COURSE OUTLINE

COURSE NAME:

CRIMINAL LAW - I

SEMESTER – IV

COURSE: B.A. LL.B/ B.B.A. LL.B

Course Teachers:

Akshay Verma

Kumar Aghna Mukherjee

(The course teachers acknowledge the contribution of Dr. Suman Dash Bhattamishra, Ms. Rashmi
Rekha Baug & Ms. Dipanwita Mitra towards this course outline)

National Law University Odisha, Cuttack

 NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY ODISHA
Criminal Law I

Introduction
The current course “Criminal Law – I” has been designed for Undergraduate students of the 5
years’ Integrated Law Programme. It will be offered as a compulsory paper to students of
Fourth Semester in the university and will carry 4 credits. The curriculum has been designed
to introduce students to core concepts of substantive Criminal Law and familiarise them with
relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code.
The primary objective of criminal law is to maintain law and order in the society and to
protect the life and liberty of people. This important responsibility is the reason that the
masses place their paramount reliance on this branch of law for protection against all injuries
and losses that human conduct can inflict on individual and institutions.

Through this course, students will explore the dynamics of criminal liability and
responsibility. Criminal Law is riddled with questions of morality, ethics and fairness and the
course has been designed to make space for such discussions inside the classroom. This
course is further designed to generate critical thinking among the students about the stated
objectives of criminal law.

Course Objectives:
 CREATE: To educate and familiarize the students with the key concepts regarding
crime and criminal law; To familiarize the students with the concept of criminal
liability and the vastness of its horizons.
 EVALUATE & REMEMBER: To make students able to interpret the current
criminal laws in light of the landmark judgments; To keep students abreast of the
latest legislative and judicial developments and changes in the field of criminal law.
 ANALYSE: To enable students to differentiate between actus reus and mens rea, and
the concurrence of these very concepts. Critical analyse the impact of crime on
victims, and the balancing of interest between offender and victim.

2
  UNDERSTAND: To encourage the students to understand the interface of criminal
law with morality; To familiarize students and enhance their understanding about the
concepts and the legal provisions of criminal laws with specific reference to IPC.
 APPLY: To enable students to solve problems on Criminal Law in real and
hypothetical situations.

Course Learning Outcomes:

At the end of this course, the students will be able to:
 KNOWLEDGE: Understand the fundamental concepts of Crime and Criminal
liability; Differentiate between Crime and Offence; Identify the concept of criminal
liability as distinguished from the civil liability.
 ATTITUDE: Distinguish between an accused and a convict. Focus on the need of
inclusiveness of offenders who have already gone through their punishment.
Emphasize on the need of balancing the interests of victims and offenders.
 SKILL: Interpret the criminal laws and solve the practical problems, and practice in
Courts as a Criminal Lawyer.
 ETHICS: Respect the fundamental rights of a criminal; Answer the questions of
morality, ethics and fairness contained in criminal law.

Teaching Methods:

1. Lecture Method

2. Group Discussions – Planned/ Unplanned/ Partly Planned and Small Group/ Large
Group

3. Brainstorming

4. Story Telling

5. Quiz

6. Case Study Method

7. Feedback

8. Project Work (Assignment)

3
Teaching Tools:

• White Board

• Power Point Presentations

• Videos

• Google Meet (if required)

• Collar Mic

Division of Modules:

Module Topic No. of class hours

I Introduction 6
II Elements of Criminal 8
Liability
III Joint Liability and Group 9
Liability
IV Inchoate Offences 9
V General Exceptions 18
V-A Private Defence 9
VI Punishments 5
Total = 64

Mode of Assessment
The mode of assessment shall be as follows:
1. Research Project – 20 marks
2. Viva - 10 marks
3. Mid Term Examination – 25 marks
4. End Term Examination – 45 marks
Every student is expected to submit one research project of 3500 - 5000 words during the
semester, with a similarity index less than 20%. Students are expected to follow OSCOLA

4
mode of citation for the same. The research paper will be used to assess critical thinking
skills, research aptitude and writing skills of the students. The markings scheme for the
research project is as follows:
Research Tools & Depth of research – 7.5 marks
Analysis of Research Problem – 7.5 marks
Conclusion - 5 marks
Total Marks: 20 marks

DETAILED COURSE OUTLINE

Module 1: Introduction
6 Lectures (Total = 6 hours)
This module introduces students to the concept of Crime, and the difference between Crime
and Offence. The focus is to understand the jurisprudential and constitutional essence of IPC.

Module content
a) What is Crime?
b) Jurisprudential essence of IPC – Balancing of Interest, Theory of Collective
Judgement and Societal Abhorrence, Crime against Public
c) Difference between Crime and Offence
d) Interplay of Law and Morality

Module 2 – Elements of Criminal Liability

8 Lectures (Total = 8 hours)
This module introduces the objective and subjective elements of criminal liability vis-à-vis
actus reus, mens rea and the concurrence of actus reus and mens rea. The module is
introduced to encourage the students to understand the interface of criminal law with
morality.

Module content

5
 a) Actus Reus (Commissions and Omissions; Automatic or involuntary acts;
Concomitant conditions for illegality of acts such as prohibition of the act by law,
injury to victim and the factor of direct harm)
b) Mens Rea (Volition, Motive, Knowledge, Intention, Negligence, Recklessness,
Reasonable Foresight)
c) Concurrence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea (Act and Intent to coincide; Intent to
commit an act distinguished from consequence of the act; Causation: Proximity,
Directness and Thin Skull Scenarios, Minimal Causation, novus interveniens)
d) Other forms of Criminal Liability: Strict Liability, Vicarious Liability, Accessorial
Liability, Criminal Liability of Corporations

Articles for reference:

1. Matthew Matravers, Arina Cocoru, “Revisiting the Hart-Wootton Debate on

Responsibility”, in Palgrave Macmillan, Hart on Responsibility, Springer Publishing
(2014).
2. Richard A. Wasserstorm, “HLA Hart and the Doctrines of Mens rea and Criminal
Responsibility” 35(1) The University of Chicago Law Review (Autumn, 1967).
3. Rupert Cross, “Centenary Reflections on Prince’s Case”, 91(4) Law Quarterly Review
(October 1975).

Cases for reference

1. State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, (1965) 1 SCR 123 1 AIR 1965 SC 722
2. State of M.P. v. Narayan Singh, (1989) 3 SCC 596
3. Palani Goundan v. Emperor, 1919 ILR 547 (Mad)
4. In re Thavamani, AIR 1943 Mad 571

Module 3 – Joint Liability and Group Liability

9 Lectures (Total = 9 hours)

This module will mainly focus on the concept of joint criminal enterprise. Provisions for
providing for group liability in crimes including sections 34 and 149 of the IPC are
exceptions to the general rule of criminal liability that a man should be held liable for his own

6
criminal acts and not for those of others. These provisions providing for vicarious
liability/group liability are intended to deter people from committing offences in groups and
to spare the prosecution to prove specific actus reus of each member of the group.

The concepts of similar intention, common intention and common object will be discussed in
detail to decide conditions under which co-perpetration and constructive liability may be
established.

Module content

a) Concept of Co-perpetration and Constructive Liability

b) Common Intention (sections 34-37, IPC)

c) Liability for same act done with different intentions (section 37, IPC)

d) Common Object (section 149, IPC)

Cases for reference

1. Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor 52 I.A. 40 (P.C.)

2. Rishi Deo Pandey v. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 331
3. Nandu Rastogi v. State of Bihar 2002 Cr.L.J. 4698 (S.C.)
4. Chittarmal v. State of Rajasthan 2003 Cr.L.J. 889 (SC)
5. Jai Bhagwan v. State of Haryana 1999 Cri LJ 1634
6. Krishna v. State 2003 Cri LJ 3705 SC

Module 4 – Inchoate Offences

9 Lectures (Total = 9 hours)
In this module, students will learn about the various categories of inchoate offences. The
general principles and scope of inchoate liability for attempt, abetment and conspiracy along
with relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code will be discussed.

Module content

7
a) Attempt (Attempt as a stage in the commission of an offence, Difference between
preparation, attempt and commission, Tests of Proximity, locus poenitentiae, equivocality,
Attempt of Impossible Acts)

b) Abetment (Instigation, Intentional Aiding, Conspiracy, Abetment by omissions and

commissions; sections 107-120, IPC, Liability of Abettors)

c) Conspiracy (Brief history of the law of conspiracy, nature and scope of section 120 A of
the IPC, proof of conspiracy, difference between section 120 B and section 107 of the IPC)

Articles for reference

1. B.B. Pande, “An Attempt on Attempt”, SCC Journals (1984).

2. Lawrence C. Becker, “Criminal Attempt and the Theory of the Law of Crimes” 3(3)
Philosophy & Public Affairs 262-294 (Hollins Digital Commons, Hollins University
1974).

Cases for reference

1. Asgarali Pradhania v. Emperor AIR 1933 Cal 893

2. Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 1698
3. Dharma v. Nirmal Singh Bittu 1996 CrLJ 1631
4. Om Parkash v. State of Punjab, (1962) 2 SCR 254: AIR 1961 SC 216 1782
5. State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yukub AIR 1980 SC 1111
6. R v. Riasat Ali (1881) ILR 7 Cal 352
7. Malkiat Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1970 SC 713
8. Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, (1996) 2 SCC 648
9. Ram Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh 1995 CrLJ 3621
10. State v. Navjot Sandhu 2005 CrLJ 3950 (SC)
11. Narayandas Bhagwandas v. State of West Bengal AIR 1959 SC 1118
12. Parimal Chatterji (1932) 60 Cal 327
13. Purushottam v. State of Kerala, 1989 CrLJ NOC 184 (Kerala)
14. R v. Austin (1981) 1 All ER 374 (CA)
15. R v. Shivpuri 1986 UKHL 2
16. Satyanarayan Reddy v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 379
17. Sudhir Kumar v. State of West Bengal AIR 1973 SC 2655

8
Module 5 – General Exceptions
18 Lectures (Total = 18 hours)

This module responds to the fact that General defences in Chapter IV, IPC, if applicable in a
given case, generally negate criminality completely. General Exceptions in the Code are
broadly categorized as excusable, justifiable and partial.

Module content

a) Scope, Relevance and Nature of General Exceptions

b) Broad Categorization of General Exceptions: Excusable, Justifiable and Partial

c) Mistake of Fact (distinguished from Mistake of Law), Judicial Acts, Accident, Necessity,
Insanity, Infancy, Intoxication, Triviality, Consent and Compulsion.

Articles for reference

1. RV Kelkar, “Provocation as a Defence in the Indian Penal Code”, 5(3) Journal of the
Indian Law Institute (JILI) 319-356 (1963).
2. Stanley M.H. Yeo, “Lessons on Provocation from the Indian Penal Code”, 41(3)
International and Comparative Law Quarterly (ICLQ) 615-631 (1992).
3. Andrew Phang, “Of Legal History, Jurisprudence and Insanity- ‘Wrong or Contrary to
Law’ in section 84 of the Penal Code Re-Considered”, Singapore Journal of Legal
Studies 315–341 (1995) available at <http://www.jstor.org/stable/24866860>, last
visited on 26 November 2022.
4. Aileen O’ McColgan, “In Defence of Battered Women Who Kill”, 13(4) Oxford
Journal of Legal Studies 508-529 (Oxford University Press, 1993).
5. Katherine O’ Donovan, “Law’s Knowledge: The Judge, The Expert, The Battered
Woman, and Her Syndrome”, 20(4) Journal of Law and Society 427-437 (Wiley,
1993).
6. Stanley Meng Heong Yeo, “Rethinking ‘Good Faith’ in Excessive Private Defence”,
30(4) Journal of the Indian Law Institute (JILI) 443-455 (Indian Law Institute, 1988).

9
 7. A.J. Ashworth, “Self-Defence and the Right to Life”, 34(2) The Cambridge Law
Journal 282-307 (Cambridge University Press, 1975).
8. P.R. Glazebrook, “The Necessity Plea in English Criminal Law” 30(1) The
Cambridge Law Journal 282-307 (Cambridge University Press, 1972).
9. Wing Cheong Chan, “The Present and Future of Provocation as a Defence to Murder
in Singapore”, Singapore Journal of Legal Studies, 453-474 (2001) available at
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/24867808>, last visited on 26th November 2022.

Cases for reference

1. R. v. Swindall and Osborne (1846) 2 Cand K 230

2. R. v. Dudley and Stephen 1884 14 Q.B.D. 273
3. Bachchan Lal v. State AIR 1957 All.184
4. Ullah Mahapatra v. The King AIR 1950 Orissa 251
5. M’Naghten case (1843) 4 St. Tr. (N.S.) 847, 8 E.R. 1718
6. Dasrath Paswan v. State of Maharashtra (1866) 5 W.R. (Cr)
7. Basudeo v. State of Pepsu AIR 1956 S.C. 488
8. Chirangi v. State AIR 1952 Nag. 282
9. R. v. Princes (1875) L.R. 2 CCR 154
10. R. v. Tolson (1889) 23 Q.B.D. 168

Module 5A – Private Defence

9 Lectures (Total = 9 hours)
Module content

a) Private defence
b) Private defence against body
c) Private defence against property
d) Grave and Sudden Provocation

Cases for reference

1. State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup (1974) 4 SCC 764 : AIR 1974 SC 1570
2. Deo Narain v. State of U.P. (1973) 1 SCC 347: AIR 1973 SC 473

10
 3. Kishan v. State of M.P. (1974) 3 SCC 623 : AIR 1974 SC 244
4. James Martin v. State of Kerala (2004) 2 SCC 203

Module 6 – Punishments
5 Lectures (Total = 5 hours)

This module deals with the final process of the delivery of criminal justice, i.e., punishment.
Substantive provisions for punishment in the Indian Penal Code will be discussed here.
Sections 53-75 of the Code will be discussed in detail and students will be acquainted with
the types of punishment prescribed by the IPC. Sentencing policies, theories and philosophy
of punishment will be outside the scope of this unit. This theme can be projected in two
ways: judicial and legislative, nullum poena sine lege.

Module Content

a) Death Sentence and its Commutation to Life Imprisonment

b) Difference between Commutation under section 55 of IPC and remission under section
433 of Cr PC

c) Imprisonment, Rigorous and Simple

d) Forfeiture of Property

e) Fine

f) Solitary Confinement

g) Enhanced Punishment: section 75

h) Alternative Punishment: Victim Compensation and Restoration, Rehabilitation and

Reformation of Offenders (Community Service, Disqualifications from holding office, etc.)

Articles for reference

11
 1. S. Murlidhar, “Hang them Now, Hang them Not: India Travails with The Death
Penalty” 40 Journal of the Indian Law Institute 143-173 (1998).
2. KI Vibhute, “Choice between ‘Death’ and ‘Life’ for Convicts: Supreme Court of
India’s Vacillation Sans Norms”, 59(3) Journal of the Indian Law Institute 221–264
(2017) available at <https://www.jstor.org/stable/26826606>, last visited on 26th
November 2022.
3. Arghya Sengupta and Ritwika Sharma, “Death Penalty in India: Reflections on the
Law Commission Report” 50(40) Economic & Political Weekly (EPW) (2015).
4. Suhrith Parthasarathy, “Law Commission Report on Death Penalty: A Chance to
Overcome Incoherence in Indian Jurisprudence?” 49(29) Economic & Political
Weekly (EPW) (2014).

Report:

1. 262nd Report, Law Commission of India (Report on Death Penalty).

Cases for reference

1. Ajay Aggarwal v. Union of India 1993 Cri.L.J. 2516 S.C

2. State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini 1999 Cr.L.J. 3124 SC

BOOKS FOR REFERENCE

1. Alf Ross, On Guilt, Responsibility and Punishment, Stevens & Sons Ltd., London
(1975).
2. Andrew Ashworth & Jeremy Horder, Principles of Criminal Law, 7th edn., Oxford
University Press (2013).
3. B.B. Pandey, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice: Advanced Legal Writings, 1st edn.,
Eastern Book Company (2022).
4. David Ormerod, Smith and Hogan’s Criminal Law, 13th edn., Oxford University Press
(2011).

12
 5. Dennis J. Baker, Glanville Williams Textbook of Criminal Law, 4th edn., Sweet &
Maxwell (2015).
6. K.A. Pandey, B.M. Gandhi’s Indian Penal Code, 4th edn., Eastern Book Company
(2017).
7. K.D. Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code, 7th edn., LexisNexis (2020).
8. KI Vibhute, PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law, 14th edn., LexisNexis (2019).

******

13