CLATChapter 4

R E A D I N G
M AT E R I A L F O R L E G A L K N O W L E D G E
Unit 4
Criminal Law
Elements of a crime and types of offences

LEGAL APTITUDE FOR LAW ENTRANCE EXAMS 114

| In this chapter, we will first examine the basic requirements of a crime.

After that we will understand punishment for a crime and defences to
punishment. Finally, after going through the various different types of
crimes in the Indian Penal Code, we will also understand concepts such
as maintenance and bail. |
Elements of a Crime
The fundamental reason for having a system of criminal law is to provide a

framework for the punishment of wrongdoers by the state and thereby to
preserve an acceptable degree of social order. A functional system of
criminal law and prosecution is also expected to deter others in society
from committing crimes, and hence, maintain social order.
For an act to attract liability, the fundamental principle is that there must
be a wrongful act (actus reus) combined with a wrongful intention (mens
rea). An act does not make one guilty therefore, unless the mind is also
legally blameworthy. In other words, for an act to be termed a crime, it
must be accompanied with the necessary mental element, which would
give a criminal hue to the act. Unless this mental element is also present,
no act is usually criminal in nature.
However, it must be noted that there are certain offences that bear ‘strict
liability’. Examples of such offences can be found in special laws such as
the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the Customs Act, 1962, and the
Information Technology Act, 2000, which provide for deemed offences by
directors or responsible officers of a company, if a company has
committed a contravention offence. Such deemed liability disregards
whether there was actually any mens rea or not on the part of the person
concerned.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
© Mylaw Learning Resources Private Limited, 2016. All rights reserved. Any unauthorised use, distribution, display, or
reproduction of this material shall attract all applicable civil and criminal law remedies.


Certain forms of negligence have also been made offences under the
Code. Provisions such as Section 279 and Section 304-A of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860 (“the IPC”) render rash and negligent acts as offences.
Though, generally acts must be of a voluntary nature for them to
constitute offences, the IPC also recognizes that negligence of a high order
can result in grave harm and the IPC has criminalized that order of
negligence and has rendered it punishable in law. Note further that all
negligence does not come under the purview of the IPC. Different courts
have held that only “gross negligence” or acts of “recklessness”, would
cross the threshold of being criminal acts.
Extra Territorial Operation of the Code
Section 3 of the IPC relates to the extra territorial operation of the Code
and provides that an act constituting an offence in India shall also be an
offence when committed outside India. Therefore, an Indian citizen who
committed an offence outside India which was not an offence according
to the laws of that country would still be liable to be tried in India if it was
an offence under Indian law.
Illustration: Azad, who is a citizen of India, commits a murder in Uganda.

He can be tried and convicted of murder in any place in India in which he
may be found.
Punishments and Group/Joint Liability
There are five forms of punishments for offenders under the IPC. These
are: (a) death; (b) imprisonment for life; (c) imprisonment, either rigorous
or simple; (d) forfeiture of property; and (e) fine.
The death penalty is awarded only in the ‘rarest of rare’ cases. While
considering sentencing of the convict, the Supreme Court has held that
awarding of the death sentence is the exception, while life imprisonment
is the rule.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


Imprisonment for life under the IPC means ‘rigorous imprisonment for life’
and not ‘simple imprisonment for life’. In the case of rigorous
imprisonment, the convict is put to hard labour and in the case of simple
imprisonment; the offender is confined to the jail and is not subject to any
kind of work.
Group / Joint Liability
The IPC contains several provisions that lay out basic rules of criminal
liability of individuals who commit a crime in a group and share with
others in the commission of a crime.
Common Intention
Section 34 of the IPC provides that when an act done by several persons in
furtherance of common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for
that act in the same manner as if it is done by him alone. It is invoked in
cases where it may be difficult to distinguish between the act of individual
members of a party or to prove as to what part was played by each of
them.
Illustration: The facts proved before a Court are that Ajay and Chauhan
suddenly emerge out of the darkness and gives axe blows to Bhishan, who
dies as a result of those injuries. It is further in evidence that Ajay gave a
blow to the arm of Bhishan, while Chauhan gave a blow to the abdomen
of Bhishan. By virtue of Section 34, the Court can hold both Ajay and
Chauhan liable for the murder of Bhishan.
Criminal Conspiracy
A conspiracy has been defined as when two or more persons agree to do,
or cause to be done an illegal act, or an act that is not illegal, by illegal
means. It is further provided in Section 120-A of the IPC that for a
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


conspiracy to exist some act besides the agreement between the parties
must be done in pursuance of the agreement. The Supreme Court has
held that each of the conspirators need not have taken active part in the
commission of each and every one of the conspiratorial acts for the
offence of conspiracy to be made out.
General Exceptions
Certain acts, or acts in particular circumstances have been removed from

the ambit of being treated as offences under the IPC by virtue of Chapter
IV of the IPC.
Burden of Proving Exception
The onus of proving that an act lies within an exception is on the accused.
Under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proving
the existence of circumstances bringing the case within exceptions lies on
the accused, and the court shall presume the absence of such
circumstances.
Standard of Proof for Proving Exception
The Supreme Court has held that the standard of proof required for an
accused to discharge his burden of proving that his acts come within a
general exception is that of preponderance of probabilities. So, the test is
not whether the accused has proved beyond all reasonable doubt that he
comes within an exception, but whether in setting up the defence, he has
established a reasonable doubt in the case of the prosecution and thereby
earned his right of acquittal.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


Exceptions Provided under Chapter IV:
1. Mistake of Fact: Section 76 of the IPC excuses a person who has done
what by law is an offence under a mistake of facts (and not under a
mistake of law), that lead her to believe in good faith that she was
bound by law to do such an act.
Illustration: Ashok, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior
officer, in conformity with the commands of the law. Ashok has
committed no offence.
2. Section 79 of the IPC: Section 79 of the IPC excuses a person who has
done what by law is an offence under a mistake of fact (and not under
a mistake of law) that lead her to believe in good faith that she was
justified in law to do such an act.
Illustration: Anita sees Zubin commit what appears to be a murder.
Anita, in the exercise, to the best of her judgment exerted in good
faith, seizes Zubin, in order to bring him before the proper authorities.
Anita has committed no offence, though it may turn out that Zubin was
acting in self-defence.
Sections 76 and 79 of the IPC are based on the principle that ignorance
of a fact may be excused, but ignorance of the law cannot be excused.
The distinction between Sections 76 and 79 of the IPC is that in the
former, a person is assumed to be bound, and in the latter to be
justified, by law.
3. Judicial Acts: Section 77 of the IPC protects acts done by a Judge while
acting judicially and in exercise of the powers given to him by law.
Section 78 of the IPC protects acts done in pursuance of, or in
consequence of the judgment of order of a Court.
4. Accident: Section 80 of the IPC exempts the commission of any
innocent or lawful act, done in an innocent or lawful manner, which
has led to an unforeseen result that may have ensued from an accident
or misfortune. For the accused to avail of this exception, it must be
shown that due care and caution were exercised at the time of
commission of the act.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


5. Absence of Criminal Intent: These exceptions, including for

unsoundness of mind and intoxication, are based on the premise
that the accused, while committing the acts in question had no
criminal/mala fide intent. For instance, under Section 82 of the IPC,
acts done by a child under the age of seven are not offences.
6. Unsound Mind: A person is exonerated from liability or doing an act
on the ground of unsoundness of mind, if she, at the time of doing
the act, is either incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that
she is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
7. Intoxication: Under Section 85 of the IPC, a person will be
exonerated from liability for doing an act while in a state of
intoxication, if at the time of the act, the person (due to
intoxication) was incapable of knowing the nature of his act, or that
he was doing what was either wrong or contrary to law.
8. Consent: Section 87 of the IPC provides that nothing is an offence if
the person to whom harm is caused is above eighteen years of age
and has given consent to suffer such harm. The provision however,
provides that the act for which consent is offered should not be
intended to cause death or grievous hurt.
Illustration: Akshay and Zeenat agree to fence with each other for
amusement. This agreement implies the consent of each to suffer
any harm which, in the course of such fencing, may be caused
without foul play; and if Akshay, while playing fairly, hurts Zeenat,
Akshay commits no offence.
9. Private Defence: Sections 96 to 106 of the IPC deal with the right of
private defence and are recognition of the right of a person to
protect his or her life and property against the unlawful aggression
of others. Section 96 of the IPC states that nothing is an offence that
is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. Every person
has a right to defend his own body and the body of any other person
against any offence affecting the human body, subject to the
restrictions contained in Section 99 of the IPC. Among the

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


restrictions stated in Section 99 of the IPC, the provision stipulated

the extent to which the right of private defence may be exercised,
namely that it in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than
it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.
Different Kinds of Offences: Offences Affecting the Human Body
Sections 299 - 304 of the IPC: Culpable Homicide and Murder
Culpable homicide under Section 299 of the IPC is the causing of death by
the doing of:
1. An act with the intention of causing death; or

2. An act with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death; or
3. An act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death.
In the absence of any of the above, an act resulting in the death of a

person would not constitute culpable homicide.
Illustration: Alok lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of
thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be
thereby caused. Binu believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in
and is killed. Alok has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
Illustration: A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know that A,

intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z’s death, induces B
to fire and kill Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed
the offence of culpable homicide.
To invoke this provision, death must be said to have been caused. It is

immaterial if the person whom the accused intended to kill was not killed
and that some other person was killed. The offence is complete as soon as
a person is killed. The death must be a proximate and not a remote
consequence of an act of violence. Culpable homicide not amounting to
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


murder under Section 299 of the IPC is punishable under Section 304 of
the IPC.
Section 300 of the IPC classifies culpable homicide as ‘murder’, where:
Firstly, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of
causing death;
Secondly, if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as

the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom
the harm is caused;
Thirdly, 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; or
Fourthly, if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently

dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury
as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for
incurring the risk of causing death or such injury.
Therefore, every murder is culpable homicide, but every culpable

homicide is not murder.
Illustration: A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club-wound sufficient to

cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in
consequence. Here, A is guilty of murder, although he may not have
intended to cause Z’s death.
Illustration: A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a

premeditated design to kill any particular individual.
Exceptions in Section 300 of the IPC
1. Grave and sudden provocation;

2. Private defence;
3. Acts of public servants;
4. Sudden fight; or
5. Consent.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


Section 302 of the IPC
Section 302 of the IPC provides for the punishment for murder, as defined
under Section 300 IPC. Section 302 IPC provides two punishments, death
sentence or imprisonment for life, and there is a further provision that
imposes a fine.
Death Penalty
In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898, a Constitution Bench

of the Supreme Court upheld the validity of the death penalty provision,
which had been challenged under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
The Court laid down the following propositions:
1. The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest

cases of extreme culpability;
2. Before opting for the death penalty, the circumstances of the
‘offender’ must be taken into consideration along with the
circumstances of the ‘crime’;
3. Life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence is an exception. In
other words, the death sentence must be imposed only when life
imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment;
and
4. A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances has to be
drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be
accorded full weightage.
Section 304A of the IPC: Death by Negligence
Section 304A of the IPC deals with cases where death is caused by a rash
or negligent act. The term ‘rash’ conveys the idea of recklessness or the
doing of an act without due consideration, and ‘negligence’ denotes the
lack of adequate /proper care. Every rash or negligent act leading to the
death of any person would not come within the purview of this provision.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


Illustration: A speeding truck, while taking a turn in an open field, hit a cot
causing the death of a person who was resting on it. The case falls under
Section 304A of the IPC and not under Section 304, Part II of the IPC, as
the driver obviously did not wilfully drive the car on the cot.
Professional Negligence and Section 304A of the IPC
Section 304A of the IPC is often invoked against medical professionals in

cases alleging professional negligence. The test laid down by the Supreme
Court is that to prosecute a medical professional for negligence under
criminal law, it must be shown that the accused did something or failed to
do something which in the given facts and circumstances no medical
professional in his ordinary senses and prudence would have done or
failed to do. The hazard taken by the accused doctor should be of such a
nature that the injury that resulted was most likely imminent.
Sections 306 and 309 of the IPC: Abetment and Attempt

to Commit Suicide
Section 306 IPC makes a person liable for punishment for abetting the
commission of suicide. Abetment is described in the IPC in Chapter V.
Abetment has been defined in Section 107 of the IPC as comprising:
1. Instigation to commit an offence;

2. Engaging in a conspiracy to commit an offence; and
3. Aiding the commission of an offence.
Section 306 of IPC and Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 — Dowry death cases
Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“the Evidence Act”),
provides that when the question is whether the commission of suicide by
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


a woman had been abetted by her husband or by any relative of her

husband, and it is shown that:
1. She had committed suicide within a period of seven years from the
date of her marriage; and
2. That her husband or such relative of her husband had subjected her to
cruelty;
The Court may presume, having regard to all the other circumstances of
the case, that such suicide had been abetted by her husband or by such
relative of her husband. This provision was introduced by way of an
amendment in 1983 to meet a social demand to resolve difficulty of proof
where helpless married women were forced to commit suicide by the
husband or the in-laws and where incriminating evidence was usually
available within the four corners of the matrimonial home and hence was
not available to any one outside the occupants of the house.
Section 309 of the IPC punishes any person who attempts to commit
suicide and does any act towards the commission of such an offence.
Offences of Hurt (Sections 319 – 338 of the IPC)
Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to

cause hurt under Section 319 of the IPC.
Section 320 of the IPC defines ‘grievous hurt’ as:
1. Emasculation;
2. Permanent privation of the sight of either eye;
3. Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear;
4. Privation of any member or joint;
5. Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or
joint;
6. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face;
7. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth; or
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


8. Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during
the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his
ordinary pursuits.
Illustration: A is fighting with B and attempts to hit B with a lathi. C

intervenes and attempts to stop the fight. In the scuffle, A hits C with a
lathi, though A was trying to hit B. A commits an offence under Section
323 of the IPC.
Sections 359 - 374 Offences of Kidnapping, Abduction, and such other

Offences
Section 361 of the IPC defines kidnapping from lawful guardianship as the
act of taking or enticing any minor (under 16 years for a male; and under
18 years for a female) or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping
of, and without the consent of a lawful guardian.
Illustration: A (unrelated to G) offers G (a minor) a chocolate to enter her

car. G enters her car. A has kidnapped G under Section 361 of the IPC.
Section 362 of the IPC defines abduction as compelling by force or

inducing by any deceitful means any person to go from any place.
Section 364A of the IPC was introduced by way of an amendment in 1993.

The provision was introduced to provide severe punishment in cases
where the offence of abduction or kidnapping is complete or the person is
kept continuously under detention, and the accused threatens to cause
death or hurt to such a person detailed or creates a reasonable
apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes
hurt or death to compel the government or any foreign state or
international governmental organisation to do or abstain from doing an
act or to pay a ransom as demanded by the accused. With growing threats
of terrorism, the section is increasingly relevant.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


Sexual and Unnatural Offences (Sections 375 – 377 of the IPC)
Sections 375 and 376 of the IPC: Rape
A man is said to commit ‘rape’ when he has sexual intercourse with a

woman under circumstances falling within any of the following
descriptions:
1. Against her will;

2. Without her consent;
3. 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;
4. 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;
5. 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; or
6. With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age.
Section 375 of the IPC contains an explanation that penetration is

sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary for the offence of
rape. Sexual intercourse by a man with his wife, the wife not being under
fifteen years of age, is not rape. Consent of a girl below the age of sixteen
is immaterial.
A conviction on a charge of rape on the uncorroborated testimony of the

victim or prosecutrix has been held to be legal in Madho Ram v. State of
Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 469.
The minimum punishment for rape is imprisonment for seven years and a
fine.
Section 114-A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, provides that in all cases
of prosecution for rape, where:
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


1. Sexual intercourse by the accused is proved; and

2. The question is whether it was without the consent of the woman
alleged to have been raped; and
3. She states in her evidence before the Court that she did not consent;
The Court shall presume that she did not consent.
Section 377 of the IPC:
In Naz Foundation v. Government of NCT and Others, 2010 Cri.L.J. 94, the
Delhi High Court declared that:
Section 377 of the IPC, insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual acts of

adults in private, is violative of Articles 21, 14, and 15 of the Constitution.
This decision was overturned by the Supreme Court of India in 2013.
The provisions of Section 377 of the IPC also govern non-consensual

penile non-vaginal sex and penile non-vaginal sex involving minors; and
A person below 18 would be presumed not to be able to consent to a

sexual act.
Offences against Property
Section 378 and 379 of the IPC: Theft
A person commits theft under Section 378 of the IPC when such person, to
take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any
person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to
perform such taking.
The commission of theft, therefore, consists in:
1. The moving of a movable property of a person out of his possession

without his consent; and
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


2. The moving being in order to perform the taking of the property with a
dishonest intention.
Thus, the absence of the person’s consent at the time of moving, and the
presence of dishonest intention in so taking and at the time of the taking,
are the essential ingredients of the offence of theft.
Illustration: A puts a bait for dogs in his pocket, and thus induces Z’s dog
to follow her. Here, if A’s intention is to dishonestly take the dog out of Z’s
possession without Z’s consent, A has committed theft as soon as Z’s dog
has begun to follow A.
Illustration: Z, going on a journey, entrusts his plate to A, the keeper of the

warehouse, till Z shall return. A carries the plate to a goldsmith and sells it.
Here the plate was not in Z’s possession. It could not therefore be taken
out of Z’s possession, and A has not committed theft, though he may have
committed criminal breach of trust.
Section 383 of the IPC: Extortion
Under Section 383 of the IPC, whoever intentionally puts any person in
fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly
induces the person so put in fear to deliver any property or valuable
security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a
valuable security, commits “extortion”.
Illustration: A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless

Z gives him money. He thus induces Z to give him money. A has committed
extortion.
Illustration: A threatens Z that he will keep Z’s child in wrongful

confinement, unless Z will sign and deliver to A, a promissory note binding
Z to pay certain monies to A. Z signs and delivers the note. A has
committed extortion.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


Section 390 of the IPC: Robbery
Section 390 of the IPC states that in all robbery cases, there is either
extortion or theft.
Theft is ‘robbery’ if, in order to commit the theft, or in committing the

theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained
by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to
cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant
death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
Illustration: A holds Z down and fraudulently takes Z’s money and jewels
from Z’s clothes without Z’s consent. Here, A has committed theft, and in
order to commit that theft, has voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to Z.
A has therefore committed robbery.
Illustration: A obtains property from Z by saying, “Your child is in the

hands of my gang, and will be put to death unless you send us ten
thousand rupees”. This is extortion, and punishable as such. It is not
robbery, unless Z is put in fear of the instant death of his child.
Sections 415 – 420 of the IPC: Cheating
Section 415 of the IPC provides that to hold a person guilty of cheating as
defined, it is necessary to show that she had a fraudulent or dishonest
intention at the time of making the promise to retain the property.
In other words, Section 415 of the IPC requires the deception of any
person by inducing that person to:
1. Deliver any property to any person; or

2. Consent that any person shall retain any property; or
3. Intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which
he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived and which act or
omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person,
anybody’s mind, reputation, or property.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


Illustration: A, by exhibiting to Z, a false sample of an article, intentionally

deceives Z into believing that the article corresponds with the sample, and
thereby, dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.
Illustration: A tenders to Z a bill of exchange as payment for an article. A

expects that the bill will be dishonoured, intentionally deceives Z, and
thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay
for it. A cheats.
To constitute an offence under Section 420 of the IPC, there should not
only be cheating, but as a consequence of such cheating, the accused
should have dishonestly induced the person deceived to:
1. Deliver any property to any person; or

2. Make, alter, or destroy wholly or in part a valuable security (or
anything signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into
a valuable security).
Maintenance of wives, children and parents:
Chapter IX, containing Sections 125 to 128 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (“the Cr.P.C.”) provides for the procedure to protect the
interests of wives, children, and parents. These provisions are not
inconsistent with the provisions of personal laws. These provisions apply
to all persons, and do not derogate or dilute equivalent provisions found
in different personal laws.
Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. provides that where a person having sufficient
means neglects or refuses to maintain either his wife, children (as
specified in Section 125(1)(b) and (c) of the Cr.P.C.), or parents, a
Magistrate upon the proof of such neglect or refusal, may order such
person to pay maintenance at a monthly rate as determined by the
Magistrate. The object of this Chapter is to provide a way by which liability
to maintain wives, children, and parents can be enforced in a speedy
manner.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


Practice Exercises
Question 1
Principle: A criminal act requires a physical action (actus reus)

accompanied by a positive or negative criminal intention (mens rea).
Gross negligence is a form of mens rea.
Facts: A hits B on the head intending to kill him. Thinking B is dead, he sets
fire to B’s house with the body inside. Unknown to him, B had not died
from the blow to the head, but perishes in the fire.
Which of the following crimes has A committed?
Options:
a. Murder (the act of killing somebody)

b. Arson (the act of setting fire to somebody else’s property)
c. Both murder and arson
d. Neither murder nor arson
Question 2

Facts: A is driving home drunk. Though A is trying very hard to drive

responsibly, his level of inebriation causes him to veer off the rod, and kill
B.
Has A committed a crime?
Options:
a. Yes. He has killed B.

b. Yes. His act of running over B was precipitated by his negligence in
driving drunk.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


c. No. He didn’t have the intention.

d. No. He was negligent, but didn’t intend to commit the act.
Question 3

Facts: A fires a gun vertically up in the air. Normally, the bullet would fall
back to earth, but due to the exceptional proximity of the Earth to Jupiter
at that time, and the resultant fluctuation in the Earth’s gravitational pull,
the bullet escapes the Earth’s gravitational pull and travels into outer
space. One in space, it goes into orbit around the Earth, and crashes into
the International Space Station (ISS). The bullet damages the life support
system of the ISS and the seven astronauts on board die. Has A committed
a crime?
Options:
a. No. He lacked the requisite mental intent.

b. No. He didn’t commit the act. The fluctuation in the Earth’s
gravitation did.
c. Yes. He was negligent.
d. Yes. He should have known about the aberrant gravitational
conditions on that day.
Question 4

Facts: A is an assistant at a large departmental store situated on top of a

hill. His duties include carrying boxes and other items for customers to
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


their cars. He has frequently been warned to not carry too many items at
one time, but he continues to do so to reduce the number of trips that he
has to make. One day he is carrying some items for a customer, including
a football. As always, he is carrying too many items, and the football is
right on top. A trip over a stone which he didn’t see because of the
number of things he was carrying, and the items fall down. The football
rolls down the hill, onto the road, and causes an accident in which two
people die. Has A committed a crime?
Options:
a. Yes. He was negligent. He had repeatedly been warned against carrying

too many items.
b. No. He lacked the requisite mental intent.
c. No. The harm was not foreseeable.
d. Yes. He was grossly negligent.
Question 5

Facts: It is a well known fact that one should not run with sharp objects in
one’s hand. A was running with a knife when he slipped and the knife
went through his stomach. Luckily, A survived, despite his stupidity. While
he was recuperating in police, the police arrested him for attempt to
commit suicide.
Has he committed a crime?
Options:
a. Yes, he should have foresen that his act would result in danger
b. No, because he did not intend to cause hurt to himself
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


c. Maybe, depends on the details of the case
d. No, because most people who commit suicide take pills or hang
themselves, this was not an incident of that nature.
Question 6

Facts: A is a thief who turns off the central power switch of a building so
that he can go in and rob it. Unfortunately, at that time, B, an old man was
climbing down a flight of stairs. When the lights go off, he loses his footing
because he can’t see, and falls down, breaking his neck, and dying. Which
of the following crimes has A committed?
Options:
a. Murder (the act of killing somebody)

b. Theft (the act of stealing)
c. Both murder and theft
d. Neither murder nor theft
Question 7

accompanied by criminal intention, which may include negligence or
knowledge (mens rea).
Facts: A discovers a sordid secret from B’s past. He blackmails B. B pays

him for his silence for a while, but eventually, he cannot take it any longer,
and kills himself. Has A instigated B to commit suicide (an act attracting
criminal sanction)?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


Options:
a. Yes, the suicide is directly because of his actions

b. No, B thought about the suicide can reached his own decision
c. Maybe, depends on the facts of the case
d. No, the sordid secret was B’s own fault.
Question 8
Principle: In response to a real or perceived threat of crime against life or

property, there is a right of private defence. Criminal liability is excluded
for acts committed in exercise of the right of private defence.
Facts: A is an undercover policeman who has been ordered to capture B a

wanted criminal. A tries to capture B without revealing his identity. B ends
up killing A. Are B’s actions justifiable by recourse to the right of private
defence?
Options:
a. Yes, B had the right to private defence

b.
No, killing is illegal no matter what the circumstance
c. Maybe
d. No, killing is illegal in these circumstances
Question 9

Facts: A suddenly comes up to B on a deserted road and threatens to

shoot him unless he gives him his wallet. B can see A’s gun though A
hasn’t pulled it out yet. Without warning, B attacks A, and runs off while A
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


is still on the ground. Can B invoke the right of private defence given that
A hadn’t yet pulled out his weapon, and as yet there wasn’t really a crime
against B?
Options:
a. Yes, B had the right to private defence

b. No, killing is illegal no matter what the circumstance
c. Yes, it was A’s duty to protect himself with any means possible.
d. No, killing is illegal in these circumstances
Question 10

Facts: A is an expert in several martial arts and various other forms of

unarmed combat. One day when he is walking home from work, taking a
shortcut through an unlit lane, four men suddenly emerge from the
darkness and surround him. Without asking any questions, or before they
can say anything, A starts attacking them, and beats all of them up. Did A
legitimately invoke his right to private defence?
Options:
a. Yes, A had the right to private defence

b. No, assault is illegal no matter what the circumstance
c. Maybe
d. No, assault is illegal in these circumstances
Question 11
Principle: Nothing, except murder and offences against the state, is an

offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats,
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that
instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence: Provided
the person doing the act did not of his own accord place himself in the
situation by which he became subject to such constraint.
Facts: A is a cricket player. B tells him he will cut off his legs if he doesn’t
deliberately get out in the next match. If A were to ‘fix’ the match, would
he have committed a crime?
Options:
a. Yes, it is a crime against the state to let the nation down in cricket
b. No, he was being threatened
c. Yes, because part of A’s job description is putting his life on the line for
the country.
d. No, it is not important enough to warrant a crime
Question 12
Principle: Nothing, except murder and offences against the state, is an

offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats,
which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that
instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence: Provided
the person doing the act did not of his own accord place himself in the
situation by which he became subject to such constraint.
Facts: A tells B that he will kills his five year old son unless B agrees to
commit theft for him. If B does so will he have committed a crime?
Options:
a. Yes
b. No
c. Cannot be determined
d. Depends on how much B loves his son

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


Question 13

Facts: A, a madman, attacks Z with a bat. Z hits him back. Given that A
cannot be held liable since he is insane, has Z committed a crime?
Options:
a. Yes
b. No
d. A is the only one who will be held liable, regardless of mental illness.
Question 14
Principle: A man commits rape when he has sexual intercourse with a

woman without her consent.
Facts: A (male) and B (female) are married. A forces B to engage in sexual

intercourse with him. Has he raped her?
Options:
a. Yes. He has forced her to engage in sexual intercourse against her will.
b. No. A husband cannot legally rape his wife.
c. No. The law is different for married couples.
d. Yes. But in the interests of the marriage it is better to not prosecute A.
Question 15
Principle: Whoever intending to take dishonestly any moveable property

out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves
that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


Facts: A, being Z’s servant, and entrusted by Z with the care of Z’s plate,
dishonestly runs away with the plate, without Z’s consent. Has A stolen
the plate?
Options:
a. No. The plate was never in Z’s possession.

b. No. Z implicitly consented by leaving the plate with A.
c. Yes. The plate though in A’s custody was still in Z’s possession. A has
denied Z his possession by running away with it, and he has done so
with dishonest intent.
d. Yes. A has taken Z’s plate to sell it for profit.
Question 16

Facts: A knows that B values his watch very much. He takes B’s watch
when B is not looking. As expected by him, B offers a reward. A returns
the watch and claims the reward. Has A committed theft?
Options:
a. Yes. He has moved B’s property from his possession without his
consent and with a view to making illegitimate gain.
b. Yes. His motive is clearly dishonest.
c. No. He didn’t intend to keep the watch.
d. No. A has committed other crimes, but not theft.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


Question 17

Facts: A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z’s library in Z’s
absence, and takes away a book without Z’s express consent for the
purpose merely of reading it, and with the intention of returning it. Has A
committed theft?
Options:
a. Yes. He has moved the book from Z’s possession without his consent,
and with dishonest intent.
b. Yes. He has taken Z’s property without his permission
c. No. A has no dishonest intention.
d. No. A will have committed theft only when Z realises that the book is
missing.
Question 18
Principle: Consent is a defence to criminal liability, whether it be in

relation to an act which though not intended to or known to be able to,
does cause death or hurt, or in relation to an act whose potential for
causing hurt is recognised, or in relation to an act whose potential fatality
is recognised, but is motivated by considerations of the victim’s benefit.
Facts: A is trying to woo B, his female classmate in college. To garner

sympathy, he enters into a plan with his friends whereby they will pretend
to get into a fight, and hit him once across the mouth, to make his lips
bleed. His friends, decide this is a fantastic opportunity, and go further
than just one blow and hit him quite a bit and quite hard. This was all just
a joke. Has a crime been committed?

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


Options:
a. Yes, hitting someone is a crime

b. No, A has consented to the danger of getting hurt
c. Maybe, depends on the facts of the case
d. Yes, A did not agree to that much damage being caused to him
Question 19
Principle: Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause

to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that
person’s consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for
that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving
consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from
whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with
benefit. Provided that the harm caused is proportionate to the benefit
sought to be secured for the victim.
Facts: 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 housetop, knowing it to be likely
that the fall may kill the child, but intending to save the child. The child
dies.
Has A committed a crime?
Options:
a. Yes, intending to cause death is an offence

b. No, A intended to save the child’s life and so acted in good faith
c. Maybe, depends on the facts
d. No, it is the child’s fault for being stuck in the building.

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


Question 20
Principle: Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause

to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that
person’s consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for
that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving
consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from
whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with
benefit. Provided that the harm caused is proportionate to the benefit
sought to be secured for the victim.
Facts: A sees a thief sneaking up behind B to steal his bag. Anxious to save
B’s property, A fires, aiming at the thief, but accidentally hitting B.
Has he committed a crime?
Options:
a. Yes, even if the shooting was accidental, he still harmed B

b. No, he was intending to save B’s property
d. No, you can’t be liable if you hit someone by mistake
Answers
1. (b), though A had the requisite mens rea, there was no actus reus. The
blow did not result in A’s death. A died from the fire, but in that case,
A didn’t have the mens rea to kill B. He was only intending to destroy
the evidence. Thus, only the crime of arson has been committed.
2. (b)
3. (b)

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


4. A was negligent but his actions do not reasonably meet the definition
of gross negligence.
5. (b), this is careless, but not negligent, and definitely not grossly
negligent. We all do many things we shouldn’t. We often talk on our
cell phones while driving, we don’t wear seat belts for short trips, etc.
But these are not examples of gross negligence.
6. (d), though his actions led to the death of B, he didn’t have the
requisite intent, and the facts don’t mention if he actually committed
the theft or not.
7. (a), A should have known that the possible result of his actions could
be B’s suicide.
8. (a), as far as B knows, he is being attacked by somebody. If he had
known that A was a policeman trying to arrest him, he wouldn’t have
been able to invoke the right.
9. (a), the right begins when apprehension of the crime begins.
10. (b). Unlikely as it was, the men could have been trying to seek some
information from A. There was, at the point of A’s attack, no
apprehension of crime.
11. (a), he was not in danger of losing his life.
12. (a), he was not in danger of losing his life
13. (b), it doesn’t matter that A wasn’t actually responding to a crime. He
thought he was under attack and defended himself.
14. (a)
15. (c)
16. (a)
17. (c)
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


18. (a), A consented to one blow. Beyond that any other physical injury
caused to A is a crime, though A may well choose not to initiate
criminal proceedings.
19. (b)
20. (a), shooting was uncalled for and disproportionate in this case. |
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


NOTES
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….


………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………………..………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

CLATChapter 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

CLATChapter 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

R E A D I N G

| In this chapter, we will first examine the basic requirements of a crime.

The fundamental reason for having a system of criminal law is to provide a

Extra Territorial Operation of the Code

Illustration: Azad, who is a citizen of India, commits a murder in Uganda.

Punishments and Group/Joint Liability

Group / Joint Liability

Certain acts, or acts in particular circumstances have been removed from

Burden of Proving Exception

Standard of Proof for Proving Exception

Exceptions Provided under Chapter IV:

5. Absence of Criminal Intent: These exceptions, including for

restrictions stated in Section 99 of the IPC, the provision stipulated

Different Kinds of Offences: Offences Affecting the Human Body

Sections 299 - 304 of the IPC: Culpable Homicide and Murder

1. An act with the intention of causing death; or

In the absence of any of the above, an act resulting in the death of a

Illustration: A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know that A,

To invoke this provision, death must be said to have been caused. It is

Section 300 of the IPC classifies culpable homicide as ‘murder’, where:

Secondly, if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as

Thirdly, if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any

Fourthly, if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently

Therefore, every murder is culpable homicide, but every culpable

Illustration: A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club-wound sufficient to

Illustration: A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a

Exceptions in Section 300 of the IPC

1. Grave and sudden provocation;

Section 302 of the IPC

In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898, a Constitution Bench

1. The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest

Section 304A of the IPC: Death by Negligence

Professional Negligence and Section 304A of the IPC

Section 304A of the IPC is often invoked against medical professionals in

Sections 306 and 309 of the IPC: Abetment and Attempt

1. Instigation to commit an offence;

a woman had been abetted by her husband or by any relative of her

Offences of Hurt (Sections 319 – 338 of the IPC)

Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to

Section 320 of the IPC defines ‘grievous hurt’ as:

Illustration: A is fighting with B and attempts to hit B with a lathi. C

Sections 359 - 374 Offences of Kidnapping, Abduction, and such other

Illustration: A (unrelated to G) offers G (a minor) a chocolate to enter her

Section 362 of the IPC defines abduction as compelling by force or

Section 364A of the IPC was introduced by way of an amendment in 1993.

Sexual and Unnatural Offences (Sections 375 – 377 of the IPC)

Sections 375 and 376 of the IPC: Rape

A man is said to commit ‘rape’ when he has sexual intercourse with a

1. Against her will;

Section 375 of the IPC contains an explanation that penetration is

A conviction on a charge of rape on the uncorroborated testimony of the

1. Sexual intercourse by the accused is proved; and

The Court shall presume that she did not consent.

Section 377 of the IPC:

Section 377 of the IPC, insofar as it criminalises consensual sexual acts of

This decision was overturned by the Supreme Court of India in 2013.

The provisions of Section 377 of the IPC also govern non-consensual

A person below 18 would be presumed not to be able to consent to a

Offences against Property

Section 378 and 379 of the IPC: Theft

The commission of theft, therefore, consists in:

1. The moving of a movable property of a person out of his possession