LAW OF CRIMES

Summary Notes

Hemant Patil
hbpatil@gmail.com

Page 0 of 51
Table of Contents
1. Purpose & Effect of IPC on Indian Jurisprudence .................................................... 3
2. History & evolution of Criminal Law in India ......................................................... 3
3. Cybercrimes and IPC ..................................................................................... 4
4. Theories & punishments, Logic, Modern day approach & Comparative analysis ................ 4
5. Kinds of Punishments .................................................................................... 7
6. Capital Punishment ...................................................................................... 8
7. Culpable homicide and murder, and their respective exceptions................................. 9
8. Offences against women (Amendment Act, 2013)................................................. 10
9. General Exceptions .................................................................................... 10
10. Necessity ................................................................................................ 13
11. Infancy ................................................................................................... 13
12. Insanity .................................................................................................. 14
13. Intoxication ............................................................................................. 14
14. Election offences with illustrations ................................................................. 14
15. Provisions in IPC for Joint criminal liabilities ...................................................... 15
16. Stages of crime and their respective culpability .................................................. 15
17. False Evidence and Offences against public justice ............................................... 16
18. Jurisdiction ............................................................................................. 18
19. Retributive theory of punishment ................................................................... 18
20. Rape (Essentials and exceptions) .................................................................... 19
21. Theft & Extortion ...................................................................................... 19
22. Defamation and exceptions ........................................................................... 20
23. Robbery and dacoity ................................................................................... 21
24. Changes in Amendment Act, 2013 (Nirbhaya Rape case) ......................................... 21
25. Offences relating to Marriage ........................................................................ 22
26. Criminal Trespass and provisions .................................................................... 22
27. Negligence theories and motive ..................................................................... 23
28. Historical view on Punishments ...................................................................... 24
29. Solitary confinement .................................................................................. 24
30. Offences relating to Public Health .................................................................. 25
31. Offences relating to Public Safety ................................................................... 25
32. Offences relating to Convenience ................................................................... 26
33. Offences relating to Decency......................................................................... 26
34. Offences relating to Morals ........................................................................... 27
35. Stages of crimes ........................................................................................ 27
36. Criminal Conspiracy .................................................................................... 28
37. Injury .................................................................................................... 29

Page 1 of 51
38. House breaking ......................................................................................... 29
39. Begging .................................................................................................. 30
40. Theft ..................................................................................................... 30
41. Right of private defense of body extending to causation of death ............................. 31
42. Fraudulently ............................................................................................ 31
43. Grievous Hurt ........................................................................................... 32
44. Offences against the state (121-130)................................................................ 32
45. Offenses relating to public servants ................................................................. 33
46. Offences relating to coin and government stamps ................................................ 34
47. Offences relating to weights and measures ........................................................ 35
48. Offences relating to documents and property marks ............................................. 35
49. Criminal Intimidation, Insult and Annoyance ...................................................... 36
50. Contempt of Lawful Authority of Public Servants ................................................. 36
51. Offenses relating to Army, Navy & Airforce ........................................................ 37
52. Limitations to Private Defense right ................................................................ 37
53. Abduction ............................................................................................... 38
54. Bigamy ................................................................................................... 38
55. Capital Punishment – Right or Wrong? ............................................................... 38
56. Civil & Criminal Law ................................................................................... 39
57. Wrongful Confinement ................................................................................ 39
58. Stolen Property ......................................................................................... 40
59. Unlawful Assembly ..................................................................................... 40
60. Criminal Breach of Trust .............................................................................. 40
61. Forgery .................................................................................................. 41
62. Attempt to commit an offense ....................................................................... 41
63. General Revision ....................................................................................... 41
64. Disclaimer ............................................................................................... 50

Page 2 of 51
Purpose & Effect of IPC on Indian Jurisprudence
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) is the main criminal code of India. It was enacted in 1860 and has
undergone several amendments since then. The purpose of the IPC is to provide a comprehensive
framework for defining criminal offenses and prescribing the punishments for those offenses.

The IPC has had a significant impact on Indian jurisprudence. It has played a vital role in shaping the
criminal justice system in India by defining the various crimes and providing guidelines for their
punishment. The IPC has also helped in the development of a uniform criminal law system in India,
which is essential for maintaining law and order in the country. One of the most significant effects
of the IPC on Indian jurisprudence is the establishment of a uniform criminal law system across the
country. The IPC has replaced the traditional system of criminal law that was prevalent in different
regions of India. This has helped in reducing the confusion and ambiguity that was present in the
earlier system and has made it easier for people to understand the law and comply with it. The IPC
has also helped in the development of a fair and efficient criminal justice system in India. It has
provided a framework for investigating and prosecuting crimes, ensuring that the accused are given
a fair trial, and that the punishment is proportionate to the crime committed. The IPC has also helped
in protecting the rights of the victims and ensuring that they receive justice.

History & evolution of Criminal Law in India

The history and evolution of criminal law in India can be traced back to ancient times. The early
Indian society had a complex legal system that was based on religious texts, customary practices,
and judicial pronouncements. The criminal law system in India has undergone significant changes
over the centuries, and its evolution can be broadly divided into four phases.

1. Ancient India: The ancient Indian legal system was primarily based on religious texts, such
as the Vedas, the Upanishads, and the Manusmriti. These texts prescribed punishments for
various crimes, such as theft, murder, and adultery. The legal system was based on the
principle of retribution, where the punishment was proportionate to the crime committed.
The King or the ruler was the chief law-giver, and he was responsible for the administration
of justice.
2. Medieval India: During the medieval period, the Muslim rulers brought their legal system,
which was based on Islamic law, or Shariah. The Shariah had a significant influence on the
Indian legal system, and it was implemented in several parts of the country. The Islamic law
had a strict code of punishment for various crimes, and the punishments were severe, such
as amputation of limbs for theft.
3. British India: The British brought their legal system to India, which was based on the English
common law. The British introduced the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 1860, which was the
primary criminal law statute in India. The IPC provided a comprehensive framework for
defining criminal offenses and prescribing the punishments for those offenses. The British
also introduced the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) in 1861, which laid down the rules for
the investigation, prosecution, and trial of criminal cases.
4. Post-Independence India: After independence, the Indian legal system underwent significant
changes. The Indian Constitution was enacted in 1950, which provided a framework for the
administration of justice in the country. The Constitution also laid down the fundamental
rights and duties of the citizens, and it guaranteed the right to a fair trial and the
presumption of innocence. The Criminal Procedure Code was revised in 1973, and the IPC
was amended to keep pace with the changing times.

Criminal Law in modern India is now primarily governed by the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Code
of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). The IPC defines various criminal offenses and prescribes punishments
for those offenses. The CrPC lays down the rules for the investigation, prosecution, and trial of
criminal cases. Criminal Law in India is based on the principle of presumption of innocence, and the
burden of proof lies with the prosecution. The accused is entitled to a fair trial and the right to legal
representation. The Indian legal system recognizes various types of offenses, such as offenses against
property, offenses against the person, and offenses against the state.

Page 3 of 51
Criminal Law in India has undergone significant changes over the years, and it has evolved to meet
the changing needs of society. The legal system has become more transparent and accountable, and
there is an emphasis on protecting the rights of the accused and the victims. The Criminal Law system
in India is constantly evolving, and new laws are being introduced to address emerging issues, such
as cybercrime and terrorism.

Cybercrimes and IPC

Cybercrime is a growing concern in India, with the proliferation of digital devices and the increasing
use of the internet. Cybercrime refers to criminal activities that are committed using digital
technology, such as computers, smartphones, and the internet. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the
Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) govern cybercrime in India. Types of Cyber Crimes:
1. Hacking: This refers to the unauthorized access to a computer system or network. It is a
serious offense under the IPC and can result in imprisonment and fines.
2. Cyber stalking: This refers to the use of digital technology to harass or stalk someone. It is
punishable under the IPC and can result in imprisonment and fines.
3. Cyberbullying: This refers to the use of digital technology to intimidate or bully someone. It
is punishable under the IPC and can result in imprisonment and fines.
4. Identity theft: This refers to the unauthorized use of someone's personal information to
commit fraud or other crimes. It is punishable under the IPC and can result in imprisonment
and fines.
5. Online financial fraud: This refers to the use of digital technology to commit fraud in
financial transactions. It is punishable under the IPC and can result in imprisonment and fines.
6. Cyber terrorism: This refers to the use of digital technology to carry out terrorist activities.
It is punishable under the IPC and can result in imprisonment and fines.

Legal provisions for Cyber Crimes in India: The Information Technology Act, 2000 (IT Act) is the
primary legislation that governs cybercrime in India. The Act provides for various offenses related to
cybercrime and prescribes punishments for those offenses. The Act also provides for the
establishment of Cyber Appellate Tribunal and Cyber Crime Investigation Cells to deal with
cybercrime-related cases. Under the IT Act, various cybercrime offenses are punishable, such as
hacking, denial of service attacks, identity theft, cyberstalking, and cyberbullying. The punishment
for these offenses ranges from imprisonment to fines, depending on the severity of the offense. In
addition to the IT Act, the IPC also provides for various offenses related to cybercrime, such as fraud,
forgery, and defamation. The IPC also provides for the punishment of those offenses.

Theories & punishments, Logic, Modern day approach & Comparative analysis
The components of crime include:
a. Actus reus
b. Mens rea
c. Injury, and
d. Act prohibited by law
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) is the primary legislation that deals with criminal offenses in India. It
outlines various types of offenses and their respective punishments. The IPC is based on various
theories of punishment, including retribution, deterrence, reformation and prevention. Let's explore
each of these theories and their corresponding punishments.
1. Retribution Theory - The Retribution theory of punishment is based on the principle of "an
eye for an eye." The objective of this theory is to punish the offender in a way that is
proportional to the harm caused by the crime. The idea is to ensure that the offender suffers
the same amount of pain as the victim. The punishment under this theory is intended to serve
as retribution for the harm done. Under the Retribution theory, the IPC provides for various
types of punishments, including imprisonment, fine, and death penalty. For instance, the
punishment for murder under Section 302 of the IPC is either life imprisonment or death
penalty, depending on the severity of the offense. Similarly, the punishment for theft under
Section 379 of the IPC is imprisonment for up to three years, or a fine, or both.
Objective: Moral justice to victim and theory of vengeance. Personal vengeance due to lack
of trust on state to deliver justice. The objective of the Retribution theory is to punish the
offender in a way that is proportional to the harm caused by the crime. The idea is to ensure

Page 4 of 51
 that the offender suffers the same amount of pain as the victim. This theory ignores the
causes & circumstances of crime and does not strike to remove them.
Effectiveness: This theory may deter people from committing crimes due to fear of
punishment. However, some argue that it does not address the root causes of criminal
behavior.
2. Deterrence Theory - The Deterrence theory of punishment is based on the principle of
discouraging the offender from committing the same crime again and teaching/deterring
others from committing similar offenses. It acts on the motive of offender. The idea is to
impose an exemplary punishment that is severe enough to make the offender think twice
before committing the offense. Under the Deterrence theory, the IPC provides for various
types of punishments, including imprisonment, fine, and community service. For instance,
the punishment for drunk driving under Section 185 of the IPC is imprisonment for up to six
months, or a fine, or both. The punishment for causing grievous hurt under Section 325 of
the IPC is imprisonment for up to seven years, or a fine, or both.
Objective: Stopping future crimes and setting an example through creation of fear in like-
minded criminals. The objective of the Deterrence theory is to discourage the offender from
committing the same crime again and deterring others from committing similar offenses.
Another objective is to warn the society at large about crime & punishments.
Effectiveness: This theory may deter people from committing crimes due to fear of
punishment. However, some argue that it does not address the root causes of criminal
behavior.
3. Reform Theory – India follows this philosophy for criminals of Treating & reintegrating them
with society (Treat crime mentality, not person). Hate the crime, not the criminal. The
Reform theory of punishment is based on the principle of reforming the offender and helping
them become a better person. The idea is to reform the offender through education, training,
and counseling, to help them become a better person and reintegrate into society. Under the
Reform theory, the IPC provides for various types of punishments, including probation,
community service, and counseling. For instance, the punishment for cheating under Section
420 of the IPC is imprisonment for up to seven years, or a fine, or both. However, the court
may also order the offender to undergo counseling or community service.
Objective: The objective of the Reform theory is to reform the offender and help them
become a better person. It considers all modes of punishments as barbaric and
imprisonment/probation are the only acceptable instruments.
Effectiveness: This theory is effective in reducing recidivism and helping offenders become
better individuals. However, some argue that it may not address the root causes of criminal
behavior.
4. Preventative Theory – Theory of disabling the criminal (Death or life imprisonment or
suspending driving license) from future crime. Its objective is to prevent the commission of
future crimes by imposing punishment on individuals who are considered a potential threat
to society. The theory suggests that by subjecting individuals to punishment, it will deter
them and others from engaging in criminal activities. The main idea behind the preventive
punishment theory is to identify individuals who may be inclined to commit crimes in the
future based on their past behavior, tendencies, or other relevant factors. The theory aims
to intervene and take corrective measures before the potential criminal acts occur. It
emphasizes the importance of protecting society from harm by incapacitating or reforming
potential offenders. UAPA, NSA kind of acts separate criminals & prevent larger harm.
However, the preventive punishment theory has several shortcomings. One major concern is
the potential violation of the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." Under this theory,
individuals may be punished based on their perceived propensity to commit crimes rather
than actual criminal conduct. This approach raises questions about fairness, individual rights,
and due process. Another limitation is the difficulty in accurately predicting future criminal
behavior. Determining the likelihood of someone committing a crime in the future is a
complex task, as it relies on subjective assessments and the interpretation of various factors.
This subjectivity can lead to bias and errors in judgment. Additionally, the effectiveness of
preventive punishment as a deterrent is debated. While it may deter some individuals from
committing crimes, others may not be influenced by the threat of punishment or may even
become more defiant. The theory assumes that punishment alone can alter behavior, but

Page 5 of 51
 human behavior is influenced by multiple factors, including social, economic, and
psychological aspects.

The choice of theory and punishment depends on the nature and severity of the crime, as well as the
circumstances of the offender. A perfect penal code must be a judicious combination of these all to
achieve the overall goal of reducing crime and ensuring justice in society.

Difference between Civil & Criminal proceedings: While in Civil proceedings the object is to enforce
civil rights (determine rights & liabilities and realize damages, penalty or injunction), it is punishment
to wrong in Criminal one (determine guilt or innocence of accused, resulting into possible
imprisonment, fine or even death). Crimes injure public at large/society & civil violation is against
person. Defamation, however, is both civil as well as a criminal offense. State is always a party in
criminal proceedings, and not a private individual as in the civil proceedings.

Page 6 of 51
Kinds of Punishments
Objectives of Punishment: Protect the society and deter the criminal. Chapter 3 – Section 53 to 75.
IPC 1860
Category Section Offense/Case Law
53A Transportation (Life Imprisonment)
54 Commutation of Death sentence by State w ithout consent (Reduction)
55 Commutation of Life sentence by State w ithout consent (Reduction)
Sentense
57 Fractions of Sentence (Calculate)
60 Sentence flexibility (W holly/Partially and Rigorous/Simple
63 Fine - Unlimited but not excessiv e
64 Additional Imprisonment for non-payment of fine
65 Limit Non-Payment Imprisonment upto 1/4th of Maximum Term
If Only Fine, Non-payment to limit (2M for 50 Rs. 4 for 100 and 6 for any
67
Fine Payment other)
68 Termination of Imprisonment upon payment of full fine
69 Proportionate Payment, Proportionate termination of imprisonment
Fine lev iable until 6 years after or during imprisonment – whichev er is more.
70
Death not to discharge property from liability.
71 Limit combined offense punishment (50 Lashes hav e single punishment)
Solitiary Confinement , Max 1 months if imprisonment is up to 6 months, 2M
betw een exceeding 6 months and not exceeding 1 year, Not exceeding 3
73
months for term of imprisonment exceed 1 year. Sunil Batra Case,
Unnikrishnan v . State of AP
Bound by law (is or feels), act of subordinate is protected. Ignorance of fact
76
is excused; Ignorance of law isn’t. Legal compulsion, Bound.
Mistake of Fact
Act done justified (or believ ed to be) by law . Legal justification, Not bound.
79
State of Odisha v . Baghban
77 Act of judge when acting judicially
Juridical Acts
78 Act done pursuant to court judgement
Accident in doing law ful act w ith proper care, no mens rea. Parik and Girish
Accident 80
Saikia v . State of Aasam (S80)
Necessity (Less damaging, Necessity know s No law ) - Done in good faith, No
81
Mens Rea, Harm must be iminent & sudden
82 Under 7 - Complete Examption - Doli Incapex
7-12 - Examption subject to maturity of mind - Doli Capex. Case of Krishna
83
1983 (Steal & Sell Jew ellery)
Insanity (Mental abnormality, Unsound Mind) - Incable of know ing nature or
consequences of act at the time of doing act. Unsound mind, McNaughten
84
Rules (Assumed sane unless prov en contrary, accused to prov e his insanity &
lack of nature/quality/know ledge/consequences of his act)
Absence of Criminal
Incapable of hav ing mental element, Inv olunteery through force/coercion,
Intent
85 unsound mind. Mav ari Surya v . State of AP (Chased w ife to burn her aliv e
w ith v oluntary alcohol consumption)
Act done in good faith/benefit w ithout consent (Not intentionally causing
92 death, or attempting to cause death but to prev ent death or grev ious hurt or
curing discease)
Communication made in good faith (Dr giv ing shocking new s in good fath,
93
person dies)
Act to w hich a person is compelled by threats (Except Murder & offense
94
against the state). Act done by me, against my w ill, is not my act.

Offense by intoxicated requiring particular know ledg e/intent – as if he was

86 not intoxicated – unless intoxication administered w ithout his know ledge &
against w ill. Babu Jadhav V. State of Maharashtra (Tried dozing off the fire)

Act done by v alid consent, not know n to likely cause death or griev ous hurt
87 (Volenti non fit injuria). S87 Volenti Non-Fit Injuria Deepak v . Sr. Inspector of
Police (Manslaughter)
Act done in good faith by v alid consent, not know n to likely cause death or
88
griev ous hurt (Volenti non fit injuria) for person’s benefit (Surgery)
Act done in good faith for benefit of child (under 12 years age) or insane
Consent 89
person, w ith consent from guardian
90 Consent (of child or insane person) know n to be giv en under fear or
Exclusion of acts w hich are offenses independently of harm cause
(Miscarriage by mother is offense against the child, unless it is to sav e
91
w omen’s life. Publishing porn ev en w ith v alid consent is offense as it affects
pubic decency. Public health safety, conv enience & morals)
95 Trifles - Act causing slight harm
96 Not offense if done in exercising right of priv ate defense.

Defense of body or mov able/immov able property (ow n or others). Kashi Ram
97
v . State of MP, Yashw ant Rao v . State of MP, Ram Av tar v . State of UP

98 Against act of unsound mind person

Limitations/Restrictions. Act, against w hich there is no right of priv ate
99 defense (Hav ing sufficient time, unnecessary & unreasonable force, no
apprehension, identified public serv ant or act done on his directions)

100
Priv ate defense of
person or property
You can cause death exercising priv ate defense w hen assaulted for:
i.Death
ii.Griev ous hurt
iii.Committing rape
iv.Gratifying unnatural lust
v.Kidnapping or abducting
v i.Wrongful confinement w ithout recourse to public authorities for release
v ii.Throw ing/Administering/Attempting Acid

101 Other than death, not falling under S100 and restrictions under S99
102 Commencement & continuance of priv ate defense of body
Cause death w hile defending property w hen:
i.Robbery
ii.House breaking by night
103
iii.Mischief by fire
iv.Theft, mischief or house trespass w ith apprehension of death or griev ous
hurt
104 Other than death, not falling under S103 and restrictions under S99
105 Commencement & continuance of priv ate defense of property
Against deadly assault w hen there is a risk of harm to an innocent person
106
(shooting at attacking mob results in death of an innocent)

Page 7 of 51
5 Types of punishments for crime.

a. Capital (Death): SC established constitutional validity (does not violate article 14,
19 & 21) of death sentence in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab. Macchi Singh v. State
of Punjab Balance Sheet of Aggravating & Mitigating Factors
b. Imprisonment for life (Convict to remain in jail for remaining living period of natural
life, Rigorous in nature, 51 sections in IPC) KM Nanavati V. State of Bombay, Maha
Singh v. State of UP, State of MP v. Ratan Singh
c. Imprisonment (Simple, Rigorous or Solitary)
d. Forfeiture of property
e. Fine
 S53A: Transportation for life (Life Imprisonment)
 S54: Commutation of death sentence by the state without consent
 S55: Commutation (shorten) the life imprisonment on Govt. discretion (min 14 years in prison)
 S57: Fractions of imprisonment term – life equivalent to 20 years of jail. Limited use section, sole
purpose is to only calculate fractions
 S60: Sentence may be whole/partially rigorous or simple
 S63: Amount of fine. If not indicated in sentence, it may be unlimited but not excessive. Nature
of offence and capacity to pay naturally are relevant considerations.
 S64: Additional Imprisonment for non-payment of fine
 S65: Limit the imprisonment for non-payment of fine, not to exceed 1/4th of the maximum term
fixed for that offense
 S67: Imprisonment (Simple, not rigorous) for non-payment of fine when sentence is only for fine
(2 months for fine upto Rs.50/- 4 for fine upto Rs.100/- Not more than 6M for any amount over)
 S68: Termination of imprisonment upon payment of fine
 S69: Proportionate Payment, Proportionate termination of imprisonment
 S70: Fine leviable until 6 years after or during imprisonment – whichever is more. Death not to
discharge the property from liability.
 S71: Limit of punishment for combined several offenses. Punishment not severe than maximum
available within any of these. Example: Single collective punishment for 50 times beatings (not
sequential and multiple ones).
 S73: Solitary confinement. Segregation from outside world. Max 1 months if imprisonment is up
to 6 months, 2M between exceeding 6 months and not exceeding 1 year, Not exceeding 3 months
for term of imprisonment exceed 1 year. Sunil Batra Case, Unnikrishnan v. State of AP

Capital Punishment
Capital punishment means the state taking life of an individual using its lawful authority & power.
Supreme court also held in Macchi Singh v. State of Punjab that Capital punishment should only be
given when option of awarding the sentence of Life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed.
Judges have to draw a balance sheet between aggravating & mitigating circumstances (past record
of crime, dire need, no pre-meditation, feat of rage etc.). S303 IPC give compulsory death penalty
as sentence if any prisoner undergoing life imprisonment and kills inmate, which was scrapped by SC
stating it unconstitutional, void in Mithu Singh v. State of Punjab (Murder while serving life
imprisonment). IPC offense sections attracting capital punishment of death as maximum sentence
are:

1. S120(b) Criminal conspiracy

2. S121 Wagering or attempting to wage
3. S132 Abetment to mutiny
4. S194 False evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offense
5. S302 and S 303 Murder
6. S305 Abetment of suicide (child or insane person)
7. S364(a) Kidnapping for ransom

Purpose is to deter similar crimes, solace to victim family, economical for the state and maintain law
& order in society. Such punishment was contested many times under Article 21 (Right to Life)

Page 8 of 51
unsuccessfully. These days, capital punishment sentences are awarded only to rarest of rare &
heinous crimes (Bachchan Singh v. State of Punjab case).

Avenues available for a death-row convict? Trial (Sessions) court must get High Court endorsement
for such sentence. Supreme Court access through petition. Upon rejection, another Review petition
at SC. If still rejected it is followed by a curative petition at SC. Last resort is Mercy Plea to the
President for Pardon or reprieve on advice from Home Ministry. Article 72 give this power to the
President. Sentence in India is carried out by hanging by neck until the death. 14 Days period is
provided to the convict to complete his worldly affairs & make peace with God. President may also
keep such mercy petition pending (even for decades), but after 2 years death sentence gets converted
to life imprisonment (Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India). However, SC later held that delay in
execution of death sentence is no ground for commuting it to life (KG Pillai v. Government of India).

Arguments against capital punishments: Beccaria’s treatise (Society must move from barbaric to
civilized nature). US states which abolished death penalties have lesser rates of homicides, hence
statistics doesn’t prove its effectiveness. Only valid ground is retribution. Only be applied in the
rarest of the rare crime. Irrevocability makes this argument stronger.

Arguments in favor of capital punishments: Retribution, all & only guilty must be punished in
proportion to the severity & nature of the crime. Deterrence (Murdering wife & daughter while on
parole case), Retaining capital punishment give person rehabilitation while on death-row (make
peace to his guilt), Prevention of re-offending (keeping Kasab alive is threat to National Security),
Closure & vindication to victim’s family after seeing execution of guilty. If you cannot cure something
(such as harmful elements to our society), why not remove it altogether? This punishment by state is
a substitute for private revenge. It also relieves state from spending public money & recurring
financial burden.

Culpable homicide and murder, and their respective exceptions

Homicide is either lawful (falling under general exceptions S76 to 106) or unlawful (culpable not
amounting to murder, murder, rash or negligent homicide and suicide). Culpable Homicide and
Murder are two important legal terms defined in the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Both the offences are
related to the taking of someone's life, but they have different legal implications. Let's understand
them in detail.
1. Culpable Homicide: Culpable Homicide is defined under Section 299 of the IPC as the act of
causing death of a person by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that
the act is likely to cause death. It is punishable under Section 304 of the IPC.
Example: If a person intentionally hits someone with a cricket bat, resulting in the victim's
death, it will be considered as Culpable Homicide.
Exceptions: If the act is done in the exercise of the right of private defense of person or
property, it will not be considered as Culpable Homicide. Or if the death is caused by an
accident which occurs in the course of doing a lawful act with proper care and caution, and
without any criminal intention, it will not be considered as Culpable Homicide. Or if the
death is caused by a person who is of unsound mind and incapable of knowing the nature of
the act or that it is wrong or contrary to law, it will not be considered as Culpable Homicide.
2. Murder: Culpable homicide is a murder if act is done with the intention of causing death, or
injury sufficient to cause the death in normal circumstances. Murder is defined under Section
300 of the IPC as the act of causing death of a person with the intention of causing death, or
with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the
knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. It is punishable under Section 302 of the IPC.
Example: If a person poisons someone with the intention of causing their death, and the
victim dies as a result, it will be considered as Murder.
Exceptions: If the act is done in the exercise of the right of private defense of person or
property, it will not be considered as Murder. Or if the act is done with the intention of
causing bodily injury, and not with the intention of causing death, and the victim dies as a
result of the injury, it will be considered as Culpable Homicide, and not Murder. Or if the
death is caused by a person who is of unsound mind and incapable of knowing the nature of
the act or that it is wrong or contrary to law, it will not be considered as Murder. The

Page 9 of 51
 circumstances which reduce the offense from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to
murder include:
a. Grave & sudden provocation – whilst deprived of self-control power, no voluntary
provocation (KM Nanavati Case defined test of grave & sudden provocation – whether
a reasonable man from same class of society in similar circumstances would lose self-
control in such provocation)
b. Exceeding Right of private defense
c. Public servant exceeding his powers – act believed by him in good faith to be lawful
& necessary to discharge his duty.
d. Sudden fight – without premeditation, sudden, in the heat of passion, upon sudden
quarrel (more than verbal), without either taking due advantage or acting in cruel
manner. No defence for Fatal injury with dangerous weapon (Bhagwan Pawade v.
State of Maharashtra)
e. Consent

Offences against women (Amendment Act, 2013)

The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 was enacted to provide for more stringent punishment for
crimes against women in India. It introduced several amendments to the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to
ensure the safety and security of women. Let's understand the offenses against women as per the IPC
Amendment Act, 2013.

1. Sexual Harassment: Sexual harassment is defined as any unwelcome sexual gesture or

behavior, whether verbal or physical, that creates an intimidating or hostile work
environment. The Act introduced stricter provisions to punish sexual harassment in the
workplace, including punishment of imprisonment for up to three years for the first offense
and five years for repeat offenders.
2. Acid Attack: Acid attack was recognized as a specific offense under the IPC, with a
punishment of imprisonment for not less than 10 years and which can extend to life
imprisonment. The Act also provides for compensation to the victim for the medical expenses
incurred due to the acid attack.
3. Stalking: The Act introduced the offense of stalking, which involves the repeated and
unwanted following or contacting of another person, causing the victim to fear for their
safety or wellbeing. The punishment for stalking is imprisonment for up to three years for
the first offense and five years for repeat offenders.
4. Trafficking: The Act introduced a new provision for trafficking, including trafficking for the
purpose of forced labor or prostitution. It provides for punishment of imprisonment for up to
ten years, which can extend to life imprisonment.
5. Voyeurism: The Act introduced the offense of voyeurism, which involves the capturing or
transmission of images of a person engaged in a private act without their consent. The
punishment for voyeurism is imprisonment for up to three years, which can extend to seven
years for repeat offenders.
6. Female Infanticide and Feticide: The Act introduced stricter provisions to address the issue
of female infanticide and feticide, including punishment of imprisonment for up to seven
years for the offense of female infanticide and imprisonment for up to ten years for the
offense of female feticide.
7. Honor Killings: The Act recognized Honor killings as a specific offense under the IPC, with a
punishment of imprisonment for up to life imprisonment.
8. Rape: The definition of rape was expanded to include non-consensual penetration of any
body part, including the mouth, urethra or anus, with any object or body part. The minimum
punishment for rape was increased from 7 years to 10 years, which can extend up to a life
term. The Act also introduced the death penalty for cases of rape that result in the victim's
death or leaves her in a persistent vegetative state.

General Exceptions
All General exceptions are lawful homicides, and are applicable only if victim dies. No death, No
exception. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides for several general exceptions, which are
circumstances under which a person may not be held criminally liable for an offense that would
otherwise be considered a crime. Let's discuss the general exceptions under the IPC with examples.

Page 10 of 51
 1. Private Defense (Section 96-106): A person can use force to defend themselves, their
property, or another person's property if they reasonably believe that such force is necessary
to prevent an imminent attack. However, the use of force must be proportionate to the harm
threatened or reasonably apprehended. For example, if a person is attacked by another
person with a knife, they can use force to defend themselves, but they cannot use excessive
force that goes beyond what is necessary to prevent the attack.
2. Accident (Section 80): A person is not criminally liable if they cause harm or injury to another
person due to an accident or misfortune that could not be avoided by the exercise of ordinary
care and caution. For example, if a person accidentally hits someone with their car while
driving in a crowded street, they may not be held criminally liable if they can prove that it
was an unavoidable accident. Doing lawful act, without criminal intention, in lawful manner
& by lawful means with proper care & caution. (Tunda, 1950 skull fracture in boxing match)
3. Consent (Section 87-89): If a person causes harm to another person with their consent, then
such act is not considered an offense. However, the consent must be free and voluntary, and
the person must have the capacity to give consent. For example, if a person agrees to
participate in a boxing match and gets injured during the match, then the other participant
may not be held criminally liable as the injured person gave their consent.
4. Judicial Acts (Section 77): A person is not criminally liable for acts done in good faith under
the authority of a court of law. For example, if a police officer arrests a person based on a
warrant issued by a court, then the officer may not be held criminally liable even if the
person is later found to be innocent. Judge acting judicially, or court order executor.
5. Mistake of fact (76 & 79): A police officer arresting wrong person after making reasonable
enquiries (Emp. V. Gopalia). Mistake of law is NOT a defence. Forgetfulness is not a mistake.
This is not a defence if act is illegal. In IPC, Respondeat Superior (by order of superior) does
not apply for illegal orders (Lalit Khan 1825). Act done by a person justified, or mistake of
fact believing himself justified, by law (S79). In S76, person is assumed to be Bound (real
law) and in 79, justified.

Chapter IV (76 – 106) and subset Private Defense (96 – 106). Defenses to absolve from criminal
liability. Even if accused does not plead, court will sou moto apply such exceptions if such evidence
is found. 7 Categories:

1. Mistake of fact (S76, S79)

a. S76 Bound by law (is or feels), act of subordinate is protected. Ignorance of fact is
excused; Ignorance of law isn’t. Legal compulsion, Bound.
b. S79 – Act done justified (or believed to be) by law. Legal justification, Not bound.
State of Odisha v. Baghban (S79)
2. Juridical Acts (S77, S78)
a. S77 Act of judge when acting judicially
b. S78 Act done pursuant to court judgement
3. Accident (S80) in doing lawful act with proper care, no mens rea. Parik and Girish Saikia v.
State of Aasam (S80)
4. Absence of Criminal Intent (S81 – 86 and S92 – 94)
a. S81 Prevent bigger harm in good faith, Necessity knows no law (Boat to kill 2 or 20
people, House burned to restrain spreading fire). Person dying of starvation cannot
commit food theft (not protected) Dudley v Stephens (1884, stranded boat starvation
leading to killing a boy to eat his flesh, Guilty of murder).
b. S82 Child under 7 Years (Doli Incapex), Cannot distinguish right from wrong
c. S83 Over 7 Years and under 12 Years age, Case of Krishna 1983 (Steal & Sell Jewellery)
Too weak in intellect to judge what is right and what is wrong. Ulla Mahapatra 1950
threatened and actually killed another boy. Guilty, sent to reformatory for 5 years.
If proven that such child has attained sufficient maturity of understanding the nature,
he will be liable.
d. S84 Unsound mind, McNaughten Rules (Assumed sane unless proven contrary, accused
to prove his insanity & lack of nature/quality/knowledge/consequences of his act).
e. S85 Intoxication against will and without knowledge. Mavari Surya v. State of AP
(Chased wife to burn her alive, Voluntary intoxication is no excuse).

Page 11 of 51
 f. S86 Offense by intoxicated requiring particular knowledge/intent – as if he was not
intoxicated – unless intoxication administered without his knowledge & against will.
Babu Jadhav V. State of Maharashtra (Tried dozing off the fire)
g. S90 Consent (of child or insane person) known to be given under fear or
misconception. Yedla Rao v. State of AP
h. S92 Bona fide Act done in good faith for benefit of person, without his consent
(preventing, curing disease, but not causing the death or grievous hurt)
i. S93 Communication done in good faith (Doctor sharing facts with patient results in
shock)
j. S94 Act compelled by threat (except murder or act against the state punishable with
death) Act done by me against my will is not my act.
5. Consent (S87-91)
a. S87 Act done by valid consent, not known to likely cause death or grievous hurt
(Volenti non fit injuria). Deepak v. Sr. Inspector of Police (Manslaughter)
b. S88 Act done in good faith by valid consent, not known to likely cause death or
grievous hurt (Volenti non fit injuria) for person’s benefit (Surgery)
c. S89 Act done in good faith for benefit of child (under 12 years age) or insane person,
with consent from guardian
d. S90 Consent known to be given under fear or misconception
e. S91 Exclusion of acts which are offenses independently of harm cause (Miscarriage
by mother is offense against the child, unless it is to save women’s life. Publishing
porn even with valid consent is offense as it affects pubic decency. Public health
safety, convenience & morals)
6. Trifles (S95) Act causing slight harm
7. Private defense of person or property (S96-106) – All to be read together to know scope &
limitations of this defense (Munney Khan v. State). Not allowed if you have time for recourse
to public authorities, must exist reasonable apprehension of death/grievous hurt or damage
to property, and force used/harm caused must be as reasonably necessary.
a. S96 Not offense if done in exercising right of private defense.
b. S97 Defense of body or movable/immovable property (own or others). Kashi Ram v.
State of MP, Yashwant Rao v. State of MP, Ram Avtar v. State of UP. No defense for
property available if the act does not cause apprehension of death or grievous hurt
or if there is time to have recourse to protection authorities.
c. S98 Against act of unsound mind person
d. S99 Limitations/Restrictions. Act, against which there is no right of private defense
(Having sufficient time, unnecessary & unreasonable force, no apprehension,
identified public servant or act done on his directions). A public servant acting in
good faith, and under the colour of his office (jurisdiction) enjoy protection (Public
Prosecutor v. Suryanarayana).
e. S100 You can cause death exercising private defense when assaulted possibly
resulting into:
i. Death
ii. Grievous hurt
iii. Committing rape
iv. Gratifying unnatural lust
v. Kidnapping or abducting
vi. Wrongful confinement without recourse to public authorities for release
vii. Throwing/Administering/Attempting Acid (2013 Amendment)
f. S101 Other than death, not falling under S100 and restrictions under S99
g. S102 Commencement & continuance of private defense of body. Reasonable
apprehension (not fanciful) of continued threat, and violence applied must not be
greater than reasonably necessary (must be proportionate) are the essentials
h. S103 Cause death while defending property when:
i. Robbery
ii. House breaking by night
iii. Mischief by fire
iv. Theft, mischief or house trespass with apprehension of death or grievous hurt
i. S104 Other than death, not falling under S103 and restrictions under S99
j. S105 Commencement & continuance of private defense of property

Page 12 of 51
 k. S106 Against deadly assault when there is a risk of harm to an innocent person
(shooting at attacking mob results in death of an innocent)

Necessity
A person may be exempt from criminal liability if they commit an offense in order to avoid a greater
harm that cannot be avoided by any other means. For example, if a person breaks into a house to
rescue someone who is trapped inside and cannot be rescued by any other means, then they may not
be held criminally liable for breaking into the house. Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), "necessity"
is one of the general exceptions to criminal liability. It means that a person may be exempt from
criminal liability if they committed an offense in order to avoid a greater harm that could not be
avoided by any other means. This exception recognizes that sometimes people have to act in ways
that would normally be considered criminal in order to prevent a greater harm from occurring. To
successfully plead the defense of necessity, the person must establish the following elements:
1. That the act was done to prevent a greater harm;
2. That the harm sought to be avoided was imminent and impending;
3. That the harm sought to be avoided was greater than the harm caused by the offense;
4. That there was no reasonable alternative course of action that would have avoided the harm;
and
5. That the action taken was proportionate to the harm sought to be avoided.
Here are some examples to illustrate the concept of necessity as a general exception under the IPC:
1. Breaking and Entering: Suppose a person is stranded in a snowstorm and they come across an
unoccupied cabin. They break into the cabin to seek shelter from the storm. In such a
situation, the person may plead necessity as a defense to the charge of breaking and entering.
2. Theft: Suppose a person steals some food from a store to feed their starving family. In such
a situation, the person may plead necessity as a defense to the charge of theft.
3. Trespassing: Suppose a person enters onto someone else's property to put out a fire that is
threatening their own property. In such a situation, the person may plead necessity as a
defense to the charge of trespassing.
4. Assault: Suppose a person sees someone attacking a child and they use force to stop the
attacker. In such a situation, the person may plead necessity as a defense to the charge of
assault.
It's important to note that the defense of necessity is only available in very limited circumstances. It
cannot be used as an excuse for criminal behavior that is not justified by a greater harm that could
not be avoided by any other means. The circumstances of each case will be carefully examined to
determine whether the defense of necessity applies.

Infancy
In the context of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), "infancy" is a general exception to criminal liability.
Infancy refers to the age at which a person is considered too young to be held responsible for their
actions. The age of criminal responsibility in India is set at 7 years old. This means that children
under the age of 7 cannot be held criminally responsible for their actions. However, even children
over the age of 7 but under the age of 12 are presumed to be incapable of committing a crime, unless
the prosecution can prove that the child understood the nature and consequences of their actions at
the time of the offense. Here are some examples to illustrate the concept of infancy as a general
exception under the IPC:
1. Theft: Suppose a 6-year-old child takes a toy from a store without paying for it. In such a
situation, the child cannot be held criminally responsible for theft.
2. Assault: Suppose an 8-year-old child hits another child on the playground during recess. In
such a situation, the child cannot be held criminally responsible for assault, unless it can be
proven that they understood the nature and consequences of their actions.
3. Vandalism: Suppose a 10-year-old child throws a rock through a window of a building. In such
a situation, the child cannot be held criminally responsible for vandalism, unless it can be
proven that they understood the nature and consequences of their actions.

It's important to note that while children under the age of 7 are completely exempt from criminal
liability (Doli Incapex), children between the ages of 7 and 12 may still be subject to civil liability
(Doli Capex). This means that they may be held responsible for any damages or harm caused by their
actions and may have to compensate the victim. Also, it's important to understand that the defense

Page 13 of 51
of infancy only applies to criminal offenses. It does not provide immunity from other legal
consequences, such as civil liability or disciplinary action at school or home.

Insanity
In the context of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), "insanity" is a general exception to criminal liability. It
means that a person who is not of sound mind at the time of committing an offense cannot be held
criminally responsible for their actions. The legal definition of insanity is narrow and specific.
According to Section 84 of the IPC, a person is considered legally insane if, at the time of committing
the offense, they were suffering from such a mental illness that they did not know the nature and
consequences of their actions, or that what they were doing was wrong. McNaughten case is when
the judiciary recognized insanity as a valid defense if proven. Here are some examples to illustrate
the concept of insanity as a general exception under the IPC:
1. Murder: Suppose a person suffering from a severe form of schizophrenia believes that they
are being controlled by aliens and that they must kill their neighbour to prevent the aliens
from taking over the world. In such a situation, the person may be considered legally insane
and may not be held criminally responsible for the murder.
2. Theft: Suppose a person suffering from severe delusions steals a car because they believe
that it belongs to them and they need it to escape from imaginary enemies who are pursuing
them. In such a situation, the person may be considered legally insane and may not be held
criminally responsible for the theft.
3. Assault: Suppose a person suffering from a severe depressive disorder attacks someone
because they believe that the person is a threat to their safety, even though there is no
evidence to support this belief. In such a situation, the person may be considered legally
insane and may not be held criminally responsible for the assault.
It's important to note that the defense of insanity is only available in very limited circumstances. The
burden of proving insanity as a defense rest with the accused, and the courts will carefully examine
the evidence before making a determination. Additionally, even if a person is found to be legally
insane, they may still be subject to involuntary commitment to a mental health facility for treatment
and evaluation.

Intoxication
In the context of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), intoxication is not considered a general exception to
criminal liability. In fact, Section 85 of the IPC specifically states that voluntary intoxication cannot
be used as a defense for committing a crime. This means that a person who voluntarily consumes
alcohol or drugs cannot avoid criminal responsibility by claiming that they were not fully aware of
their actions due to the effects of the intoxicants. However, there is one exception to this rule: if a
person is involuntarily intoxicated, i.e., they consume an intoxicating substance without their
knowledge or against their will, they may be able to use it as a defense in certain circumstances.
Here are some examples to illustrate the concept of involuntary intoxication as a limited defense
under the IPC:
1. Spiked Drink: Suppose a person goes to a party and unknowingly consumes a drink that has
been spiked with a powerful sedative. If, as a result of the sedative, they are unable to
control their actions and end up committing a crime, they may be able to argue that they
were involuntarily intoxicated.
2. Medication: Suppose a person is prescribed a medication by a doctor, but the medication has
an unexpected side effect that impairs their judgment and behavior. If the person commits
a crime while under the influence of the medication, they may be able to argue that they
were involuntarily intoxicated.

It's important to note that the defense of involuntary intoxication is not a guaranteed defense and
its success will depend on the specific circumstances of the case. The burden of proving involuntary
intoxication as a defense rest with the accused, and the court will carefully examine the evidence
before making a determination. Additionally, the court will consider whether the accused could have
reasonably foreseen the possibility of being intoxicated due to the circumstances surrounding the
consumption of the substance.

Election offences with illustrations

In the context of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), election offenses refer to the illegal activities that are
committed during the conduct of elections. These offenses can include bribery, impersonation,

Page 14 of 51
intimidation, and other activities that undermine the integrity of the electoral process. Here are
some examples of election offenses under the IPC:
1. Bribery: Bribery is one of the most common election offenses. It involves offering or receiving
gratification, money or other valuable goods or services in exchange for votes. Section 171B
of the IPC specifically prohibits the giving or receiving of bribes during elections. If a
candidate or their supporters are found to have offered bribes to voters, they can be charged
with an offense under this section.
2. Undue influence at an election (171C): Volunteer interference, threaten
candidate/voter/any person involved in such election with injury. A promise of public policy
or of public action is not an interference. S. Subramanium Balaji v. Government of Tamil
Nadu 2013 (Freebies), Raj v. Gangadhar 1964 (Giving vote to another is sin as per God)
3. Failure to keep election accounts (171I)
4. Impersonation: Impersonation involves pretending to be someone else in order to cast a vote.
Section 171D of the IPC makes it an offense to impersonate someone during an election. This
can include using a fake ID or other documents to cast a vote under someone else's name.
5. Intimidation: Intimidation is another common election offense. It involves using threats or
violence to prevent voters from exercising their right to vote. Section 171F of the IPC makes
it an offense to intimidate or threaten voters or to use force to influence their voting
behavior.
6. False Statements: Candidates and their supporters may also engage in false statements or
propaganda in order to influence voters. Section 171G of the IPC makes it an offense to make
false statements or spread rumours about other candidates or political parties.
7. Booth Capturing: Booth capturing is a particularly egregious form of election offense that
involves taking over a polling booth in order to manipulate the results of the election. Section
135A of the IPC makes it a criminal offense to capture a polling booth, and those found guilty
can face imprisonment for up to two years.

Provisions in IPC for Joint criminal liabilities

While determining the punishment measures, following 3 elements are taken into account:
a. The motive behind the offense
b. The magnitude of the offense, and
c. The character of the offender
In the context of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), joint criminal liability refers to the legal responsibility
that is shared by two or more people who have participated in a criminal act. There are several
provisions in the IPC that deal with joint criminal liability, including Sections 34, 149, and 120B. Here
are some details about these provisions and examples of how they might be applied in practice:
1. Section 34 of the IPC provides for joint criminal liability in cases where a criminal act is
committed by multiple people in furtherance of a common intention. In order for this section
to apply, the act must be committed by all of the people involved, and it must have been
done with a shared intention. For example, if two people plan to rob a bank together, and
during the robbery one of them kills a security guard, both of them can be held liable for
murder under Section 34.
2. Section 149 of the IPC deals with joint criminal liability in cases where a group of people
commit an offense in furtherance of a common objective. Unlike Section 34, this provision
does not require each member of the group to have personally committed the offense.
Instead, it applies to cases where the offense was committed by at least one member of the
group, and the others were acting in furtherance of the same objective. For example, if a
group of people attack a rival political party's office and damage property, each member of
the group can be held liable for the offense under Section 149.
3. Section 120B of the IPC deals with criminal conspiracy, which is an agreement between two
or more people to commit a criminal act. This provision applies to cases where people have
conspired to commit an offense, even if the offense itself was never carried out. For example,
if two people plan to plant a bomb in a crowded market, and they are caught before they
can carry out the plan, they can still be held liable for conspiracy under Section 120B.

Stages of crime and their respective culpability

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) recognizes four stages of crime, each with different degrees of
culpability. These stages are:
1. Intention (may not involve expectation)

Page 15 of 51
 2. Preparation (Stalking, Weapons)
3. Attempt (Definitely punishable)
4. Commission (Actus Reus) Accomplishment
Here isan explanation of each stage and the corresponding culpability:
1. Intention: Intention refers to the mental state in which a person decides to commit a crime.
This is the earliest stage of crime and is often considered to be the most culpable. A person
who has formed the intention to commit a crime may not have taken any concrete steps
towards carrying out the offense, but they are still considered to be morally responsible for
their decision. For example, if a person decides to murder someone in a fit of rage, they are
considered to be culpable for their intention to commit the crime. This stage on standalone
basis is not punishable, unless it is made to known to others by words or conduct (Mere
assembly to commit dacoity, waging war against state).
2. Preparation: Preparation refers to the stage in which a person takes active steps towards
carrying out a crime. This may involve gathering materials, scouting out a location, or
developing a plan. At this stage, the person has not yet taken any direct action towards
committing the offense, but they are still considered to be culpable for their preparations.
For example, if a person buys a gun with the intention of robbing a bank, they are considered
to be culpable for their preparation. Generally difficult to establish direct link between
preparation and commission of a particular crime, and hence prosecute. Except in
circumstantial situations such as waging war against government or friendly country,
counterfeiting coins/stamps, or committing dacoity.
3. Attempt: Attempt refers to the stage in which a person takes direct action towards carrying
out a crime but is unsuccessful in completing the offense. At this stage, the person has taken
a substantial step towards committing the crime, but they have not yet achieved their
intended goal. Attempt is considered to be less culpable than intention or preparation, but
it is still a criminal offense. For example, if a person tries to rob a bank but is caught before
they can get away with any money, they are considered to be culpable for their attempt.
Essentials include guilty mind (mens rea), some act done towards the commission of crime,
and act done must be short of completing an offense.
4. Commission: Commission refers to the stage in which a person successfully carries out a
crime. This is the most culpable stage of crime and is often associated with the harshest
punishments. At this stage, the person has not only formed the intention to commit the crime
and taken steps towards carrying it out, but they have also successfully achieved their goal.
For example, if a person robs a bank and successfully gets away with a large sum of money,
they are considered to be culpable for their commission of the offense. Punishable for offense
if committed & completed, or Punishable for attempt if incomplete.

First 2 stages do not attract liability.

Crimes could be:

a. Against person (Murder, Hurt, Rape, Kidnapping etc)
b. Against property (Theft, Trespass, Mischief, Robbery etc)
c. Against morality (Illegal gambling, drugs or human trafficking)
d. White collar (Tax evasion, bribery, scams etc)
e. Organized (Distribution of illegal goods/services)

False Evidence and Offences against public justice

False evidence and offenses against public justice are serious criminal offenses under the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) that are aimed at maintaining the integrity of the justice system and ensuring that the
truth is brought to light during legal proceedings. These offenses are punishable under Sections 191
to 211 of the IPC.

False Evidence: False evidence is when a person gives evidence that is false or fabricated, with the
intent to deceive the court or to mislead the court in the course of a judicial proceeding. False
evidence can be in the form of written or oral statements, or it can involve the production of false
documents, objects or materials. The purpose of this provision is to prevent any attempt to pervert
the course of justice or to obstruct legal proceedings. Section 191 of the IPC defines false evidence
as follows: "Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the

Page 16 of 51
truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is
false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give
false evidence." The punishment for giving false evidence is imprisonment for a term that may extend
up to seven years and a fine. There are following 4 offenses under the false evidence:

a. Giving false evidence (S191, PURJURY) - which he knows or believes to be false &
does not believe to be true - the matter materially related to the case. Remember
to differentiate false information and false evidence
b. Fabricating false evidence (S192) – intentionally cause certain circumstance to exist
or falsify record with intention to make it appear as evidence used by court to form
an opinion,
c. Aggravated forms of above offenses (S193, 194) – With intent to procure conviction
of capital offense or for offense punishable to 7 years or more.
d. Threatening any person to give false evidence – threat with injury to person, property
or reputation
e. Offenses punishable the same was as giving false evidences under following 5
circumstances:
i. Using as genuine evidence knowing it is false
ii. Knowing sign/issue certificate of false evidence
iii. Using as True certificate knowing that it is false
iv. False statement declaration
v. Using false declaration as True

Offenses Against Public Justice: Offenses against public justice refer to actions that are aimed at
obstructing or perverting the course of justice or the administration of law. These offenses can take
many forms, such as tampering with evidence, fabricating false evidence, threatening or intimidating
witnesses, or bribing public officials. The main objective of these provisions is to protect the
administration of justice and to ensure that legal proceedings are conducted in a fair and transparent
manner. The following are the different sections of the IPC that deal with offenses against public
justice:

 Fabricating false evidence (S192): Whoever causes any false evidence to be produced or used
in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term that may extend up to seven years, and a fine.
 Punishment for false evidence (S193): Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage
of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any
stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term that may extend up to seven years, and a fine.
 Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of a capital offense
(S194): Whoever gives or fabricates false evidence with the intent to procure the conviction
of any person for an offense which is punishable with death, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend up to seven years, and a fine.
 Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of a non-capital offense
(S195): Whoever gives or fabricates false evidence with the intent to procure the conviction
of any person for an offense which is not punishable with death, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend up to three years, and a fine.
 Using evidence known to be false (S196): Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true
or genuine evidence any evidence which he knows to be false or fabricated, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend up to seven years, and a
fine.
 Issuing or signing a false certificate (S197): Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly issues
or signs a false certificate, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term that may extend up to three years, and a fine.
 Using as true a certificate known to be false (S198): Whoever, with the intent to cause injury
to any person, knowingly uses any certificate which he knows to be false, shall be punished
with imprisonment

Page 17 of 51
  False charge of offence made with intent to injure (S211) Jitendra v. State
 Harbouring offender (S212) Sanjeev Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh

Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court or legal system to hear a case and render a judgment.
In the context of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), jurisdiction refers to the power of courts to try offenses
committed within their territorial limits. The IPC provides for jurisdiction in various situations with
some exceptions. Here is a detailed explanation of jurisdiction in the IPC with examples:

1. Territorial Jurisdiction refers to the authority of a court to try an offense committed within
its territorial limits. The IPC provides that an offense committed within the territory of India
is triable by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offense was committed. For example,
if a person commits a murder in Delhi, the case will be tried by a court within Delhi's
territorial jurisdiction.
2. Special Jurisdiction: The IPC provides for special jurisdiction in certain situations. For
example, offenses committed on board a ship or an aircraft are triable by a court in India if
the ship or aircraft is registered in India. Similarly, offenses committed by a member of the
armed forces while on duty are triable by a court martial.
3. Exceptional Jurisdiction: The IPC also provides for exceptional jurisdiction in certain
situations. For example, if an offense is committed outside India by a citizen of India or by a
person who is ordinarily resident in India, the offense may be tried in India. Additionally, if
an offense is committed by a public servant in the course of their official duties, the offense
may be tried in the jurisdiction where the public servant was serving at the time of the
offense.

Exceptions to Jurisdiction in IPC:

1. The IPC does not provide for extraterritorial jurisdiction, which means that a court in India
cannot try an offense committed outside its territorial limits unless it falls under the
exceptional jurisdiction category.
2. The IPC does not provide for universal jurisdiction, which means that a court in India cannot
try an offense committed by a foreign national outside India unless there is a treaty or
agreement between India and the country where the offense was committed.

Retributive theory of punishment

The Retributive Theory of Punishment is based on the principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a
tooth". According to this theory, punishment is inflicted on the offender as a retribution for their
wrongdoing, and the severity of the punishment is determined by the severity of the crime
committed. In the context of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Retributive Theory of Punishment is
reflected in the sentencing guidelines for different offenses. For example, the punishment for
murder, which is considered the most heinous offense under the IPC, is life imprisonment or the
death penalty. Similarly, the punishment for other serious offenses like rape, dacoity, and terrorism
is also severe, reflecting the principle of retribution.

The Retributive Theory of Punishment is based on the idea of just desert, which means that the
offender deserves to be punished for their wrongdoing, regardless of any other considerations like
deterrence or rehabilitation. The focus of this theory is on the offender rather than the victim or
society, and the punishment is seen as a moral obligation to restore the balance of justice. One of
the main criticisms of the Retributive Theory of Punishment is that it does not take into account the
social and economic factors that may contribute to crime. For example, a person from a
disadvantaged background may be more likely to commit a crime due to poverty, lack of education,
or social exclusion. However, the Retributive Theory of Punishment does not consider these factors,
and the punishment is determined solely by the severity of the crime committed.

Page 18 of 51
Rape (Essentials and exceptions)

Rape is one of the most heinous crimes under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and is defined in Section
375 of the IPC. It refers to the non-consensual sexual intercourse with a woman, which is committed
either by force, threat, coercion, or deception.

Essentials of Rape:
1. Sexual intercourse with a woman: Rape involves sexual intercourse with a woman without
her consent. Sexual intercourse includes any penetration of the vagina, anus, or mouth by
the penis, any object, or any other body part.
2. Without consent: Consent is an essential element of rape. If a woman gives her consent to
the sexual act, then it cannot be termed as rape.
3. By force, threat, coercion or deception: The sexual intercourse must be committed by
force, threat, coercion, or deception. The use of any of these means to force a woman to
have sex against her will is considered rape.
4. Against the will of the woman: If a woman expresses her unwillingness to engage in sexual
intercourse, but the accused continues to engage in the sexual act, then it is considered
rape.
5. The woman must not be the wife of the accused: If the sexual act is committed with the
consent of the wife, then it cannot be considered rape.

Exceptions to Rape:

1. Sexual intercourse by a husband with his wife: Sexual intercourse by a husband with his
wife is not considered rape, even if the wife does not give her consent. However, if the wife
is below the age of 18, then it can be considered rape.
2. Sexual intercourse with a minor wife: Sexual intercourse with a minor wife, i.e., a wife
who is below the age of 18, is considered rape, even if she gives her consent.
3. Consent obtained by fraud: If the consent of the woman is obtained by fraud or deception,
then it is considered rape. For example, if a man promises to marry a woman and then
engages in sexual intercourse with her, it is considered rape.
4. Consent obtained under fear of death or hurt: If the woman is forced to give her consent
under fear of death or hurt, then it is considered rape.

Illustration: A man forces himself upon a woman without her consent, and they engage in sexual
intercourse. The woman tries to resist, but the accused overpowers her and continues to have sex.
This act constitutes rape under the IPC as it involves sexual intercourse without the woman's consent
and by using force. The accused can be punished with imprisonment for a term ranging from seven
years to life.

Theft & Extortion

Theft, extortion, and robbery are criminal offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and involve
taking someone else's property without their consent. Let's discuss the difference between these
offenses and their respective illustrations.

Theft is defined under Section 378 of the IPC as the act of dishonestly taking someone else's movable
property with the intention of keeping it permanently or temporarily. The essential elements of theft
are:
1. The property must belong to someone else.
2. The property must be movable (Immovable is excluded).
3. The property must be taken dishonestly.
4. The intention must be to keep it permanently or temporarily.
Illustration: A person takes a mobile phone belonging to another person without their consent with
the intention of keeping it permanently. This act constitutes theft under the IPC, and the accused
can be punished with imprisonment for up to three years or a fine or both.

Exceptions and Defenses for Theft:

Page 19 of 51
 1. Consent: If the owner of the property has given their consent for taking their property, then
the act will not be considered as theft. For example, if a person borrows a book from a library
with the consent of the librarian, then it does not amount to theft.
2. Mistake of fact: If the accused has taken the property believing it to be their own or has
taken it under a genuine belief that they have a right to it, then it does not amount to theft.
For example, if a person takes their own bag from a restaurant, mistakenly believing it to be
someone else's, then it does not amount to theft.
3. Intention to return: If the accused has taken the property with the intention of returning it
or has taken it for a temporary purpose, then it does not amount to theft. For example, if a
person takes a pen from their friend's desk to sign a document and returns it immediately
after use, then it does not amount to theft.

Extortion

Extortion is defined under Section 383 of the IPC as the act of intentionally putting someone in fear
of injury or death to obtain their property or to force them to do something against their will. The
essential elements of extortion are:
1. The accused must put someone in fear of injury or death.
2. The accused must obtain the property of the victim or force them to do something against
their will.

Illustration: A person threatens to harm another person's family if they don't give them money. This
act constitutes extortion under the IPC, and the accused can be punished with imprisonment for up
to three years or a fine or both.

Exceptions and Defenses for Extortion:

1. Consent: If the victim has given their consent to the accused for taking their property, then
it does not amount to extortion. For example, if a person willingly pays money to a loan shark
to get a loan, then it does not amount to extortion.
2. Coercion: If the accused has used force or coercion to obtain the property of the victim due
to circumstances beyond their control, then it does not amount to extortion. For example, if
a person takes money from a wealthy person to save their sick child's life, then it does not
amount to extortion.

Defamation and exceptions

Defamation is a criminal offense under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that refers to the act of
intentionally harming someone's reputation by making false and malicious statements. The IPC
defines defamation under Section 499 and provides certain exceptions under Section 499 and 500.
Let's discuss defamation and its illustrations. Defamation can be of two types - civil and criminal.
Civil defamation refers to the act of harming someone's reputation through spoken or written words,
while criminal defamation is an offense that can result in imprisonment or a fine.

The Essential Elements of Defamation:

1. The statement must be false
2. The statement must be communicated to a third party
3. The statement must harm the reputation of the victim

Illustration: A publishes a newspaper article that falsely accuses B of theft. As a result, B's reputation
is damaged in society, and he suffers losses in his business. This amounts to criminal defamation
under the IPC.

Exceptions for Defamation:

1. Truth: If the statement made is true, then it does not amount to defamation. However, the
accused must prove that the statement was true beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Public interest: If the statement made is in the public interest, then it does not amount to
defamation. For example, if a journalist publishes an article exposing corruption by a public
official, it may be considered in the public interest.

Page 20 of 51
 Illustration: A publishes a newspaper article stating that B, a public official, has been involved
in corrupt practices. If the statement is made in the public interest, it will not amount to
defamation.
3. Fair comment: If the statement made is a fair comment on a matter of public interest, then
it does not amount to defamation. For example, a person may express their opinion about
the performance of a public official or a public figure.
Illustration: A publishes an article expressing their opinion on the performance of a public
official. If the opinion is a fair comment and is made in the public interest, it will not amount
to defamation.
4. Privilege: If the statement made is privileged, then it does not amount to defamation.
Privileged statements include statements made in court, parliament, or by public officials in
the course of their duties.
Illustration: A member of parliament makes a statement in parliament about the conduct of
a public official. If the statement is privileged, it will not amount to defamation.

Robbery and dacoity

Robbery is defined under Section 390 of the IPC. It involves theft or the taking of property, but with
the added element of the use of force or fear. In other words, if a person takes property from another
person through force or the threat of force, then they have committed robbery. The use of force can
include physical assault, brandishing a weapon, or making threats of harm. The property that is taken
must also be movable property, such as cash, jewellery, or electronic devices. The punishment for
robbery is imprisonment for a term of up to 10 years, along with a fine.

Dacoity, on the other hand, is defined under Section 391 of the IPC. It involves robbery committed
by a group of five or more people. Like robbery, the use of force or fear is a necessary element of
dacoity. In addition, the property that is taken must be worth at least 10 rupees. The punishment for
dacoity is imprisonment for life, along with a fine.

It's important to note that the severity of the offense depends on the circumstances of the crime.
For example, if the robbery involves causing grievous hurt or death, the punishment can be even
more severe. Similarly, if the dacoity involves the use of firearms, the punishment can be even more
severe. There are two main defenses or exceptions available under the Indian Penal Code for robbery
and dacoity:

1. Consent: If the person whose property is being taken has given their consent to the taking of
the property, then the offense of robbery or dacoity cannot be established. However, it is
important to note that the consent must be given voluntarily and with full knowledge of the
consequences. Consent obtained through coercion, deception or fraud will not be considered
a valid defense.
2. Mistake of fact: If the accused took the property under the mistaken belief that they had a
legal right to it, or if they believed that they were taking their own property, then they
cannot be convicted of robbery or dacoity. This defense requires that the mistake of fact be
reasonable and made in good faith.

Changes in Amendment Act, 2013 (Nirbhaya Rape case)

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) Amendment Act, 2013 introduced several significant changes to the IPC,
with a focus on crimes against women. Here are some of the key changes introduced by the IPC
Amendment Act, 2013:

1. Definition of rape: The definition of rape under Section 375 of the IPC was expanded to
include any kind of penetration, not just penile-vaginal penetration (include any object
insertion to any extent). The definition was also expanded to include acts such as penetration
with any object or body part, and non-consensual oral sex. Any circumstance including:
1. Against her will
2. Without her consent
3. With her consent under fear of hurt or death
4. With her consent when she believes him to be her lawful husband
5. With consent when she is intoxicated/of unsound mind (unable to understand nature
& consequences)

Page 21 of 51
 6. With or without her consent for age below 18 Years
7. When she is unable to communicate consent
2. Punishment for rape: The minimum punishment for rape was increased from seven to ten
years of imprisonment. The maximum punishment was increased from life imprisonment to
imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's natural life.
3. Punishment for gang rape: The minimum punishment for gang rape was increased from ten
to twenty years of imprisonment. The maximum punishment was increased from life
imprisonment to imprisonment for the remainder of the convict's natural life.
4. New offenses introduced: The IPC Amendment Act, 2013 introduced several new offenses
related to crimes against women, including acid attacks, voyeurism, stalking, and sexual
harassment.
5. Changes to evidence law: The IPC Amendment Act, 2013 introduced several changes to the
Indian Evidence Act, including allowing for the introduction of evidence about the victim's
past sexual history in certain circumstances.
6. Changes to police procedures: The IPC Amendment Act, 2013 introduced several changes to
police procedures, including mandatory reporting of certain offenses, and mandatory medical
examinations of victims.
7. Protection of victims and witnesses: The IPC Amendment Act, 2013 introduced several
provisions aimed at protecting the rights of victims and witnesses, including the ability to
record testimony in advance, and the right to be accompanied by a support person during
court proceedings.

Offences relating to Marriage

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) recognizes certain offenses relating to marriage. These offenses are
described below with illustrations:
1. Bigamy (Section 494 IPC): Bigamy is the offense of marrying someone while still being
lawfully married to another person. It is a non-bailable offense and is punishable with
imprisonment for up to 7 years and a fine.
2. Cruelty by husband or his relatives (Section 498A IPC): Cruelty by husband or his relatives
is the offense of subjecting a married woman to cruelty. This offense is non-bailable and is
punishable with imprisonment for up to 3 years and a fine.
3. Dowry death (Section 304B IPC): Dowry death is the offense of causing the death of a woman
within the first 7 years of marriage, in connection with a demand for dowry. This offense is
non-bailable and is punishable with imprisonment for a term not less than 7 years but which
may extend to imprisonment for life.
4. Abetment of suicide of married woman (Section 306 IPC): Abetment of suicide of a married
woman is the offense of abetting the suicide of a married woman. This offense is punishable
with imprisonment for up to 10 years and a fine.
5. Kidnapping or abducting to compel marriage, etc. (Section 366 IPC): Kidnapping or
abducting to compel marriage is the offense of kidnapping or abducting a woman with the
intention of forcing her to marry against her will. This offense is non-bailable and is
punishable with imprisonment for up to 7 years and a fine.
6. Matrimonial cruelty by wife (Section 498 IPC): Matrimonial cruelty by wife is the offense of
subjecting the husband to cruelty. This offense is punishable with imprisonment for up to 3
years and a fine. Example: A wife subjects her husband to physical and mental cruelty.
7. Marrying again during the lifetime of husband or wife (Section 495 IPC): Marrying again
during the lifetime of husband or wife is the offense of marrying again while still being
lawfully married to another person. This offense is non-bailable and is punishable with
imprisonment for up to 7 years and a fine.

Criminal Trespass and provisions

In the Indian Penal Code (IPC), criminal trespass is defined under Section 441. The section defines
criminal trespass as an act of entering into or remaining on any property in possession of another
person without their consent. The section provides for punishment for criminal trespass with
imprisonment for up to three months, or a fine of up to Rs. 500, or both. The punishment can be
increased to imprisonment for up to six months, or a fine of up to Rs. 1,000, or both, if the trespass
is committed to cause injury, annoyance or criminal intimidation. There are several provisions under
IPC that deal with specific forms of criminal trespass:

Page 22 of 51
 1. House trespass: Section 442 of IPC deals with house trespass, which involves the act of
entering or remaining in a building or dwelling house, or any part of it, without the consent
of the person in possession of the property. The punishment for this offense is imprisonment
for up to three months, or a fine of up to Rs. 500, or both. If the offense is committed at
night, the punishment can be increased to imprisonment for up to one year, or a fine, or
both.
2. Trespass on land: Section 447 of IPC deals with trespassing on land, which involves the act
of entering or remaining on any land in the possession of another person without their
consent. The punishment for this offense is imprisonment for up to three months, or a fine
of up to Rs. 500, or both.
3. Trespass on burial places: Section 297 of IPC deals with trespassing on burial places or
disturbing the contents of a burial place. The punishment for this offense is imprisonment
for up to one year, or a fine, or both.
4. Punishment for criminal trespass —Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with
fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both
5. Trespass by parking vehicles: Section 283 of IPC deals with the offense of obstructing a
public way or line of navigation by parking vehicles without lawful authority. The punishment
for this offense is a fine of up to Rs. 200.

The following are some of the exceptions for criminal trespass:

1. Entry by mistake or necessity: A person who enters onto the property of another by mistake
or necessity and does not have any intention to commit a crime, does not commit the offence
of criminal trespass.
2. Entry in good faith: A person who enters onto the property of another in good faith and with
a belief that he/she has the right to do so, does not commit the offence of criminal trespass.
For example, a person who enters onto a property to save the life of a person in danger will
not be liable for criminal trespass.
3. Entry to assert a right: A person who enters onto the property of another to assert a right,
such as a right of way or right to collect rent, does not commit the offence of criminal
trespass. For example, a landlord who enters onto the rented property to collect rent does
not commit the offence of criminal trespass.
4. Entry to prevent harm: A person who enters onto the property of another to prevent harm
to himself/herself or another person, does not commit the offence of criminal trespass. For
example, if a person enters onto the property of another to save a child from drowning in a
swimming pool, he/she will not be liable for criminal trespass.
5. Entry by a public servant: A public servant who enters onto the property of another in the
discharge of his/her official duties does not commit the offence of criminal trespass. For
example, a police officer who enters onto a property to arrest a criminal does not commit
the offence of criminal trespass.

Negligence theories and motive

In the Indian Penal Code, negligence can be classified under different theories based on the degree
of carelessness or recklessness involved. Here are some of the commonly recognized negligence
theories:
1. Gross Negligence: This theory refers to a total disregard for the safety and well-being of
others. It involves an extreme lack of care and attention that puts the lives of others in
danger. For example, a doctor who prescribes a dangerous medication without checking for
allergies or adverse reactions may be held liable for gross negligence.
2. Criminal Negligence: This theory refers to a failure to take reasonable care that results in
harm or injury to another person. It involves an act that is inherently dangerous or has a high
probability of causing harm, and the person fails to take reasonable steps to prevent the
harm. For example, a driver who runs a red light and causes an accident may be held
criminally negligent.
3. Civil Negligence: This theory refers to a failure to take reasonable care that results in harm
or injury to another person. It involves an act that is NOT inherently dangerous but still
causes harm due to the person's failure to exercise reasonable care. For example, a store
owner who fails to clean up a spill in the aisle and causes a customer to slip and fall may be
held civilly negligent.

Page 23 of 51
 4. Contributory Negligence: This theory refers to a situation where the plaintiff's own
negligence contributes to the harm or injury suffered. It involves a failure to exercise
reasonable care on the part of the plaintiff, which contributes to the harm suffered. For
example, a person who walks across a busy road while texting on their phone may be held
contributory negligent if they are hit by a car.

In addition to these negligence theories, there can be various motives behind a negligent act. These
can include:
1. Carelessness: This refers to a lack of attention or failure to take necessary precautions that
result in harm or injury to another person.
2. Recklessness: This refers to a conscious disregard for the safety and well-being of others,
where a person is fully aware of the potential harm that their actions could cause but chooses
to act recklessly anyway.
3. Ignorance: This refers to a lack of knowledge or understanding of the risks involved in a
particular activity, which results in harm or injury to another person. Ignorance refers to a
lack of knowledge or awareness about a particular fact or legal provision. Ignorance typically
pertains to the absence of knowledge regarding the potential consequences or risks
associated with one's actions. If an individual commits an act that would otherwise be
considered negligent, but genuinely lacks awareness of the risks or consequences, their
liability may be affected.
4. Incompetence: This refers to a lack of skill or knowledge that results in harm or injury to
another person. It can apply to professionals such as doctors or lawyers who fail to meet the
expected standards of care due to their lack of competence. It refers to the lack of necessary
skills, knowledge, or qualifications to perform a particular action or duty. In the context of
negligence, incompetence may involve a failure to exercise a reasonable standard of care
expected from a person with certain skills or expertise.

It can be subjective (Winfield/Salmond) based on Mens rea (Intention) or objective (Pollock)

focussed on Actus Reus, conduct focussed. Public Servant case laws: RS Nayak v. AR Antulay
(no power executing CrPC conduct proceedings), Karuna Nidhi, PV Narsimha Rao (1993) led
to absolute immunity to parliamentary proceedings.

Historical view on Punishments

The concept of punishment has been a part of human societies since ancient times. In the Indian
context, punishment was based on the principles of dharma, which meant that the punishment should
be proportionate to the crime committed. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) was first drafted in 1860 by
the British colonial government in India. The main objective of the IPC was to provide a uniform code
of criminal law for the whole country, based on the principles of English common law. The early
drafts of the IPC included provisions for severe punishments, including the death penalty, for a wide
range of crimes. However, the drafters of the IPC also recognized the need to balance punishment
with the principles of justice and proportionality.

Over time, the Indian judiciary has played an important role in interpreting and applying the
provisions of the IPC. The courts have emphasized the need for punishment to be proportionate to
the severity of the crime committed, and for punishment to be aimed at reforming the offender
rather than simply inflicting retribution. In recent years, there has been growing concern in India
about the use of harsh punishments, such as the death penalty, and a growing recognition of the need
to focus on rehabilitation and restorative justice as an alternative to punitive measures. This has led
to calls for a review of the IPC and for reforms to the criminal justice system to ensure that
punishment is just and proportionate, and that the focus is on rehabilitation rather than retribution.

Solitary confinement
Solitary confinement refers to a form of punishment in which an inmate is kept in isolation in a cell
or room for a specified period. The purpose of solitary confinement is to punish offenders and to
deter others from committing similar crimes. It is believed that the isolation from the general
population helps to break the spirit of the offender and makes them more docile and submissive. The
Indian Penal Code does not have a specific provision for solitary confinement. However, Section 73
of the Code provides for the use of solitary confinement as an additional punishment for prison

Page 24 of 51
offenses. Under this section, a prisoner who commits a prison offense may be punished with solitary
confinement for up to 14 days.

The use of solitary confinement has been a subject of controversy in India, as well as in other
countries. Many human rights groups argue that it is inhumane, a form of torture & can cause long-
term psychological damage to the prisoner. The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Torture has
called for a global ban on the use of solitary confinement for more than 15 days. In 2015, the Supreme
Court of India issued guidelines for the use of solitary confinement in prisons. The court stated that
solitary confinement should only be used as a last resort and for the shortest possible period. The
court also mandated that regular medical and psychological examinations should be conducted on
prisoners in solitary confinement. Despite the guidelines, there have been instances of abuse of
solitary confinement in Indian prisons. In 2017, a report by the National Human Rights Commission
stated that prisoners in many Indian jails were being subjected to solitary confinement for prolonged
periods, in violation of the guidelines.

Offences relating to Public Health

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) has several sections that deal with offenses related to public health.
These sections aim to protect the public from health hazards and ensure that individuals and entities
do not endanger the public's well-being. Some of the offenses related to public health under the IPC
are:
1. Public nuisance (S268) by doing/omitting to do act, causing common injury/ danger/
annoyance to public dwelling in the vicinity (Private from his own property or public)
2. Negligent act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life (S269): This section
deals with any act done by a person that is likely to spread a disease that is dangerous to
life. This section covers any negligent act or omission that can cause the spread of a
dangerous disease. The punishment for such an offense is imprisonment for up to six months
or a fine, or both.
3. Malignant act likely to spread infection of disease dangerous to life (S270): This section
covers any act that is done with the intent to spread a disease that is dangerous to life. The
punishment for such an offense is imprisonment for up to two years or a fine, or both.
4. Disobedience to quarantine rule (S271): This section covers the offense of disobeying a
quarantine order issued by a government authority. The punishment for such an offense is
imprisonment for up to six months or a fine, or both.
5. Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale (S272): This section deals with any act of
adulteration of food or drink that is intended for sale. The punishment for such an offense is
imprisonment for up to six months or a fine, or both. Joseph Kurian v. State of Kerala AIR1995
6. Sale of noxious food or drink (S273): This section covers the offense of selling food or drink
that is unfit for human consumption. The punishment for such an offense is imprisonment for
up to six months or a fine, or both. Ram Saligram v. State
7. Adulteration of drugs (S274): This section deals with any act of adulteration of drugs or
medical substances. The punishment for such an offense is imprisonment for up to ten years
or a fine, or both.
8. Sale of adulterated drugs (S275): This section covers the offense of knowingly selling drugs
or medical substances that are adulterated. The punishment for such an offense is
imprisonment for up to ten years or a fine, or both.
9. Rash driving or riding on a public way (S270) Praful Kumar v. State of Odisha, P Rajappan
v. State of Kerala (Place, time, trafficking & crowd)
10. Conveying person by water for hire in unsafe or overloaded vessel (S282) Toufel Ahmed
Miyan 1933 (Boat capsized due to overload)
11. Danger or obstruction in public way or line of navigation (S283) Jayram v. State of
Rajasthan (Large oversized truck within city during the day time)

Offences relating to Public Safety

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines various offenses related to safety, which are aimed at
ensuring the safety of individuals and the community as a whole. These offenses include:
1. Endangering the safety of a person on a railway: Section 154 of the IPC deals with this
offense. It states that whoever, with intent to endanger the safety of any person, puts
or attempts to put any person in danger of death or grievous hurt by doing any act on a
railway, commits an offense punishable with imprisonment of up to 7 years and fine.

Page 25 of 51
 2. Mischief causing damage to public property: Section 3 of the Prevention of Damage to
Public Property Act, 1984 deals with this offense. It states that whoever commits mischief
by doing any act in respect of any public property, with the intention of causing damage
to such property or with the knowledge that such act is likely to cause damage to such
property, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to 5 years and fine.
3. Causing death by negligence: Section 304A of the IPC deals with this offense. It states
that whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not
amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to 2 years,
or with fine, or with both.
4. Endangering the life or personal safety of others: Section 336 of the IPC deals with this
offense. It states that whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human
life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to 3
months, or with fine, or with both.
5. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others: Section 338
of the IPC deals with this offense. It states that whoever causes grievous hurt to any
person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal
safety of others, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to 2 years, or with fine, or
with both.
6. Unlawful assembly: Section 141 of the IPC deals with this offense. It states that whoever
is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to 6
months, or with fine, or with both.
7. Rioting: Section 146 of the IPC deals with this offense. It states that whoever is involved
in a riot, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.

Offences relating to Convenience

In the Indian Penal Code (IPC), offenses related to convenience are related to public order and
safety. These offenses are committed when someone acts in a way that causes inconvenience to
the public or puts their safety at risk. The following are some examples of offenses related to
convenience in IPC:

1. Obstruction of public way: It is an offense to obstruct a public way, such as a street or

footpath, in a way that causes inconvenience to others. For example, placing a cart or
goods on a street in a way that blocks the way for pedestrians or vehicles.
2. Nuisance: IPC defines nuisance as an act that causes annoyance or injury to the public.
It includes creating loud noises, using loudspeakers or megaphones in public places, or
allowing animals to roam around freely in public areas.
3. Mischief: Mischief refers to an act that causes damage or destruction to public property.
For example, breaking street lights or damaging public property such as benches or
fountains.
4. Endangering public safety: It is an offense to act in a way that endangers public safety.
For example, causing a fire in a public place, using fireworks or explosives in a public
area, or causing a stampede by creating panic.
5. Negligent conduct with respect to explosive substance: This offense is committed when
someone handles an explosive substance negligently, which results in injury or death to
others. For example, storing explosive materials in a crowded area without taking proper
safety precautions.
6. Public nuisance in cases not otherwise provided for: This offense covers any act that
causes inconvenience or injury to the public, but which is not covered by any other
provision in IPC.

Offences relating to Decency

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) has provisions for offenses related to decency under Chapter XVI,
which includes Sections 292 to 294. These sections deal with obscenity (Test is if thing tends to
deprave and corrupts minds which are open to such influence, cater to lascivious, prurient or
sexually precocious minds Ranjit Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra) and offenses against public
morality. The offenses related to decency are as follows:
1. Sale, Distribution or Exhibition of obscene content (S292): This section deals with the
sale, distribution, or public exhibition of any obscene material, including books,
pamphlets, papers, drawings, paintings, or any other object. It states that any person

Page 26 of 51
 who sells, distributes, or exhibits any such material shall be punished with imprisonment
for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with a fine, or with both.
2. Sale, Distribution or Exhibition of obscene content to young person (S293): This
section deals with the sale or distribution of any obscene material to a person under the
age of 18 years. It states that any person who sells, distributes, or exhibits any such
material to a young person shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to 3 years, or with a fine, or with both.
3. Obscene acts and songs (S294): This section deals with the commission of any obscene
act or singing of any obscene song in a public place. It states that any person who commits
such an act shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3
months, or with a fine, or with both.

The offenses related to decency aim to protect public morality and maintain social order. These
offenses are non-bailable and cognizable, meaning that the police can arrest the accused without
a warrant. It is important to note that the definitions of "obscene" and "decency" can be
subjective and vary according to cultural and social norms. Therefore, the interpretation of these
offenses depends on the context and circumstances of each case.

Offences relating to Morals

Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), there are certain offenses related to morals. These offenses
are concerned with acts that are considered morally wrong and are punishable under the law.
Here are some of the offenses related to morals under the IPC:
1. Adultery: Adultery refers to consensual sexual intercourse between a married person and
someone who is not their spouse. It is a criminal offense under Section 497 of the IPC,
but it is only applicable to men. Women cannot be charged with adultery under this
section.
2. Bigamy: Bigamy is the act of marrying someone while still being legally married to
another person. It is a criminal offense under Section 494 of the IPC.
3. Obscenity: Obscenity refers to anything that is offensive to public decency and morals.
It includes any act, speech, or writing that is lewd or indecent. It is a criminal offense
under Section 292 of the IPC.
4. Sodomy: Sodomy refers to sexual intercourse involving the anus or the mouth of either
partner. It is a criminal offense under Section 377 of the IPC. However, this section was
partially struck down by the Supreme Court of India in 2018, which decriminalized
consensual homosexual acts among adults.
5. Prostitution: Prostitution is the act of engaging in sexual activity in exchange for money
or other benefits. It is a criminal offense under Section 372 and Section 373 of the IPC.
6. Sale of Obscene Material: The sale of obscene material is a criminal offense under
Section 292 and Section 293 of the IPC. This includes any material that is deemed to be
obscene, such as books, magazines, photographs, or movies.

Stages of crimes
Crime is an act or omission which constitutes and offense and is punishable by law. A crime has
various stages. These stages help in determining the level of culpability or guilt of the offender. The
following are the stages of crime in IPC:
1. Intention: The first stage of crime is intention. A person decides to commit a crime when
they form the intention to do so. For example, if a person decides to rob a bank, the
formation of this intention is the first stage of the crime.
2. Preparation: The second stage of crime is preparation. After forming the intention to commit
a crime, the offender will begin to prepare for it. For example, if the offender intends to rob
a bank, they will start gathering information about the bank's security arrangements, plan
their entry and exit routes, and acquire necessary tools like weapons or explosives.
3. Attempt: The third stage of crime is an attempt. Attempting to commit a crime means taking
a step towards committing the crime but not completing it. For example, if the offender tries
to enter the bank with a weapon but is stopped by the security guard, then it is an attempt
to commit a robbery.
4. Commission: The fourth and final stage of crime is commission. When the offender completes
all the necessary steps and commits the crime, they have reached the stage of commission.

Page 27 of 51
 For example, if the offender successfully robs the bank, then they have committed the crime
of robbery.

Each stage of the crime has different levels of punishment. The punishment for forming the
intention to commit a crime or for an attempt to commit a crime is usually lower than the
punishment for committing the crime itself.

Criminal Conspiracy
Criminal conspiracy is an offence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) which involves two or more
persons agreeing to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. The offence of criminal
conspiracy is defined in Section 120A of the IPC and the punishment for it is provided in Section 120B.
Let’s discuss the definition, ingredients and punishment for criminal conspiracy under the IPC.

Definition of Criminal Conspiracy: Section 120A of the IPC defines criminal conspiracy as an
agreement between two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or an act that is not
illegal by illegal means. The Proviso attached to Section 120A provides that a mere agreement to
commit an offence shall amount to criminal conspiracy and no overt act or illegal omission is required
to be proved.

Essential Ingredients of Criminal Conspiracy: The essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy are:
1. There must be an agreement between two or more persons.
2. Such an agreement should be done: (a) to do an illegal act, or (b) or to do a legal act by
illegal means.
3. The agreement may be expressed or implied or partly expressed and partly implied.
4. As soon as the agreement is made, the conspiracy arises, and the offence is committed.
5. The same offence is continued to be committed so long as the combination persists.

Position of Husband and Wife to Criminal Conspiracy: In India, if only the husband and his wife
conspire to do an illegal act or legal act by illegal means, they can be held liable for criminal
conspiracy. This is unlike the position in English law where they are deemed to be one person or one
entity.

Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy: The punishment for criminal conspiracy is contained under
section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The punishment for section 120A (criminal conspiracy) depends
upon the nature of the offence. If the agreement is to commit a serious offence, the punishment is
more severe.

a. Where a person conspires to commit an offence that is punishable either by death or by

imprisonment of life or by rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or above, and no
express provision is made in the Code for its punishment, then he will be liable for punishment
in the same manner as if he had abetted such an offence.
b. If the conspiracy exists between two or more persons to commit an offence which is not
mentioned above, that is, offences which are not punishable with death, imprisonment for
life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two or more than two years, such a person will be
punished with the imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months,
or with fine, or with both.

It is important to note that the offence of criminal conspiracy can be proved by either direct or
circumstantial evidence and that an act of one conspirator becomes the act of another. It is also
important to note that the punishment for criminal conspiracy depends upon the nature of the
offence and can range from imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months,
or with fine, or with both, to punishment in the same manner as if the accused had abetted the
offence.

Conspiracy is one form of abetment as abetment can be committed in various ways. Criminal
Conspiracy is a substantive offense and abetment is not. Mere conspiracy would not amount to
abetment, just conspiring without actus reus would not constitute abetment.

Page 28 of 51
State (Delhi Administration) v. VC Shukla & Sanjay Gandhi

Injury
Injury, as defined under the Indian Penal Code, refers to any harm caused to a person, either to their
body or their mind. There are various provisions under the IPC that deal with injuries caused to a
person.

Section 319 of the IPC deals with causing hurt to a person. It states that whoever causes bodily pain,
disease, or infirmity to any person, is said to cause hurt. For instance, if A punches B and causes
physical pain or injury, A can be charged under Section 319 of the IPC.

Section 320 of the IPC deals with the different types of hurt, which are as follows:

1. Grievous Hurt: As per Section 320, whoever causes grievous hurt to any person shall be
punished with imprisonment for a term ranging from six months to ten years, along with a
fine. Grievous hurt includes injuries such as bone fractures, dislocation of joints, severe
burns, or injuries that endanger a person's life or cause permanent disfigurement. For
instance, if A assaults B with a weapon and causes a fracture or severe injury, A can be
charged under Section 320 of the IPC.
2. Simple Hurt: Simple hurt refers to any hurt which is not grievous. As per Section 323 of the
IPC, whoever causes simple hurt to any person shall be punished with imprisonment for a
term that may extend to one year, along with a fine. For instance, if A slaps B and causes
minor injuries, A can be charged under Section 323 of the IPC.
3. Voluntarily Causing Hurt: As per Section 324 of the IPC, whoever voluntarily causes hurt by
means of a dangerous weapon or substance shall be punished with imprisonment for a term
ranging from three to seven years, along with a fine. For instance, if A attacks B with a knife
and causes injuries, A can be charged under Section 324 of the IPC.
4. Causing Hurt by Dangerous Weapons or Means: As per Section 325 of the IPC, whoever
causes hurt by means of any instrument or weapon shall be punished with imprisonment for
a term ranging from three to seven years, along with a fine. For instance, if A causes hurt to
B by hitting them with a blunt object, A can be charged under Section 325 of the IPC.
5. Causing Grievous Hurt by Dangerous Weapons or Means: As per Section 326 of the IPC,
whoever causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument or weapon shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term ranging from seven to ten years, along with a fine. For instance, if
A causes grievous hurt to B by hitting them with a sharp object, A can be charged under
Section 326 of the IPC.

House breaking
Housebreaking is a serious criminal offense defined in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that involves the
act of entering into someone else’s house with the intention of committing a crime. The offense is
punishable under section 445 of the IPC. The essential elements of the offense of housebreaking are:
1. Entry: The accused must have entered into the house of another person.
2. House: The place entered must be a house, building, tent, or vessel.
3. Criminal intention: The accused must have entered with the intention of committing an
offense.
4. Break-in: The entry into the house must have been made by breaking open any part of the
house, or by using criminal force to gain entry.
5. No lawful authority: The entry must not be authorized by law or by the owner of the house.
For example, if a person breaks into a house with the intention of stealing money, he can be charged
with housebreaking under section 445 of the IPC. The punishment for housebreaking is imprisonment
for up to three years or with a fine, or both. Section 446 of the IPC deals with the offense of house-
trespass.

However, in the case of house-trespass, there is no requirement of break-in or the use of criminal
force. For example, if a person enters into someone else's house with the intention of stealing
something, without using any force or breaking any part of the house, he can be charged with house-
trespass under section 446 of the IPC. The punishment for house-trespass is imprisonment for up to
one year, or with a fine, or both.

Page 29 of 51
Begging
In India, begging has been criminalized under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the
Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, 1959. The law defines begging as soliciting or receiving alms in a
public place, which includes begging in any form, whether vocal or non-vocal. The punishment for
begging under IPC is imprisonment for a term of up to three years, and/or a fine. Under the Bombay
Prevention of Begging Act, begging is a punishable offence and anyone found begging can be arrested
without a warrant and be detained in a "beggar home" for a period of one to three years. However,
the Act also provides for certain exemptions from punishment for begging, which are as follows:

1. Persons who are diseased, infirm or physically handicapped and are unable to work or earn a
livelihood.
2. Persons who are engaged in any trade or business and are unable to earn sufficient income.
3. Persons who are rendered destitute due to a natural calamity or any other circumstance
beyond their control.
4. Persons who are engaged in any religious or spiritual activity and depend on charity for their
sustenance.

It is important to note that the exemption from punishment is not an absolute right and is subject to
certain conditions. The person claiming exemption must prove that he or she falls under one of the
exempted categories and must also provide evidence to support their claim. In case of violation of
the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Begging Act, the concerned authorities can take action
against the offender by way of detention, rehabilitation or other measures as deemed fit. However,
any action taken must be in accordance with the principles of natural justice and due process of law.

Theft
Theft is defined under section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, which states that "whoever, intending
to take dishonestly any movable 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." Essentials of theft
under IPC:
1. The accused must have moved the property.
2. The property must be movable.
3. The property must be in the possession of the complainant.
4. The accused must have taken the property out of possession without the consent of the
complainant.
5. The accused must have taken the property with dishonest intention.
Illustration: A steals a mobile phone from the pocket of B without his consent. Here, A has committed
theft.

Provisions related to theft under IPC:

1. Section 379 of IPC prescribes the punishment for theft, which is imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
2. Section 380 of IPC deals with theft in a dwelling house, which is punishable with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
3. Section 381 of IPC deals with theft by clerk or servant, which is punishable with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
4. Section 382 of IPC deals with theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or
restraint, which is punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Defences related to theft under IPC:

1. Claim of right: If the accused has a bona fide claim of right to the property taken, then it
will not amount to theft.
2. Consent of owner: If the owner of the property has given consent to the accused to take the
property, then it will not amount to theft.
3. Mistake: If the accused took the property under the mistaken belief that he had a right to
take it, then it will not amount to theft.

Page 30 of 51
 4. No dishonest intention: If the accused had no dishonest intention in taking the property,
then it will not amount to theft.

Right of private defense of body extending to causation of death

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides for the right of private defense of body to protect oneself from
harm or death caused by another person. This right is available to all persons under certain
circumstances. Section 96 of the IPC defines the right of private defense, which states that every
person has the right to defend his body and property from any harm that may be caused by a person
committing an offense affecting the human body.
However, the right of private defense is subject to certain limitations, and the use of force should
be proportionate to the harm that is sought to be prevented. If the use of force extends to causing
death, it is considered a grave offense and is only permissible under certain circumstances.

Section 100 of the IPC deals with the right of private defense of body extending to causing death.
This section states that a person has the right to cause death in self-defence, provided that there is
reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. The person must also have no other means of
escape from the harm, and the use of force must be necessary to protect oneself from harm. It is
important to note that the right of private defense is only available as long as the person exercising
the right acts in good faith and does not exceed the reasonable limits of force necessary to prevent
the harm. If the person exceeds the reasonable limits of force, the defense will not be considered
valid, and the person will be liable for criminal prosecution.

To illustrate this provision, suppose a person is attacked by a group of assailants while walking down
a deserted street. The person has no means of escape and is in reasonable apprehension of death or
grievous hurt. In such a situation, the person has the right to use force, which may extend to causing
death, to protect himself from harm. However, if the person uses excessive force that goes beyond
what is necessary to protect himself, he may be held criminally liable.

Fraudulently
Section 25 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines the term "fraudulently." It states that a person is
considered to have acted fraudulently when they do something with the intention of deceiving
another person or inducing them to do something they would not have done if they were aware of
the true nature of the act. Fraud is a dishonest act done intentionally to deceive someone with the
intention of causing them to suffer a loss or to gain an undue advantage. The IPC has several provisions
related to fraud, including:
1. Cheating (S415) states that whoever cheats someone by intentionally deceiving them or any
person on their behalf, or by fraudulently inducing that person to do something, or to deliver
any property, or to alter or destroy any valuable security or document, shall be punished
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with a fine, or both.
Illustration: A dishonest shopkeeper sells fake gold coins to his customers and cheats them
of their money. He can be charged under Section 415 of the IPC.
2. Cheating by impersonation (S416) states that whoever cheats someone by pretending to be
someone else, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or by interposing any
false personation, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years, or with a fine, or both.
Illustration: A person pretends to be a government official and cheats another person by
promising them a job in exchange for money. He can be charged under Section 416 of the
IPC.
3. Punishment for cheating (S417) states that whoever cheats someone, or dishonestly induces
them to deliver any property, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to two years, or with a fine, or both.
Illustration: A person convinces another person to invest money in his fake company,
promising high returns. He can be charged under Section 417 of the IPC.
4. Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may be caused to person whose interest
offender is bound to protect (S418): This section states that whoever cheats someone with
the knowledge that it is likely to cause wrongful loss to that person whose interests the
offender is bound to protect (Fiduciary), shall be punished with imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years, or with a fine, or both.

Page 31 of 51
 Illustration: A bank employee cheats a customer by making unauthorized transactions from
their account. He can be charged under Section 418 of the IPC.
5. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property (S420) states that whoever cheats
someone and fraudulently induces them to deliver any property, shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or with a fine, or both. Accused
must realize benefit (kind or cash) as completion of circle of cheating to benefit is necessary.
CBI v. K. Narayan Rao (Lawyers opinion on search report, Advocate gave property search
report In good faith, mere negligence and not criminal breach of trust due to lack of mens
rea and benefit realization)
Illustration: A person promises to sell a car to another person and takes payment for it but
fails to deliver the car. He can be charged under Section 420 of the IPC.
Grievous Hurt
Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. Such act must
be done voluntarily (with knowledge & intention) & not accidently. Grievous hurt is defined as an
injury that endangers life or causes severe physical pain, disfigurement or disability. The provisions
related to grievous hurt are outlined in section 320 of the IPC. Section 320 lists various types of
injuries that are considered to be grievous hurt, including:
1. Emasculation: This refers to the removal of the male reproductive organs or rendering them
useless.
2. Permanent privation of the sight of either eye: This means complete loss of vision in one
or both eyes.
3. Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear: This means complete loss of hearing in
one or both ears.
4. Privation of any member or joint: This refers to the permanent dismemberment or loss of
function of any limb or joint.
5. Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint: This refers to
the permanent damage or loss of function of any limb or joint.
6. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face: This refers to the permanent alteration of the
physical appearance of the head or face, such as scarring or disfigurement.
7. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth: This refers to the breaking or dislocation of any
bone or tooth in the body.
8. Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be in severe bodily pain or
unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for a period of twenty days or more: This refers to any
injury that is severe enough to endanger life, cause severe pain or disability, or prevent the
victim from performing their daily activities for a period of 20 or more days.

The punishment for causing grievous hurt is imprisonment for up to 7 years and/or a fine. If the victim
is permanently disfigured or disabled as a result of the injury, the punishment can be increased to
imprisonment for up to 10 years and/or a fine.

Offences against the state (121-130)

Offenses against the State are covered under Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and include
various acts that are considered detrimental to the functioning of the state and the security of the
nation. Some of the offenses against the State and their provisions are:
1. Waging War: Section 121 of the IPC deals with the offense of "Waging, or attempting to wage
war, or abetting waging of war against the Government of India". The punishment for this
offense is either the death penalty or imprisonment for life, along with a fine. It is not
necessary to have any act or omission taken place.
2. Conspiracy to commit an offense: Section 120-A of the IPC deals with the offense of "criminal
conspiracy". It states that whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offense
punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two
years or more shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of up to six months or with a
fine, or both.
3. Sedition: Section 124-A of the IPC deals with the offense of "Sedition". It states that whoever
by words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise,
brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite
disaffection towards the Government shall be punished with imprisonment for life or
imprisonment for up to three years, along with a fine.

Page 32 of 51
 4. Offenses against the High officers (President or Governor) authority: Section 124-B of the
IPC deals with offenses against the President's authority. It states that whoever, by words,
either spoken or written, or by signs or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or
attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection
towards the President or the Government shall be punished with imprisonment for up to three
years, along with a fine.
5. Offenses against the dignity of the nation: Section 125 of the IPC deals with offenses against
the "Dignity of the Nation". It states that whoever knowingly destroys or damages any
property of the Government or of any public servant, or any property that has been used or
is being used by the Government or any public servant for public purposes, shall be punished
with imprisonment for up to seven years, along with a fine.
6. Offenses against the State's public tranquillity: Section 153-A of the IPC deals with offenses
against the State's public tranquillity. It states that whoever promotes or attempts to
promote, on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, or
community, feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different religious, racial,
language, or regional groups or castes or communities shall be punished with imprisonment
for up to three years, along with a fine.
7. Offenses related to Terrorism: The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, deals with
offenses related to terrorism. It defines "terrorism" as any act or threat of action intended to
coerce the Government or the public or any section thereof, in furtherance of political or
social objectives. The Act provides for stringent punishment for various offenses related to
terrorism, including punishment up to the death penalty.

These are some of the offenses against the State and their provisions under the IPC. It is important
to note that the provisions of the IPC related to offenses against the State are to be interpreted and
applied with caution, considering the delicate balance between protecting the interests of the State
and ensuring the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens.

Offenses relating to public servants

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) contains provisions for offenses relating to public servants. A public
servant is defined under Section 21 of the IPC as any person who holds a public office or performs a
public duty. The provisions for offenses against public servants are contained in Chapter IX of the
IPC, which includes Sections 161 to 171F. These offenses are taken very seriously by the Indian legal
system as public servants are expected to uphold the law and maintain the integrity of public
institutions. The following are some of the offenses relating to public servants under the IPC:

Offenses by a Public Servant:

a. Bribery or taking gratification (S161)
b. Obtaining valuable thing from person concerned in proceedings
c. Disobeying law to cause injury to any person
d. Knowingly frame document causing injury to any person
e. Unlawfully engaging in trade (S168) State of Gujrat v. Mahesh Kumar Dhirajlal (AIR
1980 SC116), State of Maharashtra v. Chandrakant Solanki 1995 (Selling insurance on
commission is not trade), Kanwarjit Singh Kaddkkad v. State of Punjab (Profession is
not trade)
f. Knowingly disobey direction of law to save person/property from punishment
g. Knowingly & corruptly/maliciously making any report/order/verdict etc.
h. Negligently help escape someone who is legally confined

Offenses by private persons with reference to Public Servants

a. Taking gratification to exercise influence
b. Making him disobey the law
c. Non-treatment of victim in hospital
d. Personating a public servant & attempt an act using colour of his office
e. Wearing a garb or carry token of public servant with fraudulent intention

Page 33 of 51
 1. Taking a bribe (S161) This offense refers to a public servant who accepts or obtains a bribe
in exchange for performing or not performing an official act. The punishment for this offense
is imprisonment for a term of up to seven years and a fine.
2. Giving a bribe (S162) This offense refers to any person who gives or offers a bribe to a public
servant with the intention of influencing the performance of official duties. The punishment
for this offense is imprisonment for a term of up to seven years and a fine.
3. Criminal misconduct (S13) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 deals with the offense
of criminal misconduct. This offense refers to any public servant who, by using his official
position, obtains any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or any other person,
or obtains any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for any other person without any public
interest. The punishment for this offense is imprisonment for a term of up to seven years and
a fine.
4. Abusing official position (S166) This offense refers to a public servant who, in the
performance of his official duties, intentionally or knowingly disobeys any direction of law or
any legal provision, or wilfully neglects to perform his duties. The punishment for this offense
is imprisonment for a term of up to three years and a fine.
5. Criminal intimidation (S170) This offense refers to a public servant who threatens any person
to do an act that is illegal or against public policy, or not to do an act that is legal or in the
public interest. The punishment for this offense is imprisonment for a term of up to two years
and a fine.
6. Omission to give notice or information to public servant by person legally bound to give
it: Manoj Kumar Gautam v. State of Uttar Pradesh, TS John v. State of Kerala 1984
7. False information (S182) This offense refers to a public servant who, with the intention of
causing injury or annoyance to any person, gives false information to any public servant. The
punishment for this offense is imprisonment for a term of up to six months, a fine, or both.

Offences relating to coin and government stamps

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) includes several provisions to deal with offenses related to coins and
government stamps. These provisions are aimed at protecting the integrity of the currency system
and the value of government stamps, and to prevent counterfeiting and fraud. Counterfeiting (S231
– 243), Alteration (S246 – 254) and Dishonest act of mint employees (S244 – 245) are the offenses
included.

Offenses Relating to Coins: Section 232 of the IPC deals with offenses related to coins. This section
states that any person who counterfeits or knowingly performs any act to make a coin resemble or
pass for a coin of a different description, or who fraudulently performs any act which causes a coin
to be delivered as a coin of a different description, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term that may extend up to ten years, and a fine.

Additionally, Section 233 of the IPC deals with the possession of counterfeit coins. This section states
that any person who has in his possession any counterfeit coin with the intent to use it as genuine or
to cause it to be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term that may extend up to three years, and a fine.

Offenses Relating to Government Stamps: Section 255 of the IPC deals with offenses related to
government stamps. This section states that any person who counterfeits or knowingly performs any
act to make a government stamp resemble or pass for a different stamp, or who fraudulently performs
any act which causes a government stamp to be delivered as a stamp of a different description, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend up to seven years,
and a fine.

Additionally, Section 258 of the IPC deals with the possession of counterfeit government stamps. This
section states that any person who has in his possession any counterfeit government stamp with the
intent to use it as genuine or to cause it to be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term that may extend up to three years, and a fine.

Page 34 of 51
Furthermore, Section 259 of the IPC deals with the sale of counterfeit government stamps. This
section states that any person who sells, or offers or exposes for sale, any counterfeit government
stamp with the intent that it shall be used as genuine, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term that may extend up to seven years, and a fine.

Offences relating to weights and measures

These provisions are aimed at protecting the integrity of the system of weights and measures and to
prevent fraud and cheating in commercial transactions.

Offences Relating to Weights and Measures: Section 260 of the IPC deals with offenses related to
weights and measures. This section states that any person who fraudulently uses any false weight or
measure or any weight or measure which has been tampered with, or who offers or exposes for sale
any article for which he has used any false weight or measure, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term that may extend up to three years, or with a fine, or with both.

Additionally, Section 261 of the IPC deals with the possession of false weights or measures. This
section states that any person who has in his possession any false weight or measure with the intent
to use it for fraudulently or dishonestly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term that may extend up to one year, or with a fine, or with both.

Offences Relating to Adulteration of Weights or Measures: Section 262 of the IPC deals with
offenses related to the adulteration of weights or measures. This section states that any person who
fraudulently or dishonestly adulterates any weight or measure shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term that may extend up to one year, or with a fine, or with both.

Furthermore, Section 263 of the IPC deals with the sale of adulterated weights or measures. This
section states that any person who sells or offers or exposes for sale any weight or measure which he
knows to be adulterated, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term that
may extend up to one year, or with a fine, or with both. Following are the 4 specific offenses:

a. Fraudulent use of false instrument for weighing (S264)

b. Fraudulent use of false weight or measure (S265)
c. Being in possession of false weight or measure(S266)
d. Making or selling false weight or measure (S267)

Offences relating to documents and property marks

These provisions aim to protect the integrity of documents and property marks, prevent forgery, and
safeguard the rights of individuals and entities.

Offences Relating to Documents: Section 463 (Forgery) of the IPC deals with offenses related to
forgery of documents. This section states that any person who makes or possesses a counterfeit seal,
plate, or other instrument for the purpose of committing forgery shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term that may extend up to seven years, and may also be liable to a fine.
Section 464 (Making a false document) states that any person who makes any false document with
the intent to cause harm to another shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term that may extend up to two years, or with a fine, or with both.

Falsification of accounts (S477A) by clerk. State of Punjab v. Ratan Chand

Offences Relating to Property Marks: Section 482 (Counterfeiting of property marks) states that
any person who counterfeits any property mark shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term that may extend up to three years, or with a fine, or with both. Section 486
(Selling goods marked with a counterfeit property mark) states that any person who sells or exposes
for sale any goods or merchandise with a counterfeit property mark shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend up to three years, or with a fine, or
with both. It is worth noting that the IPC also contains provisions to deal with other offenses related
to documents and property marks, such as the destruction of documents, possession of counterfeit
property marks, and the possession of instruments for the purpose of counterfeiting property marks.

Page 35 of 51
Criminal Intimidation, Insult and Annoyance
The Indian Penal Code (IPC) contains provisions that deal with criminal intimidation, insult, and
annoyance. These provisions aim to protect individuals from being subjected to threats, insults, or
other forms of harassment that may cause them harm or distress.

Criminal Intimidation (S503) states that any person who threatens another person with the intent
to cause that person to fear for their safety or the safety of their property, or to cause them to do
or omit to do something that they are legally entitled to do or omit to do, shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term that may extend up to two years, or with a fine, or with both. If the threat
is made with a deadly weapon or with the intent to cause a person to commit an offense punishable
with life imprisonment, then the punishment can extend up to seven years of imprisonment.

Insult (S504) of the IPC deals with the offense of intentional insult with the intent to provoke a
breach of peace. This section states that any person who intentionally insults another person with
the intent to provoke them to break the public peace or to commit an offense shall be punished with
imprisonment for a term that may extend up to two years, or with a fine, or with both.

Annoyance (S268) of the IPC deals with the offense of public nuisance. This section states that any
person who does any act that causes a common injury, danger, or annoyance to the public, or to the
people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, shall be punished with a fine that
may extend up to 200 rupees.

It is worth noting that there are certain exceptions to these provisions. For instance, criminal
intimidation is not an offense if the threat is made in good faith and with the intention of protecting
one's own or another person's lawful interests. Similarly, insulting language is not an offense if it is
used in the exercise of the right to freedom of speech and expression.

Contempt of Lawful Authority of Public Servants

This offense is committed when a person intentionally disobeys the orders or directions of a public
servant who is acting within the scope of their official duties. The main objective of this provision is
to protect the authority and dignity of public servants who are performing their official duties.

The 6 areas of this contempt include:

e. Wilful omission or evasion of performance of public duty (absconding, preventing,

Non-attendance, Non-appearance, Intentional omission, Non-cooperation with
another public servant)
f. Wilful refusal to do certain acts (binding with the oath of state, answer person
authorised to ask question & refusing to sign his own statement
g. Giving false information to public servant (When legally bound, making false
statement on oath, & doing so to cause injury to another)
h. Illegal purchase or bid for property
i. Obstructing or disobeying another public servant (Resisting taking of property by
lawful authority, obstructing sale of property, obstructing public servant from
discharging his duty, intentional omission when bound to give assistance and knowing
disobey lawful order of other public servant)
j. Threat of injury

Section 172 of the IPC defines the offense of contempt of lawful authority of public servants as
follows:

"Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law which prohibits him
from requiring the attendance at any place of any person for the purpose of investigation into an
offense or any other matter, or from requiring the production of any document or other thing, or
disobey any other direction of the law regulating the conduct of any public servant, shall be punished
with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both."

This offense can be committed by any person who intentionally disobeys the directions of a public
servant acting in their official capacity. The disobedience must be of a direction that is given under

Page 36 of 51
the law, prohibiting the attendance of any person, requiring the production of any document, or
disobeying any other direction regulating the conduct of any public servant.

The punishment for the offense of contempt of lawful authority of public servants is simple
imprisonment for a term that may extend up to six months, or a fine, or both. However, it is important
to note that the punishment may be enhanced if the disobedience causes any harm or damage to
public property or any other person. It is important for citizens to understand the importance of
following the directions and orders of public servants who are acting in their official capacity.
Disobedience of their lawful directions not only undermines the authority and dignity of public
servants, but also hinders the functioning of the government and its institutions. Therefore, citizens
must cooperate with public servants and abide by their lawful directions to ensure the smooth
functioning of the government and to maintain the rule of law in the country.

Offenses relating to Army, Navy & Airforce

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) has provisions for offenses related to the armed forces, specifically the
Army, Navy, and Airforce. These offenses are classified as offenses against the State and are taken
very seriously by the Indian legal system.

Offenses applicable to Army, Navy & Airforce:

1. Mutiny (S131) is defined as an attempt by a member of the armed forces to overthrow lawful
authority. Mutiny is a serious offense and can result in imprisonment for life or a term of up
to ten years.
2. Desertion (S135) refers to a member of the armed forces leaving his duty without permission.
Desertion is a serious offense and can result in imprisonment for up to two years.
3. Absence without leave (S136) refers to a member of the armed forces leaving his duty
without permission but with the intention of returning. This offense is less serious than
desertion and can result in imprisonment for up to three months.
4. Disobedience of a lawful command (S188) refers to a member of the armed forces
disobeying a lawful command from a superior officer. This offense can result in imprisonment
for up to two years.

Limitations to Private Defense right

The Indian Penal Code (IPC) recognizes the right of private defense as a lawful defense against any
harm that may be caused to one's person, property, or other rights. However, this right is subject to
certain limitations that must be followed by any person claiming it. The following are the limitations
to the right of private defense with illustrations and provisions under the IPC:
1. No excessive force: A person exercising the right of private defense cannot use more force
than necessary to repel the attack. For instance, if someone is being attacked with a fist,
they cannot use a deadly weapon to defend themselves. Section 99 of the IPC provides that
the right of private defense extends to the voluntary causing of death or any other harm only
if the offense committed against the person is of such a nature that it may reasonably cause
the apprehension that death or grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such an
offense.
2. No right to pursue: A person cannot pursue an offender beyond the point where the threat
of harm has been neutralized. For instance, if a person is attacked and manages to flee to
safety, they cannot pursue the attacker and attack them back in revenge. Section 100 of the
IPC provides that the right of private defense does not extend to the voluntary causing of
death or any other harm to the assailant when the assault is over, and the person attacked
has got an opportunity of escaping from the assailant and availing himself of the protection
of the public authorities.
3. No right against public servants: A person cannot exercise the right of private defense
against public servants who are discharging their duties in good faith. For instance, if a police
officer is trying to arrest a person, and that person uses force to defend themselves, they
cannot claim the right of private defense. Section 99 of the IPC provides that the right of
private defense does not extend to the inflicting of any harm on any public servant in the
discharge of his official duty as such unless the harm caused is in excess of the harm that he
is legally authorized to cause in the discharge of his duty.

Page 37 of 51
 4. No right to commit an offense: A person cannot commit an offense to exercise the right of
private defense. For instance, if someone is being attacked, they cannot use the right of
private defense to break into a house to escape. Section 97 of the IPC provides that the right
of private defense does not extend to the infliction of more harm than it is necessary to
inflict for the purpose of defense.
5. No right against a lawful authority: A person cannot exercise the right of private defense
against a lawful authority. For instance, if a person is being arrested by a police officer, they
cannot use force to defend themselves, and they cannot claim the right of private defense.
Section 99 of the IPC provides that the right of private defense does not extend to the
voluntary causing of death or any other harm to the assailant if he is a public servant acting
in good faith and in the discharge of his official duties under colour of his office.

Abduction
Abduction is defined as the taking away of a person against their will or without their consent. The
act of abduction is considered a serious offense and is punishable under the Indian Penal Code. The
provision for abduction is provided under Section 362 of the IPC, which states that whoever abducts
any person from lawful guardianship shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

The term ‘lawful guardianship’ refers to the custody or care of a person who is incapable of taking
care of themselves. This includes parents, guardians, and other legal caretakers. An example of
abduction would be a father taking away his child from his mother's lawful guardianship without her
consent. Another example would be a group of kidnappers taking away a person and demanding a
ransom for their release. However, it is important to note that in certain situations, abduction may
not be considered an offense under the law. For example, if a person is taken away to protect them
from harm or danger, or if a person is taken away with their consent, the act may not be considered
abduction. Please refer more details on the General Revision section.

Bigamy
Bigamy is defined as the act of marrying someone while being legally married to another person. The
provision related to bigamy is stated under Section 494 of the Indian Penal Code. According to the
provision, anyone who, while being lawfully married, marries another person in any case, is guilty of
the offense of bigamy, and the second marriage is void. The punishment for bigamy is imprisonment
which may extend up to 7 years along with a fine.

Illustration: A, who is already married to B, marries C without obtaining a divorce from B. This act of
A is an offense of bigamy under Section 494 of IPC. However, if A genuinely believed that the first
marriage was void or had been dissolved by law, he/she will not be guilty of bigamy. In such a case,
the burden of proof will lie on A to prove that he/she was not aware of the existence of the previous
marriage or had reasonable grounds to believe that it was no longer valid.

Capital Punishment – Right or Wrong?

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is a legal punishment where a person is
sentenced to death by the state as a result of committing a capital offense. The Indian Penal Code
(IPC) provides for the death penalty for certain crimes such as murder, waging war against the
government, and certain cases of terrorism.

The question of whether capital punishment is right or wrong is a highly debated ethical and moral
issue. Proponents of capital punishment argue that it serves as a deterrent to potential criminals and
provides a sense of justice to the victims and their families. They also argue that some crimes are so
heinous that the only appropriate punishment is the death penalty. Opponents of capital punishment
argue that it is a violation of human rights and that the justice system is fallible, meaning that
innocent people could be wrongly convicted and executed. They also argue that the death penalty
disproportionately affects marginalized communities and that it does not effectively deter crime.
The debate around capital punishment has been ongoing for many years and there are strong
arguments on both sides. However, it is important to note that the use of capital punishment is
decreasing globally, with many countries abolishing it in favour of alternative forms of punishment.

Page 38 of 51
In the Indian context, the use of capital punishment has been controversial, with some arguing that
it is necessary for certain crimes such as terrorism and others arguing that it is a violation of human
rights. The decision to use capital punishment is ultimately left to the discretion of the judiciary,
with the Supreme Court of India providing guidelines on when it can be used.

Civil & Criminal Law

Civil law and criminal law are two distinct branches of law that coexist under the Indian legal system.
Both laws serve different purposes and address different types of disputes.

Civil law deals with disputes between individuals or organizations, where one party seeks
compensation or remedy for harm suffered due to the actions of another party. Civil law cases are
brought to court by individuals or organizations seeking to protect their rights and interests. Examples
of civil law cases include breach of contract, property disputes, and divorce. There is no punishment,
its only damages, injunction or compensation. Decision/judgement is based on balance of
probabilities. Civil Procedure Code (1908) govern the procedure.

Criminal law, on the other hand, deals with crimes committed against the state and society as a
whole. Criminal law aims to prevent and punish conduct that is considered harmful or threatening to
public welfare. Criminal cases are initiated by the state against individuals or organizations accused
of committing crimes. Examples of criminal law cases include murder, theft, and assault. Complaint
is made to the Police. Result can be punishment and/or damages. Prosecutor must prove the crime
beyond reasonable doubt. Indian Penal Code 1860, Criminal Procedure Code and Indian Evidence Act
govern the procedure.

In the context of IPC, civil law and criminal law have different provisions and procedures. The IPC
outlines the specific types of criminal offenses and punishments for those offenses. It also sets out
the procedures for investigating and prosecuting criminal offenses.

Civil law, on the other hand, is governed by various civil laws such as the Indian Contract Act, the
Indian Sale of Goods Act, and the Indian Partnership Act. These laws define the rights and obligations
of individuals and organizations in civil disputes and provide procedures for resolving those disputes.

Wrongful Confinement
Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code defines wrongful confinement as an act of intentionally
restraining someone from going beyond certain circumscribing limits where they have a right to go.
This is a total restraint (not partial). It states that any person who wrongfully confines another person
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and a fine. The
essential elements of wrongful confinement are:
1. Intentional restraint: The accused must intentionally restrain the victim from going where
they have a right to go.
2. No legal justification: The restraint must be without any legal justification. If there is a legal
justification, the accused cannot be held guilty of wrongful confinement.
3. No consent of the victim: The victim must not have given their consent to the restraint.
For example, if a person locks another person in a room without their consent and without any legal
justification, it amounts to wrongful confinement. Similarly, if a person is restrained from leaving a
place against their will, it may also constitute wrongful confinement. However, there are certain
exceptions to wrongful confinement. It is not considered wrongful confinement if:
1. The confinement is authorized by law, such as the detention of a person under a legal
warrant.
2. The confinement is necessary for the protection of the person being confined, such as in
cases of mental illness.
3. The confinement is necessary for preventing the commission of an offense, such as detaining
a person who is about to commit a crime.
4. The confinement is necessary for the purpose of investigation or trial, such as detaining a
person who is accused of a crime.

Wrongful confinement (keeping within limits out of which he wishes to go, obstructions in all
directions, more serious offense) is a form of wrongful restraint (keeping out of limits where he
wishes to go, obstruction in a particular direction, less serious offense).

Page 39 of 51
Stolen Property
Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), stolen property refers to any property that is taken or obtained
by theft, extortion, robbery, criminal misappropriation, or cheating. The possession of such stolen
property is a criminal offense under Section 411 of the IPC. Section 411 defines the offense of
dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen property. According to this section, whoever dishonestly
receives or retains any stolen property or is aware that any property is stolen property and dishonestly
receives or retains it, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of up to three years, or with a
fine, or with both.

Illustration: Suppose, A steals a watch from B's house and sells it to C. C is aware that the watch is
stolen but still purchases it from A. In this case, C has committed the offense of dishonestly receiving
stolen property under Section 411 of the IPC.

It is important to note that this is not an offense if the accused had no knowledge that the property
was stolen or had reason to believe that the property was not stolen. Additionally, it is also important
to establish that the accused was in possession of the stolen property at the time the offense was
committed.

Unlawful Assembly
Section 141 defines it as an assembly of five or more persons is considered an unlawful assembly if
the members of the assembly have the common object of:
1. Committing an offense punishable with death, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a
term of two years or more.
2. Committing any offense that leads to the disturbance of public peace.
Furthermore, under section 142, being a member of an unlawful assembly is also considered an
offense. If any member of such an assembly engages in rioting, the entire assembly is responsible for
the same.

Illustration: A group of people gathers with the intention to forcefully take over a government
building. They enter the building and vandalize the property inside. In this scenario, the group can
be charged with unlawful assembly under section 141 of the IPC.

Punishment: The punishment for unlawful assembly under section 143 of the IPC is imprisonment for
six months, or a fine, or both. If the assembly causes any harm to a person or property, the
punishment can be increased to three years of imprisonment or a fine, or both. Being a member of
an unlawful assembly under section 142 of the IPC can result in imprisonment for six months or a
fine, or both. If the member is found guilty of rioting, the punishment can be increased to three years
of imprisonment or a fine, or both.

Criminal Breach of Trust

Criminal breach of trust is an offense defined in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. It occurs when
a person who is entrusted with any property or dominion over it dishonestly misappropriates, converts
or uses it for his own benefit or for any other person’s benefit. It can also occur when a person who
is entrusted with any property, dominion or power in a fiduciary capacity, uses it in a manner that is
not authorized or for a purpose other than the one it was intended for. The following are the essential
elements of criminal breach of trust:
1. Entrustment: The accused must have been entrusted with some property, dominion or power
in a fiduciary capacity.
2. Dishonest intention: The accused must have acted with the intention of causing wrongful
gain to himself or wrongful loss to the person who entrusted him with the property, or with
the intention of causing damage to the property. Wrongful gain is gain by unlawful means of
property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled. Wrongful loss is a loss by unlawful
means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.
3. Misappropriation or conversion: The accused must have misappropriated, converted or used
the property for his own benefit or for the benefit of any other person without the consent
of the person who entrusted him with the property.
4. Criminal breach of trust: The accused must have committed a criminal breach of trust by
dishonestly misappropriating, converting or using the property.

Page 40 of 51
 Example: A hires B, an accountant, to manage his finances. B, without A’s consent, diverts some
of the funds for his own benefit. This amounts to criminal breach of trust.

The punishment for criminal breach of trust is imprisonment for a term which may extend to three
years, or with fine, or with both. If the property in question is of a value exceeding Rs. 1 crore, the
term of imprisonment may extend to seven years. If the property is a will or any testamentary
instrument, the term of imprisonment may extend to three years.

Forgery
Forgery is an offense defined under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It is an act of creating
a false document or altering a genuine document with the intention to deceive someone. As per
Section 463 of IPC, forgery is committed when a person makes a false document or part of a
document, with the intention of causing damage or injury to another person or to deceive someone.
It also includes altering or mutilating an existing document, with the intention to cause damage or
injury to another person.

Illustration: A forges a document purporting to be a lease deed belonging to B. A does this with the
intention of causing it to be believed that B has granted him a lease. A has committed forgery.

Forgery is punishable under Section 465 of IPC, which prescribes imprisonment for a term that may
extend up to two years, or a fine, or both. In addition to Section 463 and 465, other sections of IPC
that are relevant to forgery are:
 Section 464: Making a false document as genuine
 Section 467: Forgery of valuable security, will, etc. (Sushil Suri v. CBI)
 Section 468: Forgery for purpose of cheating
 Section 471: Using as genuine a forged document
It is important to note that forgery is a cognizable offense, which means that a police officer can
arrest the accused without a warrant. Additionally, the offense of forgery is non-bailable, which
means that the accused cannot be released on bail as a matter of right.

Attempt to commit an offense

Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code defines an attempt to commit an offense. It states that whoever
attempts to commit an offense punishable by the Code with imprisonment or with an unspecified
punishment shall, if such an offense is not committed in the attempt, be punished with half of the
maximum punishment provided for that offense. An attempt is said to occur when an individual takes
specific actions towards committing a criminal offense, but for some reason, the offense is not fully
completed. The primary objective of punishing attempts is to deter individuals from committing
crimes.

Illustration: Suppose a person tries to steal a valuable object from a house but is unsuccessful due to
the intervention of the house owner or any other external factor. In such a case, the person can be
charged with an attempt to commit theft under Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code.

Provisions: According to Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code, the punishment for an attempt to
commit an offense is half of the maximum punishment provided for that offense. The section also
specifies that the attempt must be towards an offense that is punishable by the Code with
imprisonment or with an unspecified punishment. Additionally, Section 511 states that if an offense
that was attempted is punishable with death or life imprisonment, then the person attempting such
an offense may be punished with imprisonment for a term up to ten years. Furthermore, Section 308
of the Indian Penal Code deals with attempts to commit culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
It states that whoever does any act with the intention of causing death or causing such bodily injury
that is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term up to ten years, along
with a fine.

General Revision
IPC 1860 comprising of 511 sections is broadly divided into:

I. General Provisions:

Page 41 of 51
 a. Territorial (Intra & Extra) operations of this code (S1 – 4)
b. General Explanations (S6 to 52A)
c. Punishments (S53 to 75)
d. General Exceptions (S76 to 106)
e. Abetment (S107 to 120)
II. Specific Offenses (S120A to 511)
a. Criminal conspiracy (S120A & B)
b. Offenses against the state (S121 – 130)
c. Offenses related to Army, Navy, Airforce (S131 – 140)
d. Offenses against public tranquillity (S141-160)
e. Offenses against public servants (S161 – 171)
f. Relating to Elections (S171 & 171A)
g. Contempt of Public Servants (S172 – 190)
h. False evidence & against public justice (S191 – 229)
i. Coins & Govt. Stamps (S230 – 263A)
j. Weights & measures (S262 – 267)
k. Affecting public health, safety, convenience, decency & moral (S268 – 294A)
l. Religion (S295 - 298)
m. Human body (S299 – 377)
n. Property (S378 – 462)
o. Documents & property marks (S463 – 489B)
p. Breach of contract for services (S490 - 492)
q. Marriage (S493 - 498)
r. Defamation (S499 – 502)
s. Criminal intimation, insult & annoyance (S503 – 510)
t. Attempt to commit offense (S511)
1. Criminal court has No jurisdiction to try:
a. President & Governors
b. Foreign Sovereigns
c. Ambassadors
d. Alian enemies
e. Foreign Army
f. Warships
2. Mens Rea (Dishonestly, Fraudulently, Cheating, intentionally etc):
a. Intention: Highest degree, always presence of knowledge
b. Knowledge: Lesser culpability in absence of intention
c. Recklessness: Higher degree then negligence, decision to remain mentally indifferent
to obvious risk
d. Negligence: Missed taking required duty of care or caution
3. When Mens Rea is not needed?
a. I didn’t know the law (MH George V State of Maharashtra gold smuggling).
b. Public Nuisance
c. Prohibition in the larger public interest
d. Strict liability offences (Rayland V Fletcher)
e. Absolute Liability offences (MC Mehta Oleum Gas Leak)
f. Where even just preparation is punishable
i. Waging War (S121)
ii. Sedition (S124A)
iii. Kidnapping (S359)
iv. Abduction (S362)
v. Counterfeiting coins (S232)
4. Motive prompts a man to form intention (means to achieve motive). Motive is Important to
establish intention in case of circumstantial evidence, when direct evidence is unavailable
5. Liability, Joint Liability, Constructive Liability and Vicarious Liability

Page 42 of 51
6. S34 Common Intention: Not a standalone offense unless joined with other section for
criminal act. Each member is made liable as if he alone did the act (pre-arranged meeting of
minds for 2 or more persons is a MUST). Similar intention is NOT common intention. Joint
Liability. Active participation is crucial.
7. S149 Common object: Is an offense. Prior meeting of mind not necessary. For furtherance
of common object, each assembly member is liable Barendra Kumar Ghose V Emperor 1925
(Post Master Loot). No need for active participation. Reddi v. State of Andhra Pradesh, State
of Uttar Pradesh v. Gaya Prasad and Mohd. Yakoob v. State of Andhra Pradesh
8. S141 Unlawful assembly 5 or more persons, including any indicated unidentified person to:
a. Show criminal force to Public Servant on duty
b. Resist execution of law
c. Commit mischief or trespass
d. Forceful possession (Property, right of way etc), or
e. Forcing person to do illegal act
9. Essentials of Crime: Person, Mens Rea, Actus Reus, Injury (S44, Harm to body, mind,
reputation or Property)
10. Stages: Intention (No offense as standalone), Preparation, Attempt and Completion
11. Inchoate Offense: All stages except completion, Intended Mens Rea remains unfulfilled,
Liability attempt-to-murder (between preparation and attempt). Either Attempt, Criminal
Conspiracy or Abetment (Dacoity, Counterfeiting, forgery, false weights, where even just
preparation is punishable)
12. Attempt: Any step taken after preparation which is proximately connected with the
commission. Impossible attempt is punishable.
13. Attempt and Preparation separation Tests:
a. Proximity: How close to the crime completion
b. Doctrine of Repentance: Capacity to decide when in position to voluntarily abandon
the plan after Mens Rea (Malkiat Singh V State of Punjab – Driver turns back when
Delhi still 32 Miles away)
c. Unequivocality Test: Singular meaning, Thing speak for itself

Punishment for Attempt:

1. Same punishment at attempt & completion
2. Separate punishment for offense and attempt
3. Punish only attempt and not crime (Suicide)
4. If no specific provision (S 511 – Half of maximum applicable term, 10 Years if life)
14. Criminal Conspiracy (S120A): 2 or more people agree to do illegal act or legal act by illegal
means. It is an inchoate crime since except injury (and may or may not have actus reus), all
other crime conditions may get fulfilled. Knowledge of objective is absolute essential. May
be applicable for Civil wrong too. It is a continuing offense and all involved completely
irrespective of at what stage they join the group. Mutual agency (every conspirator liable for
other conspirators). Punishment is in S120B: If more than 2 Years, then punished as abettor,
if less then punishable, then imprisonment of 6 months and/or fine.
15. Abetment (S107, 108): Encourage someone to do something wrong, to commit crime. Mens
rea is of abettor and actus reus is of someone else. Hence Abetment is inchoate crime. It can
be through Instigation (Provocation) – whether direct or indirect - must be active. Mere verbal
permission or silent assent is not instigation. Conspiracy (Some overt acts or illegal omissions
are must) or Aid (facilitate the commission of act through active role).
16. Abettor: Spectator is not abettor unless there is illegal omission (police not doing duty).
Result not necessary or abetted is incompetent to conduct crime – to hold abettor liable.
Abetment (aiding) of an abetment is crime. Conspiracy could be with who actually commits
the crime or someone else as long as abettor is engaged in the conspiracy. If abetment is
done in India and crime happen elsewhere, abettor is still liable (S108A).
17. Punishment for Abetment (S109-120):
a) Offense is committed or reasonably foreseeable (109-114) – same punishment as offense
b) Offenses not committed or not completed fully (115, 116)
c) Offense by Public 10 or more people (117) – Upto 3 Years and/or fine

Page 43 of 51
 d) Concealing design to commit offense (118, 119 & 120) – Must be intentional with
knowledge
18. General Exceptions (S76-106): Absolve accused from criminal liability. Even if accused does
not plead, court will ‘suo moto’ apply them.
i. Mistake of Fact (76, 79)
ii. Juridical Acts (77, 78)
iii. Accident (80) No Mens Rea State of Odisha v. Baghban Parik and Girish Saikia
v. State of Assam
iv. Absence of criminal intent (81-86 and 92-94)
v. Consent (87-91)
vi. Trifles (95)
vii. Private defence of person or property (96-106)
 S81 Choosing to cause small harm to prevent greater harm, and act in good faith (save
more lives over less) Necessity knows no law.
 S82 Doli Incapax (Child under 7 Years)
 S83 Doli Capex (7-12 Find Mens Rea)
 S84 – Unsound Mind (McNaughten V House of Lords, King PM Secretary) – Every person will
be assumed sane until contrary is proven (legal insanity) & clearly prove this at the time
of crime of his inability to know consequences of his actions
 S85 Intoxication without his knowledge & against will (Voluntary intoxication is NO
defense),
 S92 Act done in good faith without consent (as long as it doesn’t intentionally or likely to
cause death for any reason other than preventing the death or hurt)
 S93 Communication made in good faith
 S94 Compelled by threat (except murder & offenses against the state punishable with
death)
19. Consent (S87-91):
a. S87 Volenti Non-Fit Injuria (Boxing, Rafting etc), Deepak v. Sr. Inspector of Police
(manslaughter)
b. S88 Good faith for persons benefit with consent (18+)
c. S89 Act done by guardian in good faith or benefit of child (under 12 Years) or insane
person
d. S90 Consent given under fear or misconception (not child, insane, intoxicated etc)
Yedla Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh
e. S91 Miscarriage (even if consented) is offense against the child (unless for saving the
women’s life). Can’t publish porn even both parties’ consent as it causes harm to
others and is an independent offense.
f. S95 Trifles: Small things.
20. Private defense of person or property (S96-106): All to be read together (Munney Khan V
State) for scope & limitation. Not available when you have sufficient time to recourse to
authorities, reasonable apprehension of hurt, death or damage to property etc. and force
used/harm caused to be as reasonable & necessary
a. S96 Nothing is an offense done in exercising the right of private defense
b. S97 Body or movable/immovable property either own or others Kashi Ram v. State of
MP, Yashwant Rao v. State of MP, Ram Avtaarr v. State of UP
c. S98 Defense of body or property against the person of unsound mind (Doli Incapex)
intoxicated – As normal defense.
d. S99 Restrictions on private defense (Have time, no grave danger etc or public servant
discharging his duty unless he is a grave or death threat)
e. S100 Allowed causing death doing private defense if assault, death, rape, kidnapping,
unnatural lust, apprehend wrongful confinement with no subsequent recourse to
authorities or throwing or administering acid.
f. S103 Defending Property – Robbery, house breaking by night, mischief by fire,
theft/mischief or house trespass.

Page 44 of 51
General Scope (96, 97, 98), Restrictions (99), Pvt Defense of Body (100, 101, 102) and Pvt Defense of
Property (103, 104, 105) Risk of Harm to Innocent person (106)

21. Culpable Homicide (S299): Causing death, by doing an act and intention causing death.
Culpable in Latin Worthy of blame, Homo- Man, caedere – to cut or kill Culpable Homicide is
Genus (Fruits) & Murder is its species (Apple). Means all murders are culpable homicides but
not all culpable homicides are murders (they have many more than just murders).
Ingredients: Intention, bodily injury & knowledge
22. Culpable homicide (amounting or not amounting) to murder? Degree of risk to human life
decides the culpability. Culpable if death is likely (not probable).
a. Cause bodily injury accelerating death
b. Avoiding remedies & treatment which could have prevented the death
c. Causing death of living child. Any part of child out of womb has been brought forth
(even if child hasn’t breathed or completely born yet)
23. Murder (S300): Cause bodily injury accelerating death, offender knows that the injury is
Sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature & in all probabilities. Commits such act
without excuse.

Culpable Homicide:

A. Intention (of causing death)

B. Bodily Injury (of causing death)
C. Knowledge (such act will likely cause death)

Murder: Aggravated form of culpable homicide, Higher degree of mens rea. All above
ingredients, plus

D. Intention (Such injury is likely to cause death)

E. Bodily Injury (Sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death)
F. Knowledge (So imminently dangerous, in all probabilities must cause death)
G. And commits the act without excuse

R Vs Govinda (1876)

24. Exceptions for Murder S300 (becomes culpable not amounting to murder):
a. Grave & sudden provocation from the same person (death victim) or any other by
accident/mistake. Provocation must not be voluntarily, or in following law by public
servant & not a private defense by victim (K M Nanavati Vs State of Maharashtra
Rustom Movie)
b. Private defense (person or property) in good faith and excessive force
c. Public servant, acting for the advancement of public justice, NOT exceeding power
in course of duty
d. Heat of passion, not in cruel or unusual manner or taken undue advantage
(immaterial who provokes or commits first assault) Madan Nayya v. State of
Maharashtra and Vijay Pandurang Thackrey v. State of Maharashtra, Kishor Appa v.
State of Karnataka. Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab
e. Plaintiff is 18+ and consented to take the risk of own death
25. Punishments: S304 is Punishment for S299 (Medical Negligence Ankur Arora case)
a. Act + Intention: Life or 10 Years + Fine
b. S299 Knowledge but no intention (like Road rage): 10 Years and/or fine
26. S302 is punishment for S300 Murder: Death or life + Fine
27. Hurt & Grievous Hurt (S319 – 338):
Hurt is non-fatal (not life-threatening A, B, C & D below).
Increasing gravity of crime:
i. Assault
ii. Criminal Force
iii. Hurt
iv. Grievous Hurt

Page 45 of 51
 v. Culpable homicide NOT amounting to murder
vi. Culpable homicide amounting to murder

Essentials of hurt: Bodily Pain/Disease/Infirmity, Act causing hurt and intention OR

knowledge

Grievous Hurt (up to 7 Years) essentials:

a. Emasculation (cutting genital)

b. Permeant loss of sight for either eye
c. Permeant loss of hearing for either ear
d. Loss of organ/limb/member or joint
e. Permeant disfiguration of head or face
f. Fracture/dislocation of bone or tooth
g. Hurt endangering life (20 days severe bodily suffering, unable to follow ordinary
pursuits) Add intention to cause death and it becomes culpable homicide

S326A Grievous – Acid related (10 Years + Fine paid to victim, reasonable to meet medical
expenses)

326B Attempt – 5-7 Years + Fine

S 334 Hurt on provocation (lesser punishment)

28. Wrongful restraint (S339): Voluntary obstruction in any one direction, when person has
right to proceed, unless in good faith obstructor believes it’s his lawful right. Punishment
(S341) 1 month or Rs.500 or both Narayan v. State (Restraint to buy liquor)
29. Wrongful confinement (S340): Voluntary restraining beyond certain circumscribing limits.
Dharma (1978) Case
30. S342 Confinement <3 Days (1 Year +/or 1000), >3 days (2 Years+/or fine), Confinement
>10 Days (3 years +/or fine),
31. S345 – Despite court issued liberation writ, Extra 2 Years, S346 – Confinement in secret –
Plus 2 Years,
32. S347 – Confinement to extort property or constrain illegal act – 3 Years +/or fine,
33. S348 – Extort confession or compel restoration of property – 3 Years + fine
34. Criminal Force and Assault (S349 – S358):
a. Force (S349): Causes, changes or ceases motion of person or substance through bodily
power, disposing any substance or by inducing any animal.
b. Criminal Force (S350, Battery): Using force without consent to commit offense,
knowing to intending to cause injury, fear or annoyance. Ingredients are
intention/knowledge, without consent, and knowing/intending it would cause injury,
fear or annoyance.
c. Assault (S351): Making gesture, intending or knowing, causing reasonable
apprehension to use criminal force (Not mere words). Ingredients (Gesture in
presence of another, intention/knowledge to create reasonable apprehension). The
5 aggravated forms of assault are:
i. Deter public servant from discharging his duty (S353) – 1 to 5 Years & Fine
ii. Outraging modesty of women (S354) Mrs. RD Bajaj v. KPS Gill bottom slapping
case SC judgement
iii. Intentionally dishonouring a person (S355)
iv. Attempt theft (S356) and
v. Attempt wrongfully confining a person (S357)

Affray is an offense against the public (not individual, 2 or more, take place only in
public) and is less serious as compared to assault. Assault, on the other hand, can happen
public or private place, is against an individual (1 or more) & more serious offense. Both
offenses may or may not have common object, which exist in riot.

Page 46 of 51
 Punishments for Criminal force & Assault (S352) Upto 3 months, Grave & Sudden
provocation will mitigate this, Assault to deter public Servant (S353) – Upto 2 Years,

35. Outraging modesty of women (S354): Assault or criminal force to women with intention
to outrage her modesty. Presence/Absence of the consent (wife/girlfriend or unknown
women of any age), Modesty is a virtue attached to a woman owing to her sex and
reaction from her is not necessary to establish violation (such as infants or sleeping
women) State of Punjab V. Major Singh (1967), KP Sharma v. State
a. S354 Outraging modesty of women (Min 1 to 5 years)
b. 354A Sexual Harassment (Physical contact/advancement, demand/request for
sexual favours, showing pornography or making sexually coloured remarks)
c. 354B Assault/Criminal force intent to disrobe
d. S354C Voyeurism (Trial room/Private place recording)
e. S354D Stalking Physical or internet Dy. IGP v. Samukiran (CCTVs recording in private
place)
36. Dishonouring a person using criminal force (S355) Upto 2 Years,
37. Attempt to commit theft of property – Upto 2 Years,
38. Wrongfully confine a person (S357) – upto 1 year,
39. Assault on grave provocation (358) Upto 1 month – This is relaxation section to mitigate
and reduce punishments.
40. Kidnapping & Abduction (S359 – 369):
a. Kidnapping from India (S360) – Of minor or major, conveyed beyond territorial limits
without consent (own for major or parent/guardian for minor).
b. Kidnapping from lawful guardian (kids or unsound mind person) (S361). Essentials:
Takin away or enticing, out of lawful guardianship, without consent. Minority here is
Boy 16 Years, Girl 18 Years. Varadrajan v. State of Madras (1965) where girl
voluntarily (no evidence of inducement) asked boy to take her without consent of
her lawful guardian & got married. Minor must be in the custody of lawful guardian
at the time of kidnapping and accused must entice such minor out of keeping. Vipin
Menon v. Sttate of Karnataka
c. Abduction (S362): Compel by force or induce by deceitful means, any person to go
from any place. Abduction per say is not crime, unless done with intention such as:
i. Murder (upto 10 Years)
ii. Ransom (death penalty or imprisonment for life & fine)
iii. Secret or wrongful confinement (up to 7 years & fine)
d. Section 363A is for kidnapping minor for the purpose of begging. Aggravated forms of
kidnapping include:
1. For Murder (S364)
2. Secret or wrongful confinement (S365)
3. Compel women without her consent to marry or seduce her to illicit
intercourse (S366)
4. Child under 10 to steal movable property (S369)
5. Induce women (S366)
6. Induce minor girl under 18 (366A)
7. To subject grievous hurt, slavery or unnatural lust (S367)
8. Wrongfully confine (S368)

Abduction can be person of any age, Kidnapping (16 for boy & 18 for girl). Abduction
means are material (compulsion, deceitful means or force). Abduction has no consent of
victim, and is immaterial in kidnapping. Intention matters in Abduction, not in kidnapping
(always punishable). A child without lawful guardian cannot be kidnapped. Datta Pradhan
1985 CrLJ 18640 (Tribal Marriage of abducted married woman)

e. Kidnapping for ransom, etc (S364 A) Death penalty (Vikram Singh v. Union of India SC
stated this section is constitutional.

Page 47 of 51
41. Induce women to compel her marriage (S366), Grievous hurt/slavery (S367) – upto 10
years & fine, abduct child under 10 years with intent to steal from him (ornaments etc)
(S369) Jinish Lal v. State of Bihar
42. Wrongfully concealing or keeping in confinement, kidnapped or abducted person (S368)
Teekam Ram v. State oof Uttar Pradesh 1992 CrLJ 1381
43. Rape (S375, 376 A-E): Tukaram v State of Maharashtra (Mathurabai case of custodial rape)
Burden of proof of consent lies on accused, disclosure of victim identity made punishable
(S228A), Nirbhaya Act (2013) increased punishments on the recommendations of JS Varma
committee, stricter provisions for complaint registration, dignity & respect to women on
their choices of sexual autonomy/relationships Kathua case (2018), Minor below 16 and
12 Year harsher punishment to preparators, Minimum punishment increased from 7 to 10
Years, Gangrape below 16 imprisonment for rest of life and No Anticipatory bail, Below
12 years age Imprisonment up to 20 years and upto death, Speedy justice (Investigation
2 months, Trial 2 months, Disposal of appeal 6 months), Higher punishment from
provisions available between POCSO and IPC.

S375 Rape Insertion of body/object into vegina, urthera, anus or mouth without will or
consent, fear/coercion, wrongful belief, in intoxication/unsound mind, with or without
consent if less than 18 years, or if she is unable to communicate consent. If women do
not resist does not mean she is consenting (Mathurabai case). With consent could be
against the will (eg. Forced consent). Dilipsingh v. State of Bihar, Rao Singh v. State of
Punjab (AIR1958 PUNJ122)

S375 A- Penetrates, B – Inserts to any extent, C – Manipulates any part of body to cause
penetration and D – Applies mouth.

S376 Punishment: 10 Years/Life, (If Public Servant/Custody etc then remainder of the
persons natural life).
i. S376A – Rape causing vegetative state or death,
ii. S376AB – Rape of girl under 12 Years,
iii. 376B – Rape by husband during separation with wife.
iv. S376C Sexual intercourse not amounting to rape by person in Authority,
v. S376D – Gangrape,
vi. S376DA gangrape of Under 16 Years girl,
vii. S376DB – Gangrape of Under 12 Years girl.
viii. S376E – Repeat offenders
44. Unnatural offenses (S377): Carnal intercourse against the order of nature with man,
women or animal (Sodomy, buggery or bestiality). Naz Foundation case (2009) this section
violative of Article 14, 15 and 21 (Dignity, Privacy & Health). So only criminalization part
of S377 for consensual sexual act of adults in private was struck down. Suresh Kumar
Kaushan v. Naz Foundation (2013) again criminalized anal sex. Navtej Singh Johar v.
Union of India (2018) overturned previous judgements & decriminalized the act. Criminal
Law Amendment Bill 2019 trying to make this gender neutral.
45. Offences against Property (S378 – S462): The categorization looks like:
a. Theft (378 – 382)
b. Extortion, Robbery, Dacoity (383-402)
c. Criminal Misappropriation (403, 404)
d. Criminal Breach of Trust (405 – 409)
e. Cheating (415 – 420)
f. Mischief (425 – 440)
g. Criminal Trespass (441 – 462)
Stolen Property (410 – 414) and Fraudulent Deeds and Disposition of Property (421 – 424)
Property Not affected (Criminal Trespass) or Not Affected. Destroyed (Mischief, no
benefit to criminal) or dishonestly obtained (Benefit to criminal), After the possession
(Criminal Misappropriation and Criminal Breach of Trust) and Mens rea before the

Page 48 of 51
 possession – without consent (Theft) and with polluted consent – with fear (Extortion,
Robbery and Dacoity) and with fraud (Cheating)
Property affected? Destruction? After or before possession? Consent or polluted consent?
46. Theft (S378-382): Intentionally taking any movable property dishonestly out of
possession, without consent & move that property in order to such taking. Necessary
ingredients: Dishonest intention, movable property (Define, electricity/gas/water),
without consent (implied or express), & moved out of possession of other. S22 Movable
Property: Corporeal property of every description except land & things permanently
attached to the earth. Charanjit Singh v. Sudhir Mehra, and Hanmanta 1877.
47. Theft in dwelling house, etc (S380) Godaji Thakore v. State of Gujarat
48. Extortion (S383): Fear of instant injury to any person or any other person (current or
future), by dishonestly inducing, to deliver to any person/property
(movable/immovable), which may be converted into a valuable security (legal right
document). Injury (S44): Illegal harm to body, mind, reputation (even untrue
information) or property. Aggravated forms of extortion include:
i. By threat of grievous hurt or death to the person or other (S386)
ii. By putting or attempting to threat of grievous hurt or death to the person or
other (S387)
iii. Threat of accusation of offense punishable to death or life (S388)
iv. Extortion by threatening of accusation of offense punishable to death or life
(S389)
49. Robbery (S390): Theft – No Consent, Property taken by perpetrator. Robbery – Consent
taken under fear – instant threat where victim delivers the property. Extortion: Consent
by fear, property delivered by victim himself. Essential ingredients: A combination of
either theft or extortion or both, causing/attempting death, wrongful restraint, or hurt,
putting an instant fear of causing/attempting death, wrongful restraint, or hurt.
50. Dacoity (S391, 399 and 402): When robbery is committed by 5 or more people (including
those doing attempt & aid). Punishable at every stage of offense. Yasir Mohd. V. State of
Chhattisgarh
a. Intention – Punishable S402 Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity
b. Preparation – Punishable S399
c. Attempt – S391
d. Completion same S391
51. Dishonest misappropriation (S403) and Breach of Trust (S405): Misappropriates or
converts for his own use any movable property (Mens rea after obtaining the property
legally, may or may not have consent) and can be for temporary period too. State of
Maharashtra v. Mohan Pednekar
52. Criminal Breach of Trust (S405): Entrusted with property (fiduciary relationship),
dishonestly misappropriates/converts to his own use or use in violation of law trusted
with. Wider application beyond property.
53. Cheating (S415): Fraudulently or dishonestly deceiving any person, to delivery property
or consent to do/omit anything, which he otherwise would not do, causing harm to his
body, mind, property or reputation. Wider application beyond property. Essential
ingredients include:
a. Deceiving or inducing
b. Fraudulent or dishonest intention
c. Victim does anything, which he would otherwise have not done
d. Act causing harm to body, mind, reputation or property

#GV Rao V. LHV Prasad (2000) Falsifying caste for marriage. SC judgement scientist to
ignore castism and act like scientist to remain married. Definition expanded beyond
property to body, mind and reputation.

54. Mischief (S425): IPC meaning is damage. Intentionally/Knowingly cause wrongful loss or
damage to any person or public, cause destruction of property/diminish its value/utility.
Essential ingredients:

Page 49 of 51
 a. Mens rea – Intention or knowledge
b. Causing wrongful loss or damage
c. Destruction/Diminishing value or utility of property
55. Trespass & House breaking (S441 – S445):
a. Criminal Trespass (S441) Enter with intention to commit offense/insult/annoy or
enter lawfully but remain unlawfully with intention to commit offense.
Venkatesn v. Kalesamma & Bhagirath Singh v. State of Rajasthan 1992 (Honest
civil trespass is no offense)
b. House Trespass (S442) Enter or remain illegally in any place of human dwelling
(house/vessel/religious place etc) Mohd. Shahabuddin v. Syed Hussain, Pralhad
Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh and Jhaduram Sahu v. State of Chhatisgarh
c. Lurking (Concealing) House Trespass (S443) Intentionally taking precautions to
conceal from someone who has right to exclude/eject, and
d. Lurking House Trespass by night (S444).
e. House breaking (S445): House trespass through 6 ways:
i. Passage made by himself or abettor for trespass
ii. Passage not intended for human entrance, scaling the wall
iii. Opening passage which was not intended by the occupier to be opened
iv. By opening a lock
v. By criminal force/assault/threatening
vi. By a passage which is fastened to prevent entrance/departure

Class Scribbles:

1. Bail is a matter of right (not for repeat offenders), Investigation within 60 days for
offenses with maximum punishment less than 10 Years, and 90 days for offenses with
maximum punishment more than 10 Years.
2. Adversarial Law (UK, US, India etc), Unbiased judge (evidences matter), 2 lawyers
(Prosecutor from the State and Defense from the accused), Prosecution to prove crime
beyond reasonable doubt, Judge never go for true discovery and hence justice may be
compromised.
3. Offense – FIR – Remand – Memo of Arrest, Medical – Panchanama – Magistrate
(Judicial/Executive) – IO (Investigation officer) – PP (Public Prosecutor). Custody max 15
days (Police or judicial). Bail can not be filed during police custody. Judicial custody is
jail. Undertrial prisoner bail (CrPC 437, 439 for Cognizable offense), 438 is Anticipatory
bail can be filed at FIR stage.
4. Inquisitorial Law (France, Italy, Russia, New Zealand, Belgium) where police & prosecutor
bring the case, separate judge for investigation & trials, no adjournments, Role of lawyer
only in assistance upon request from Judge if any (not pleading), No cross examination,
nothing like ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ since judge satisfaction leads verdict. Right of
fair trial is missing at the cost of speedy justice. Possibility of bias remains.
5. Mob lynching (Khap Panchayat
6. Cognizable Offense (Investigate without order of Magistrate, for heinous crimes in
Schedule 1 list of IPC where punishment is 3 or more years, burden of immediate action.
Non-cognizable is for offenses less than 3 years (Avinash Kumar v. State of Bihar). Bail
can be given for offenses with punishments 3 to 7 years. Zero FIR is filed in another state
from crime location.
7. High court (Justice), Session Court (Judge). Life imprisonment is always rigorous in
nature. Sentence can be served consecutive for more than 1 crime (one after another)
or concurrently (Same time, in parallel).

Disclaimer

The information contained in this document is provided for informational purposes only and should
not be relied upon as legal, business, or any other advice. The author makes no representations or

Page 50 of 51
warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability
or availability with respect to the document or the information, acts, statutes, or related information
outcome contained in the document for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is
therefore strictly at your own risk.

In no event will the author be liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or
consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from loss of data or profits
arising out of, or in connection with, the use of this document.

The author (Hemant Patil, GLC Mumbai Batch of 2025, hbpatil@gmail.com) reserves the right to
modify, add, or delete any information in this document at any time without prior notice.

Page 51 of 51