Q1 Difference between a mistake of fact and

a mistake of law?
Ans:

Mistake of law and facts are defences that the defendant

misunderstood or was ignorant of the law or facts as they existed at
the time.
A mistake of fact is a factual error.
Mistake of law is misunderstanding the law, which is not a valid
defence.
The clauses "Mistake of Fact" and "Mistake of Law" are explained in
Sections 76 and 79 of Chapter IV of IPC (Indian Penal Code 1860).
A mistake is often described as an error that is caused by an
unconscious ignorance of a past or present material event or
circumstance or a belief in the present existence of a material event
that does not exist or a belief in the past existence of a material
event that did not exist, rather than by the person committing the
error by neglecting a legal duty. A mistake involving ignorance of the
law is known as a “Mistake of law” and a mistake involving ignorance
of facts is termed a “Mistake of facts.” A mistake of facts stands as a
valid defence whereas, a mistake of law is not. A mistake of law is not
a valid defence as it is expected from every citizen to know and abide
by the laws of the land. FURTHER DETAILS According to tort, there
are two categories of mistakes that a normal person can make:
Mistake of facts Mistake of law In general, a mistake of law is not an
excuse for breaking the law. Except for kids, lunatics, and mad
persons, it is assumed that everyone knows and understands the law
of the nation. Whereas the mistake of facts can be considered as a
justified excuse. A mistake of fact may be an exception to the rule,
lessening or eliminating the person's obligation. A person's
accountability for purposeful errors cannot be avoided. A criminal
defendant may claim that he or she had no intention of committing
the offence. The illegal conduct that happened as a consequence of a
mistake of fact or misunderstanding as the case requires. Such an
exemption is only permitted where there is a mistake of fact;
nevertheless, a mistake of law is not considered a defence.
CASE LAWS
CHIRANGI V. THE STATE OF M.P. [1952 CRILJ 1212]
In this example, a widower with an axe and his kid went into the
woods to collect 'siadi' leaves. His nephew noticed the accused
sleeping under the tree and the child disappeared after some time.
The youngster was later discovered dead. It was established in
evidence that the accused was in a state of mind in which he
imagined a tiger was about to attack him, and that he murdered his
son by mistake, mistaking him for the tiger. The court determined
that he was not liable because of a mistake of fact. He had no desire
to murder his son.
STATE OF ORISSA V. KHORAGHASI 1978 CR. L. J. 1305)
While defending his land, the accused fired an arrow at a moving
object, believing it to be a bear. However, the shot resulted in the
death of a human. He was granted immunity in this case due to a
mistake of fact.
GRANT V. BORG [1982 (1) W.L.R 638]
In this case, the individual was prosecuted under the Immigration Act
of 1971 for exceeding the leave's time restriction. He is not allowed
to use the defence of mistake of law in this case.
MOHAMMAD ALI VS. SRI RAM SWARUP [AIR 1965 All 161, 1965
CriLJ 413]
 Ram Swarup was a head constable and had arrested Mohammad Ali.
Mohammad filed a case against Swarup stating that he had falsely
arrested him. It was seen that Swarup had arrested him without
particular reasons and had kept him in unlawful detention. It was
stated in the above-mentioned case that ignorance of law even in
good faith is not justified.
CONCLUSION
A mistake of fact can be used as a defence to avoid liability by
pleading no Mens rea; however, it must be true, reasonable, and
authentic in character. On the other hand, a mistake of law is no
excuse in general. Except for kids, lunatics, and mad persons, it is
assumed that everyone knows and understands the law of the
nation. This rule has a few more uncommon exceptions. On the other
hand, if a person commits an act that he honestly believes is legal, a
mistake of fact can be used as a defence.

Q2 Difference between medical insanity and

legal insanity?
Ans:
Every person who is medically ill is not ipso facto exempted from
criminal responsibility. There is a distinction between legal insanity
and medical insanity. In order to take benefit of Section 84 of IPC, the
accused must prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. Any
person, who is suffering from any kind of medical weakness is called
‘medical insanity’. However ‘legal insanity’ means, a person suffering
from mental illness also has a loss of reasoning power. Furthermore,
the legal insanity must be at the time of the incident. In other words,
it can be said that in order to attract legal insanity, a person should
be incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or what he is doing is
either wrong or contrary to the law. Thus mere abnormality of mind
of compulsive behaviour is not sufficient to take benefit of section 84
of IPC.
From a medical point of view, it is probably correct to say that every
person, when committing a criminal act, is insane and therefore
needs an exemption from criminal responsibility; while it is a legal
point of view, a person must be held to be the same as long as he is
able to distinguish between right and wrong; as long as he knows
that the act carried out is contrary to the law

For defence under Suction 84 0f IPC, the following elements are to

be established-

1. The accused was in a state of unsoundness of mind at the time of

the act.
2. He was unable to know the nature of the act or do what was either
wrong or contrary to the law.

The burden of proof is always on the Defendant

Cases
In the case of Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh
the Supreme Court observed that Section 84 sets out the legal test of
responsibility in cases of alleged mental insanity. There is no
definition of ‘mind soundness’ in IPC. However, the courts have
mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. However, the
term ‘insanity’ itself does not have a precise definition. It is a term
used to describe various degrees of mental disorder. So, every
mentally ill person is not ipso facto exempt from criminal
responsibility. A distinction must be made between legal insanity and
medical insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity, not medical
insanity.

In the case of Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand

It was pointed out that ‘every person suffering from mental illness is
not ipso facto exempt from criminal liability.’
Furthermore, in the case of Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale v. State of
Maharashtra
the Supreme Court, in determining the offence under Section 84 of
the IPC, held that it is the totality of the circumstances seen in the
light of the recorded evidence that would prove that the offence was
committed.’ It was added: “The unsoundness of the mind before and
after the incident is a relevant fact.”

Unsoundness of mind must be at the time of the commission of the

Act.

The first thing a court should consider when defending insanity is

whether the accused has established that he was unsound at the
time of committing the act. The word “insanity” is not used in Section
84 of the penal code.
Q3 Difference between culpable homicide
and murder?
Ans:

The Indian Penal Code is a comprehensive set of rules in India that

govern criminal acts. Offences Affecting the Human Body are one of
the principal categories of offences covered by the IPC. This section
contains homicide, assault, and other violent crimes that endanger a
person’s physical well-being. We will look at two provisions from the
Indian Penal Code that fall under this category: Sections 299 and 300.

Culpable Homicide under Section 299

Culpable Homicide is dealt with in Section 299 of the IPC. The word
“culpable homicide” refers to the act of killing another human.
According to the provision, culpable homicide is committed when the
act that causes death is done with the purpose of causing death or
with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death. It also
encompasses circumstances when the act is committed with the
purpose to inflict bodily harm that is likely to result in death, or with
knowledge that such bodily harm is likely to result in death.

Elements of Culpable Homicide

When assessing culpable homicide under Section 299 of the IPC,
three important criteria must be examined.

1. To begin, the accused must have been responsible for the death of
another person.
2. Second, the accused must have had the purpose to kill or
knowledge that the act is likely to kill.
3. Finally, the act of causing death must have occurred without
justification or excuse within the law.
A case of culpable homicide under Section 299 of the Indian Penal
Code might be one in which a person strikes another person with a
dangerous weapon, such as a knife, with the goal of inflicting death,
and the victim dies as a consequence of the attack. In this situation,
the perpetrator of the crime may face culpable murder charges
under Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code. However, if the conduct
was performed in self-defence, the act may not be termed culpable
murder.

Murder under Section 300

Murder is dealt with in Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Murder
is one of the most serious offences under the IPC and is punished by
life in prison or the death sentence. However, not all homicides are
considered murder by the law. In some cases, a person may be
charged with culpable homicide, which is a lower offence than
murder.

Elements of Murder
Section 300 of the IPC states that a person is guilty of murder if the
following factors are present:

The act of causing death: The accused must have killed another
person.
The purpose to cause death: The accused must have had the intent
to kill the victim. Alternatively, the accused must have known that
their conduct was likely to result in the victim’s death.
The act was committed with the knowledge that it would result in
death: The accused must have been aware that their acts were likely
to result in the victim’s death.
If all three factors are present, the offender might face murder
charges.

If any of these factors are missing, the accused may not be convicted
of murder but may be guilty of culpable homicide. For example, if a
person kills another person but does not plan to kill them, they may
be charged with culpable homicide but not murder. Similarly, if a
person kills another person without understanding that their acts
were likely to result in death, they may be guilty of culpable homicide
but not murder.

A basic example of this principle is when someone gets into a fight

with another person and hits them. The person collapses and
smashes their head, killing them. If the individual who punched the
victim did not mean to kill them and had no idea their actions would
result in death, they may be guilty of culpable homicide but not
murder.

Exceptions to Murder
Murder, which is considered the most terrible crime in Indian law, is
defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. There are
certain exceptions to this rule, which implies that a person may not
be charged with murder even though they caused the death of
another person. Section 300 specifically mentions the following
exceptions:

Grave and Sudden Provocation: If a person kills another person in

the heat of passion as a result of grave and sudden provocation, they
may not be charged with murder. This exemption applies if the
provocation is so severe and immediate that it deprives the individual
of self-control and causes them to kill the other person.
Exercise of Right to Private Defence: If a person kills another person
while exercising their right to private defence, they may not be
charged with murder. This exemption applies if the individual
reasonably believes that they are facing death or serious bodily
damage and that the only option to defend themselves is to kill the
other person.
Public servant acting in good faith: If a public worker kills another
person while operating in good faith and carrying out their official
responsibilities, they may not be charged with murder.
Sudden Fight: If two people have a sudden fight and one of them kills
the other in the heat of passion produced by the fight, they may not
be charged with murder.
Consent: If a person kills another person with their consent, they
may not be charged with murder. This exemption, however, only
applies if the permission was provided willingly and with full
awareness of the nature and consequences of the act.
It is vital to remember that the courts closely interpret these
exceptions, and the accused bears the burden of demonstrating
them. If the prosecution can establish beyond a reasonable doubt
that the accused is guilty of murder, these exceptions will not apply,
and the accused will be found guilty.
Difference between Culpable Homicide and Murder
Sections 299 and 300 of the Indian Penal Code distinguish between
culpable homicide and murder. While both charges entail the taking
of a human life, there are important distinctions between them.

Section 299 of the IPC defines culpable homicide as causing the

death of a person with the purpose of causing death or with
knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death, but without any
of the specified aggravating elements that would render the crime
murder. These situations include, but are not limited to, employing
poison or explosives to cause death, or causing death while
performing an act punishable by death or life imprisonment.

Murder under section 300 of the IPC, on the other hand, requires
causing the death of a person with the purpose to cause death or
with the knowledge that such an act is likely to cause death, as well
as any of the particular aggravating circumstances listed in the
section.

The existence or absence of explicit intent to cause death is one of

the main distinctions between culpable homicide and murder. The
intention to cause death may be present in culpable homicide, but it
may also be absent, with the perpetrator having simply awareness
that their act is likely to cause death. Murder always involves the
purpose of causing death or the knowledge that such conduct is likely
to result in death.

Another key distinction between the two offences is the severity of

the punishment. While both culpable homicide and murder are
serious offences, murder carries a harsher penalty. Murder is
penalised by life in prison or the death penalty, whilst culpable
homicide is penalised by up to 10 years in jail, a fine, or both.

To summarise, the distinctions between culpable homicide under

section 299 and murder under section 300 of the IPC are essentially
determined by the existence or lack of intent to cause death, as well
as the precise aggravating circumstances that raise the offence to
murder. It is critical that legal experts and the general public grasp
these distinctions in order to guarantee that justice is done in
situations involving the loss of life.

Landmark Cases
The following are a few landmark cases on culpable homicide and
murder which will help illustrate the differences between the two
better.

The accused in Prasad Swanker v. Ranjit Kumar was charged with

murder, but he maintained that he acted in self-defence to protect
himself. The deceased was suspected of being engaged in a robbery,
which strengthened his claim of self-defence. The court determined
that the evidence gathered from the crime scene and the injuries
received by the accused increased the likelihood that the plea of self-
defence was true. As a consequence, the accused’s murder
conviction was reversed and upheld by the court.

In the case of Subha Naik v. R, a constable killed someone on the

orders of a higher authority. However, it was discovered that neither
the constable nor his superiors thought that shooting a specific group
was required for public safety. As a result, the policeman was charged
with murder because he failed to follow the directions of his
superiors.

This implies that even if a person is obeying their superiors’

directions, they can still be charged with murder if it is shown that
they did not act in line with the law or in the interest of public safety.
Individuals must ensure that they are acting within the bounds of the
law, even if they are acting on commands from superiors, in order to
avoid being held legally accountable for their activities.

Q4 How can we say all culpable homicide are

not murder? Discuss with decided cases.
Ans:
Culpable homicide and murder are legal terms that vary in their
definitions depending on the jurisdiction. The distinction between
the two is generally based on the mental state or intent of the person
causing the death.

Culpable homicide is a broader term that encompasses any situation

where a person causes the death of another. It can include both
intentional acts (murder) and unintentional acts (manslaughter)
where the person may not have had the specific intent to cause
death.
Murder, on the other hand, typically involves the intentional killing of
another person with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought
generally refers to the intent to cause serious harm or death, and it is
a key element that distinguishes murder from other forms of
culpable homicide.

So, while all murders are culpable homicides, not all culpable
homicides are murders. Culpable homicide can include a range of
situations, such as accidental deaths, deaths resulting from
negligence, or deaths without intent to cause harm.
For example
if someone causes the death of another person through reckless
driving, it might be considered culpable homicide but not murder, as
there was no intent to kill. However, if someone intentionally and
unlawfully causes the death of another person, it would be both
culpable homicide and murder.
In summary
culpable homicide is a broader term that encompasses unlawful
killings, including those without the specific intent to cause death.
Murder is a subset of culpable homicide and involves intentional and
unlawful killings with malice aforethought. The legal consequences
and degrees of these offences can vary based on the specific
circumstances and the laws of the jurisdiction in question.

R v Cunningham (1957) - Culpable Homicide:

In this English case, the defendant removed a gas meter to steal
money from it, leaving the gas leaking into the neighbouring house.
The gas caused the occupant to fall ill, and she later died. The court
held that the defendant's reckless act was sufficient to establish
culpable homicide. The key element was the defendant's reckless
indifference to the consequences of his actions.

R v Vickers (1957) - Murder:

In another English case, the defendant was a young man who had
broken into an elderly woman's home to steal money. When the
woman tried to stop him, he brutally attacked and killed her. The
court found the defendant guilty of murder, emphasizing that the
level of violence used demonstrated an intention to cause serious
harm or death

K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1959) - Culpable Homicide

vs. Murder:

This landmark case involved Commander K.M. Nanavati, a naval

officer, who shot and killed his wife's lover. The trial court initially
found Nanavati guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
but The Supreme Court had to decide whether the accused’s actions
were in the heat of the moment or not
The apex court held the accused may have temporarily lost control
after his wife admitted to her illegitimate relationship with the
deceased, according to the Supreme Court. After dropping his wife
and children off at a movie theatre, he proceeded to the ship,
grabbed the handgun, conducted some official business, and then
drove his car to the deceased’s workplace and afterwards to his
home. By that time, three hours had passed, and he had had ample
opportunity to restore his temper. As a result, the Court decided that
“in the heat of the moment” defence was not applicable. The
defendant was found guilty of murder and sentenced to life in prison.
(It was the last case decided by jury trial)
Q5 Difference between criminal conspiracy
and abetment?

NO
Criminal Abetment
Conspiracy

1 Definition: Definition:

Section 120A of the According Section 107

Indian Penal Code of the Indian Penal
defines Criminal Code, “A person abets
Conspiracy as, “When the doing of a thing,
two or more persons who –
agree to do, or cause
to be done,
First - Instigates any
person to do that
(1) an illegal act, or thing; or

(2) an act which is not Secondly - Engages

illegal by illegal means, with one or more
such an agreement is other person or
designated a criminal persons in any
conspiracy conspiracy for the
 doing of that thing, if
an act or illegal
omission takes place in
pursuance of that
conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of
that thing; or

Thirdly - Intentionally
aids, by any act or
illegal omission, the
doing of that thing.

2 Example: Example:

A and B made a plan to

murder C; letters A, a public officer, is
passed between them authorized by a
as to the movement of warrant from a Court
C. Here both A and B of Justice to
are liable for apprehend Z, B,
indictment to a charge knowing that fact and
of criminal conspiracy also that C is not Z,
under this section willfully represents to
since there was an A that C is Z, and
agreement between A thereby intentionally
and B to do an illegal causes A to apprehend
act, i.e., to commit the C. Here B abets by
murder of C. instigation the
apprehension of C.
3
It is an Act or a It is an act to instigate
Planning to do an or to provide help to
illegal act by all the do an illegal act by the
persons or any of them person who is so
or by some of them instigated

4 Criminal conspiracy is a Abetment is not per se

substantive offence by a substantive offence.
itself and is punishable
as such

5
Each accused is a The abettor is not a
principal offender principal offender.

6 Punishment Punishment

Section 120 of the

Indian Penal Code
Whoever abets any
prescribes offence shall, if the act
Punishment:
abetted is committed
in consequence of the
abetment, and no
Whoever is a party to
express provision is
a criminal conspiracy
made by this Code for
to commit an offence
the punishment of
punishable with death,
imprisonment for life such abetment, be
punished with the
or rigorous
punishment provided
 imprisonment for a for the offence.
term of two years or (Section 109)
upwards, shall, where
no express provision is
made in this Code for
the punishment of
such a conspiracy, be
punished in the same
manner as if he had
abetted such offence.

7 Conspiracy is Cognizable or non-

cognizable or non- cognizable, bailable or
cognizable, bailable or non-bailable
non-bailable.

Q6 Abetment of Suicide. Discuss its

essentials and punishment.
Ans:
Intentionally killing oneself is referred to as suicide or “felo de se”.
Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, deals with suicide. It
states that whoever attempts suicide and commits the commission of
such an offence will be punished with imprisonment for a period not
exceeding one year, a fine, or both
Suicides can occur due to several causes, including professional or
personal crises, feelings of isolation, abuse, violence, family
problems, mental issues, alcoholism, financial loss, chronic pain, etc.
If any person abets, entices or compels someone to commit suicide,
then they shall be penalised under Section 306 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 for abetment of suicide. A person abetting, enticing or
compelling someone to commit an offence is known as an “abettor”
as per Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Abetment of
suicide is referred to as the mental process of instigating,
encouraging, or assisting someone in committing suicide. A
conviction cannot stand without an intentional effort on the part of
the accused to encourage or abet suicide.

Essentials of abetment of suicide

An offence under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is
cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable, and triable by the
Sessions Court. The Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat
v. Raval Deepakkkumar Shankerchand (2022) laid down the
ingredients which constitute the act of abetment of suicide. The
essential ingredients are:

1. Abetment, and
2. The intention of the accused is to aid, instigate or abet the
individual to commit suicide.

Interpretation of ‘instigation’
Instigation literally means to encourage, provoke or incite a person to
commit an act which is abstained by law. The Indian Penal Code,
1860, does not define the term “instigate”. In the case of Ramesh
Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
ruled that “instigation” can be interpreted as a series of acts on the
part of the accused that led to the establishment of such conditions
where the deceased had no other alternative than to commit suicide.
In other words, in order to prove that the accused abetted the act of
suicide of a person, it must be established that:

That the accused continued to irritate or annoy the deceased

through words, deeds, or wilful omission or conduct, including wilful
silence, until the deceased reacted, pushed or forced to commit
suicide.
That the accused intended to provoke, urge or encourage the
deceased to commit suicide while acting in the manner
abovementioned. Without a doubt, the presence of mens rea is a
crucial condition for instigation.
In the case of B Sridevi v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2022), the
Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that proof of incitement and
abetment is required and that mere claims of workplace pressure or
harassment will not serve to attract components of Section 306 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

In the case of Ramesh Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2022), the

Gujarat High Court held that words spoken in anger, not with the
intention of instigation, cannot be constituted as abetment of
suicide.

Punishment for abetment of suicide

Abetment of suicide is punishable under Section 306. The
punishment for abetment of suicide is imprisonment for a term
which may extend to ten years and a fine.
In the case of Daxaben v. State Of Gujarat (2022), the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that the abetment of suicide is a heinous, grave
and non-compoundable offence which cannot be resolved with a
mere compromise.