unlawful assembly (Sec. 141)

Assembly of 5 or more people can be unlawful assembly, if the common object is –

3. Comparative analysis of section 34 and 149 of IPC and Same

COMMON INTENTION COMMON OBJECT

1. 2 or more persons 1. 5 persons – unlawful assembly

MOHIT KHATRI (16 JGLS) 3

Downloaded by shajana shahul (shajanashahul@gmail.com)

The rule of VICARIOUS

Ø CASES & READINGS

2. Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor (AIR 1925 PC 1)

3. Mahboob Shaw v. Emperor (AIR 1945 PC 118)

4. Mathew v. State of Travancore-Cochin (AIR 1956 SC 241)

Downloaded by shajana shahul (shajanashahul@gmail.com)

MOHIT KHATRI (16 JGLS) 4

Downloaded by shajana shahul (shajanashahul@gmail.com)

Concept of Inchoate Offences: Attempt, Conspiracy and Abetment

1. Punishing attempt to commit a crime- Section 511

2. Stages of crime: distinguishing attempt from preparation &

• Intention – Might change

*Distinguishing Attempt from Preparation:

Downloaded by shajana shahul (shajanashahul@gmail.com)

b. Repentance Test (Locus Paenitentiae) – So long as the steps taken by the

d. Equivocality Test – Harm speaks for themselves; Weapon in plane.

4. ‘Conspiracy’ (120 A – 120 B)

Section 120B deals with punishment.

4 Refer Textbook on IPC, Gaur, K.D., Page 1122.

Downloaded by shajana shahul (shajanashahul@gmail.com)

• There must be an abettor

Downloaded by shajana shahul (shajanashahul@gmail.com)

• Abetment of abetment is offence – A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z; both are

Downloaded by shajana shahul (shajanashahul@gmail.com)

CASES & READINGS

2. R. v. Shivpuri (1987 AC 1) House of Lords

MOHIT KHATRI (16 JGLS) 8