Criminal Law-1

SOLVED PROBLEM

Vaishali Bilagi 3/24/21 IPC

 P age |1

PROBLEM 1
Answer 1: A has committed no offence as per the defense given in the section 80
ie Accident This Exception under section 80 which precludes the presence of
mensrea . It also speaks that the act must be a lawful act done in lawful manner
and by lawful means with due care and caution.
For a crime to take place it requires the element of mensrea (evil intention )coupled
with the acts Reus(outward act to achieve the evil consequences ) .
In the present case, A shot at the bush having reason to believe that it is a fowl
,thus accidently killing B who was behind the bush so A has not committed any
offence.

PROBLEM 2

Answer 2: The present problem is covered by the exception given under section
93.Section 93 speaks of communication made in good faith .Where any
communication is made to a person in good faith and if it causes any harm to him
, then the person making the communication has not committed any offence ,if
such communication is made for the benefit of the person ,
In the present problem , the communication made by the surgeon to his patient
regarding his short life is no offence because the doctor communicated the same
in good faith ,so as to make the patient realize his status and help him take decisions
for his family members .
However ,in the present case the communication was of no benefit to the patient
himself as it caused his death. So the surgeon may be held liable . Good faith of
 P age |2

the surgeon and the benefit of the patient are 2 different things ,so in the light of
this argument ,surgeon may be held liable .

PROBLEM 3

Answer 3: In the given problem A, the police officer fires on a mob and in this
firing if any person are killed ,then he is not liable for the same as his act is covered
under section 76 of IPC. Thus A has not committed any offence .
Section 76 speaks of acts done either in good faith or under a bounded duty to
follow the orders of his superiors .The acts done in both these instances do not
amount to an offence .
In the present problem the police officer opened fire as he was bound to obey the
orders by the superior officer . If such order given by the superior is taken lawfully
then the officer obeying it has not committed any offence as in the present problem.
Thus A has not committed any offence .
However ,if the superior has given orders which are unlawful then the officer obeys
in spite of knowing it to be unlawful cannot take the defense under section 76.
Blindly Obeying unlawful orders just because they are given by a superior shall
not protect him, but may reduce the punishment to be awarded .

PROBLEM4:

Answer 4: In the present problem ‘A’ instigates ‘B’ to commit the murder of
‘D’.Here the liability of ‘A’ is that he has committed the offence of Abetment by
Instigation .
 P age |3

The offence of Abetment may be committed in 3 ways i.e

1. Abetment by Instigation
2. Abetment by Conspiracy
3. Abetment by Intentional aiding .
In the present problem ‘A’ has committed the offence of Abetment by Instigation.
Instigation means to goad or urge or to encourage another to commit a offence .
Instigation is complete as soon as it is committed .It does not matter if the person
abetted committed the offence or not. Section 108 of IPC defines an abettor as, A
person who urges or encourages another to commit an offence is an abettor. Here
‘A’ is the Abettor and he abetted the offence of murder.
Thus ‘A’ can be held liable for the offence of Abetment and be punished under
section 109 of IPC which prescribes the same punishment which is to be
given for the offence so abetted . In this case he has abetted the murder .So he is
punishable for the punishment prescribed under section 302 for murder i.e death
sentence or imprisonment for life and fine .

PROBLEM 5

Answer 5: In the present problem ‘B’ gets provoked by the striking or hitting by
‘A’. So ‘B’ gets excited in a great anger and kills ‘A’ with the knife .The offence
committed by ‘B’ is murder .Though there was a provocation given by ‘A’ by
hitting , ‘B’ cannot take the defense given under the 1 exception to murder.
Exception 1: Culpable homicide is not murder if the act of killing was as a result
of grave and sudden provocation. Provocation means acts done by a person
which causes another person to lose his self control and subject to passion . So
the provocation must be grave and sudden both .If it is only one that is only grave
act or only sudden act then the exception does not apply .
In the present case, the hitting by ‘A’ may cause sudden provocation but it is not
grave so ‘B’ is not covered under the 1 exception . The act must be both grave
and sudden to react .
 P age |4

So ‘B’ is liable for the murder which is Punishable with death or life
imprisonment as given under section 302 for Murder .
Here the offense of ‘C’ is Abetment by Intentional Aiding . ‘C’ has actively
involved in the commission of the offense by putting a knife in the hand of ‘B’.
‘C’ knew that ‘B’ will strike with the knife and kill ‘A’.
The act of ‘A’ is Punishable under section 109 for abetting the offence of
murder and the punishment is the same as that for murder ,which is punishable
under section 302 with death or life imprisonment .

PROBLEM6

Answer 6: In the given problem the Hindustan Transport Co had been entrusted
property by ‘A’ to be carried by land . The carrier company dishonestly misuses
the property . ‘A’ has committed the offense of Criminal Breach of Trust given
under section 405.

The section 405 gives the ingredients of the criminal breach of trust ,which are

1. A person entrusts a property to another

2. The other person dishonestly misappropriates or converts it to his own use or
dishonestly disposes off that property or intentionally makes another to
suffer loss under a valid contract or direction of law.
Section 24 which explains the term ‘dishonestly’ as when anyone does anything
to cause wrongful loss to another or wrongful gain to a person .
So the carrier company has misappropriated or wrongfully set apart property to
be misused by another who is not authorized to do so
So ‘A’ shall be punished for the offense under section 406 which is upto 3 years
imprisonment or fine or with both .
 P age |5

PROBLEM7

Answer 7 : ‘A’ has committed the offense of Wrongful Restraint under section 339
of IPC.
Section 339 speaks that a offense of wrongful restraint is committed if any person
obstructs another person who has a right to proceed in that direction lawfully .
So ‘A’ by building a wall has prevented ‘B’ to proceed in the direction in which
he had a right to pass lawfully .
The punishment for wrongful restraint is given under section 341 of IPC which is
simple imprisonment upto1 month or with fine upto 500rs or both .

PROBLEM8

Answer 8: The offense committed by ‘A’ is covered by the exception given under
section 76 ‘A’ the officer of the court being ordered by the court to arrest ‘Y’
arrests ‘Z’ after due inquiry .The section excuses a person who by reason of a
mistake of fact in good faith believes himself to be bound by law to do a certain
act .
When a person acts with a good intention and exercises due care and caution which
his duty demands ,he is said to act in good faith. So ‘A’ the officer of the court
after due enquiry believes in good faith that Z is Y . He does the act under the
mistake of fact believes himself to be bound by law to do the act.
So anything done in good faith saves the person from the outcome or result of the
act .
 P age |6

PROBLEM9

Answer 9: In the present problem ‘A’ has the intention to permanently disfigure
the face of ‘Z’ and thus hits him in the face which results in a severe bodily pain
for 20 days . The offense committed by ‘A’ is Grievous hurt under section 320 of
IPC.
Section 320 gives 8 instances where Hurt is converted into grievous hurt and the
present problem is given under the 8th type .It speaks that if anyone is made to
suffer severe bodily pain for a period of 20 days or is unable to do his daily work
, he is said to cause grievous hurt
Punishment for grievous hurt is given under section 325 for causing grievous hurt
voluntarily is imprisonment for a period upto 7 years and fine .
PROBLEM 10

Answer 10 : The offense committed by ‘A’ is Criminal Intimidation given by

section 503 .The offense of Criminal Intimidation is committed if the following
elements are present .
1. Where one person threatens another with injury to his body or his Reputation
or his Property or injury to any person in whom one is interested .
2. With the intention of causing such alarm to that other person .or to cause
another to do any act which he is not legally entitled to do or to omit doing
any act which another is lawfully bound to do .
In the above problem ‘A’ has threatened to publish a defamatory libel
concerning ‘Z’ unless he gives him money .It amounts to a threat to injure
the reputation .
The punishment for Criminal Intimidation is given under 506 i.e
imprisonment for period upto 2 years or fine or both .
 P age |7

PROBLEM11

Answer 11: The offense committed by ‘A’ is Assault . Assault is defined

under section 351 of IPC . The elements for the offense are making a gesture
or preparation by the person knowing that such gesture may cause an
apprehension that the person is going to use criminal force , then such act
amounts to an assault.
The intention to cause such apprehension by doing the gesture is of
importance .
The punishment of ‘A’ for assault is given under section 352 which is upto
3months of imprisonment or fine upto rs.500 or both .

PROBLEM 12

Answer 12: ‘A’ has committed the offense of Cheating .

Cheating is defined under section 420.To constitute an offense under section
420 there must be
1. Deception practiced upon the person
2. Such deception must be intentional so as to induce the other person to do
or omit to do something .
3. Such omission or act causes damage or harm to that person in body ,mind,
reputation or property
In the present problem ‘A’ has pledged fake diamond articles ,so that he can
deceive the other person to lend money . By such act ‘A’causes a damage to
the other person
in terms of monetary loss or loss of property.Thus ‘A’ has committed the
offense of Cheating .
 P age |8

The punishment for cheating &dishonestly inducing delivery of property

under section 420 is upto 7 years of imprisonment (SI or RI) and also fine .

PROBLEM13

Answer 13:’B’ in this case has not committed any offence as his act is
covered under the exception given by section 92 i.e Act done in good faith
for the benefit of a person without the consent . Here with the good
intention to save his friend ‘B’ fires a shot aiming at the tiger without
taking the consent of ‘A’, as in the given circumstances ‘A’ is incapable of
giving consent . But there is every likelihood that the shot may hit his
friend ‘A’.
In the given instance the shot killed ‘A’ , but ‘B’ is not liable for any
offence .

PROBLEM14

Answer 14 :In the present problem ‘A’ has committed the offence of murder
.His act does not come under the first exception to murder :
Exception 1: Culpable homicide is not murder if the act of killing was as a
result of grave and sudden provocation. Provocation means acts done by a
person which causes another person to lose his self control and subject to
passion . So the provocation must be grave and sudden both .If it is only
one that is only grave act or only sudden act then the exception does not
apply .
 P age |9

In the present case ‘A’has intentionally killed the child of ‘B’ and as the
child has not provoked ‘A’,the act of ‘A’ amounts to murder .
Punishment for Murder is given under section 302 of the IPC ,i.e Death
sentence or life imprisonment and also fine .

PROBLEM15

Answer15 :In the present problem , ‘A’ finds the ring and sees that it is of
value sells it . So ‘A’ has committed the offence of Criminal
misappropriation of property under section 403 When ‘A’ discovers that the
ring is valuable , he dishonestly intends to sell the same and at the same time
does not make any conscious attempt to find the owner. So when ‘A’
immediately sells the ring ,it shows his dishonest intention to misappropriate
or to take something which he is not entitled to do so, there by causing a
wrongful gain to himself and a wrongful loss to the owner .
The punishment for the offence of criminal misappropriation is given under
the section 403 ,imprisonment (either SI or RI ) upto 2 years or with fine or
with both .

PROBLEM 16
 P a g e | 10

Answer 16: In the present problem all the four persons went armed to
commit robbery . This shows the presence of common intention to commit
the robbery Section 34 is not a substantive offence in itself .It is a rule of
evidence .It is an instance of Constructive Criminality that is liability for all
the acts of one or some of them .Common intention is an intention shared by
all . Where there is the meeting of the minds by the prearranged plan between
the four persons and that these people had participated in some manner in the
commission of the offence in furtherance of such common intention shall be
equally liable for such offence .
The present facts of the problem are similar to Shreekantiah Ramayya
Munipalli v. State of Bombay . In this case the court held that all the persons
must have participated in some way or other at the time of commission of the
offence in furtherance of the common intention .Though one accused
actually committed the robbery in ‘A’ house , another caused an injury to
‘A’ and the remaining 2 persons were standing outside the house to help
their partners .The participation of all four is different but they shall be liable
for all the acts of one or another among them because of the common
intention shared by them.
Thus all the four persons are liable for the offence of Robbery with deadly
weapons given by section 398 and the punishment for the offence is upto 7
years .

PROBLEM17

Answer 17: In the present problem ‘A’ has committed the offence of
Wrongful Confinement under section 340 of IPC.
 P a g e | 11

As per section the offence of wrongful confinement is committed where a

person causes the wrongful restraint of another . Such restraint prevents the
other person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits .
Here ‘A’ causes ‘B’ to go into a room and locks him,so ‘B’ is restrained
from proceeding in all directions which amounts to total restraint .
Thus ‘A’ can be punished for the above offence under section 342 , which
gives imprisonment (SI or RI) for term upto one year or fine upto Rs.1000/
or both .

PROBLEM 18

Answer 18: In the present problem the offence committed by ‘A’ is

Criminal force .The essentials of the offence as per section 350 are
1. Intentional using of force .
2. Without that person’s consent .
3. With an Intention by the use of such force to cause injury ,fear or
annoyance to the other person .
In this case ‘A’ incites a dog to spring upon ‘B’ . ‘A’ is said to have used
force by inciting the dog with an intention to put ‘B’ in fear and there by
causes motion of ‘B’ .

Problem19:

Answer 19 :In the present case the statement made by ‘A’ amounts to
defamation under section 499 of IPC.
 P a g e | 12

For the offence of defamation the essentials are

1. Making or publishing any blame or to charge him with something which
brings him to disrepute .
2. Such blame or imputation must be made with the intention of harming
orthe knowledge or having reason to believe that it shall harm the
reputation of the other person .
In the present case ‘A’ has made a statement which is not covered by the
fifth exception of defamation ,where any person expresses in good faith
any opinion regarding the merits of any case or the conduct of any witness
or agent as far as his character appears in that conduct and not anything
more.
However in the present case the opinion made by ‘A’ is not founded on
‘B’ conduct as a witness but rather create a doubt about the trustworthiness
as a witness. Thus such opinion is made intentionally to harm his
reputation and amounts to Defamation .
The punishment for defamation is given under section 500 which
prescribes imprisonment upto aperiod of 2 years or with fine or both .

PROBLEM 20

Answer 20: In the present case the facts are similar to R v. Prince .The
offence committed by ‘A’ is kidnapping from Lawful Gaurdianship under
section 361. His presumption that the girl is a major does not hold
good.His act of taking the girl out of the custody of her parents without
their consent amounts to the offence of Kidnapping from lawful
guardianship .
The punishment for the offence is given under section 363,which is
imprisonment upto 7 years .
 P a g e | 13

PROBLEM 21

Answer 21 : Insanity as defence to absolve from liability for criminal

acts is given under section 84 of IPC . The type of insanity recognized
under the section is legal insanity and not medical insanity . The Mac
Naughten’s rule of Insanity is followed . It has two rules to prove
Insanity .
1. Whether the offender knew the nature of the Act he was doing ?
2. Did he have the reason to understand that the act was either wrong or
contrary to law ?
If the questions are answered in the negative then the defence of legal
insanity can be taken. The burden of proof is on the person claiming
the defence .
In the above case ‘A’ killed his own son to praise or appease the
diety .Here in ‘A’ is not under partial delusion nor are his cognitve
faculties (logical reasoning or ability to think )are not so destroyed as
to render him incapable of knowing the nature of his act. So ‘A’
cannot plead the defence of insanity .

PROBLEM 22

Answer 22: In the present case ‘A’ has committed the offence of
criminal force under section 350.The section requires the use of force
by one person against another . Such force becomes criminal where it
 P a g e | 14

is done without the consent of the another for the commission of the
offence or for causing injury or instilling fear or annoyance . In the
above instance ‘A’ unfastened the boat thereby causing change of
motion with the intention to annoy the women passengers .
The punishment of ‘A’ for the offence is as given under section 352 of
IPC which is upto 3 months of imprisonment or fine upto Rs.500 or
both .

PROBLEM 23

Answer 23: In the present case ‘X’ married ‘Y’ in a temple and later
released her and married ‘Z’ as per the ceremonies of the brahmin
community . when ‘X’ released ‘Y’ there must be a honest belief that the
marriage has ended and thereafter if ‘X’ remarries ‘Z’, it does not amount
to Bigamy as there is the absence of a guilty mind .