`CRIMINAL LAW-I

Law of Crimes
1. Ingredients:
a. Rules and regulations
b. Made by an authority
c. This authority has specified that these conducts are prohibited and regulated
d. If committed the person sill face so and so consequences.

2. Classified into:
a. Substantive law
i. IPC,1860
b. Procedural law
i. CrPC, 1973
ii. IEA, 1872

3. IPC-substantive law
a. Substantive laws don’t say don’t commit so and so crime. It defines the
repercussions of you doing so
b. Till 106 general laws
c. 107-511 specific crimes

I. UNIT-1
a. History/origin of criminal law
i. 410 AD- 1066AD
- Anglo Saxons settled in present day England.
- This period is considered for understanding the origin of
criminal law.
- If there is no criminal law, etc. present you take into
consideration the ‘law of wrongs’ or torts to determine
compensation
- 3 kinds of compensation:
a. Bot
The compensation paid to the nature and type of injury
to the victim after considering his status in the society
This amount is not determined by the kind. Determined
by the people amongst themselves
b. Wite
The amount payable to the King or the leader for
causing a breach of King’s Peace, i.e. interfering with
the revenue.
(present-day fine)
c. Wergild
The amount of compensation paid to the family of the
deceased who was killed by the wrongdoer.
 If the compensation is not satisfactory, they go for
vengeance.

King does not get involved unless the crime is against

the State (sedition, blasphemy, etc.)
This ended in 9th AD.
After that Death Penalty was introduced.

- Botless crimes
Where the King interferes
In matters of sedition, blasphemy, etc.
ii. 597 AD
- Onset of Christianity
- Christianity brought in the concept of possession and
ownership
- Church became very high in power.
- Clergy men were established in England.
- Impact: these clergy men along with the king also started
governing.
- They brought in the concepts of ‘sin’ and ‘morality’
- These clergy men were deemed as ‘gods on earth’ who had
punishing/pardoning powers.
- The justice delivery system was very barbaric.
- Justice was not delivered in a fair manner, for eg, trial by fire,
confessions in church, etc.
iii. Feudalism
- The normal man would not question the church.
- There was no codified law.
- There was an authority which had no accountability.
iv. 1066 AD
- Norman Conquest
- William the Conqueror ruled the Anglo-Saxons
- Brought many changes
a. Stopping of blood feud.
b. Stoppage of compensation (eradication of bot, wite,
wergild)
c. Started recognizing different acts as offences.
d. Attached punishments to these acts.
e. Declare/announcing the offences in the public.
f. Introduced the concept of imprisonment.
g. Introduced jury system
h. However, they still did not give a chance to the accused
to be represented by a defense lawyer or the opportunity
to produce evidence to save himself.
i. Guillotine was introduced.
j. Family feud and vengeance came to an end.
 k. Standardized punishment gives a deterrence + doesn’t
leave much scope for discretion- put a limitation to the
powers of the church.

v. Period of industrialization
- Lot of influx of people and you don’t have enough resources it
leads to crimes like petty theft, begging, prostitution, etc.
- The existing law of torts proved to be insufficient.
- People needed protection from the State.
- These increased the demand for standardized legislation.
a. The Mutiny Act, 1692
i. Made knowingly possessing stolen goods an
offence.
ii. This is because by possessing the stolen
property the person acts as a facilitator.
iii. The magistrates were given the power to
seize/confiscate the stolen property.
b. The Black Act, 1723
i. The king segregated the property into 2
1. Common property (which everyone can use)
2. King’s property (only for king’s use)
ii. The concepts of ‘criminal trespass’ and ‘theft’
‘poaching’ were introduced.
c. The Bugging Act, 1749
i. For the purpose of stopping people from selling
scraps of leather in the black market.
ii. This Act introduced the concepts of ‘search’,
‘search warrant’ and ‘seizure’
vi. 1600- Charter of 1600
- The British created Presidency Courts in Bombay, Calcutta and
Madras
- The idea of codifying laws in India was brought up
vii. 1833- Charter of 1833
- The power was shifted from the EIC to the Crown
- Started to codify laws but it was problematic as British
themselves didn’t have a codified law.
- First Law Commission of British India was set up
- Chairman- Thomas Babington Macaulay (Father of IPC)
- Tried to take out the knowledge from Indians and disempower
them.
- It became difficult for Macaulay to accept the openness of the
Indian culture and he termed India as ‘uncivilized’ and ‘brutes’
- He decided to add things in the IPC he felt needed to be
changed.
- The problems he faced
a. Lack of uniformity (no precedents, etc.)
b. Lack of uniformity of punishments
- The members of the frst lc-
a. TB Macaulay
 b. JW Macleod
c. F Millet
d. GW Anderson

4. Objectives for codifying IPC:

a. Taking away discretionary power.
b. No punishment other than what is mentioned in the codified law would be
imposed on a guilty person.
c. Every offence must be defined in clear and precise terms with exceptions,
explanations and illustrations wherever necessary.
d. Criminal law should apply uniformly throughout the country

Date- 28.07.2022, Thursday, Day-4

The Bugging Act, 1789- during the era of industrialization, certain things could only be
possessed by the royalty, so even leather was a thing included in it. So cobblers who
manufacture things with use of leather, were not allow to use it for their own purpose. People
would hence steal small scraps of leather and sell it in the black market. Hence this act,
prohibited keeping leather, and gave authority to a magistrate or anyone under him to ask a
person to go and enter his house, search his premises, confiscate things and bring it back. The
act of stealing scraps of leather was named as clicking.
In India-
(this history of criminal law in india would be covered by one article in the reading material)
Charter of 1600
Charter of 1833- Before this there was no uniform law through out the country and hence the
colonisers faced obstacles. So they thought of experimenting with codification. India was the
first place where uniform codification was tried and experimented.
This charter permitted codification of laws and legislations in India that will be uniformly
applicable. Hence the first law commission for British law commission was formed under the
chairmanship of Thomas Babington Macaulay. He is considered as father of IPC. There were
three other people along with him- F. Millet, G.W. Anderson, and J.M. Macleod, all together
they formed the 1st law commission. They observed that india is freakishingly rich, very
sensible but weird in the sense that they are brute.
They decided to remove Sanskrit and impose English limited to people of certain class to
widen the class gap, make everything in English and so only people who know English could
understand, and then slowly break it down. Indians are uncivilized, and hence many laws
were brought prohibiting prostitution, obscenity, beggary, polygamy etc. And said all of them
were against morality.
They all concluded that they need to impose and inculcate Christian principles, and focussed
more on Sin and Morality.
1837- The first drafter was submitted, and then the second draft was submitted with changes
in 1847 and then the final draft was submitted in 1852.
The in 1857 there was a revolt and after this they decided to bring a penalized code. 6 th Oct,
1860- IPC received permission. Came into force on 1st Jan, 1862. In order to establish a
police force they had to wait for 2 yrs and implement the IPC in 1862.
Worlds first police force- Scotland Yard.
Indian Police Act, 1861.
In order to understand the procedure first the old code CrPC 1898 was brought into force and
then later the current CrPC came in to force in
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
There were 4 law commissions before independent India in 1834, 1853, 1861, and 1879.
Why did they decide to codify law?
1. To have uniform criminal law in British India.
2. To take away discretionary power- There is only certainty of law and no one can use
their power to change it.
3. Every amount amounting as a offence to be defined in clear terms, with explanations,
exceptions and illustrations wherever necessary.
4. No punishment other than what is prescribed in the codified law will be imposed on a
guilty person. Eg. We do not have gang rape law in 2013 (S. 376 D did not exist till
2013), and hence they could not apply it in the 2012 delhi gang rape case. Hence they
found a way such that they could punish the guilty under some other section.
Principles of Criminal Law-
1. Mala in se and Mala prohibita- Mala means evil.
Mala in se is purely evil and is evil in itself, there can be no exception in the
punishment.
Mala in Prohibita means evil that is prohibited by law, there is nothing inherently evil
about it but the legislature has brought control over it. Eg. The rules that are given in
the motor vehicles act. They are for the maintainance of order.
Date- 03. 08. 2022, Wednesday
Principles of Criminal Law:
1. Nullum crimen sine lege, nullum crimen poena lege-
i) Principle of legality- you can’t consider and act as a crime unless there was a
law prohibiting it
ii) You cannot punish a person unless and until there was a punishment existing
for that act.
Criminal law goes for prospective application alone. There cannot be retrospective
application of criminal law. (ex. Delhi Gang Rape Case). The law has to be published
in official gazette. Ignorance of law is not an excuse comes after the law is into
existence.
 Principle of legality- you need to specify the act, the physical element, the mental
element, the injury, the punishment should all be explained, only then can an offence
be said as crime.
2. Mala in se, Mala prohibita-
Differentiation between Tort and Crime-
i) Tort is civil wrong against individual; crime is a public wrong.
ii) In criminal punishment is given, in tort damages are given trying to keep the
person in a position that he was in earlier before the commencement of tort.
iii) In tort the individual takes the action and approaches the court, in case of criminal
law, the state files the case for the victim.
iv) In crime there is mens rea as an important component, in tort it is not needed
except for intentional tort like defamation, malicious prosecution, fraud.
v) Crime- criminal court starting with JMSC then JMFC, in tort- the case in filed in a
munsif court. The procedure is different as well. In Criminal CrPC is followed.
vi) In tort law punishment is not mentioned, the compensation is decided on case-to-
case basis, exemplary damages can be asked for, in criminal law, the punishment
is clearly mentioned, it is given, it is pre-determined which have to be strictly
followed, the court cannot give more than that.
vii) In criminal law there is burden of proof upon the person who is alleging, the
prosecution has to prove it beyond reasonable doubts as it involves depriving
oneself of his life, in tort there is nothing as such as once things are proved
damages are given.
viii) In criminal the person is presumed innocent.
ix) In tort there can be out of court settlement, in criminal law it is generally not done.
x) In criminal law there is no contributory negligence.
xi) In criminal law the punishment has to be proportional to the act. In civil law, the
damages are dependent on case to case (ex. Defamation is done against a common
man and Amitabh bacchan, both of them claim 100 crore, Amitabh bacchan will
get 100 cr, for his popularity)
Doubt- If suppose a person is today punished for 10 years, after few years if a new law comes
in place increasing the punishment to 15 years, what will happen to the person punished as
well as the person whose case is on-going.
You can file case under tort and criminal law at the same time and it won’t be double
jeopardy because in both the case you ask for different things.
PURPOSE OF CRIMINAL LAW:
1. To prevent harm- In any criminal legislation it is clearly mentioned offences against
body or offences against property or offences against reputation.
2. It gives a warning- it does not say that you should not do it. It not cautions one.
3. It gives a definition- mentions the constituent aspects of an offence.
4. It defines the Punishment- without the punishment prescribed the act cannot be
enforced. Hence punishment is pre-determined.
5. It describes the seriousness out the act- this is done on the basis of:
a) Bailable (it will always be compoundable) and non-Bailable
 b) Cognizable (police officer can register FIR without court order) and non-
cognization (unless the court order FIR cannot be registered) (it will always be
bailable)
c) Compoundable (there is outside court settlement permitted) and non-
compoundable (outside court settlement is permitted)
d) Summons case (any offence for which maximum punishment is 2 yrs) and warrant
case (anything above 2 yrs up till death sentence). By and large warrant cases are
usually non-bailable, cognizable, and non-compoundable.
6. It favors victims- there is an obligation to provide him with a remedy. There are
certain offences where there is no victim, or there is no specific victim, ex.
Adulteration. Such crimes are called victim less crime example, Corruption (except
when it happens with you personally), Prostitution, adulteration, etc.

Date- 04. 08. 2022, Thursday

SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW:
[customs and practices cannot be considered a source for the reason that at times they are
very irrational]
1) Legislations
2) Precedents
3) International Conventions and treaties
4) Common Law principles
5) Constitution of India
6) State Amendments
7) Special and Local Laws- S. 40 and S. 41 of IPC.
Special Laws- a law applicable to particular subject. Ex. POCSO, Juvenile Justice,
PMLA, UAPA, Domestic Violence, Dowry Prohibition Act, etc.
Local Laws- laws applicable only to a particular part or region of India. A local law
can overlap with special laws that is it can also be a special law. Ex. In Madhya
Pradesh transporting cattle for slaughter is prohibited, anti-conversion law in MP and
UP.
Difference between code and act- in Indian scenario, CrPC and IPC the have used the word
code because Macaulay codified it, it was just put together taking help of the British laws.
Whereas in the case of Indian Evidence Act, it was created and drafted entirely, India did not
have anything earlier, and hence it is an act.
That is the reason was post 1947 we don’t have code but rather acts. As the constitution
created new laws.
To what parts and places does IPC apply- jurisdiction-
Jurisdiction means:
1. The power to take judicial notice of a matter presented before an authority.
2. It is the authority to adjudicate and exercise any judicial power in relation to a
matter.
 3. The power and authority to hear and determine any matter presented before the
authority.
S.1 of IPC talks about the territorial jurisdiction of the IPC. Read this section along with Sec.
18 of IPC which defines the term, India.
[there are other types of jurisdictions as well like writ jurisdiction, pecuniary jurisdiction]
In criminal law we look at extra-territorial jurisdiction,
[Sessions court is the most powerful court as it is the court of first instance that can give
death sentence to a person. It is the only court that has got this power. SC comes into picture
only where there is an appeal, review, revision. Under the lower judiciary it is the most
powerful court.]
Section 2 IPC- Punishment of offences committed ‘within India’. It mentions every person
shall be liable to this court, where every person means even non- citizens who comes to India
and commits an offence in the territorial boundaries of India. This is called as extraterritorial
jurisdiction. Sec. 2 is a blend of territorial and extra-territorial jurisdiction.

Date- 05.06.2022, Friday

Section 3-
Extradition can be done only when the both countries are on good terms.
Italian Mariners case
The word here uses the word ‘any person’, so it is not necessary for that person to be a
citizen.
S.4- extension of court to extraterritorial offences. The provision of this court applies also to
any offences, which have been committed outside india, and which is an offence in India,
Indian laws will apply.
Any ship or aircraft registered in India, wherever it may be.
A conjoined reading of S.1 to S.4, gives the following points:
1. The IPC is universally applicable on all persons (citizen, non-citizen) for every act or
omission contrary to the provisions of the IPC.
2. A foreigner committing a crime in India, cannot plead ignorance of the Indian
Criminal Law.
3. A person who while in India instigates the commission of an offence outside India is
also covered within the jurisdiction of the IPC. Similarly, foreigners who initiate
offences abroad that takes effect on the Indian territory are also covered under IPC.
Ex. Daud Ibrahmin, 1993 Bombay Attack. He was in Dubai at that time. They were
making a conspiracy in Dubai to attack India. So their names were mentioned in FIR
under S. 120. This principle was used, as the impact was felt by India. This is an
extension of the territorial jurisdiction.
4. The expression any person, under S.3 and every person under S. 2, indicates active
nationality principle. (Every country has a self-determination principle, and its own
laws, and of any offences are done, the person who has committed it will be punished,
so any citizen where ever it may be, can be punished under Indian Laws.
5. A sovereign has the right to apply criminal law, governing the conduct of its nationals
even when they are outside the territorial boundaries of the state.
It has the effect of allowing a sovereign, to impose its criminal law upon its nationals
making a certain conduct a crime even though at the place where he is, the act is per
se not a crime.
6. An act amounting to an offence in India shall continue to be an offence, even when
committed outside of India, provided the person is an Indian National at the time of
the incident or the act was done by any person on a ship or aircraft registered in India
wherever it was at the time of the incident or any person citizen or otherwise commits
an offence targeting a computer resource situated in India from anywhere on the
planet.
7. Jurisdiction over territorial waters- Every state has the jurisdiction over the waters
adjacent to its land boundaries called territorial waters, the limit of territorial waters
for every state is 12 Nautical miles or 22 km. The territorial waters may be considered
as a prolongation of the state territory under international law, making it a part of the
concerned State, and thereby extending its law on the said territorial waters.
In the Italian mariners, Indian authorities said that the act happened outside the territorial
boundaries of India, and hence India lost the case.

TUTORIAL
Date- 06.08.2022, Saturday
Case Analysis:
Look the subject for which the case analysis is done.
What is the core subject, what is the key point covered in the judgment?
Brief the judgements in your words.
Beside the ingredients of the provision it is necessary to know the origin and the
reasoning behind this provision. (ex. Section 377 in Navtej Singh Johar case)
Starting from 1860 till 2018 there were 25 judgements under Sec. 377, which shows that
is has not developed.
After the case of Suresh Kumar Kaushal s. 377 was reinstated, which was partially struck
down or limited in the case of NAZ foundation.
Name
Quorum
Parties.
 Analysis- you have to read the entire subject matter of the case. Go back in the history.
Tracing the chain of events preceding it. Giving your conclusion and reasoning behind it.
Your opinion and the rationale behind it.
Ration Decidendi

Date- 08.08.2022, Monday

UNIT II-
What is Crime?
Halsbury Laws of England- authoritative legal encyclopaedia on English laws. Crime
according to him is defined as, “A crime is an unlawful act or default, which is an offence
against the public and renders the person guilty of the act liable to legal punishment.”
William Blackstone- Black’s Law Dictionary. He defines crime as, “An act committed or
omitted in violation of a public law either forbidding or commanding it.”
Sir James Stephen- Father of Indian Evidence Act. “Crime is an act forbidden by law and
which is at the same time revolting to the moral sentiments of the society.”
John Salmond- A jurist and a judge from New Zealand. “Crime is an act deemed by law to be
harmful to the society in general, even though its immediate victim is an individual”. Victim
less acts are not covered under this and hence there are certain flaws in his definition.
Glanville Williams- Prof. at Oxford. “An act that is capable of being followed by criminal
proceedings, having one of the types of outcomes (Punishment etc.) known to follow these
proceedings.”
Prof. Kenny- “Crimes are wrongs who sanctioned as punitive and is in no way remissible by
a private person but is remissible by the crown alone, if remissible at all.” State is the only
authority who can punish the person. The principle of legality and principle of non-
retroactivity both are applied here.
Edwin Sutherland- renowned sociologist and criminologist. Criminology is that branch that
deals with the reasoning behind why people commit crimes. Lombroso, came with the first
theory, you look at people you get to know if he will commit wrong or not, it was a very
weird theory. This theory faced a lot of criticism. Then people saw the poverty in society and
hence it was considered to be a reason behind commission of crimes. So, slums were
targeted. Even this faced criticism, as there are white collar crimes or blue-collar crimes.
In 1980s there was a question as to why youth is indulging in crimes, Sutherland here gives a
theory upon which stating that youth can easily be influenced. And hence the state who make
a conducive environment for youth and criminal law should be used to curb such things that
are troubling the youth. This was the theory of differential treatment.
Criminal behaviour is behaviour in violation of Criminal law, no matter what the degree of
immorality, indecency of an act is unless it is prohibited by criminal law, it cannot be
controlled.
The criminal law in turn is defined conventionally as a body of specific rules regarding
human conduct which has been promulgated by a political authority which applies uniformly
to all the members of the class to which the rules refer, and which are administered and
enforced by punishment administered by the state, characteristics of which distinguish the
body of rules regarding human conduct from other rules and therefore has to have politicality,
specificity, uniformity and penal sanction

Date- 10.08.2020, Wednesday

ESSENTIALS OF CRIME:
1. the first essential of a crime is a person, who is capable to do something.
2. Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea- An act does not make a person liable
unless and until at the time he was doing it he was doing it with a guilty mind. The
elements
3. Actus Reus and Mens Rea come from this above given maxim.
4. The action must result in some kind of an injury, to his body or his property or his
reputation.
5. Punishment- there shall be a punishment that shall be prescribed by the law before the
commencement of the offence.
Crime = AR + MR – Defences
Actus Reus- means a deed which is a physical result of a human conduct forbidden by law.
Reus means forbidden or prohibited by law. It could mean Act, Omission, or State of Affairs.
Act is a physical act done voluntarily which may or may not result in a prohibited outcome.
Involuntary acts- 1. Physical force (when physical force is applied involuntary, but it
subsequently leads to the injury to some other person),
2. Reflex Action,
3. Automatism- it is a term used to describe a behaviour that occurs when a person is
unconscious and unaware that an act is taking place. There are two kinds of automatism
recognised by law which are non-insane automatism and insane automatism. Insane
automatism is when the condition giving rise to automatism is intrinsic, ex. Unsoundness of
mind, somnambulism. Non-insane automatism is when the condition giving rise to
automatism is extrinsic to the mind of the accused person which could be the result of a
medicine or something that the person has consumed.
R v. Quick (1973) 3 All E. R. 347 – Quick is a nurse, his blood sugar level is very low and
hence had to take medications. One day he forgot and hence the Dr. asked him to take two
shots, and did not eat, at the end he took a shot of beer, during the night shift he was
supposed to take care of a paraplegic person. Next day that person was found hurt. Mr. Quick
had no recollection. The only person who could have done this was Mr. Quick, then he took
the defence of insanity. The trial court did not accept this. He appealed before the House of
Lords. House of Lords, questioned if this could fall under automatism. Mr. Quick told them
about his medical condition, but the court did not consider this. The house of lords said that
as the blood sugar level went so high this could have led to the act. And he has never acted
violent before and it was due to his medical condition that he committed the act. And it was a
act of non-insane automatism, as it was a extrinsic element. the court did not consider the
voluntary intake of beer. He was acquitted by the court.
Second component of ACTUS REUS is omission
Omission- negation of an act. Refrainment from performing a legally bound positive duty.
Positive duty is a compulsory duty. It may be a contractual duty or a statutory obligation, it
may be because of equity or good conscious or where you have voluntary taking care of a
person.
i) Statutory obligation- possession of driving license means that you have to adhere
to certain duties that have been conferred upon you. Ignorance of laws is not
excuse when it comes in the official gazette.
ii) Contractual duty- Duty arising out of a contract
R v. Pittwood (1902) 19 TLR 37- R or state is the appellant. Trial court
judgement. Mr. pittwood worked as a gatekeeper for a pvt. Railway co. he entered
in contract with this co. and agreed that he shall man the co. all times, and make
alternate arrangements when he won’t be available. There wasn’t a proper gate.
Mr. Pittwood one day decided that he had to go, a haycart comes, with people on
it. They could not hear the sound of the train. Half way through they saw a train,
the haycart is hit by the train, 2 people die. The family members of the deceased
asked for compensation from the railway co. who said that it was not their
obligation but of Mr. Pittwood. The trial court said that he has done a omission, he
had ex. a duty out of the contract. He was held liable.
iii) Duty arising out of a voluntary assumption of care- ex. People running
orphanages, old age homes, NGOs, etc.
iv) Duty owed to family members- specifically elder people, wife and children. The
origin of this is equity, justice and good-conscience.
Where is the word omission found in the IPC?
State of Affairs- Wrong place, wrong time. It involves cases where by reason of
circumstances in which a person (was found or was in possession) of is absolutely
immaterial. Actus reus is satisfied with the person being found or being in possession of. Ex.
Sec. 144 in Lockdown, NDPS (that is why it is considered as a draconian law), etc.
R. v. Larseonneur (1933) 24 Cr. App. Rep. 74- Larsonneur is a citizen from France. She
got a passport permitting her to go and stay to UK, but cannot secure a job there. She stays
there for a week; the UK authorities give her an ultimatum to leave within 24 hers. She goes
to Ireland, the moment she lands there, the Irish authorities bring her back to UK, and by this
time 24 hrs had passed. The British police arrest her under the Aliens (any person found in
the territory of UK after being asked to leave) Act, and said that they were prosecuting her.
The UK court said that as she was found in UK, voluntarily or non-voluntarily, the trial court
convicted her, the appeal also did not work out, in the House of Lords, the act does not talk
about mens rea, hence the legislation will be followed, her sentence was confirmed, the
judgement faced a lot of criticism. This judgement was not reconsidered.
There are several countries retain this State of Affairs, for example, TADA, NDPS, etc.

Date- 12.08.2022, Friday

Mens Rea- Divided into two, Mens means an evil intent on the part of a Human being, and
the word rea means that which is forbidden by law. So, in aggregate it is an evil intent on the
part of a human being and is forbidden by law. Law will have to prescribe it beforehand that
the act is evil. Certain common terms are needed to be understood:
 Will/ Volition- It is a desire working through the nervous system of a human body to
produce a certain motion.
 Motive- is the ulterior reason for a conduct that is the state of mind which prompts a
particular conduct. Motive can be good as well as bad. In criminal law motive is
considered only when the person is held guilty, and the extent of punishment is to be
decided. So, if the motive was good, the punishment will have certain exceptions or
leverage in the quantum of punishment. consideration of motive comes into picture
only when the person is held guilty and the extent of punishment is to be decided.
 Intention- is the expectation that a set of desired motions will bring about a particular
result. It aims at achieving virtual certainty. In case of bodily injury, it is necessary to
look at which part of the body was injured. Intention comes first, and only after
realisation of intention there is motive. Motive is the ulterior reason for conduct, but it
is experienced only after achieving the desired result.
 Knowledge- a person is said or supposed to know something when it makes direct
appeal to his senses. It comes from circumstances or the knowledge one has received
in his life. Knowledge becomes intention, when after becoming aware of the
consequences you wanted to achieve those consequences.
 Reason to Believe (S.26 IPC) - A person is said to have “reason to believe” a thing, if
he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise.
 Recklessness/ Rashness- Taking of unjustified or unreasonable risk. It is the mental
attitude of conscious indifference to the obvious risk involved in a conduct. In IPC the
word used in Rashness and not reckless. In reckless, it is important to prove conscious
disregard. S. 279- it is not against bodily injury solely but rather against public way, it
is against public at large. S. 336- endangering of life, S. 337- actual causing of hurt
that is endangering life, S. 338- causing grievous hurt by an endangering act. S. 304
A- Causing death by negligent or rash act. These are the only sections in IPC dealing
with recklessness.
Date- 16.08.2022, Monday
 Negligence- it refers to the state of mind of a person who pursues a course of conduct
being oblivious to the consequences of his actions. It also denotes want of care and
caution which a reasonable man would have taken in similar circumstances.
Conscious disregard of the consequences. This word is found in S. 279, S. 336, S.
337, S. 338 and S. 304 A, where rash OR negligent both are mentioned. It is OR
 because one cannot be rash and negligent at the same time. Lack of foresight of
consequences distinguishes negligence from recklessness. The second factor of
distinguishing between the two is the absence of duty of care and caution in criminal
law for negligence. For an act to amount to criminal negligence, the degree of
negligence must be way higher. A negligence which is neither gross nor of a higher
degree may provide a ground for action in civil law but cannot form the basis for a
criminal prosecution.
Malay Kumar Ganguly v. Dr. Sukumar Mukherjee and Ors. (2009) 9 SCC 221-
The court said that, “Criminal negligence is the failure to exercise reasonable care and
caution as well as employing precautions guarding against injury to the public
generally or to an individual in particular. In criminal law a simple lack of care or an
error of judgement is not sufficient but a higher degree of absence of reasonable care
must be shown(prove) by the prosecution to establish a criminal case.”

Date- 17.08.2022, Wednesday

 Dishonestly- S. 24 (IPC).
 Fraudulently- S. 25- it denotes the intention to deceive or a possibility of doing so,
causing either an actual injury or a risk of sustaining an injury. It is an intention to
deliberately deceive a person done with the calculation to secure something which
cannot be acquired lawfully. It is done with intention.
Under the IPC only Reason to believe, Dishonestly, and fraudulently are defined. For
others we have to go to Common Law.
There is a hierarchy in mens rea- according to the strongest and the weakest, the order is as
follows in an ascending order
1. Intention
2. Knowledge
3. Recklessness
4. Negligence
5. Reason to believe
6. Dishonestly
7. Fraudulently
Injury- in criminal it is not damage but it is injury. S. 44 (IPC)-(Apart from S. 508, 509, and
510 the law does not have punishment for injury to mind)
Person- S.11-
Company is a fictional entity and law faces certain important questions with respect to fixing
criminal liability on the company:
1. How can a company form mens rea?
2. How can a company be apprehended and their attendance be secured in a court of
law? (not answered yet by the courts)
3. How can a company be punished with imprisonment or death sentence? (answered
in a way, it can be inferred from the standard chartered bank case)
 4. How can the above forms of punishment be executed?
People v. Corporation of Albany (1834) NY Sup. Ct. – this case was accepted within 2
years in UK as well. The ratio decidendi was:
1. The mode of attributing criminal liability on a corporation is if the employee if the
company had the mens rea to commit an illegal act.
2. Intent or mens rea could be determined through a collective mens rea of the
employees and for an illegal act done during the course of employment, a company
can be punished.
3. There are two cases where corporate criminal liability cannot be imposed,
a. when a crime by its nature cannot be committed by a company or a
corporation, example- rape, it can commit a murder but not rape.
b. When crimes are punished with other forms of punishment than fines.
Coming to the Indian scenario, the punishment are in form of fines, fine/imprisonment/both,
fine + imprisonment, imprisonment, min imp------- max imp., death sentence. The only form
of punishment that can be given to a company could be the first and second, both of which
include fines.

Date- 18.08.2022, Thursday

Judgements related to Corporate Criminal Liability in India:

1. A.K. Khosla v. T.S. Venkatesan (1992) CrLJ 1448-

2. Kalpana Rai v. State (1997) 8 SCC 732-
3. Zee Telefilms v. Sahara Company Corporation Ltd. (2001) 3 RCR 292
4. Asst. Commissioner, Assessment- II, Bangalore v. Vellapa Textiles (2004) 1
Comp. L. J. 21
5. Standard Chartered Bank and Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement and Ors.
(2005) 4 SCC 530- The SC said that if a company has done an offence which is
punishable with imprisonment, criminal law in India cannot prosecute it. This
judgement was controversial. So, all offences where the punishment is imprisonment,
the co. is not liable. Company can be held criminally liable only if the punishments is
fine alone.
6. Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Incorporated Co. and Ors. AIR 2011 SC
20- Main issue- can a corporation held criminally liable. Five principles laid down =:
i) a corporation is virtually in the same position as that of an individual and
therefore may be convicted under common law as well as Indian Law for
all offences (statutory) including those requiring mens rea. Here the SC
answer Q. 1- How a co. can form mens rea?
ii) The criminal liability of a corporation would arise when an offence is
committed in relation to the business of a corporation or a company by a
person or body of persons in control of its affairs. The Q. Who will be held
liable? Is answered here.
 iii) The degree and control of the person or persons must be so deep and
intense that a corporation may be said to think as well as act to the person
as well as body of persons.
iv) A company or corporation can no longer claim immunity from criminal
prosecution on the ground that they are incapable of possessing the
necessary mens rea for the commission of the offence.
v) Doctrine of Alter Ego- a corporation has several directing minds, therefore
when a company or a corporation has widespread activities it is inevitable
that there will be delegation and sub-delegation from the centre to several
directing minds. The action and intention of the directing minds is merged
with the intention of the corporate entity and therefore a company cannot
claim any defence. A court has to determine whether this state of mind of
the company is the mirror image of the individuals, duties and
responsibilities of the individuals. The essence of the test for the
prosecution and the court is to identify whether there was existence
meeting of mind between the company and the agent.
Leonard’s Carrying Co. Ltd. v. Asiatic Petroleum Ltd. (1950) AC 905- the
doctrine of alter ego was established in this case, India applied it in 2011.
Date- 29.08.2022, Monday
Difference between CRIME and OFFENCE:
S. 40- defines offence as an act that is punishable by law. And must currently in existence
when the act has occurred.
Crime is an act which is condemned by the society, but it need not be recognised as
punishable by law. For example- Marital Rape- it is condemned by society but not made
punishable by law yet. Also, before 2013 there wasn’t any gang rape law, and hence till that
time it was only a crime but not offence, after 2013 there is a law and hence it is an offence
now.
So, Crime is wider and Offence is narrower.
TRANSFERRED MALICE:
Malice means something or an evil intention that is punishable by law.
In India Transferred Malice is exclusively used for the offence of Murder.
It is a doctrine in criminal law where the intention to harm an individual inadvertently causes
harm to a second person instead of the intended victim.
Requirements: Intended victim, an actual victim.
The below given case is the first case in India that brought this doctrine of transferred malice.
Public Prosecution v. M Sooryanarayana Moorthy (1912) 13 CrLJ (Mad)- It is famously
known as the Halwa Murder case. The state preferred an appeal. The accused wanted to
acquire property from X. there was some insurance in name of X, and the beneficiary was to
be the accused. He brought half kilo of halwa and laced it with mercury and arsenic. Mr. X
consumes it and says that he will eat the leftover later. Next day he throws it away, two small
gives saw the halwa lying and consumed a substantial amount of it and died. Here the
intended victim and actual victim were different. In fact, one of the actual victims was his
own niece. The trial court said that the accused can be max punished for an attempt to cause
murder, and the death of the two girls was an accident. The state appealed. The court said that
there was a very clear intention, and had the knowledge that some one who consumes this
will die. And hence there was both knowledge and intention. Using S. 301- as long as you
had a culpable intention towards one the intended victim and actual victim doesn’t matter; the
murder is done. So, applying transferred malice, the court said that Sooryanarayana Moorthy
is liable under S. 301 for murder. Judgement says Sec. 302 read with S. 301, as S. 301 has the
doctrine.
CAUSATION: The causal relationship between an act and the net result. It is a part of
Burden of Proof. The prosecution is to prove it first. It is a causal relationship between the
conduct and result. It is the method by which one can connect the conduct of a person with
the consequent result. There are two types of crimes- Conduct and Result. For example,
driving beyond the speed limit is a conduct crime, even if you don’t cause an accident, the
crime is still punished. Here, result is not required. Causation applies exclusively in result
crime. It is not applied in conduct crimes.
In causation prosecution must establish:
1) A factual link between the conduct of the accused and the result they are alleged to
have caused. This is Factual Causation. For example, the dagger found had the finger
prints of the accused.
2) Legal Causation- is a sufficient cause in law between the conduct of the accused and
the prohibited result. Causation can be understood as a two-stage process-
i) 1st stage - prove that that the accused actually caused the prohibited result.
ii) 2nd stage - prove that the accused alone was the reason behind or Cause-in-law
of the prohibited result.
R v. White (1910) 2 KB 124- the son pours some poison in a glass; the glass was used by his
mother. The maid put milk in it and took it for her. She took a sip and slept; she was found
dead the next morning. The post mortem report said that she died of heart attack but there
were certain traces of poison found in her body but that did not cause the death. The women
were acquitted. There was an appeal done by the state. The court went for a but for test. The
lady would have died anyway, so the son could not be made liable for murder but can be
made liable for attempt to murder.
Test of CAUSA PROXIMA

UNIT III- PUNISHMENT

THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT:
1) RETRIBUTIVE THEORY- Barbaric
2) DETERRENCE THEORY- it sends a message to a society so as to prevent the
commitment of crimes. This is the theory used currently.
i) General Deterrence- It sends a message to the society that this is what will
happen to all if that act is committed.
 ii) Specific Deterrence- Here the target is only the perpetrator or the person
who committed the crime so as to send a message only to him so that he
does not commit it again.
3) PREVENTIVE THEORY- prison system was introduced in England for the first
time. Jeremy Bentham gave a Pain and Pleasure theory. So, the criminal derives
pleasure at the amount of another person’s pain or suffering. So, pleasure comes
first and it has to be directly proportional to the pain that the system makes him
suffer. By putting the person behind the bars, the chances of that person
committing the offence again is prevented.
Preventive Detention- it happens before the commission of crime. When the
police suspect that a person may commit some crime, that person would be kept in
the detention.
4) REFORMATIVE THEORY- The state is the parents and all the subjects are its
children. The state like a parents shall give a chance to its subjects to reform
themselves and get a second opportunity. It received much prominence in 1970s,
because till this time people
Recidivism- tendency or proclivity to commit crime again.
To avoid this recidivism, the state works as a parents and discipline or reform that
person. So, the person here is given a second chance.
Kiran Bedi introduced the prison reform system in India. She took the educational
records of these people. She got collaborated with IGNOU and provided interested
prisoners with distance education, and the expenses were borne by govt. if a
person is not interested into higher education but in technical or artistic things,
those people were provided with it. Exhibition of artefacts of these people. Tihar
jail started getting foreign funding. Employment of certain things was provided in
the jail. Recidivism reduced due to these reforms.

Date- 30.08.2022, Tuesday

I. S. 53- S. 60- Talk about the different types of punishments under IPC.:No other
form of punishment can be enforced other than that mentioned in S. 53. In 1955
the punishment of sending away a person (Kalapani) was repealed and
imprisonment for life was included. The third form was flogging which was
removed in 1949.
SIMPLE IMPRISONMENT- no prison labour, rigorous imprisonment- prison labour.

FORFEITURE OR PROPERTY- rarely found in IPC.

Date- 05.09.2022, Monday

DEATH SENTENCE- It is also called death penalty or capital punishment. Its origins from
the word- Capitalus which means Capit meaning head. So, the first punishment was severing
of the head and hence it was called as Capital punishment. In India only the word death
sentence is found. But meaning wise there is not much of a difference.
35th Law Commission repost, 1967- ICCPR, 1966- International covenant on civil and
political rights- it is in part III of the constitution. India is one of the founding members of the
document. One of the things mentioned in it is to abolish death penalty. India went for an
introspection into it. Post-independence, the 35 th law commission report that introspects into
the death sentence. The law commission objected the abolition of death sentence. India is a
newly independent country. It is not as developed as Sweden or US. India had to fight two
wars. It was made of princely states, people need to first understand the importance of a
single state. Also, there were a lot of Naxalite movements emerging, and hence it cannot be
compared with other nations.

262nd law commission report, 2015-India will not completely abolish death penalty. It will
only be restricted to two offences- terrorism and murder. Except for these two, death penalty
won’t be executed.

Judicial Interpretations:

Phase I- Pre-Bachan Singh case- (1947-1980)- Death sentence was the rule and life
imprisonment was the exception. CrPC, 1972 is called as the new code. Before this CrPC,
1898, the old code existed. In the 1898 code death sentence was compulsory or there was a
“shall” and not “may”. Except for Justice Bhagwati and Justice Krishna Iyer’s Judgement all
the other judges gave death sentence as for giving a life imprisonment you had to work hard
on reasoning. In the new code, death sentence is the exception, which required reasons. Both
these justices said that there shall be a movement towards reformative theory.

Date- 06.09.2022, Tuesday

Jagmohan Singh v. State of UP AIR 1973 SC 947- In independent India this is the first
judgment that challenged the constitutional validity of S. 302 IPC. It is violative of Art. 14.
State doesn’t give life then how can it take it, hence violative of Art. 21. Also, as the state is
moving towards reformative theory, it shall no longer give death sentence. The HC said that
the state has the authority to take away the life of a person if it is for deterrent and retributive
theory. The SC also said that: “Its not just about S. 302, there are several other offences
where death penalty is being provided, so death penalty as a form of penalty is
constitutionally valid as there is nothing wrong in it, also by the time the case came to the SC
the new code came, which said that life imprisonment is the rule and death penalty is an
exception, also under Art. 21 there is procedure established by law, which has been followed
here. Also, the court has to give certain reasons for death penalty. So, death sentence is
constitutionally valid as there are a lot of ifs and buts that the judge has to follow. (This is the
main judgement for pre-bachan singh era)

Phase II- Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898- Bachan Singh was the
appellant who was convicted for the Murder. Even earlier he was imprisoned for 14 years for
the murder of his wife, after which he did murder of his cousin and two children. Both the
trial court and HC convicted him of murder. He went to the SC stating that death penalty is
constitutionally invalid. The Court said that according to the court while giving death
sentence the court has to give special reasons but there are no criteria as to special reasons.
So, the doctrine of rarest of rare case was developed. The guidelines of this doctrine were:
 i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in the gravest cases of
extreme culpability.
ii) Before opting for death sentence the circumstances of the “offender” must be
taken into consideration along with the circumstances of the “crime”.
iii) Imprisonment for life is the rule and death sentence is the exception in other
words death sentence must be imposed only when imprisonment for life appears
to be an inadequate punishment altogether having considered the relevant
circumstances of the case (offender and the crime).
iv) A balancing sheet should be made of aggravating and mitigating circumstances
has to be drawn up by every judge so that a full weightage and just balance could
be struck before death sentence is conferred on a party.

1. S. 63 – S. 70- Imposition of FINES and related aspects.

2. S. 71 – S. 72- Nature of Punishments for offences made up of several acts.
3. S. 73 -S. 74- Solitary confinement as a punishment and limits for its imposition.
4. S .75- Enhanced punishment.

Read the following judgment, issues, facts and arguments:

Bacchan Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC 898
Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1983 SC 597

Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab 1983 SC 597- five instances in five villages. Machhi
Singh with his companions went to Amar Singh’s house and shot his wife and son. Nine
people entered kahar Singh’s house and killed two. Bishan Singh’s wife and child was killed.
Hakkam Singh was killed as well. Another village- two people were killed, his wife saw
Machhi singh and his companions. Mohinder singh was shot, his wife witnessed it. 3 people
were again killed in one other village. There was no access to electricity. There were 5
families, 12 accused, 17 victims, 3 or 4 survived.
Date- 07.08.2022, Wednesday
The judges have given here 5 considerations which helps in determining aggravating and
mitigating circumstances given in Bachan Singh. The five postulates for considering
mitigating and aggravating circumstances in doctrine of rarest of rare case:
i) Manner of commission of murder- when the murder is committed in an extremely
brutal, grotesque, diabolical and revolting manner so as to arouse intense and
extreme indignation (condemn) from the society.
ii) Motive for commission of murder- when the murder is committed for a motive
which is characteristic of total depravity and meanness.
iii) Anti-social or socially abhorrent (targeting a specific group of people on the basis
of age, gender, caste, strata etc.) nature of the crime.
iv) Personality of the victim- whether victim was a well-known-leader, social worker,
or potential threat, differently abled, pregnant woman etc. one of the cases where
 this was considered was the Indira Gandhi Assassination case, the court had said
that the personality of the victim was great.
v) Magnitude of the crime- more the no. of people victimised, more the magnitude.
In the Ajmal Kasab case the court said that the person is not apologetic of the facts
the he killed so many people. More the no. of people more the chance of death
penalty.
The quantum of punishment is decided on the basis of these two cases- machi singh and
bachan singh and these 5 postulates. Before that it has to be only proved if the person has
committed a murder.

IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE- the meaning is imprisonment for the remaining part of the
persons natural life.
S.54- Commutation of Death Sentence- by appropriate govt. (central or state) without consent
of the offender, to any other punishment provided in the code. A punishment given by a
different body (judiciary) is changed by a different body (govt.)
S. 55- Commutation of sentence of imprisonment for life- appropriate govt. may do it after a
minimum of 14 years of imprisonment. It is not a right. It is on the discretion of the
appropriate govt.
S.57- Fraction of terms of punishment- Ex. It is a multiple murder case, life imprisonment is
given to him, but this person is not eligible for parole unless he goes one-fourth of life
imprisonment, but life time cannot be assumed, so in such cases, the life- imprisonment is
considered as 20 years, which is converted into months, so if that person completes one-
fourth of 20 years he can be given parole. But this doesn’t mean that the life imprisonment is
20 years. Life imprisonment would be for the entire life, the 20 years consideration is only for
calculation. ¼ is not given as a certain period but it can be decided by the court in any case.
Date- 08.09.2022, Thursday
Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1961 SC 600: (Nathuram Godse’s
Brother) Gopal Vinayak Godse, when he was convicted of helping Nathuram Godse in killing
Mahatma Gandhi. So now how was he supposed to be punished. The court decided to not
give him death sentence but rather life imprisonment. He went for almost 11 years and a few
months, and 2 yrs period was excused by the govt., (which means he went for 13 yrs (it is
only consideration as 2 yrs were excused but he lived in jail for only 11 years and a few
months) and few months in the jail but still few months were remaining) for the remaining
few months he went on parole. By law, parole is not calculated as period of imprisonment so
he has to go for an extra imprisonment period that he took parole for. He said that he had
undergone more than 14 years of imprisonment and hence shall be released. Later said that
you can increase it more 6 years and make It 20 years. The trial court did not accept this,
even the HC did not accept it as it was not a right. SC said that life imprisonment means life
imprisonment means imprisonment for the person’s left-over natural life- this was the first
time when SC had said in independent India about life imprisonment, and the 14 years period
is a discretionary power and not a matter of right, also the 20 years given in S. 57 is only for
consideration of fractions.
Swami Shraddananda v. State of Karnataka (II) (2008) 13 SCC 767: Murder of a lady in
late 50s. Appellant Swami’s original name Manohar Joshi, who claims to be a God man. He
has an Ashram. The victim is wife of IFS officer, and owned a lot of property in her name.
She settled back alone in India. Through a common friend who was a devotee of Swami, she
gets to know about him. She goes to the Ashram, she gets influenced and started going
regularly to attend his sermons. For almost 2 months to 1 year she donated 1/4 th of her
property to the Ashram. She decides to get married to the Swami, she gets divorced from her
husband, and told about this to her daughters as well, but she fights them. She gets married.
He later says her that he will manage all her property. Now 2/4 of the property in his name
which she has no idea about and 1/4th in the name of Ashram. He had forged a lot of
documents. She starts fighting. Now he says her lets renovate the house. He gets a pit Dugged
next to her bed of almost 6 ft. He gave half day leave to all the servants and gave them
holidays for 4 to 5 days. He goes to the kitchen and gives her sleeping pills which she takes
without knowing. He calls certain worker and ask them to take a marble slab, the door was
kept Ajar so that the workers would see the woman sleeping and he would get a defence. He
comes back to the bedroom and puts her in the pit and covers it with a marble slab. For about
one and a half month he lives in the same house. One of the daughters called her mother, both
she was not able to. Every time the accused picked the call. Unannounced she comes to India
and asks him where is her mother. She checked the house. She goes to the police station and
files a man missing complaint. He had recorded her voice and made people to hear it on call,
so people thought that she was alive recently. A case was filed now, also they found that the
property was in this man’s name. one day they search the house, they find a big pit and a
marble over it. They open it and found decomposed body of the woman. The other side of the
Slab had crashes which she had done from inside when she was awoke. She died of
suffocation. The trial court gives death sentence. In the HC, he says that this is not the rarest
of rare case and hence she shall be given life imprisonment which is denied. The SC rejected
the first petition, now he filed one more petition and says that he is in his late 60s and not fit
for death sentence and the SC was convinced and life imprisonment was given, imprisonment
for the remaining part of the persons natural life. This was the second time only after Gopal
Godse case when SC had interpreted about life imprisonment. The SC said that this man
cannot be given parole at any cost.
IMPRISONMENT EITHER SIMPLE OR RIGOROUS-
Simple- without labour
Rigorous- With labour
There is a either option.
Ex. If the punishment is 7 years imprisonment of either description fine/ both
The judge has three options now:
i) 7 yrs Simple Imprisonment
ii) 7 yrs Rigorous
iii) 1 yrs Simple and 6 yrs Rigorous.
This all is given in S. 60
FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY: Attachment of the property.