LAW OF CRIMES

Problem No. 1
A, who is a citizen of India commits a murder in Africa. Can he be tried in India for that offence
if he was traced in India?

Answer
Here, ‘A’ can be tried as per Sec. 3 & 4 of the I.P.C. for the offence of murder punishable under
Sec. 302 I.P.C.

According to Sec. 3 and 4, if an offence is committed outside India, the offender can be punished in
India provided (i) he is an Indian citizen (ii) Such an offence must be punishable under the I.P.C,
(iii) Such an offence need not even be an offence according to the laws of the country in which it
was committed.

This is clear illustration of the extra territorial jurisdiction of the Indian Penal Code.

Problem No. 2
Eight dacoits attack a bank and take away currency notes of the value of Rs. 30,000. In the
course of dacoity, two of the dacoits shoot dead the cashier of the bank. A, B and C, three of
the dacoits, merely keep watch at the gate of the bank, about 50 fact away from the scene of
actual killing, and do not take part in the shooting of the cashier by their accomplices. Are A, B
and C also as much liable as their accomplices? Refer to the law on the point.

Answer
Here, A, B and C are also liable for Dacoity and Murder under Sec. 396.

According to Sec. 396 under Constructive liability when five or more persons commit dacoity, and
one among them commit murder, then each one of the accused is made responsible constructively
for the offence of murder in addition to the offence of dacoity, even though they do not participation
in the commission of the offence of murder.

Here, though all the dacoits do not have common intention, they have common object. According
to
Sec. 149 when 5 or more persons assemble to execute any of the offences mentioned in the
Section, they are said to be members of an Unlawful Assembly and all are guilty of the offence.

Problem No. 3
A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the
child from the house top, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending
to kill the child and intending in good faith child’s benefit. The child is killed by the fall.

Answer
Here A has not committed any offence according to Sec. 81- which deals with the defence of
Necessity.

Sec. 81 says that “If any harm is done in Good faith to prevent other harm and without criminal
intention, then it is not an offence.

1.  Here A throws the child from the house top only in good faith.

2.  He has no criminal intention to kill the child.

3.  He does not act only in good faith for the child’s benefit.

4.  He has acted only due to necessity, to avoid the child from dying to fire.

So, A is not guilty of any offence, according to Sec. 81 of the IPC, if he has taken all precautions.

Problem No. 4
A is attacked by a mob attempting to kill him and is forced to fire on the mob, which is the only
way he can defend and save himself. A number of innocent children are also mingled with the
mob and one of the children dies of a bullet injury caused by the firing.

Answer
Here A is not guilty of any offence according to Sec. 100 of the IPC.

Sec. 100 says nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

This right of private defence is available against any offender. One can defend himself and his
property, his relatives and their property.

Though innocent children were injured and one of them died, he is not liable for punishment as he
acted in the exercise of private defence of his body.

According to Sec. 100, the right of private defence extends to committing death of the aggressor if
there is reasonable fear of assault likely to cause death. Here as he is attacked by a mob
attempting to kill him, he has no other way to defend himself except to fire at the mob. Hence, A is
not guilty of any offence.

Problem No. 5
A instigate B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers from the
wound.

Answer
Here, A is guilty of abetting B to murder D.

A person is guilty of abetment of a thing.

a. If he instigates any person to do that thing.

b.  If he engages with one or more persons in any conspiracy for doing that and an act of illegal
omission takes place in furtherance of that conspiracy.

c.  If he intentionally aids the doing of that thing, by

wilful misrepresentation or by wilful concealment of a material fact.

According to the Rule 2 of Abetment to constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that
the act abetted should be committed, or the effect be caused. Here, the effect of death is not
caused, but even then, A is guilty of abetting B to murder D.
Problem No. 6
A, intending or knowing himself to be likely to permanently disfigure B’s face, gives B a blow
with a knife which does not permanently disfigure B’s face but which causes B to suffer severe
bodily pain for a span of twenty days.

Answer
A is guilty of the offence of grievous hurt under Sec. 320. It says that any hurt which causes the
sufferance to be in severe bodily pain for twenty days is grievous hurt.

A person is said to voluntarily cause grievous hurt if he intends to cause or knows himself to be
likely to cause grievous hurt. In the above case, the offender intends and knows himself to cause
grievous hurt. Hence, he is punishable for the offence of grievous Hurt.

Problem No. 7
B struck violent blows on the head and shoulders of a woman who was carrying an infant child
in her arms. One of the blows fell on the child and killed it while the woman received simple
injuries. What offence has B committed?

Answer
B is guilty of committing death of the child by rash and negligent act under Sec. 304 A, and also for
causing simple hurt under Sec. 319.

According to Sec. 304 A, if death is caused to a person by rash and negligent act of the offender,
without any criminal intention or knowledge, then it is Culpable Homicide, due to absence of Mens
rea.

In the given case, as B struck violent blows on the woman, and due to his negligence, the infant
died, he is punishable under Sec. 304 A, The punishment may extent to 2 years or fine or both.

He is also liable for causing Simple hurt to the woman under Sec. 319 voluntarily causing bodily
pain, disease or infirmity to a person.

Thus, B is liable under Sec. 304-A and 319 of I.P.C.

Problem No. 8
A causes B to go with him to the terrace of A’s house with the help of a ladder. Later, A climbs
down and removes the ladder before B could climb down and B is thereby disabled from
coming down form the terrace.

Answer
A is guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement under Sec. 340.

1.  He wrongfully restrains a person.

2.  He prevents that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits.

    In this case, the person B is not able to climb down from the terrace, as A has removed the
ladder.

3. It is not wrongful restraint because, in wrongful restraint, the person is prevented form
proceeding in any direction in which the person has a right to proceed. A is guilty of wrongful
confinement. Since there is absolute restraint of movement for B.

Problem No. 9
A intentionally pulls up a woman’s veil without her consent knowing that he may thereby annoy
her.

Answer
A has committed the offence of Outraging the modesty of a woman.

According to Sec. 354, IPC, if a person assaults or use criminal force against a woman with the
intention to outrage her modesty knowing that he was likely to do so, it is an offence.

1.  He has intentionally committed the act of pulling her veil.

2.  He has not got her consent.

3.  He knows that he may thereby annoy her.

4.  He has intention to outrage her modesty.

Thus A has committed the offence of outraging the modesty of a woman.

Problem No. 10
A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by thrusting his hand into Z’s pocket. A falls in the
attempt in consequence of Z’s having nothing in his pocket.
Answer
A is guilty of attempt to theft under Sec. 511. Here, though there was nothing in the pocket of Z, he
is guilty of attempt to theft.

1.  He has got the means rea to commit the offence of theft.

2.  He has made attempt to commit the offence, by thrusting his hand inside Z’s pocket.

3.  If there had been money or valuable in Z’s pocket, he would have taken it and the offence would
have been complete.

4.  Since there was nothing in Z’s pocket, his act was cut short in its attempt itself.

5.  It is immaterial whether or not there are valuables in ones pocket to make the offender liable
and this was decided in the case R Vs. King.

     In this case, the accused was convicted for an attempt to pick the pocket of a woman though the
pocket was empty. Thus, A is guilty of attempt to theft under Sec. 511.

Problem No. 11
A picks up a cheque on a banker signed and payable to bearer, but without any sun having
been inserted in the cheque. A fraudulently fills up the cheque by inserting the sum of ten
thousand rupees and collects the same from the bank.
Answer
A has committed the offence of forgery under
Sec. 463. According to Sec. 463, forgery is making a false document with intend to deceive any
person.

1.  A has made a false document by inserting a sum of ten thousand rupees fraudulently.

2.  His intention is to cause B to part with a sum of ten thousand rupees.

3.  Thus, A has committed forgery.

aaradhyalaw.blogspot.in