Indian Penal Code (IPC)

I. Explain briefly offences related to marriage?

Offences Relating to Marriage (Indian Penal Code 1860, Section

493 to 498A)
Chapter XX of IPC deals with offences relating to marriage. All these offences
are within the institution of marriage. chapter XX-A containing only one
section (s.498A) dealing with cruelty to a woman by her husband or relatives
to coerce her and her parents to meet material greed of dowry was added to
the IPC by criminal law (Second amendment act,1983).

Following are main offences under this chapter:

✓ Mock or invalid marriage (section 493 and 496).

✓ Bigamy (section 494 and 495).
✓ (Adultery (section 497)
✓ Criminal elopement- seduction (section498)
✓ Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband (section 498A)

Section 493- cohabitation caused by man deceitfully inducing a belief of

lawful marriage.

Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to
him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have
sexual intercourse with him in that belief shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years
and shall also be liable to fine. It is non-cognizable and non-bailable.

Section 496- Marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without lawful

marriage

Whoever dishonestly or with fraudulent intention goes through the ceremony

of being married knowing that he is not thereby lawfully married shall be
punished with imprisonment for term which may extend to seven years and
shall also be liable for fine. It is non-cognizable and bailable.

In both the sections woman is cheated by the man into believing that she is
legally married to him, but men is fully aware that the same is not true.

Section 494- Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife (Bigamy)

Whoever having husband or life living marries in any case in which such
marriage is void by reason of its taking during the life of such husband or
wife. Shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for term
which may extend to seven years and shall be liable for fine.

Exception: This section does not extend to any person whose marriage with
such husband or wife has been declared void by court of competent
jurisdiction. Any person who contracts marriage during the life of former
husband or wife, if such husband or while at the time of subsequent marriage
shall been continually absent from such person for seven years and shall not
been heard by such person as being alive within that time provided the
person contracting such subsequent marriage takes place, inform the person
with whom such marriage is contracted of the real state of facts so far as the
same are within his or her knowledge.

Section 495- Same offences with concealment of former marriage from

person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted.

The essential ingredients are:

o Existence of a previous marriage.

o Second marriage to be valid.
o Second marriage to be void by reason of first husband or wife living.
o Non-disclosure of first marriage.

Whoever commits the offence defined in last preceding section having

concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is
contracted, the fact of the former marriage shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years
and shall also be liable to fine.

Pashaura Singh v state of Punjab, AIR 2010 SC 922

In the above case it was held that, the first marriage should be substituting
at the time of second marriage and should be validly contracted one. If the
first marriage is not a valid marriage, the second marriage does not amount
to bigamy.

Section 497- Adultery

Adultery is sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other

than the lawful spouse. Under law adultery is defined as a consensual
physical correlation between two individuals who are not married to each
other. Adultery is also known as infidelity or extra-marital affair which is
certainly a moral crime and is been considered as a sin by almost all
religions.
According to section 497 – whoever has sexual intercourse with a person
who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be wife of another
man, without the consent connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse
not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and
shall be punished with imprisonment or either description for a term which
may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such a case wife shall
not be punishable as an abettor.

The essential ingredients are:

➢ Sexual intercourse between married woman and man who is not her
husband.
➢ Woman must be married – sexual intercourse by a man, who is the
wife of another man.
➢ Sexual intercourse must take place with woman consent .i.e.:-it must
not constitute rape.
➢ Sexual intercourse with married woman must take place without the
consent or connivance of her husband.

Section 498 – Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a

married woman

Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knocks or
has a reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or
from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent
that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains
with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with finem or
with both.

Essential ingredients are:

• Takes or entices away.

• Woman to be a married woman.
• The person enticing or taking away the married woman should have
knowledge that she is the wife of another man.
• Taken from control of husband or person having care of her on behalf
of her husband.
• Intention to have illicit intercourse.
• Conceals or detains any such woman.

Alamgir v state of Bihar, AIR 1969 SC 436

It was observed that whilst the wife is living with the husband, man
knowingly goes away with her in such a way as to deprive the husband of his
control over her, with the intent to have illicit intercourse, then it constitutes
an offence within the section.
Section 498A – Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband.

Whoever being husband or relative of husband of a woman, subject such

woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for term which may
extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation: for purpose of this section cruelty means:

Any willful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether physical or mental) of the woman; or harassment of the woman
where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related
to her to meet any unlawfully demand for any property or valuable security
or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such
demand.

For safeguarding the interest of a woman against cruelty the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 was amended in 1983 and S.498Aand S.304B was inserted which
deals with “Matrimonial Cruelty” to a women by husband and his relatives
and dowry death respectively. Section 113B was added to Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, wherein it as provide that if it was shown that soon before the
death of the woman she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by person in
connection with demand for dowry, then it shall be presumed that such
person who harassed the woman had caused the death of woman.

Inder Raj Malik v. Sunita Malik, 1896 It was held that word “cruelty” is
defined in explanation which inter alia says that harassment of a women with
a view to coerce her or any related persons to meet any lawful demand for
any property or any valuable security is cruelty.

Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam AIR 2004 SC 1418

It was argued that 'husband' of 'second wife' who marries her during the
subsistence of his earlier legal marriage, is not husband within the meaning
of section 498A and the second wife, therefore, cannot invoke section 498A
for cruelty and harassment caused to her by him or his relatives. The
appellant, Reema Aggarwal, who was harassed by her husband and his
relatives for not bringing sufficient dowry, consumed poisonous substance.
She admitted that she married him during lifetime of his first wife. Based on
this fact her husband with others, was charged-sheeted under sections 307
and 498A.

Matrimonial offences are multi-causal and multi-dimensional in nature. It

is impossible to justly address them with a straitjacket method. It
transcends beyond culture, and socioeconomic status. However, there
definitely are underlying common factors. The rising cases of matrimonial
offences against women have their roots deeply ingrained in indifference,
and negligence that is primarily the result of general acceptance of men’s
superiority over women, which is evident from the gender specificity of
the nature of these offences.
Among the various kind of offences against women prevalent today are
the marital offences including bigamy, adultery, criminal elopement
among others and the one that is probably the most common offence is
cruelty. Over time, courts have broadened the ambit of the definition to
include within it different instances. The provisions dealing with
matrimonial felonies have been framed in a way that raises a presumption
against the accused if certain minimum requirements are met.

II. Explain the ingredients of offences of mischief with

illustration?

Introduction

According to section 425 of IPC Mischief- Whoever with intent to cause, or

knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the general
public or to a person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such
change in any property or within the situation thereof as destroys or
diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits mischief

Explanation 1:
It isn’t essential to the offence of mischief that the offender shall intend to
cause loss or damage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed.
It is sufficient if he intends to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause,
wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring any property, whether
it belongs to that person or not.

Explanation 2:
Mischief could also be committed by an act affecting property belonging to
the one that commits the act, or to that person and others jointly.[1]

Illustrations:

➢ B voluntarily burns a valuable security belonging to C intending to

cause wrongful loss to C. B has committed mischief.
➢ B introduces water into an ice-house belonging to C and thus causes
the ice to melt, intending wrongful loss to C. B has committed
mischief.
 ➢ B has committed mischief if B voluntarily throws into a river a ring
that belongs to C, with the intention of thereby causing wrongful
loss to C.
➢ B has committed mischief if B, knowing that his effects are about to
be taken in execution in order to satisfy a debt due from him to C,
destroys those effects, with the intention of thereby preventing C
from obtaining satisfaction of the debt, and of thus causing damage
to C.
➢ B has committed mischief if B, having insured a ship, voluntarily
causes the same to be destroyed, with the intention of causing
damage to the under-writers.
➢ B has committed mischief if B causes a ship to be cast away,
intending thereby to cause damage to C who has lent money on
bottomry on the ship.
➢ B has committed mischief if B, having joint property with C which is
a horse and B shoots the horse, intending thereby to cause
wrongful loss to C.
➢ B has committed mischief if B causes his/her cattle to enter upon a
field belonging to C, intending to cause and knowing that he is likely
to cause damage to C’s crop.

Scope of Mischief

Mischief under Section 425 of IPC covers all those acts that cause any
damage or destruction to the property resulting in any wrongful loss or
damage. The scope of this section is wide and it applies in the case of
both public as well as private damages.

However, the most important point is that it will not have any application
in the cases where the element of intention is absent which is further
elaborated in this article under the heading of Ingredients of mischief. It
is also not essential that the person accused had some valid motive
behind or must have been benefited from the act of mischief.

But some other significant questions of consideration are whether this act
can be applied in the cases when the accused has damaged his/her own
property? Or will it cover situations when the damage caused to the
property is a consequence of an illegal act or default in payment?

When accused is the owner of the damaged property

In the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Ors., the
Court held that ownership or possession of the property is not a deciding
factor in the matter of the application of section 425 of IPC. Thus,
mischief is said to be committed even in cases when the accused is the
owner of the property provided all the other essential ingredients
mentioned are satisfied.

This is further evident from the illustrations (d) and (e) to Section 425.
According to the facts of the above case, the petitioner alleged that the
respondent removed the engines of the aircraft diminishing their value
and utility. Since the appellants had the right to possess the aircraft it
resulted in wrongful loss or injury Hence the Supreme held that the
allegations amounted to the offence of mischief as all the essential
ingredients of mischief had been satisfied.

Default of Payment or Illegal Act

In case of disconnection of water supply, sewerage supply, electricity
supply, telephone connection, etc., by the concerned departments
resulting from the default in payment or an illegal act after following a
due process will not come under the ambit of Mischief.
Ingredients of Mischief

Essentially there are three key elements to establish Mischief as per the
definition laid down in section 425 of IPC which are as follows:
1. Intention or the knowledge of the act (mens rea);
2. The act resulting in destruction, damage or change in the property
or situation thereof; and (actus rea)
3. The change must lead to diminishing the value or utility.
4. Intention or the knowledge of the act may result in wrongful loss or
damage (mens rea)
One of the most essential elements of all offences under IPC is that any
crime is composed of two parts:

➢ Mens Rea and

➢ Actus rea.
Similarly, Mens rea is required to be present in order to establish the
offence of Mischief.

The definition of the law of mischief makes it very clear that the only way
to prove the act of mischief does not essentially mean that it has to be
proved that the accused essentially had any deliberate intention to cause
unjustified damage to the property. But rather what can also serve as
sufficient proof is the fact that the individual had the knowledge that such
action of his/her can result in damage or degradation of the property,
causing wrongful loss or damage.

This can also be understood with a real-life example that if some children
while playing street cricket break-up a glass window, it will not amount to
mischief but will rather constitute negligence. But if those children
deliberately throw the ball to aim at the window resulting in breaking up
the glass and causing loss to the owner, then it will amount to mischief.

Similar was the judgement pronounced in the case of Nagendranath Roy

v. Dr. Bijoy Kumar Dasburma where the court observed that mere
negligence does not constitute mischief. However in certain situations
when facts indicate that intention to cause wrongful loss was present
along with the negligence causing damage will amount to mischief.

In the case of Krishna Gopal Singh And Ors. v. the State Of U.P., it was
stipulated that if the accused has committed an act without any intent or
knowledge that the act in question is likely to cause wrongful loss or
damage to any person or the public at large, it will not fall under the
ambit of mischief as the element of Mens rea is absent. Similarly, if an act
is committed without free consent i.e.under some pressure or duress it
will also not amount to mischief.

In Arjun Singh v. The State (AIR 1958 Raj 347) it has been observed by
this Court:
In order to establish the offence of mischief, it is essential for the
prosecution to establish that the accused must have an intention or
knowledge of likelihood to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or
any person.

Punishment for Mischief

The punishment for Mischief is prescribed under Section 426 which states
that it attracts imprisonment of a term which may extend up to three
months, or with fine, or with both, as the court may deem fit.

Nature of offence:
The offence under this Section is non-cognizable, bailable, compoundable,
and triable by any Magistrate.

Aggravated forms of Mischief

Though the punishment for the offence of mischief has been laid down as
imprisonment until 3 months, or fine, or both in Section 426 of the Indian
Penal Code. However, the IPC recognizes and lists down certain
aggravated forms of mischief which have been described under Sections
427 to Section 440, IPC.
III. What is Crime, explain the difference between Crime
and Tort?
Crime
A crime is a wrongful act which interferes with the interest of the society.
➢ In crimes it does not affect one individual or property but the
society.
➢ They are the wrongful acts which government has identified has
crime. The person who has committed the crime is also called the
defendant.
➢ In crime the charges are usually brought about by the government
unlike torts where the person who has been injured can bring about
the charges.
➢ It is a criminal wrong and criminal proceedings take place.
➢ If the defendant losses he shall be liable and will have to serve a
punishment as ordered by the court.

Undoubtedly, crime is nothing but doing something wrong. Specifically, in

this case, the impact is on society in general. There are special cases or
acts which are a crime under the state legal system. In case, a person
does any of the act, the law will take necessary decisions of punishment
in the court.
Specifically, the proceeding takes place in the criminal court of
law. Crimes which go against laws are already set for the protection of
society. Moreover, it keeps peace ensuring everyone can have the right to
live in a society, free of crimes.
Crime is an illegal act for the following reasons:
1. Firstly, crime goes against existing laws set-up in society.
2. Secondly, crime affects the standard of living of law-abiding citizens
who wish to live peacefully in society.
3. Lastly, a crime is an intentional act contravening human
fundamental rights.

The essentials elements of crime are:

A criminal act constitutes both the mental element and the physical
element.
Mens rea
Mens rea is the mental element. Before committing a crime he should
form intent to do so and mere negligence does not come under crime.
Intention of a person is very important in crimes because if the person did
not have the intention to commit the crime then he may not be guilty.
There are certain situations where the person does not voluntarily cause
the accident. For instance if while the driving the car the person suffers a
heart attack and causes the death of another, the person who suffered
the attack will not be guilty or liable for punishment.
Actus reus
It is the physical element of the crime. It is the actual commission of the
crime after the intent to commit the crime has been formed. The person
should have been accused of committing a crime and caused injury to the
victim. A mere act will not constitute a crime. Similarly the mere intention
to commit the crime is not enough. There should be the intention to
commit the crime followed by its actual commission.
In some situations after commission of the crime the accused cannot say
that he did not have the intention to do it. For instance when a person is
drunken driving and causes accident of another he cannot take the
defense that he did not have the intention to do it because while drunk
driving he is aware that it may cause some accident and therefore he will
be liable for it.
Mens rea or actus reus cannot exist independently and therefore there will
not be any crime.
Differences Tort & Crime:

Crime
1. Crime is a wrong against the
whole society.
2. Crime proceedings are held in
criminal courts.
3. In crime remedy is in the form
of punishment.
4. Rule of criminal procedure is
applied.
5. In Crime state prosecutes
regardless of the wishes of a
person who has been wronged.
6. Different crimes involve Mens
Rea
Tort
1. Tort is a wrong only against an
individual.
2. Tort proceedings are held in civil
courts.
3. In tort remedy is in the form of
damages.
4. Rule of civil procedure is applied.
5. In tort, it is not so.
6. In tort emphasis is lay down on
compensation.
7. In tort, individual can
compromise.
7. In crime compromising is only 8. Compensation for torts is given on
possible in compoundable the basis of the damages to the
offences aggrieved party.
8. Compensation for crimes is 9. It happens mostly due to
already mentioned in the book of negligence. Tort is hardly intentional.
law. Whenever the court has to But it is still damaging to the
decide the amount of individual.
compensation, they simply refer 10. In the case of tort, the burden of
to the law book. In certain cases, proof lies with the claimant, i.e. the
judges use their personal injured party who initiated the case
judgments too.
9. Crime happens mostly
intentionally. It is a deliberate
act which people do to get some
unlawful benefits.
10. In the case of crime, the
burden of proof lies with the
prosecution due to the
presumption of innocence.

The similarity between Crime and Torts?

It is not true that the Law of Torts and crime are different sports
altogether, there are many similarities in both of them and are different
players of the same sports.
First, they both are the resulting breach of particular persons’ right, one
cannot have an action in either torts law or criminal law if there is no
breach of any right.
Second, to enforce these rights, judiciary plays an important role in both
criminal and torts law. One cannot enforce these rights on his own and
need to take a judicial course to enforce these rights.
There are many wrongs which are covered under both civil and criminal
wrongs like nuisance or fraud which are wrong under both torts and is a
crime under criminal law.
Both the laws overlap each other, such as there are many wrongs in
criminal law which don’t require intention but can be convicted without
Mens Rea in the first place. Example of such crime is strict liability crime
which is punishable without any fault or intent of the person.
Similar is the case of Torts law, there are many wrongs which require an
intention to be proved in order to constitute torts. Example of such wrong
is Conversion, Trespass, Assault, Battery, fraud. Though these come
under the purview of torts, they all require intention in order to prove
them as wrong.
 BASIS FOR
TORT CRIME
COMPARISON

Meaning Tort implies a wrongful act causing Crime refers to an

injury or harm for which recovery offence or wrong or
is sought by the aggrieved party as illegal act for which
per civil law, from the person who the person
is responsible for the act. conducting it, will be
punished under the
court of law.

Nature of law Uncodified Codified

Involves Infringement of individual rights. Violation of public

rights.

Court The defendant will be sued in civil The defendant will

court. be prosecuted in
criminal court.

Objective To protects the rights of a person. To maintain law and

order in society and
prevention against
crime and punish the
wrongdoer.

Remedy On being liable the defendant has On being guilty of

to pay damages/compensation the offence, the
decided by the court. defendant will be
sentenced.

Standard of Balance of Probabilities, also known Beyond Reasonable

Proof as Preponderance of Evidence Doubt

Burden of Proof Rests with the claimant Rests with the

prosecution
IV. Difference between Kidnap and Abduction?

Kidnapping and Abduction are the crime under Indian Penal Code,1860. It
talks about the forcefully taking of the person or a child (from
guardianship) with or without the consent for that matter. Both the
offences are given under Chapter 26 – Offences affecting the Human
Body, particularly from section 359 to 366 of Indian Penal code.

Although both the offences are similar in some aspects but they are poles
apart in many other aspects.

Difference between Kidnapping and Abduction

➢ Kidnapping is dealt under Section 359 of the Indian Penal Code.
Kidnapping is classified into two types:- ‘Kidnapping from India’ or
‘Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship’. ‘Abduction’ has been defined
in Section 362 of the Indian Penal Code.

➢ As per Section 360 of the IPC when someone is taken beyond the
bounds of India without that person’s consent, the one who takes
him or her is claimed to kidnap that person from India.

➢ Section 361 of the Code provides that when someone entices a

minor (16 years for male and 18 years for female) or someone of
unsound mind, the person is going to be held chargeable for
kidnapping such person from lawful guardianship.

➢ In the case of State of Haryana v Raja Ram , the accused induced

the prosecutrix who was 14 years old far from her lawful
guardianship. The Supreme Court held that the persuasion by the
accused created a will on the part of minor which kept her far from
her lawful guardianship and so it amounted to ‘kidnapping’.

➢ The age of the aggrieved person just in case of Kidnapping as in line

with Section 361 of the IPC is 16 in case of males and 18 in case of
females (in the case of State of Haryana v Raja Ram).

➢ There is no such thing as age in case of Abduction. a person either

by force has compelled or induced the other person to travel from
anywhere regardless of the age, shall be booked with abduction.

➢ Here the lawful guardianship shall include a person who has been
authorized by law to require care of the one who has yet not
 attained the age of majority. A lawful guardian could also be the
mother, father, in-laws, etc.

➢ The crime of kidnapping involves the removal from the guardianship

of a lawful one who has been authorized by law to require care of
such a minor as age is taken into account. Lawful guardianship isn't
considered as just in case of Abduction since age isn't considered.

➢ The means used for kidnapping is irrelevant but just in case of

abduction it's relevant because it should involve force, compulsion,
or deceitful means.

➢ In case of Kidnapping, the consent of the person kidnapped is

immaterial but just in case of Abduction the consent of the person
abducted condones the accused from the offence so charged against
him/her.

➢ The intention of the person kidnapped just in case of kidnapping a

minor is immaterial so on the crime committed by the accused. But
just in case of Abduction, the intention of the person abducting
could be a vital think about determining the guilt of the accused
person.

➢ Kidnapping could be a substantive offence. Section 363 of the IPC

provides for a punishment for kidnapping for a descriptive term
which can reach seven years and he/she shall even be chargeable
for fine.

➢ Abduction is barely an auxiliary act and isn't punishable in itself.

Therefore, there's no general punishment for abduction within the
Indian Penal Code.

➢ Kidnapping isn't a continuing offence. The offence is completed as

soon because the person accused removes the person from his/her
lawful guardianship. Abduction could be a continuing process and
it's the person so abducted is off from one place to another.
.
Short Notes:
1) Define Mistake?

One important factor of a valid contract is free consent. Both the parties
involved in the contract must enter the contract willingly and under no
pressure. There are factors which impair the free consent of either party.
Once such factor is “mistake”, which includes a mistake of law and
mistake of fact. Let us take a more detailed look into it.
Free Consent
According to section 14 of the Indian Contract Act 1857, free consent is
defined as “consent is said to be free when it is not caused by coercion,
under influence, fraud, misrepresentation, and mistake.” In the previous
article about Free Consent, we have already covered the first four factors.
Here we will be looking at the mistake factor.
A mistake is an erroneous belief that is innocent in nature. It leads to a
misunderstanding between the two parties. Now when talking about a
mistake, the law identifies two types of mistakes, namely
A Mistake of Law & A Mistake of Fact
Mistake of Law
This mistake may relate to the mistake of the Indian laws, or it can be a
mistake of foreign laws. If the mistake is regarding Indian laws, the rule
is that the ignorance of the law is not a good enough excuse. This means
either party cannot simply claim it was unaware of the law.
The Contract Act says that no party shall be allowed to claim any relief on
the grounds of ignorance of Indian law. This will also include a wrong
interpretation of any legal provisions.
However, ignorance of a foreign law is not given a similar treatment.
Ignorance of the foreign law is given some leeway, the parties are not
expected to know foreign legal provisions and their meaning. So a
mistake of foreign law is in fact treated as a mistake of fact under
the Indian Contract Act.
Mistake of Fact
Then there is the other type of mistake, a mistake of fact. This is when
both the parties misunderstand each other leaving them at a crossroads.
Such a mistake can be because of an error in understanding, or ignorance
or omission etc. But a mistake is never intentional, it is an innocent
overlooking. These mistakes can either be unilateral or bilateral.
Bilateral Mistake
When both parties of a contract are under a mistake of fact essential to
the agreement, such a mistake is what we call a bilateral mistake. Here
both the parties have not consented to the same thing in the same sense,
which is the definition of consent. Since there is an absence of consent
altogether the agreement is void.
However, to render an agreement void the mistake of fact should be
about some essential fact that is of importance in a contract. So if the
mistake is about the existence of the subject matter or its title,
quality, quantity price etc then it would be a void contract. But if the
mistake is of something inconsequential, then the agreement is not void
and the contract will remain in place.
For example, A agrees to sell to B his buffalo. But at the time of the
agreement, the buffalo had already died. Neither A nor B was aware of
this. And so there is no contract at all, i.e. the contract is void due to a
mistake of fact.
Unilateral Mistake
A unilateral mistake is when only one party to the contract is under a
mistake. In such a case the contract will not be void. So the Section 22 of
the Act states that just because one party was under a mistake of fact the
contract will not be void or voidable. So if only one party has made a
mistake of fact the contract remains a valid contract.
However, there are some exceptions to this. In certain conditions, even a
unilateral mistake of fact can lead to a void or voidable agreement. Let’s
see a few of these exceptions via some examples and case studies.
1. When Unilateral Mistake is as to the Nature of the Contract: In such
a case the contract can be held as void. Let us see the example of
Dularia Devi v. Janardan Singh. Here an illiterate woman put her
thumb impression on two documents thinking they were the same.
She thought the document was to gift some property to her
daughters. But the other document was a Sale deed to defraud the
women out of more of her property. This contract was held void by
the courts
2. When the Mistake is regarding the Quality of the Promise: There
was an auction being held by A to sell hemp and tow. B thinking the
auction was only for hemp, mistakenly bid for a tow. The amount
bid was on par for hemp but very high for a tow. Hence the contract
was held as voidable.
2) Forgery?
Forgery, in law, making of a false writing with an intent to defraud.
Writing, to be forgery, must either have legal significance or be commonly
relied upon in business transactions. It need not be handwriting; the law
of forgery covers printing, engraving, and typewriting as well. In most
jurisdictions, however, “writing” excludes objects such as works of art,
which when misrepresented are legally considered to be falsifications or
frauds.
Checks, negotiable instruments, contracts, wills, and deeds are examples
of documents that may be forged. But forgery also encompasses some
documents that have no legal efficacy but are commonly relied upon in
the business world, such as a false letter of recommendation for
employment.
The forger may begin with an entirely blank piece of paper, with an
incomplete genuine instrument with blanks to be filled, or with a complete
genuine instrument that may be altered. The usual manner of forging is
to prepare a false writing and sign another’s name to it or to make a
material alteration to a valid writing already signed by another. But a
writing that contains false statements is not necessarily the “false-writing”
that forgery requires.
A check drawn on a bank wherein the drawer has no funds is not a
forgery even though the drawer implies that he has funds there, but it is
a genuine writing containing lies; the crime, therefore, is that of obtaining
property by false pretenses.
It is not forgery to sign another’s name or to fill in blanks or alter a
genuine writing in the honest, though mistaken, belief that such conduct
is authorized. There must be fraudulent intent. If such intent is present,
there is forgery even if no one is actually defrauded by the false
document.

3) Mens Rea?

Most crimes require what attorneys refer to as "mens rea," which is Latin
for a "guilty mind." In other words, what was the defendant's mental
state and what did the defendant intend when the crime was committed.
Mens rea allows the criminal justice system to differentiate between
someone who did not mean to commit a crime and someone who
intentionally set out to commit a crime.
To give an example, imagine two drivers who end up hitting and killing a
pedestrian. Driver 1 never saw the person until it was too late, tried his or
her best to brake, but could do nothing to stop the accident and in fact
ended up killing the pedestrian. Driver 1 is still liable, but likely only in
civil court for monetary damages.
Driver 2, on the other hand, had been out looking for the pedestrian and
upon seeing him, steered towards him, hit the gas pedal and slammed
into him, killing him instantly. Driver 2 is probably criminally liable
because he intended to kill the pedestrian, or at least he intended to
cause serious bodily harm. Even though the pedestrian is killed in both
scenarios (the outcome is the same), the intent of both drivers was very
different and their punishments will be substantially different as a result.

4) Criminal breach of trust

The section of 407- 409 includes aggravated form of criminal breach of
trust which talks about three distinct classes to which entitles belong
i..e.a carrier, a warehouse keeper and a wharfinger who is the owner
of a wharf who received some property or goods under some contract
who is expected to carry the goods in the safe custody with them.
Whosoever, being entrusted with the property dishonestly converts or
misappropriation for his own use in breach of any law or any legal
contract commits ‘Criminal breach of Trust’.
Section 407 confers with ‘criminal breach of trust by carrier’. Carrier is
basically a person who attempts or seek to transport goods for hire.
So, according to the section of 407, if any carrier, warehouse keeper or
a wharfinger who is entrusted with that property not necessarily
movable but dishonestly misappropriated or converts the property for
own use then, in that case, he shall be punishable under the offence of
criminal breach of trust. And the punishment for the same would be
liable with imprisonment of 7 years with a subsequent amount of fine.
Section 408 deals with ‘criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant’