IPC PROJECT ASSIGNMENT

RESEARCH PAPER- MUTINY

Submitted to: Ms. Sheetal Singh
Submitted by: Priya Khandelwal,
BBA LLB, Section-E
Enrollment No. - A3221519300
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I have put sincere efforts into writing this Research Paper on Mutiny. I hereby
express my acknowledgement towards all those who have assisted me by providing
their constant guidance and supervision. My appreciation and gratitude go to
Amity Law School, Noida for presenting me with this learning opportunity. I would
also like to thank Ms. Sheetal Singh for giving me her attention and encouraging
me to complete this paper. Lastly, I am also thankful to my parents and my
wonderful colleagues for being a constant support.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

S.NO. DESCRIPTION

1 Introduction to Mutiny

2 Indian Sepoy Mutiny, 1857

3 Legislative Approach

4 Conclusion

5 Bibliography

6 Appendices

INTRODUCTION TO MUTINY
Mutiny is a revolt among a group of people (typically of a military or of a crew) to oppose,
change, or overthrow an organization to which they were previously loyal to. The term is
commonly used for a rebellion among members of the military against an internal force, but it
can also sometimes mean any type of rebellion against any force. Mutiny does not necessarily
need to refer to a Military Force and can describe a political, economic, or Power structure in
which there a change of power.

The unlawful resistance of a superior officer, or the raising of commotions and disturbances on b
oard of a ship against the authority of its commander, or in the army in opposition to the authorit-
-y of the officers;

HISTORY OF MUTINY:

Those convicted of mutiny often faced capital punishment.

United Kingdom

Until 1689, mutiny was regulated in England by Articles of War instituted by the monarch and
effective only in a period of war. In 1689, the first Mutiny Act was passed which passed the
responsibility to enforce discipline within the military to Parliament. The Mutiny Act, altered in
1803, and the Articles of War defined the nature and punishment of mutiny until the latter were
replaced by the Army Discipline and Regulation Act in 1879. This, in turn, was replaced by the
Army Act in 1881.Today the Army Act 1955 defines mutiny as follows:Mutiny means a
combination between two or more persons subject to service law, or between persons two at least
of whom are subject to service law—

(a) to overthrow or resist lawful authority in Her Majesty's forces or any forces co-operating
therewith or in any part of any of the said forces,

(b) to disobey such authority in such circumstances as to make the disobedience subversive of
discipline, or with the object of avoiding any duty or service against, or in connection with
operations against, the enemy, or

(c) to impede the performance of any duty or service in Her Majesty's forces or in any forces co-
operating therewith or in any part of any of the said forces.

The same definition applies in the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force.
The military law of England in early times existed, like the forces to which it applied, in a period
of war only. Troops were raised for a particular service and were disbanded upon the cessation of
hostilities. The crown, by prerogative, made laws known as Articles of War for the government
and discipline of the troops while thus embodied and serving. Except for the punishment of
desertion, which was made a felony by statute in the reign of Henry VI, these ordinances or
Articles of War remained almost the sole authority for the enforcement of discipline until 1689
when the first Mutiny Act was passed and the military forces of the crown were brought under
the direct control of parliament. Even the Parliamentary forces in the time of Charles I and
Oliver Cromwell were governed, not by an act of the legislature, but by articles of war similar to
those issued by the king and authorized by an ordinance of the Lords and Commons exercising in
that respect the sovereign prerogative. This power of law-making by prerogative was however
held to be applicable during a state of actual war only, and attempts to exercise it in time of
peace were ineffectual. Subject to this limitation, it existed for considerably more than a century
after the passing of the first Mutiny Act.

From 1689 to 1803, although in peacetime the Mutiny Act was occasionally suffered to expire, a
statutory power was given to the crown to make Articles of War to operate in the colonies and
elsewhere beyond the seas in the same manner as those made by prerogative operated in time of
war.In 1715, in consequence of the rebellion, this power was created in respect of the forces in
the kingdom but apart from and in no respect affected the principle acknowledged all this time
that the crown of its mere prerogative could make laws for the government of the army in foreign
countries in time of war.The Mutiny Act of 1803 effected a great constitutional change in this
respect: the power of the crown to make any Articles of War became altogether statutory, and the
prerogative merged in the act of parliament. The Mutiny Act 1873 was passed in this
manner.Such matters remained until 1879 when the last Mutiny Act was passed and the last
Articles of War were promulgated. The Mutiny Act legislated for offences in respect of which
death or penal servitude could be awarded, and the Articles of War, while repeating those
provisions of the act, constituted the direct authority for dealing with offences for which
imprisonment was the maximum punishment as well as with many matters relating to trial and
procedure.

The act and the articles were found not to harmonize in all respects. Their general arrangement
was faulty, and their language sometimes obscure. In 1869, a royal commission recommended
that both should be recast in a simple and intelligible shape. In 1878, a committee of the House
of Commons endorsed this view and made recommendations as to how the task should be
performed. In 1879, passed into law a measure consolidating in one act both the Mutiny Act and
the Articles of War, and amending their provisions in certain important respects. This measure
was called the Army Discipline and Regulation Act 1879.
After one or two years experience finding room for improvement, it was superseded by the Army
Act 1881, which hence formed the foundation and the main portion of the military law of
England, containing a proviso saving the right of the crown to make Articles of War, but in such
a manner as to render the power in effect a nullity by enacting that no crime made punishable by
the act shall be otherwise punishable by such articles.

As the punishment of every conceivable offence was provided, any articles made under the act
could be no more than an empty formality having no practical effect.Thus the history of English
military law up to 1879 may be divided into three periods, each having a distinct constitutional
aspect: (I) prior to 1689, the army, being regarded as so many personal retainers of the sovereign
rather than servants of the state, was mainly governed by the will of the sovereign; (2) between
1689 and 1803, the army, being recognised as a permanent force, was governed within the realm
by statute and without it by the prerogative of the crown and (3) from 1803 to 1879, it was
governed either directly by statute or by the sovereign under an authority derived from and
defined and limited by statute.

Although in 1879 the power of making Articles of War became in effect inoperative, the
sovereign was empowered to make rules of procedure, having the force of law, to regulate the
administration of the act in many matters formerly dealt with by the Articles of War. These rules,
however, must not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Army Act itself, and must be laid
before parliament immediately after they are made. Thus in 1879 the government and discipline
of the army became for the first time completely subject either to the direct action or the close
supervision of parliament.

A further notable change took place at the same time. The Mutiny Act had been brought into
force on each occasion for one year only, in compliance with the constitutional theory:that the
maintenance of a standing army in time of peace, unless with the consent of parliament, is
against law. Each session therefore the text of the act had to be passed through both Houses
clause by clause and line by line. The Army Act, on the other hand, is a fixed permanent code.
But constitutional traditions are fully respected by the insertion in it of a section providing that it
shall come into force only by virtue of an annual act of parliament. This annual act recites the
illegality of a standing army in time of peace unless with the consent of parliament, and the
necessity nevertheless of maintaining a certain number of land forces (exclusive of those serving
in India) and a body of royal marine forces on shore, and of keeping them in exact discipline, and
it brings into force the Army Act for one year.

Sentence

Until 1998 mutiny and another offence of failing to suppress or report a mutiny were each
punishable with death.[2] Section 21(5) of the Human Rights Act 1998 completely abolished the
death penalty in the United Kingdom.
(Prior to this, the death penalty had already been abolished for murder, but it had remained in
force for certain military offences and treason, although no executions had been carried out for
several decades.) This provision was not required by the European Convention on Human
Rights, since Protocol 6 of the Convention permitted the death penalty in time of war, and
Protocol 13, which prohibits the death penalty for all circumstances, did not then exist. The UK
government introduced section 21(5) as a late amendment in response to parliamentary pressure.

TYPE OF CRIME:

In the context of CRIMINAL LAW, mutiny refers to an insurrection of soldiers or crew

members against the authority of their commanders. The offense is similar to the crime of
SEDITION, which is a revolt or an incitement to revolt against established authority, punishable
by both state and federal laws.

SEPOY MUTINY:
The The First War Of Independence 1857 was a major, but ultimately unsuccessful, uprising in
India in 1857–58 against the rule of the British East India Company, which functioned as a
sovereign power on behalf of the British Crown. The rebellion began on 10 May 1857 in the
form of a mutiny of sepoys of the Company's army in the garrison town of Meerut, 40 mi (64
km) northeast of Delhi (now Old Delhi). It then erupted into other mutinies and civilian
rebellions chiefly in the upper Gangetic plain and central India, though incidents of revolt also
occurred farther north and east. The rebellion posed a considerable threat to British power in that
region,] and was contained only with the rebels' defeat in Gwalior on 20 June 1858. On 1
November 1858, the British granted amnesty to all rebels not involved in murder, though they
did not declare the hostilities to have formally ended until 8 July 1859. Its name is contested, and
it is variously described as the Sepoy Mutiny, the Indian Mutiny, the Great Rebellion, the Revolt
of 1857, the Indian Insurrection, and the First War of Independence.

Causes of the Indian Mutiny:

1. Political Causes:

After the downfall of Mughals and seeing the Maratha powers lost in IIIrd Battle of Panipat the
Britishers followed an expansionist policy:

The annexation of Indian States by Doctrine of Lapse Policy.

The annexation of Awadh on the charge of Mis-Governance.

Disrespectful behaviour of English towards the Mughal Emperor as he was told to relinquish the
Red Fort and also they said from now on his successor will not accept the regal title i.e Emperor
of India. Pensions of Certain rulers like Nana Saheb was Stopped.
2. Economic Causes

Destruction of Indian Agriculture - exorbitant rates of land revenue on poor farmers, farmers
were unable to invest in the advancement of their agriculture which resulted on reduced
productivity. Indian peasants were forced to grow commercial crops instead of food crops which
led to serious famine. It is estimated that 12 major and minor famines took place between 1770
to 1857.

Permanent Settlement System - land rights of the peasants were given to Zamindars and were
declared proprietors of the land. Moreover, the rates of assessment were exorbitantly high and
exploitative.

Resentment among Zamindars - the Zamindars remained under the Britishers and the Company
remained the original owner who could sell the land to the original bidder. Britishers often
forfeited the rights of Zamindars by using quo-warranto against them. This resulted in the loss of
their status.

Heavy Taxation - this led to extreme poverty and misery all over, the peasants harboured
resentment against the British rule. The sepoys were also former peasants in uniform and were
sympathetic to the condition of farmers.

Destruction of traditional industries - The company manipulated prices to the detriment of the
Indian artisans. The artisans were forced to sell their goods to the British on prices set by the
latter. The influx of cheap machine-made goods from Britain made the products of Indian
artisans uneconomical. The British policy of One-way free trade and discriminatory tariff system
discouraged Indian handicraft and promoted British goods causing the destruction of traditional
handicraft industry. The ruin of the industry increased the pressure on agriculture and land.

Protectionist policies - Britain adopted a protectionist policy towards their industries against the
Indian Industries, this included discriminatory tariffs, concessions and favourable treatment
towards British industries.

3. Social and Religious causes

The British looked down upon the Indians as an inferior race and discriminated with them
racially at every step. Indians were not allowed at many places such as railway compartments
and public places as parks and hotels as these were specially reserved for the Englishmen. This
racial arrogance of the British hurt the Indian masses most and they began to regard the
Englishmen as their worst enemies.
The attempt to bring about social reforms in India by the British was not liked by the general
public. The social legislations on the evils as sati, infanticide, re-marriage of widows, etc. were
considered as interference in the religious matters of Indians about which the Englishmen knew
nothing.The introduction of English education, the propagation of the work of the Christian
missionaries and the changing of the Hindu law of property to facilitate the conversion of Hindus
to Christianity alarmed many orthodox Indians. They feared that these practices would upset the
social and religious order of the traditional Indian society.

4. Military Causes

Restriction on wearing caste specific clothing and items, for example - turban for Sikhs was
prohibited.

Forced to travel overseas which was forbidden in Hindu tradition, who was forced to take a
pledge to serve outside the country.

Unequal pay for Indian sepoys, hence they were discriminated racially and subordinated
everywhere, the highest post given to an Indian was of a Subedar.

The main trigger point for the revolt by the sepoys was the beef coatings on newly introduced
Enfield rifles.

5. Outside factors

Some outside factors also played an important role such as

Crimean war of 1854

Punjab wars from 1845 to 49

First Afghan war 1838-42

The Britishers suffered serious losses in these wars which downgraded their status of a colonial
empire.

Results Of the Sepoy Mutiny:

a. Changed dynamics of British Rule forever. Transfer of administration to British Crown,

Abolition of the Company Rule.

b. The era of annexation and expansion ended. Princely states were promised partial autonomy
while remaining under British protection.
c. The British policy of ‘Divide and Rule’ would dominate future events (to weaken Hindu-
Muslim unity showcased in the Revolt of 1857).
Legislative Approach In India

Offences Relating to the Army, Navy and Air Force

INTRODUCTION

This chapter deals with certain offences which might be committed by the civilian population in
relation to the defence service personnel. Since the same acts committed by the latter are
punishable severely by the Act to which they are subject, it is provided in section 39 of the Code
that they are not punishable under the Code for such acts. The provisions of this chapter are thus
in aid and support, from the civilian angle. Of the Army, Navy and Air Force Acts which are
designed to maintain perfect discipline in the armed forces of the Union.The correlation between
the offence punishable under this chapter and the offences punishable by court martial under the
Army Act, 1950 is as follows;—

 Sections 131 and 132 of the Code punish abetment of mutiny and attempt to seduce
defence service personnel from duty. Mutiny, including any endeavour to seduce such
personnel from duty, is a capital offence under section 37 of the Army Act.

 Sections 133 and 134 of the Code punish abetment of assault by any defence service
personnel on any superior officer. Such assault is punishable under section 40 of the
Army Act with imprisonment up to 14 years.

 Sections 135 and 136 of the Code punish abetment of desertion and knowingly
harbouring a deserter. Deserting and aiding deserters are punishable in the case of army
personnel under section 38 of the Army Act with imprisonment up to 7 years.

 Section 138 of the Code punishes abetment of an act of insubordination by a defence

service personnel. Such insubordination is punishable under section 42 of the Army Act
with seven years’ imprisonment.

Section 131:- Abetting mutiny, or attempting to seduce a soldier, sailor or airman from his
duty

Whoever abets the committing of mutiny by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army,
Navy or Air Force of the Government of India or attempts to seduce any such officer, soldier,
sailor or airman from his allegiance or his duty, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine.
Explanations

1. In this section the words “officer”, “soldier”, “sailor” and “airman” include any person
subject to the 1Army Act, 1the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Naval Discipline Act,
1the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act,1934 (34 of 1934) 1the Air Force Act or 1the Air
Force Act, 1950 (45 of 1950), as the case may be.

Section 132:- Abetment of mutiny, if mutiny is committed in consequence thereof

Whoever abets the committing of mutiny by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army,
Navy or Air Force of the Government of India, shall, if mutiny be committed in consequence of
that abetment, be punished with death or with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

While section 131 makes abetment of mutiny punishable with imprisonment for life or with
imprisonment of either description upto ten years, section 132 makes such abetment, if mutiny be
committed in consequence of that abetment, punishable with death or with imprisonment for life
or imprisonment of either description tip to ten years. It would therefore appear that section 131
applies to cases where mutiny is not committed in consequence of the abetment. Section 131 also
makes any attempt to seduce any defence service personnel from his allegiance or duty
punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment up to ten years.

Section 133:- Abetment of assault by soldier, sailor or airman on his superior officer, when
in execution of his office

Whoever abets an assault by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force
of the Government of India, on any superior officer being in the execution of his office, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years,
and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 134:- Abetment of such assault, if the assault committed

Whoever abets an assault by an officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force
of the Government of India, on any superior officer being in the execution of his office, shall, if
such assault be committed in consequence of that abetment be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Both sections 133 and 134 deal with abetment of assault by defence service personnel on any
superior officer beingin the execution of his office, the former section presumably providing for
cases where such assault is not committed in pursuance of the abetment and the latter for cases
where the assault is socommitted.
Section 135:- Abetment of desertion of soldier, sailor or airman

Whoever, abets the desertion of any officer, soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air
Force of the Government of India, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Differing from the previous sections, section 135 does not distinguish between cases where the
abetment of desertionis successful and where it is unsuccessful. In either case, themaximum
punishment prescribed in section 135 is imprisonmentof either description for two years. Under
section 3 of theArmy Act and the corresponding sections of the Navy and Air
Force Acts, desertion while on active service is punishable with death and in other cases, with
seven years’ imprisonment.

Section 136:- Harbouring deserter

Whoever, except as hereinafter excepted, knowing or having reason to believe that an officer,
soldier, sailor or airman, in the Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India, has
deserted, harbours such officer, soldier, sailor or airman, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both.

Exceptions;This provision does not extend to the case in which the harbour is given by a wife to
her husband.

Section 137:- Deserter concealed on board merchant vessel through negligence of master

The master or person in charge of a merchant vessel, on board of which any deserter from the
Army, Navy or Air Force of the Government of India is concealed, shall, though ignorant of such
concealment, be liable to a penalty not exceeding five hundred rupees, if he might have known of
such concealment but for some neglect of his duty as such master or person in charge, or but for
some want of discipline on board of the vessel.

Section 138:- Abetment of act of insubordination by soldier, sailor or airman

Whoever abets what he knows to be an act of insubordination by an officer, soldier, sailor or

airman, in the Army, Navy or air Force, of the Government of India, shall, if such act of
insubordination be committed in consequence of that abetment, be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with
both.Section 137 makes the master or person in charge or amerchant vessel, on board of which
any deserter is concealed, liable to a “penalty” not exceeding five hundred rupees, evenwhen he
is ignorant of such concealment, if he might have known of such concealment but for some
neglect of duty on his part.
It is curious that the section uses the word “penalty” instead ofthe usual word “fine”. The object
is presumably to debar thecourt convicting the offender from imposing any sentence
ofimprisonment in default of payment of the “penalty”. Section 138 deals with abetment of an
act of insubordination by an officer or member of the armed forces, but only if the act of
insubordination is committed in consequence of theabetment. The section should also provide for
cases where the act of insubordination is not committed in consequence ofthe abetment.
Considering that an act of insubordination ispunishable with seven years’ imprisonment under
section 42 of the Army Act (and if such insubordination consists in disobedience of a superior
officer, punishable with fourteen years’ imprisonment). The punishment provided in section 138
appearsto be low.

Section 138A:- (Repealed) Application of foregoing sections to the Indian Marine Service.

Rep. by the Amending Act, 1934 (35 of 1934), s. 2 and Sch.

Section 139:- Persons subject to certain Acts

No person subject to the Army Act, the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950), the Naval Discipline Act,
the Indian Navy (Discipline) Act, 1934 (34 of 1934), the Air Force Act or the Air Force Act,
1950 (45 of 1950), is subject to punishment under this Code for any of the offences defined in
this Chapter.

Section 140:- Wearing garb or carrying token used by soldier, sailor or airman

Whoever, not being a soldier, sailor or airman in the Military, Naval or Air service of the
Government of India, wears any garb or carries any token resembling any garb or token used by
such a soldier, sailor or airman with the intention that it may be believed that he is such a soldier,
sailor or airman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

PROPOSALS FOR REFORM

The Fifth Law Commission has offered a set of significant proposals for reform in the Chapter to
make it more relevant and comprehensive. A few prominent points for proposal are:With a view
to widening the scope of the Chapter, the Law Commission suggested that the Chapter should
not only be confined to Army, Navy and Air Force but should also be extended to all other
armed forces of the Union of India. It, accordingly recommended the present caption of the
Chapter Offences Relating to the Army, Navy and Air Force should be changed to Offences
Relating to Armed Force and that the key expressions, ‘armed forces’, ‘officer’ and ‘member’
should be comprehensively defined in the proposed new S. 130A.
Referring to the kinds and quantum of punishment provided for abetment to mutiny, not
committed in consequence thereof or otherwise, and for attempt to seduce a defence personnel
(ss. 131 & 132, IPC), it opined that the punishment of imprisonment for life provided for
abetment to mutiny that is not committed in consequence of the abetment and for an attempt to
seduce defence service personnel is unduly harsh. It suggested that abetment of mutiny by an
officer or a member of armed forces should be punished with: (a) with death or imprisonment for
life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term up to fourteen years (in lieu of the existing ten
years), if mutiny is committed in pursuance of the abetment and (b) with rigorous imprisonment
for a term up to ten years, if mutiny is not committed in pursuance of the abetment. An attempt
tos seduce an officer or member of the armed forces from his duty, it opined, should be made
punishable by rigorous imprisonment for a term up to ten years with fine.

Noticing that s. 135 of the Code, dealing with abetment of desertion, unlike other provisions of
the same chapter, does not distinguish between cases where the abetment of desertion is
successful and where it is unsuccessful and it, in either case, provides for imprisonment for a
term up to two years, the Commission, in the light of punishment provided for desertion under
the Army, the Navy and the Air Force Acts, feels that the punishment provided s. 135 be
increased to five years’ imprisonment in cases where desertion takes place in consequence of the
abetment.

 It is also recommended an enhancement of punishment (from imprisonment for a term up

to six months to for a term up to two years) in case of abetment of an act of
insubordination when the abetment is successil.
 It recommended deletion of existing s. 137, holding the master or a person in chaege of a
merchant vessel on board o which a deserter is concealed due to neglect of duty of such a
master or person, as it ‘does not appear to be of any consequence’.
 It suggested that two new provision, s. 138 A and 138 B, dealing respectively with
inciting mutiny or an act of insubordination and dissuading from recruitment to armed
forces, be added to the present chapter. Both the proposed offences should be made
punishable with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term up to three years, or with
fine, or with both.

The Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Bill 1978, premised on recommendations of the Fifth Law
Commission, gives effect to these proposals for reform.The Fourteenth Law Commission has not
only endorsed the proposed reforms but also approved contents of the 1978 Bill incorporating
those suggestions.However, these proposals are not yet transformed into statutory provisions as
the 1978 Amendment Bill lapsed in 1978 due to the dissolution of the Lok Sabha during that
year.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Course: IPC

Secondary: Websites- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rebellion_of_1857

https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/offences-relating-to-the-army-navy-and-air-force/

APPENDICES