Murari Sir IPC Notes

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
ELEMENTS of crime & Right of private defence, Sections 299 &

300 [ Exceptions of Section 300 will be added later on]
KRISHNA MURARI YADAV 3/11/21

Page 1 of 134
CHAPTER I
ELEMENTS OF CRIME
SYLLABUS of DU LL.B.
Unit 1 :
 Principle of Mens Rea and Strict Liability
 Common Law principle of actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea and exceptions to this
principle - strict liability offences
 Nature of crime
 Elements of crime
1. State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George
2. State of M.P. v. Narayan Singh
SYNOPSIS
 Meaning of Crime
 Bentham
 Henry Maine
 Blackstone
 Blackstone
 Austin
 Stephan
 Kenny
 Keeton
 Millar
 Elements of Crime
(1). Human being
(2). Mens Rea / Guilty Mind
(3). Actus reus / Prohibited act, and
(4). Injury to society or human being.
 Schools of Mens Rea (Interpretation of statutes)
 Presumption of Existence of Mens Rea, and
 Presumption of Absence of Mens Rea. Both presumptions are rebuttable.
 Latin Maxims
 Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
 Nullum Crimen Sine Lege, Nulla Poena Sine Lege
 Stages of Crime
(1). Intention (Making plan in mind)
(2). Preparation
(3). Attempt; and
(4). Commission of Crime or accomplishment / execution.
 Previous Years Question Papers
 Objective Questions
Krishna Murari Yadav, Assistant Professor, LAW CENTRE-1, University of Delhi, Delhi,
Page 2 of 134
Previous Years Question Papers in Judiciary Exams

 RJS (1971) –Distinguish between Knowledge, Intention and Motive giving appropriate
illustrations.
 RJS (1971) –Distinguish between Intention and Motive.
 HJS (1988) - Discuss the Doctrine of Mens Rea. How has it been diluted in the case of
‘Strict Liability offences?
 HJS (1988) - What is meant by Mens Rea? Explain the dictum “Actus Non Facit Reum
Nisi Mens Sit Rea”. How for motive necessary for determining a crime? Are these any
exceptions to the dictum of Mens Rea? Illustrate your answer.
 HJS (2013) - Write short notes on differences between Knowledge, Intention and
Motive.
 Jharkhand Judicial Exams (2014) - ‘Mens Rea is an essential elements in every
crime’. Explain this rule and state to what extent it is applicable to the offences under
the IPC, 1860.
 DJS (2014) –Write short note on distinguish between Knowledge, Intention and
Motive.
 MPJS (1982) - Write short note on Mens Rea
UP (J)
 UPJS (1982) - Write short note on Mens Rea
 UPJS (1992) – “Crime is a revolt against the whole society and an attack on the
civilization of the day”. Elucidate and discuss the essential elements of crime.
Answer - Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Harvinder Singh Bedi v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Date of Judgment - 21/01/1992
Supreme Court observed, “Crime is a revolt against the whole society and an attack
on the civilization of the day…..”
 UPJS (1992) - Distinguish between Knowledge, Intention and Motive. Indicate the
importance of motive in law of crimes.
 UPJS (2000) – Explain ‘Mens Rea’ as an element of criminal liability. Is Mens rea
relevant in crime of ‘Strict Liability’?
 UPJS (2012) – Critically examine the maxim “Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit
Rea” and its exceptions.
 UPJS (2012) – What do you understand by mens rea? What is importance of mens rea
under IPC, 1860? Discuss.
DU LL.B Previous Years Question Papers

DU LL.B. (2010) - Question 1 - Explain the essential elements of crime.
DU LL.B. (2011) Question1 - Explain the common law principle of “actus non facit reum,
nisi mens sit rea” with the help of decided case. What are the exceptions, if any, to this
principle?
DU LL.B. (2013) Question 1. Write short notes on any two of the followings:
(a) Explain and illustrate distinction amongst ‘motive’, ‘intention’ and ‘knowledge’.
Page 3 of 134
DU LL.B. (2013 & 2015) Question 1. “The nature of mens rea that will be implied in a statute
creating an offence depends upon the object of the Act and provisions thereof.” Discuss with
the help of decided cases.
DU LL.B. (2015) Question1 (a) Explain the rationale behind punishing a person guilty of strict
liability offence in the absence of guilty mind.
DU LL.B. (2016) Question1 (a) - Mens Rea is the very cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence.
DU LL.B. (2016) – Discuss the differences among motive, intention and knowledge.
DU LL.B. (2017) Question 1 - In State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George, AIR 1965 SC 722
the majority did not hold mens rea to be an essential ingredient of an offence under section
23(1-A) of the FERA, 1947. Whereas Justice Subba Rao in his dissenting opinion held so.
Discuss and State the reasons for their difference of opinion. Which opinion do you agree with
and why?
DU LL.B. (2018) Question (1) (a)
Is mens rea necessary for all crimes? If not, discuss the circumstances when mens rea may be
excluded in fixing criminal liability.
DU LL.B. (2019)
Question (1) (a) - “Mens Rea by necessary implication can be excluded from a statute only,
where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of statute would otherwise be
defeated.” Elaborate this statement with the help of decided cases.
Question (6) (a) – Differentiate between motive, knowledge and intention.
INTRODUCTION
Governor-General of India in Council appointed “The Indian Law Commissioners” in 1834 to
recommend comprehensive penal code1. The Commission was consisted of –
1. Lord Sir Thomas James Babington Macaulay [President]
2. Macleod
3. Anderson
4. Millet.
The Report was submitted in 1837. I was revised several times. It was submitted to the
Legislative Council in 1856. Indian Penal Code was enacted after first revolt for independence.
Governor-General in Council assented on October 06, 1860. It came into force on January 01,
1862. Lord Sir Thomas James Babington Macaulay is known as father of Indian Penal Code,
1860. It extends to the whole of India.
Total Chapters are XXIII. Three Chapters were added later on. These are
1. VA [Criminal Conspiracy] [Ins. by Act 8 of 1913]
2. IXA [Of Offences Relating to Elections] [Ins.by Act 39 of 1920]
3. XXA [Of Cruelty by Husband or Relatives of Husband] [. Ins. by Act 46 of 1983]
Total sections are 511.
Differences between Crime and Offence

1
K D Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code 8 (LexisNexis, Gurgaon 16th Edn., 2016).
Page 4 of 134
Generally, these two words are used interchangeably. But there are basic differences between
both in the context of Indian law. These are -
GROUNDS CRIME OFFENCE
Scope Crime is wider Offence is narrower
Definition in Crime word has not been defined in Offence word has been defined in
‘Statutes’ Indian Laws. IPC, 1860 [Section 40] and CrPC,
1973 [Section 2(n)].
Scope Crime is used in wider sense. It Offence is committed against enacted
includes acts committed against law.
statutes and morality of society.
Definition Stephan said, “Crime is an act Section 40 of IPC
forbidden by law and which is at the The word “offence” denotes a thing
same time revolting to the moral made punishable under IPC, local
sentiments of the society.” laws or special laws.
Statute Before 2013, stalking was crime. By 2013, Section 354D was inserted
decides in IPC. After this Amendment
nature of stalking is crime.
acts
Adultery is crime. Adultery is not offence. Section 497
has been declared void and
unconstitutional by Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
A person who was good swimmer A person who was good swimmer did
did not save drowning person. He not save drowning person. He has
has committed a crime. committed not committed a crime.
A person whose duty was to save A person whose duty was to save
drowning person. He has committed drowning person. He has committed
crime. He has committed a crime. crime. He has committed a offence..
All crimes are not offence. But all offences are crime.
MEANING OF CRIME
Page 5 of 134
Exams Jurist Definition

Bentham “Offences are whatever the legislature has prohibited for
good or for bad reasons ….according to the principles of
utility, we give the name of offence to every act which we
think ought to be prohibited by reasons of some evil which
it produces or tends to produce.”
Henry Maine An ancient time, penal law is not the criminal law, but it
is wrong law.
UPPCS2002 Blackstone “Crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of
UP Lower public law either forbidding or commanding it.”
Blackstone “Crime is violation of public right or duties due to the
whole community, considered as a community, in its social
aggregate capacity.”
Austin “A wrong which is pursued at the discretion of the injured
party and his representative is a civil injury. A wrong which
is pursued by the sovereign or his subordinate is a
crime.”
UPPCS2005 Stephan “Crime is an act forbidden by law and which is at the same
time revolting to the moral sentiments of the society.”
UPPCS2003 Kenny “Crimes are wrongs which sanction is punitive and is no
way remissible by any private person, but is remissible by
crown alone, if remissible at all.” Here sanction means
punishment and remissible means pardon by crown.
Keeton “A crime would seem to be any undesirable act which the
State finds it most convenient to correct by the institution of
proceedings for the infliction of a penalty, instead of leaving
the remedy to the discretion of some injured party.”
Millar “Crime is …to be commission or omission of an act which
the law forbids or commands under pain of a punishment to
be imposed by the State by a proceeding in its own name.”
21/01/1992 Supreme Court “Crime is a revolt against the whole society and an attack on
of India the civilization of the day”. Mrs. Harpreet Kaur Harvinder
Singh Bedi v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.2
DU LL.B. Previous Year Question Paper 2010

Question 1 - Explain the essential elements of crime.
2
Available at: https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/12526.pdf (Visited on February 01, 2021).
Page 6 of 134
Answer
Definition of Crime
According to Blackstone “Crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of public law either
forbidding or commanding it.”
According to Stephan “Crime is an act forbidden by law and which is at the same time revolting
to the moral sentiments of the society.”
Elements of Crime
There are four elements of crime namely; (1) Human being (2) Mens Rea / Guilty Mind (3)
Actus reus / Prohibited act, and (4) Injury to society or human being.
Elements of
Crime
Four Elements
Mens Rea / Actus reus / Injury to society or

Human Being
Guilty Mind Prohibited act human being
(1) Human being – Only Human being can commit crime under IPC. In European Countries
animals were also punished for committing crime during medieval era. In Hindu criminal
jurisprudence did not provide for trail and punishment of animals or inanimate objects. Only a
human being under a legal obligation and capable of being punished can be the proper subject
of criminal law. It means a human being must have a body. Legal person like company or idol
will not come under human being. Company can commit crime. But that matter is governed by
other laws. For example Companies Act, 2013.
(2) Mens Rea –
 Mens Rea means guilty mind. It is denoted with intention, knowledge, negligence,
rashness, wrongful gain or wrongful loss, voluntarily or reason to believe, mala fides
etc.
 Rule - Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea means the act itself does not make a man
guilty, unless the mind is also guilty. Chapter IV (General Exceptions) of IPC is itself
recognition of requirement of mens rea.
 Exceptions - There are certain cases in which human being can be punished even
without guilty mind. Such types of offences come under the principle of strict liability.
For examples kidnapping, bigamy, economic offences (M.H. George Case) etc.
(3) Actus reus / Prohibited act-
Page 7 of 134
 According to Kenny ‘actus reus’ is such result of human conduct as the law seeks to
prevent.
 Professor Glanville Williams has given wider meaning of actus reus. According to him
actus reus means the whole definition of crime with the exception of mental elements.
 Actus reus includes negative as well as positive elements.
 According to section 32 of IPC ‘act’ includes omission.
 According to section 33 act also includes series of acts.
 Mens rea itself is not sufficient to constitute offence. Guilty mind cannot be identified
unless some overt act is done.
(4) Injury – According to section 44 of IPC the word “injury” denotes any harm whatever
illegally caused to any person,
 in body,
 mind,
 reputation or
 property.
In certain situation person is punished even though he has not committed injury to another
person. These are the case of inchoate crime for example
 abetment,
 conspiracy and
 attempt.
DU LL.B. 2011
Question1 - Explain the common law principle of “actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea”
with the help of decided case. What are the exceptions, if any, to this principle?
Answer -
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea (Common Law Doctrine)
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea means the act itself does not make a man guilty, unless
the mind is also guilty. This theory was developed be Common Law Courts. First time concept
of Mens Rea was discussed by Justice Coke. In case of Fowler v. Padget (1798) Lord Kenyon
held that actus reus and mens rea both are essentials for commission of crime.
This maxim denotes that guilty mind and prohibited act both are part and parcel of crime. It is
rule that without guilty mind, crime cannot be committed. There are also certain exceptions of
this maxim.
Page 8 of 134
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
Rule - Exceptions
Two elements There are certain cases in which
there is no need of guilty mind
Prohibited Act Guilty Mind
If maxim applies [Benefit for accused] – In case of application of this maxim, accused person
would be benefited and there would be utmost probability of to win the case because prosecutor
would be bound to prove prohibited act and guilty mind. Proving the guilty mind for
prosecution is difficult. For example theft, culpable homicide etc.
If maxim does not apply [benefit for victim/prosecutor] - It would be very easy for prosecutor
to win the case because he would be bound to prove only one condition i.e. prohibited act. To
prove guilty mind always very difficult. It in such case there would be a lot of harm for accused.
For example rape, waging war etc.
Meaning of Actus reus -
Actus reus means physical condition of penal liability. Actus Reus is defined as a result of
voluntary human conduct which law prohibits. It is the doing of some act by the person to be
held liable an ‘act’ is a willed movement of body.
Meaning of Mens Rea -
Mens Rea means guilty mind or an evil/ mala-fide intention to commit illegal act. It can be
identified as intention, knowledge, reason to believe, negligence, recklessness etc.
Exception of Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea (Strict Liability) -
Sometimes offence is constituted even without guilty mind it is called strict liability. There are
certain exceptions of Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.
These exceptions are following -
(1) Criminal Libel
(2) Public Nuisance (Hicklin Test)
(3) Contempt of Court
(4) Abduction/Kidnapping3
(5) Bigamy4
(6) Waging war5
(7) Sexual Harassment6
(8) Rape7
3
R. v. Prince (1875), Section 361 and 362 of IPC.
4
Section 494 of IPC. In the Case of R. v. Tolson British Court did not apply strict liability. But we are not bound
by decision of that Court. Application of it depends upon facts and circumstances of the case.
5
Section 121 of IPC
6
Section 354A of IPC.
7
Section 375. There are two parts of definition of rape namely;
(1) Prohibited act committed by accused ( Section 375 (a),(b),(c) and (d), and
(2) mental condition of victim rather than accused (Section 375 Firstly, secondly………..seventhly).
Page 9 of 134
(9) Selling of obscene books8

(10) Essential Commodities Act, 19559
(11) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(12) FERA (Foreign Exchange and Regulation Act), 194710
(13) Sea Customs Act11
(14) Statutory offences.
Exceptions of Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea
Sometimes offence is constituted even without guilty mind it is called strict liability. Judges
apply this principle only when statutory provisions are silent on the intention of accused.
Application and non-application of this maxim depends upon sound logic and reasonable
discretion of judges. There are certain exceptions of Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.
These exceptions are following -

(1) Sale, etc., of obscene books (Section 292 of IPC) – Section 292 deals sale, etc., of obscene
books, etc. In the case of Ranjit D.Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (August 19, 1964) Hon’ble
Supreme Court convicted seller under section 292 for selling Lady Chatterley’s Lover book,
although he had no knowledge of this book. The Court held that in section 292 of IPC unlike
several other sections did not contain the words knowingly, or negligently etc. ‘Principle of
Strict Liability’ was applied.
(2) Sexual Harassment (Section 354A of IPC) – ‘Sexual Harassment’ has been provided
under section 354A which was inserted by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013. In this
section nothing has been mentioned about guilty mind of accused. So in this case principle of
strict liability will be applicable. Section 354A deals about sexual harassment. Application o
strict liability is sine qua non to fulfil the objects of Section 354A.
(3) Kidnapping from lawful guardianship (Section 361 of IPC) - Section 361 of IPC deals
kidnapping from lawful guardianship. Mental condition of accused is immaterial. Whether
accused is doing in good faith or not wholly irrelevant.
In the case of R. v. Prince (1875) Justice Blackburn said that section 55 of the Offences Against
the Persons Act, 1861 had not mention about mens rea. He denied applying the maxim Actus
non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea and held that the provision did not require guilty intention or
knowledge so the Court could not insert requirement of intention or knowledge only on the
basis of maxim. So, Prince was convicted even without guilty mind. Principle of strict liability
was followed.
(4) Bigamy (Section 494 of IPC) - Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any
case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband
8
Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (SC 1964).
9
In the case of Nathu Lal v. State of M.P. (1965)Supreme Court presumed presence of mens rea. To override
this judgment Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were amended in 1967. After this amendment State of M.P. v.
Narayan Singh (1989) were decided and Supreme Court did not apply the maxim because law was very clear.
10
State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George (SC 1964)
11
Indo-China Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Jasjit Singh, Additional Collector of Customs, Calcutta (SC 1964)
Page 10 of 134
or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend
to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
(5) Economic offences – Economic offences affect not only develop of nation and life of
citizens but also integrity and sovereignty of nation. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. M.
H. George (1964) majority opinion of Supreme Court observed, “The Foreign Exchange
Regulation Act, 1947 is designed to safeguarding and conserving foreign exchange which is
essential to the economic life of a developing country. The provisions have therefore to be
stringent and so framed as to prevent unauthorized and unregulated transactions which might
upset the scheme underlying the controls; and in a larger context, the penal provisions are aimed
at eliminating smuggling which is a concomitant of controls over the free movement of goods
or currencies.” The Court further said that the very object and purpose of the Act and its
effectiveness as an instrument for the prevention of smuggling would be entirely frustrated if
a condition of mens rea were to be read into the plain reading of the enactment. In this case
“Principle of strict liability was applied and accused was convicted.
(6) Public Health –
In the case of Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange and Others12 (1973 ) Supreme
Court said that it is trite law (Trite law means laws that are obvious or common knowledge)
that in food offences strict liability is the rule not merely under the Indian Laws but the entire
world. Nothing more than the actus reus is needed where, regulation of private activity in
vulnerable areas like public health is intended. Social defence reasonably overpowers
individual freedom to injure, in special situations of strict liability. Section 7 of Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, 1954 casts an absolute obligation regardless of scienter, bad faith and
mens rea. If you have sold any article of food contrary to law, you are guilty. The law denies
the right of a dealer to rob the health of a supari consumer.
State of M.P. v. Narayan Singh (25 July 1989) -Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were
amended in 1967 to nullify the judgment of Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1965). The
words used in section 7 (1) are “if any person contravenes whether knowingly, intentionally or
otherwise any Order made under section 3”. The section is comprehensively worded so that it
takes within its fold not only contraventions done knowingly or intentionally but even
otherwise, i.e., done unintentionally. Principle of strict liability was applied in the case of State
of M.P. v. Narayan Singh (1989).
American Jurisprudence
Jurisprudence of application of strict liability in adulterated food has been explained in
American Jurisprudence (2d, Vol. 35, p. 864) which are following “The distribution of impure
or adulterated food for consumption is an act perilous to human life and health, hence, a
dangerous act, and cannot be made innocent and harmless by the want of knowledge or by the
good faith of the seller; it is the act itself, not the intent, that determines the guilt, and the actual
harm to the public is the same in one case as in the other. Thus, the seller of food is under the
duty of ascertaining at his peril whether the article of food conforms to the standard fixed by
statute or ordinance, unless such statutes or ordinances, expressly or by implication, make
intent an element of the offence.”
12
Date of Judgment: October 31, 1973.
Page 11 of 134
Schools of Mens Rea (Interpretation of statutes)
 There are two schools regarding interpretation of statutes in context of mens rea.
 These Schools shall be applicable only when statutory provisions are silent about mens
rea.
These Schools are
(1) Presumption of Existence of Mens Rea, and

(2) Presumption of Absence of Mens Rea.
Both presumptions are rebuttable.

Statutes
How to interpret
statute?
Statute is cleary talks about Statute is silent. For example

mens rea. For example Sections Sections 121, 375, 494.
299, 300, 378
How to
interpret such
provisions?
Presumption of Presumption of
existence of absence of
Mens Rea Mens Rea
(1) Presumption of existence of Mens Rea- In every Statute mens rea should be treated
as part of crime unless contrary is shown. Existence of Mens Rea is presumed.
 In case of Q. v. Tolson court acquitted lady on the ground of her innocent. She
got marriage after full inquiry. But the Court also accepted that by statute mens
rea may be excluded.
 This theory was led by Justice Wright in case of Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895).
In case of Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895) Justice Wright said “In every statute
mens rea is to be implied unless contrary is shown”.
 In case of Brend v. Wood (1946), Justice Goddard, “The general rule
applicable to criminal case is actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea…It is of the
utmost importance for the protection of the liberty of the subject that a court
should always bear in mind that, unless the statute, either clearly or by
necessary implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime, a
defendant should not be found guilty of an offence against the criminal law
unless he has got a guilty mind”. Principle of mens rea was revived by Justice
Goddard.
Page 12 of 134
 In the case of Nathu Lal v. State of M.P.13 (1965) Supreme Court acquitted the
accused on the basis of absence of mens rea.
Rebuttal of presumption
In Halsbury’s Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 10, in para 508, at p. 273, the following
passage appears: A statutory crime may or may not contain an express definition of the
necessary state of mind. A statute may require a specific intention, malice, knowledge,
willfulness, or recklessness.
On the other hand, it may be silent as to any requirement of mens rea, and in such a
case in order to determine whether or not mens rea, is an essential element of the offence
it is necessary to look at the objects and terms of the statute.
Archbold in his book on ‘Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice, says “There is a
presumption that mens rea, is an essential ingredient in a statutory offence, but this
presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the
offence or by the subject matter with which it deals.
In the case of Brend v. Wood Justice Goddard said that this presumption can be rebutted
by statute either clearly or by necessary implication.
i. Cases related to Presumption of existence of Mens Rea
S. No. Name of Cases Justices Years

1 Fowler v. Padget Lord Kenyon 1798
2 R. v. Tolson Justice Wills 1889
3 Sherras v. De Rutzen Justice Wright 1895
4 Brend v. Wood Justice Goddard 1946
5 Nathu Lal v. State of M.P. Justice Subba Rao 1965
(2) Presumption of absence of Mens Rea- According to second School, statute must be
interpreted in absence of mens rea unless requirement of mens rea has been specifically
mentioned. On the basis of this theory Justice Blackburn decided the R.v. Prince (1875)
and he convicted the accused who had no guilty mind. Accused believed that the girl
was 18 year while real age of girl was 14 year. At that time taking of girl below the age
of 16 years out of keeping of lawful guardian was crime. Appearance of Girl was age
of 18 years. Court denied to accept Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea (Common
Law Doctrine). This theory was led by Justice Kennedy in Hobbes v. Winchester
Corporation (1910). In case Ranjit D.Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (1964) books
seller was punished under section 292 of IPC.
In the case of State of Maharashtra v. M.H.George14 (1964) Supreme Court convicted
the accused. Justice K.Subba Rao delivered minority opinion.
13
This case was decided by Supreme Court on March 22, 1965.
14
This case was decided by Supreme Court on August 24, 1964.
Page 13 of 134
ii. Cases related to Presumption of absence of Mens Rea
S. No. Name of Case Hon’ble Justice Year

1 R. v. Prince Justice Blackburn 1875
2 Hobbes v. Winchester Corporation Kennedy 1910
3 The Indo-China Steam Navigation Chief Justice Feb. 3, 1964)
Co. Ltd. v. Jasjit Singh, Addl. Gajendragadkar
(Constitutional Bench
4 Ranjit D.Udeshi v. State of Hidayatullah Aug. 19, 1964
Maharashtra (Constitutional Bench)
5 State of Maharashtra v. M.H.George K. Ayyangar Aug. 24, 1964
(Full Bench)
INTENTION, KNOWLEDGE & MOTIVE
Intention
There are two elements namely.
(1) Desire of consequence, and
(2) Foresight of consequences.
Intention
Two elements
Desire of Foresight of
consequence consequences
Knowledge
There is only one element namely, Foresight of consequences. In knowledge desire of
consequences is missing. It is presumed that every sound person has knowledge.
Knowledge
One element
Foresight of consequences
Motive
Neither bad motive nor good motive is relevant to constitute offence. It is relevant under section
8 of Indian Evidence Act. Motive prompts a person to do something. Sometime offence is
committed with motive and sometimes without motive. Intention refers to the immediate
object, while motive refers to the ulterior object which is at the root of intention.
Negligence
Page 14 of 134
Negligence is not taking care, where there is a duty to take care. Negligence or Carelessness
indicates a state of mind, viz. absence of a desire to cause a particular consequence.
Recklessness
Recklessness occurs when the actor does not desire the consequence but foresees the possibility
and consciously takes the risk.
Previous Year Question Paper

( LL.B. -DU -2013)
Question 1. Write short notes on any two of the followings:

(a) Explain and illustrate distinction amongst ‘motive’, ‘intention’ and ‘knowledge’.
Answer - Distinction amongst ‘motive’, ‘intention’ and ‘knowledge’
According to Stephen “Intention is an operation of the will directing an overt act; motive is
the feeling which prompts the operation of the will, the ulterior object of the person willing,
e.g., if a person kills another, the intention directs the act which causes death, the motive is
object which the person had in view, i,g., the satisfaction of some desire, such as revenge etc.”
According to Austin “The intention is the aim of the act, of which the motive is the spring.”
Basdev v. The State of Pepsu (17 April, 1956 S. C)15
In this case Supreme Court said, “Motive is something which prompts a man to form an
intention and knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of the act. In many cases
intention and knowledge merge into each other and mean the same thing more or less and
intention can be presumed from knowledge. The demarcating line between knowledge and
intention is no doubt thin but it is not difficult to perceive that they connote different things.”
Neither bad motive nor good motive is relevant to constitute offence. It is relevant under section
8 of Indian Evidence Act. Motive prompts a person to do something. Sometime offence is
committed with motive and sometimes without motive. Intention refers to the immediate
object, while motive refers to the ulterior object which is at the root of intention.
There are following differences among motive, intention and knowledge -
Grounds Motive Intention Knowledge

(1) Motive is the feeling Intention is an operation of Knowledge is only
Definition which prompts the the will directing an overt foresight of
operation of the will. act. Intention is the consequences. Here
combination of desire and desire is missing.
foresight of consequences.
Illustration if a person kills another, A with desire to kill B threw A without desire to
the intention directs the from fourth floor to ground. kill B and for saving
act which causes death, He foresighted that throwing life threw from
the motive is object which from fourth floor was likely fourth floor to
the person had in view, to cause death. So in this ground. He
15
The accused was prosecuted for a kill a boy in marriage ceremony during dispute for seat.
Page 15 of 134
i,g., the satisfaction of case in presence of desire foresighted that

some desire, such as and foresight there is throwing from fourth
revenge etc. intention. floor was likely to
cause death. So in
this case in absence
of desire and
presence of foresight
is involved. So it is
knowledge.
2 It is the ulterior object It is immediate object. It is immediate
object.
3 Motive is not part of Presence or absence of It is also relevant.
crime. So either good intention is very relevant.
motive or bad motive Rule is that “Actus non facit
shall not commission of reum, nisi mens sit rea”
offence. It means
presence or absence of
motive is not relevant to
constitute offence. It is
relevant to decide
quantum of punishment.
It is relevant under
section 8 of Indian
Evidence Act.
Example A removes a cow A is in a house which is on
belonging to B to save her fire, with Z, a child. People
from being slaughtered. A below hold out a blanket. A
will be liable for theft if drops the child from the
other condition of theft are house-top, knowing it to be
being fulfilled. His good likely that the fall may kill
motive cannot save him. the child, but not intending
to kill the child, and
intending, in good faith, the
child’s benefit. Here, even if
the child is killed by the fall,
A has committed no
offence.
4 A crime committed with A crime committed
Gravity intention is more serious. with knowledge is
Example sec. 304 Part One lesser serious in
comparison with
intention.
Page 16 of 134
Example sec. 304

Part Two.
DU LL.B 2016
Motive v. Intention
Motive and intention both are different. There are following differences -
Motive Intention
1 Motive is the feeling which prompts the Intention is an operation of the will
operation of the will. directing an overt act.
Intention is the combination of desire and
foresight of consequences.
2 It is the ulterior object. It is immediate object.
3 Motive is not part of crime. So either good Presence or absence of intention is very
motive or bad motive shall not be relevant for relevant. Rule is that “Actus non facit reum,
commission of offence. It means presence or nisi mens sit rea”
absence of motive is not relevant to constitute
offence. It is relevant to decide quantum of
punishment. It is relevant under section 8 of
Indian Evidence Act.
DU LL.B. Question 8(b) –
Write short notes –
(b) Bring out clearly the differences between motive and intention.
Differences between motive and intention

Motive Intention
(1) Motive is the feeling which prompts the Intention is an operation of the
Definition operation of the will. will directing an overt act.
Intention is the combination of
desire and foresight of
consequences.
Illustration if a person kills another, the intention directs A with desire to kill B threw
the act which causes death, the motive is object from fourth floor to ground. He
which the person had in view, i,g., the foresighted that throwing from
satisfaction of some desire, such as revenge fourth floor was likely to cause
etc. death. So in this case in
presence of desire and foresight
there is intention.
2 It is the ulterior object It is immediate object.
3 Motive is not part of crime. So either good Presence or absence of
motive or bad motive shall not commission of intention is very relevant. Rule
offence. It means presence or absence of is that “Actus non facit reum,
motive is not relevant to constitute offence. It nisi mens sit rea”
is relevant to decide quantum of punishment. It
Page 17 of 134
is relevant under section 8 of Indian Evidence

Act.
Example A removes a cow belonging to B to save her A is in a house which is on fire,
from being slaughtered. A will be liable for with Z, a child. People below
theft if other condition of theft are being hold out a blanket. A drops the
fulfilled. His good motive cannot save him. child from the house-top,
knowing it to be likely that the
fall may kill the child, but not
intending to kill the child, and
intending, in good faith, the
child’s benefit. Here, even if
the child is killed by the fall, A
has committed no offence.
STAGES OF CRIME
If a person commits a crime voluntarily, it involves four important stages, viz.
(1). Intention of Contemplation

(2). Preparation
(3). Attempt; and
(4). Commission of Crime or accomplishment / execution. The first two stages
would not attract culpability but the third and fourth stages would certainly
attract culpability.16
(1) Intention - Intention is mental status, which cannot be traced, so mere intention is not
punishable.
(2) Preparation - Generally preparation is also not punishable. But there are some
exceptional cases when at the stage of preparation; offence is punishable, namely,
I. Preparation to wage war against the Government (Section 122)
II. Anyone commits damages to the property and destruction of property within
the territories of our country and the country which is with peace with our
government (Sec. 126)
III. Preparation for counterfeiting of coins or Government Stamps (Sections 233 to
235), 255 and 257.
IV. Possessing counterfeit coins, false weights or measurements and forged
documents (Section 242, 243, 259, 266 and 474)
V. Making preparation to commit dacoity (Section 399).
(3) Attempt – Attempt is called inchoate crime (incomplete crime). It is punishable.
(4) Execution of Offence – When an offender achieved his desired goal i.e. called
execution of an offence.
16
State of Madhya Pradesh v. Narayan Singh & Ors , AIR 1989 SC 1789
Page 18 of 134
DU LL.B. - 2017
Question 1 - In State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George, AIR 1965 SC 722 the majority did not
hold mens rea to be an essential ingredient of an offence under section 23(1-A) of the FERA,
1947. Whereas Justice Subba Rao in his dissenting opinion held so. Discuss and State the
reasons for their difference of opinion. Which opinion do you agree with and why?
Answer –
State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George17
Date of Judgment - August 24, 1964.

Bench – Full Bench
Majority Opinion
 Hon’ble Justice N. Rajagopala Ayyangar
 Hon’ble Justice J.R.Mudholkar
Minority Opinion
 Hon’ble Justice K. Subbarao
Facts - Mayer Hans George, a German Smuggler, left Zurich (Famous city of Switzerland) by
plane on 27th November 1962 with 34 kilos of gold concealed on his person to be delivered in
Manila (Capital of Philippines). The plane arrived in Bombay on the 28th November but he
did not come out of the plane. The customs authorities examined the manifest of the aircraft to
see if any gold was consigned by any passenger, and not finding any entry they entered the
plane, searched the respondent, recovered the gold and charged him with an offence under ss.
8(1) and 23(1-A) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 read with a notification dated
8th November 1962 of the Reserve Bank of India which was published in the Gazette of India
on 24th November.
 Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947

 RBI issued Notification dated 8th November 1962.
 Notification was published in the Gazette of India on 24th November, 1962.
Important Places
Germany Smuggler was citizen of Germany
Zurich George left Zurich to Manila
Bombay He was arrested in Bombay airport
Manila His final destination was Manila
17
Page 19 of 134
Important Dates
Nov. 24, 1962 RBI published notification

Nov.27, 1962 George left Zurich to Manila
Nov.28, 1962 George was arrested at 6.05 a.m.
August 24, 1964 George was convicted by Supreme Court
Objects of Act
1 To prevent smuggling of gold

2 To converse foreign exchange
3 To protect national economy of country
Issues – In this case several issues were involved. But for our purposes only following issues
are relevant -
 Can strict liability be applied in such case?
Answer - Yes
 Can a person be convicted even without guilty mind?
Answer - Yes
 Can George be convicted even without guilty mind?
Answer - Yes
 Whether ‘Ignorantia facti excusat, Ignorantia juris (legis) non (neminem) execusat’
(Ignorance of fact is excusable, but ignorance of law is not excusable) is applicable?
Answer – Yes.
ARGUMENTS
In State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George18several cases were argued on both sides. I am
discussing only those cases which were argued regarding mens rea.
Arguments of Appellant
In these cases, Courts held that if statutes are silent, court must not insert mens rea as essential
ingredients -
S. No. Name of Case Hon’ble Justice Year
1 R. v. Prince Justice Blackburn 1875
2 Hobbes v. Winchester Corporation Kennedy 1910
3 The Indo-China Steam Navigation Chief Justice Gajendragadkar Feb. 3,
Co. Ltd. v. Jasjit Singh, Addl. (Constitutional Bench) 1964)
4 Ranjit D.Udeshi v. State of Hidayatullah (Constitutional Aug. 19,
Maharashtra Bench) 1964
18
AIR 1965 SC 722
Page 20 of 134
R. v. Prince19 (1875) (Blackburn)

Facts - Henry Prince was charged under section 5520 of the Offences Against the Persons Act,
1861.21 This section was related to abduction. There was no any category of offence like
kidnapping under this Act. At that time unlawfully taking of a girl below the age of sixteen
years without permission of lawful guardian was an offence. It was proved that the prisoner
took the girl whose age was below the age of sixteen years from out of possession of lawful
guardians without their permission.22 Real age of girl was 14 years. Actus reus was present but
mens rea was absent. Accused proved that he took the girl who was looking age of 18 years
and he took with consent and after her replying that her age was 18 years. He did in good faith.
Actual Age of Girl 14 Years
Abduction Under the age of 16 years
She appears/ Accused thought Near about 18 years
Decision - Court denied these defences. This section had not mention about mens rea i.e.
intention, knowledge, reason to believe etc. Justice Blackburn denied applying the maxim
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea and held that the provision did not require guilty
intention or knowledge so Court could not insert requirement of intention or knowledge only
on the basis of maxim. So Prince was convicted even without guilty mind. Principle of strict
liability was followed.
Hobbs v. Winchester Corp. (1910) Kennedy
Kennedy said, “You ought to construe the statute literally unless there is something to show
that mens rea is required.”
The Indo-China Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Jasjit Singh, Addl. (February 3, 1964)
This case is related to smuggling of gold. Chief Justice Gajendragadkar said, “The intention of
the legislature in providing for the prohibition prescribed by section 52 A of the Sea Customs
Act is, inter alia, to put an end to illegal smuggling which has the effect of disturbing very
rudely the national economy of the country. It is well-known, for example, that smuggling of
gold has become a serious problem in this country and operations of smuggling are conducted
by operators who work on an international basis. The persons who actually carry out the
physical part of smuggling gold by one means or another are generally no more than agents
and presumably, behind them stands a well- knit Organisation which, for motives of profit
making, undertakes this activity.”
19
(1875) L.R. 2 C.C.R. 154
20
Section 55 of Offences Against the Persons Act, 1861 - Abduction of a girl under sixteen years of age -
Whosoever shall unlawfully take or cause to be taken any unmarried girl, being under the age of sixteen years,
out of the possession and against the will of her father or mother, or of any other person having the lawful care
or charge of her, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion
of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, with or without hard labour.
21
Offences Against the Persons Act, 1861 is available at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1861/100/pdfs/ukpga_18610100_en.pdf (Visited on August 31, 2018.
22
S.N. Mishra, Indian Penal Code …(Central Law Publications, Allahabad, 20th edn, 2017).
Page 21 of 134
Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (August 19, 1964)

Selling of ‘Lady Chatterley’s Lover’ book was prohibited in India. Seller was convicted under
section 292 of IPC for selling this book, although he had no knowledge of this book. Strict
liability was imposed.
Arguments of Respondent [M.H. George]
In these cases, Courts held that if statutes are silent, court must insert mens rea as essential
ingredients -
S. No. Name of Cases Justices Years

1 Fowler v. Padget Lord Kenyon 1798
2 R. v. Tolson Justice Wills 1889
3 Sherras v. De Rutzen Justice Wright 1895
4 Brend v. Wood Justice Goddard 1946
There are some leading cases related to elements of crime –
Fowler v. Padget23 (1798) (Lord Kenyon)

Actus reus (prohibited act) and mens rea (guilty mind) both are essentials for commission of
crime. Lord Kenyon said, “It is a principle of natural justice, and of our law, that actus non
facit reum nisi mens sit rea. The intent and the act must both concur to constitute the crime”.24
This case was related to bankruptcy.
R. v. Tolson25 (1889) (Wills) (Koi Mere Dil Se Puchhe – Hindi Movie)

Facts – Mrs. Tolson married in Sept 1880. Her husband went missing in December 1881. She
was told that he had been on a ship that was lost at sea. She also inquired from elder brother of
her husband. Six years later, believing her husband to be dead, she married another. All the
circumstances were well known to second husband. Her husband returned after 11 months from
the date of marriage. She was charged with the offence of bigamy under section 57 of ‘Offences
Against the Persons Act, 1861’.26 Reason was that she had got second marriage within 7 years.
She did in good faith. This section was silent regarding guilty mind.
Held: She was afforded the defence of mistake as it was reasonable in the circumstances to
believe that her husband was dead. She was acquitted.
Reason- Honest and reasonable mistake stands in fact of the same footing as absence of the
reasoning faculty, as in infancy; preservation of that faculty , as in lunacy. These exceptions
apply equally in case of statutory offences unless they are excluded expressly or be necessary
implication. The Court applied the Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.
23
(1798)7 TLR 509(514):101 ER 1103
24
K D Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code, 107 (LexisNexis, Gurgaon, 6th edn., 2016).
25
(1889) 23 QBD 168: (1886-1890)All ER Rep 26.
26
Offences Against the Persons Act, 1861 is available at:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1861/100/pdfs/ukpga_18610100_en.pdf (Visited on August 31, 2018.
Page 22 of 134
Justice Wills, said “Although, prima facie and as a general rule, there must be a mind at fault
before there can be a crime, it is not an inflexible rule, and a statute may relate to such a subject-
matter and may be so framed as to make an act criminal whether there has been any intention
to break the law or otherwise to do wrong or not”.
Sherras v. De Rutzen27 (1895) (Wright )

Fact-Section 16(2) of the Licensing Act, 1872, prohibited a licensed victualler (victualler
means supplier of foods fit for human being) from supplying liquor to a police constable while
on duty. It was held that section did not apply where a licensed victualler bona fide believed
that the police officer was off duty.
Justice Wright said –
(1) “There is a presumption that mens rea, an evil intention, or knowledge of the
wrongfulness of the act, is an essential ingredient in every offence.”
(2) “In every statute mens rea is to be implied unless contrary is shown”
(3) “There is a presumption that mens rea, an evil intention, or a knowledge of the
wrongfulness of the act, is an essential ingredient in every offence; but that presumption
is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the
subject-matter with which it deals, and both must be considered.”
R. v. Prince Section 55, Offences Against Person Act, 1861 Abduction

R.v. Tolson Section 57, Offences Against Person Act, 1861 Bigamy
Sherras v. De Section 16(2), The Licensing Act, 1872, Selling of liquor to
Rutzen prohibited buyer
Brend v. Wood (1946) (Goddard) - Revival of Mens rea

Goddard C. J. “It is…............. of the utmost importance for the protection of the liberty of the
subject that a court should always bear in mind that, unless the statute, either clearly or by
necessary implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime, a defendant should
not be found guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has got a guilty mind”.
DECISION OF M.H. GEORGE CASE
Supreme Court examined several British and Indian Cases. All the cases have been discussed
above. Purpose of FERA, 1947 was to prevent smuggling. This case is related to economic
condition of country. So Supreme Court did not apply the maxim and applied the strict liability
principle.
Majority Opinion - N. Ayyangar and J.R. Rajagopala Mudholkar convicted the accused.
Minority Opinion - Justice K. Subba Rao said that M.H. George had no intention to commit
crime in India. So he was not guilty.
Remarks – In the M.H. George Case all abovementioned cases have been discussed. So at the
time writing of answer related to M.H. George case all cases must also be discussed.
27
(1895) 1QB 918
Page 23 of 134
Decision of Courts
Presidency Court George was convicted
Bombay High Court George was acquitted
Supreme Court George was convicted
Conclusion
In our opinion, the very object and purpose of the Act and, its effectiveness as an instrument
for the prevention of smuggling would be entirely frustrated if a condition were to be read into
s. 8 (1) of s. 23 (1-A) of the Act qualifying the plain words of the enactment, that the accused
should be proved to have knowledge that he was contravening the law before he could be held
to have contravened the provision.
Important Provisions
The Indo-China Steam Navigation Co. Section 52A, Sea Smuggling of gold
Ltd. v. Jasjit Singh Customs Act, 1878
Ranjit D.Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra Section 292, IPC Selling of obscene book
State of Maharashtra v. M.H.George FERA, 1947 Smuggling of gold
Nathu Lal v. State of M.P.28 (22 March 1965)
Facts - The appellant is a dealer of food grains at Dhar in Madhya Pradesh. He was prosecuted
in the Court of the Additional District Magistrate, Dhar, for having in stock 885 maunds and
21/4 seers of wheat for the purpose of sale without a licence and for having thereby committed
an offence under section 7of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. The appellant pleaded that
he did not intentionally contravene the provisions of the said section on the ground that he
stored the said grains after applying for a licence and was in the belief that it would be issued
to him.
Issue – Can a person be convicted without guilty mind?
Answer – No. Person can’t be convicted without guilty mind.
Reason – Supreme Court said, “Mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal offence.
Doubtless a statute may exclude the element of mens rea, but it is a sound rule of construction
adopted in England and also accepted in India to construe a statutory provision creating an
offence in conformity with the common law rather than against it unless the statute expressly
or by necessary implication excluded mens rea.”29
Decision - He was acquitted because he had without any guilty mind.30 Unless statute expressly
exclude, law should be construed as including mens rea.
Effect of Decision - After this case section 7 of Essential Commodities Act was amended in
1967 and mens rea was excluded. “whether knowingly, intentionally or otherwise” were
inserted.
28
AIR 1966 SC 43.
29
S.N. Mishra, Indian Penal Code 21 (Central Law Publications, Allahabad, … edn, 2006).
30
S.N. Mishra, Indian Penal Code 22 (Central Law Publications, Allahabad, … edn, 2006).
Page 24 of 134
Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 1967

After the decision of Nathu Lal case big problem arose before country. At that time India was
facing acute shortage of food grains. There were several reasons of this namely; Indo-China
War, famine, increasing tension & war on Indo-Pak border and denial of USA to export grains.
USA was creating pressure in favour of Pakistan.
In the Nathu Lal Case Supreme Court held person would not be punished without guilty mind.
So this Act was amended. After amendment statute is very clear. Person will be punished even
without guilty mind.
State of M.P. v. Narayan Singh31 (25 July 1989)

Facts – Essential Commodities Act, 1955 were amended in 1967. The respondents who were
lorry drivers, cleaners and coolie were carrying fertiliser bags in trucks from Indore (Madhya
Pradesh) to Maharashtra. They were intercepted at a Sales Tax Barrier near the border of
Maharashtra State. The documents seized from the lorry drivers contained the invoices and
other records but did not include permits issued under the Fertilisers (Movement Control)
Order, 1973. Consequently, they were prosecuted under the Fertiliser (Movement Control)
Order, 1973 read with section 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for exporting
fertilisers from Madhya Pradesh to Maharashtra without a valid permit. They were charged
under section 511.
The Fertiliser (Movement Control) Order, 1973 was framed in exercise of the powers conferred
under Section 3 of the EC Act.
Impugned Statutory Provisions –

 Essential Commodities Act, 1955
 The Fertiliser (Movement Control) Order, 1973
Issues – There were following issues in this case -
1. Whether the prosecution must prove mens rea on the part of the accused in exporting
the fertiliser bags without a valid permit for securing their conviction?
Answer – No. Essential Commodities Act, 1955 after Amendment in 1967 does not
require mens rea. The words used in Section 7(1) are “if any person contravenes
whether knowingly, intentionally or otherwise any order made under Section 3”.
2. Whether the evidence on record established only preparation by the accused for
effecting export of fertiliser bags from one State to another without a permit therefor
and not an attempt to export fertiliser bags.
Answer – No. They have crossed the stage of preparation. They had committed offence
3. Whether ratio of Nathu Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh [March 22, 1965] should be
applied?
Answer – No.
Decision of Supreme Court
There are following decisions of Supreme Court on following points -
(1) Mens Rea -The words used in section 7 (1) are “if any person contravenes whether
knowingly, intentionally or otherwise any Order made under section 3”. The section is
comprehensively worded so that it takes within its fold not only contraventions done
31
AIR 1989 SC 1789.
Page 25 of 134
knowingly or intentionally but even otherwise, i.e., done unintentionally. The element
of mens rea in export of fertiliser bags without a valid permit is therefore not a
necessary ingredient for convicting a person for contravention of an order made under
Sec. 3 if the factum of export or attempt to export is established by the evidence on
record.
(2) Attempt – This was case of attempt. Whatever has been done was beyond preparation.
(3) Ratio of Nathu Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh - In Nathu Lal v. State of Madhya
Pradesh Supreme Court held that section 7 requires mens rea. Person can’t be
convicted without guilty mind. This Case was decided on March 22, 1965. To nullify
ratio of this judgment, section 7 was amended in 1967. In Section 7, it has been clearly
mentioned that person can be convicted without guilty mind or knowledge.
(4) Only conviction but not punishment -Supreme Court set aside the order of acquittal
by Trial Court and High Court and convicted the accused. But did not pass any order
of punishment. Reason was that more than fifteen years have gone by since they were
acquitted by the Trial Magistrate. The learned counsel for the appellant State was more
interested in having the correct position of law set out than in securing punishment
orders for the respondents in the two appeals for the offence committed by them.
Nathu Lal v. Section 7, The Essential Acquitted Unauthorized store

State of M.P. Commodities Act, 1955 of food grains
(1965) (Wheat)
Amendment, Amendment in Section It was provided that Principle of ‘Strict
1967 7, The Essential person will be Liability’
Commodities Act, 1955 convicted even
without guilty mind.
State of M.P. Section 7, The Essential Convicted Carrying fertiliser
v. Narayan Commodities Act, 1955 bags in trucks
Singh (1989) (as amended in 1967). without permission
IMPORTANT MAXIMS RELATED TO CRIMINAL LAW
Pro Reo
Whenever any penal law is applied or construed, and that law is giving two interpretation, one
lenient to the offender and one strict to the offender, that interpretation which is lenient or
favorable to the offender will be adopted.
Nullum Crimen Sine Lege, Nulla Poena Sine Lege32
(No crime without law, no punishment without law)
According to this maxim there must be no crime or punishment, except in accordance with
fixed predetermined law. This maxim conveys four different rules, namely,
(1) Non retroactivity of penal laws: It means penal laws which are against the interest of
accused will not be applied from retrospective effect. But it does not prohibit accused
form taking benefit of retrospective laws. In the case of Rattan Lal v. State of Punjab
32
UGC NET Nov. 2017.
Page 26 of 134
(1965) Supreme Court also interpreted article 20 (1) and said that “Ex post facto laws
which are beneficial to the accused is not prohibited by Art. 20(1) of the Constitution.
In this case Justice Subba Rao said, “The object of criminal law is more to reform the
individual offender than to punish him.
(2) Penal statutes must be construed strictly: Penal statutes must be construed strictly. It
directly affects Fundamental Rights. So, it must be construed strictly.
(3) Certainty in legislation: It should not be construed in such a way as to cover every act.
(4) Accessibility of the laws: Laws are binding over every people. So, it must be published
in proper way so that every people may know it. Harla v. State of Rajasthan (1952)
Supreme Court said, “It would be against the Principle of natural justice to permit the
subjects of a State to be penalized by laws of which they had no knowledge and of
which they could not even with the exercise of due diligence have acquired any
knowledge . Natural justice required that before a law can be operative it must be
promulgated and published.”
Conclusion
Principle of ‘Strict liability’ was applied and accused were convicted.
Question1 (2011)
Explain the common law principle of “actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea” with the help of
decided case. What are the exceptions, if any, to this principle?
Answer
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea means the act itself does not make a man guilty, unless
the mind is also guilty. This theory was developed be Common Law Courts. First time concept
of Mens Rea was discussed by Justice Coke. In case of Fowler v. Padget (1798) Lord Kenyon
held that actus reus and mens rea both are essentials for commission of crime. There are four
essential ingredients of crime, namely,(1) Human Being (2) Guilty Mind (3) Prohibited act,
and (4) An injury to human being or society. This maxim denotes that guilty mind and
prohibited act both are part and parcel of crime. In the case of Nathulal v. State of Madhya
Pradesh (1965) Justice Subba Rao observed, “Mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal
offence. Doubtless a statute may exclude the element of mens rea, but it is a sound rule of
construction adopted in England and also accepted in India to construe a statutory provision
creating an offence in conformity with the common law rather than against it unless the statute
expressly or by necessary implication excluded mens rea.” Justice Subba Rao also delivered
same view in minority opinion of M.H.George Case (1964).
It is rule that without guilty mind, crime cannot be committed. There are also certain
exceptions.
If maxim applies – In case of application of this maxim, accused person would be benefited
and there would be utmost probability of to win the case because prosecutor would be bound
to prove prohibited act and guilty mind.
Page 27 of 134
In the case of Brend v. Wood (1946) Chief Justice Goddard observed the benefit of application
of this maxim and said that application of this maxim is of the utmost importance for the
protection of the liberty of the subjects (citizens).
If maxim does not apply - It would be very easy for prosecutor to win the case because he
would be bound to prove only one condition i.e. prohibited act. To prove guilt mind always
very difficult. It in such case there would be a lot of harm for accused.
Schools of Mens Rea (Interpretation of statutes)

There are two schools regarding interpretation of statutes in context of mens rea. These Schools
are (1) Presumption of existence of Mens Rea, and (2) Presumption of absence of Mens Rea.
Both presumptions are rebuttable.
(1) Presumption of Requirement of Mens Rea- In every Statute mens rea should be treated
as part of crime unless contrary is shown. Existence of Mens Rea is presumed. In case of Q. v.
Tolson court acquitted lady on the ground of her innocent. She got marriage after full inquiry.
But Court also accepted that by statute mens rea may be excluded. This theory was led by
Justice Wright in case of Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895). In case of Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895)
Justice Wright said “In every statute mens rea is to be implied unless contrary is shown”. In
case of Brend v. Wood (1946), Justice Goddard, “The general rule applicable to criminal case
is actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea…It is of the of the utmost importance for the protection
of the liberty of the subject that a court should always bear in mind that, unless the statute,
either clearly or by necessary implication rules out mens rea as a constituent part of a crime,
a defendant should not be found guilty of an offence against the criminal law unless he has got
a guilty mind”. Principle of mens rea was revived by Justice Goddard. In the case of Nathu
Lal v. State of M.P. (1965) Supreme Court acquitted the accused on the basis of absence of
mens rea.
(2) Presumption of Non-requirement of Mens Rea- According to second School, statute

must be interpreted in absence of mens rea unless requirement of mens rea has been specifically
mentioned. On the basis of this theory Justice Blackburn decided the R. v. Prince (1875) and
he convicted the accused who had no guilty mind. Accused believed that the girl was 18 year
while real age of girl was 14 year. At that time taking of girl below the age of 16 years out of
keeping of lawful guardian was crime. Appearance of Girl was age of 18 years. Court denied
to accept Actus non facit reum , nisi mens sit rea (Common Law Doctrine). This theory was
led by Justice Kennedy in Hobbes v. Winchester Corporation (1910). In the case of State of
Maharashtra v. M.H.George (1964) Supreme Court convicted the accused. Justice K.Subba
Rao delivered minority opinion.
Page 28 of 134
Question1 (2013) & Question1 (2015)
“The nature of mens rea that will be implied in a statute creating an offence depends upon the
object of the Act and provisions thereof.” Discuss with the help of decided cases.
Answer
Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea is accepted by all over world subject to statutory
provisions. Question arises when statute is silent about guilty mind of accused whether mens
rea should be treated part of statute or not. It has been observed that in certain cases Judges has
incorporated it as a part of statute and in certain cases not. For example in the case of
M.H.George majority opinion did not borrow this maxim. Justification was given by majority
opinion was that object of FERA was prevent economic condition of country.
Lord Simonds (Halsbury’s Laws of England)
In Halsbury’s Laws of England written by Lord Simonds (3rd edn. Vol. 10, in para, 508, at p.
273,) the following passage appears: “A statutory crime may or may not contain an express
definition of the necessary state of mind. A statute may require a specific intention, malice,
knowledge, willfulness or recklessness. On the other hand, it may be silent as to any
requirement of mens rea, and in such a case in order to determine whether or not mens rea is
an essential element of the offence, it is necessary to look at the objects and terms of the
statute.”
Archbold (Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice)

Archbold in his book on “Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice”, 35th edn., says much to
the same effect at p. 24 thus: “It has always been a principle of the common law that mens rea
is an essential element in the commission of any criminal offence against the common law In
the case of statutory offences it depends on the effect of the statute...... There is a presumption
that mens era is an essential ingredient in a statutory offence, but this presumption is liable to
be displaced either by the works of the statute creating the offence or by the subject matter with
which it deals.”
Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895)
Wright J., observed “There is a presumption that mens rea, an evil intention, or a knowledge
of the wrongfulness of the act, is an essential ingredient in every offence; but that presumption
is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the subject-
matter with which it deals, and both must be considered.”
The Indo-China Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., v. Jasjit Singh (Feb. 03, 1964 Supreme Court)
The Indo-China Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., which carries on the business of carriage of goods
and passengers by sea, owns a fleet of ships, and has been carrying on its business for over 80
years. One of he routes plied by its ships in the Calcutta - Japan-Calcutta route. 'Me vessel
“Eastern Saga” arrived at Calcutta on October 29, 1957. On a search it was found that a hole
was covered with a piece of wood and over painted and when the hole was opened a large
quantity of gold in bars was discovered. Gold was confiscated.
This Court in construing the scheme and object of the Sea Customs Act came to the conclusion
that mens rea was no a necessary ingredient of the offence, as, if that was so, the statute would
Page 29 of 134
become a dead-letter. That decision was given on the basis of the clear object of the statute and
on a construction of the provisions of that statute which implemented the said object.
Supreme Court said, “The intention of the legislature in providing for the prohibition prescribed
by Section 52A of Sea Custom Act, 1878, is, inter alia, to put an end of illegal smuggling which
has the effect of disturbing very rudely the national economy of the country. It is well-known,
for example, that smuggling of gold has become a serious problem in this country and
operations of smuggling are conducted by operators who work on an international basis. The
persons who actually carry out the physical part of smuggling gold by one means or another
are generally no more than agents and presumably, behind them stands a well-knit organisation
which for motives of profit-making, undertakes this activity.”
State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George (1964 SC)
Supreme Court observed that the very object and purpose of the Act and, its effectiveness as
an instrument for the prevention of smuggling would be entirely frustrated if a condition of
mens rea were to be read into section 8 (1) or section 23(1-A) of the Act qualifying the plain
words of the enactment, that the accused should be proved to have knowledge that he was
contravening the law before he could be held to have contravened the provision.
Language of the enactment, the object and subject-matter of the statute and the nature and
character of the act ought to be considered.
Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1965)

Justice Subba Rao observed, “Mens rea by necessary implication may be excluded from a
statute only where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of the statute
would otherwise be defeated. The nature of the mens rea that would be implied in a statute
creating an offence depends on the object of the Act and the provisions thereof.”
Question1 (a) (Dec. 2015)
Explain the rational behind punishing a person guilty of strict liability offence in the absence
of guilty mind.
Answer
Rationality behind application of strict liability
Answer of this question is based on conflict between individual rights v. interest of public at
large. Strict liability is imposed that other person must, in certain cases, take extra care.
Selling of obscene books is dangerous for development of children and nation. It creates lust
and lust creates environment for commission of crime. In case of Ranjit D.Udeshi v. State of
Maharashtra section 292 was interpreted and mens rea was ignored.
For protection of right of guardian application of mens rea is not necessary. For example R. v.
Prince (1875) and section 361 of IPC.
It is necessary for protection of institution of family and health of family. For example in case
of bigamy mens rea is not necessary
Economic offences affect not only develop of nation and life of citizens but also integrity and
sovereignty of nation. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. M.H.George (1964) majority
opinion of Supreme Court observed, “The Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 is designed
to safeguarding and conserving foreign exchange which is essential to the economic life of a
developing country. The provisions have therefore to be stringent and so framed as to prevent
unauthorized and unregulated transactions which might upset the scheme underlying the
Page 30 of 134
controls; and in a larger context, the penal provisions are aimed at eliminating smuggling which
is a concomitant of controls over the free movement of goods or currencies.” It is necessary for
the prevention of smuggling would be entirely frustrated if a condition of mens rea were to be
read into the plain reading of the enactment.
In the case of Pyarali K. Tejani v. Mahadeo Ramchandra Dange and Others (1973) Supreme
Court said nothing more than the actus reus is needed where, regulation of private activity in
vulnerable areas like public health is intended. Social defence reasonably overpowers
individual freedom to injure, in special situations of strict liability. If you have sold any article
of food contrary to law, you are guilty. The law denies the right of a dealer to rob the health of
other.
Jurisprudence of application of strict liability in adulterated food has been explained in
American Jurisprudence which are following “The distribution of impure or adulterated food
for consumption is an act perilous to human life and health, hence, a dangerous act, and cannot
be made innocent and harmless by the want of knowledge or by the good faith of the seller; it
is the act itself, not the intent, that determines the guilt, and the actual harm to the public is the
same in one case as in the other. Thus, the seller of food is under the duty of ascertaining at his
peril whether the article of food conforms to the standard fixed by statute or ordinance, unless
such statutes or ordinances, expressly or by implication, make intent an element of the offence.”
Page 31 of 134
OBJECTIVE QUESTIONS
Questions 1. Who is known as father of IPC?
Options – (a) Sir James Fitzjames Stephen

(b) Lord Sir Babington Thomas James Macaulay
(c) Lord Sir James Thomas Babington Macaulay
(d)Lord Sir Thomas James Babington Macaulay
Answer –D
Questions 2. IPC, 1860 came into force on –
Options – (a) October 6, 1860
(b) October 6, 1862
(c) January 1, 1860
(d) January 1, 1862
Answer – D
Questions 3.Who is known as father of IPC? What is the date of enforcement of IPC?
Options –
(a) Sir James Fitzjames Stephen & January 1, 1862
(b) Sir James Fitzjames Stephen & October 6, 1860
(c) Page 31 of 134Lord Sir Thomas James Babington Macaulay & October 6, 1860
(d) Lord Sir Thomas James Babington Macaulay & January 1, 1862
Answer –D
Question – 4 “In every statute mens rea is to be implied unless contrary is shown” was said
in
(a) Fowler v. Padget (Lord Kenyon)
(b) Sherras v. De Rutzen (Justice Wright)
(c) Brend v. Wood (Justice Goddard)
(d) R.v. Prince (Blackburn)
Answer – B
Question 5. “In every statute, mens rea is to be implied unless the contrary is shown.”:
This view was expressed in-
A. Sherras v. De Rutzen
B. R. v. Dudley & Stephen
C. Harding v. Price
D. R. v. Prince.
Answer. A
Page 32 of 134
Question 6.Denotion of mens rea is inferred through
(a) Reason to believe

(b) Voluntarily
(c) Dishonestly
(d) All the above
Answer-(D) All the above
Question 7 –Match List-I with List-II and give the correct answer by using the code given
below:
List - I List-II
(a) Man (i) Section 8

(b) Gender (ii) Section 10
(c) Person (iii) Section 9
(d Number (iv) Section 11
Code :
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(a) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)
(b) (ii) (iv) (i) (iii)
(c) (iii) (i) (ii) (iv)
(d) (ii) (i) (iv) (iii)
Answer – d
below:
List - I List-II
(a) “Court of Justice”. (i) Section 18

(b) “Judge” (ii) Section 19
(c) “India”. (iii) Section 20
(d) “Public servant”. (iv) Section 21
Code :
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(a) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)
(b) (iii) (ii) (i) (iv)
(c) (iii) (i) (ii) (iv)
(d) (ii) (i) (iv) (iii)
Answer – b
Page 33 of 134
Questions 9.Which of the following combination is wrong?
(a) Section 17 – India

(b) Section 19 – Judge
(c) Section 39 –Voluntarily
(d) Section 40 – Offence
Answer –A
below:
List - I List-II
(a) “Dishonestly” (i) Section 22

(b) “Wrongful gain” (ii) Section 23
(c) “Fraudulently” (iii) Section 24
(d) “Moveable property” (iv) Section 25
Code :
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(a) (iii) (ii) (iv) (i)
(b) (iii) (ii) (i) (iv)
(c) (iii) (i) (ii) (iv)
(d) (ii) (i) (iv) (iii)
Answer - A
below:
List - I List-II
(a) “Voluntarily” (i) Section 28
(b) “Counterfeit” (ii) Section 39
(c) “Good faith” (iii) Section 40
(d) “Offence” (iv) Section 52
Code : (1) (2) (3) (4)

(a) (iii) (ii) (iv) (i)
(b) (iii) (ii) (i) (iv)
(c) (iii) (i) (ii) (iv)
(d) (ii) (i) (iv) (iii)
Answer – D
Page 34 of 134
Question 12 – Who has given the following definition of crime “Crime is an act committed or
omitted in violation of public law either forbidding or commanding it.”
(a) Stephan
(b) Blackstone
(c) Kenny
(d) Austin
Answer – b
Question 13 – What are not essential ingredient of “Nullum Crimen Sine Lege, Nulla
Poena Sine Lege”-
(a) Retroactivity of penal laws.
(b) Penal statutes must be construed strictly
(c) Certainty in legislation.
(d) Accessibility of the laws.
Answer –A
Question 14 – For the purpose of calculation of life imprisonment, according to section 57 life
imprisonment means –
(a) 10 Years
(b) 20 Years
(c) 30 years
(d) Period of life imprisonment cannot be calculated. A person may survive for 10 years
or 15 years or 50 Years.
Answer - B
Question 15 - Which definition is not correctly match –
(a) Kenny “Crimes are wrongs which sanction is punitive and is no way remissible
by any private person, but is remissible by crown alone, if remissible at
all.” Here sanction means punishment and remissible means pardon by
crown.
(b) Stephan “Crime is an act forbidden by law and which is at the same time revolting
to the moral sentiments of the society.”
(C) Blackstone “Crime is an act committed or omitted in violation of public law either
forbidding or commanding it.”
(d) Austin “Crime is …to be commission or omission of an act which the law forbids
or commands under pain of a punishment to be imposed by the State by a
proceeding in its own name.”
Answer – (D)
Question 16 - Who will be benefited in case of application of ‘Actus non facitreum, nisi
mens sit rea’ ?
(a) Accused
(b) Victim
(c) Accused & Victim
(d) None of them
Answer- (a) Accused
Page 35 of 134
Question 17 -Which of the following is not example of strict liability?
(a) Rape
(b) Waging war
(c) Selling of obscene books
(d) Culpable Homicide
Answer- (d) Culpable Homicide

Question 18–Who said, “The general rule applicable to criminal case is actus non facit reum,
nisi mens sit rea…It is of the utmost importance for the protection of the liberty of the
subject…”
S. No. Name of Case Justice Year
(a) Fowler v. Padget Lord Kenyon 1798
(b) R. v.Tolson Justice Wills 1889
(c) Sherrasv. De Rutzen Justice Wright 1895
(d) Brendv. Wood Justice Goddard 1946
Answer-D
Question 19– Who is known for ‘Revival of Mens rea’?
a. Lord Kenyon
b. Justice Wright
c. Justice Goddard
d. Justice Wills
Answer - Justice Goddard

Question 20 - Which of the following is wrong?
(a) The Indo-China Steam Section 52A, Sea Customs Smuggling of gold
Navigation Co. Ltd. v. Jasjit Act, 1878
Singh
(b) RanjitD.Udeshi v. State of Section 292, IPC Selling of obscene book
Maharashtra
(c) State of Maharashtra v. FERA, 1947 Smuggling of gold
M.H.George
(d) R.v. Tolson Section 57, Offences Kidnapping
Against Person Act, 1861
Answer - (d)
Question 21-Who had written majority opinion of State of Maharashtra v. M.H.George?
(a) Justice Ayyangar,

(b) Justice Subbarao
(c) Justice Mudholkar
(d) JusticeHidayatullah
Answer- (a) Justice Ayyangar
Page 36 of 134
Question 22– Which of the following statements correctly reflects the cardinal principle, ‘actus
non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea’?
(a) Mensrea is essential element of crime and there cannot be crime without mensrea
(b) Criminal liability under Indian law always implies mensrea
(c) To constitute crime there must be actus reus, mensrea
(d) actus reus is not always necessary to constitute crime.
Answer - (c) To constitute crime there must be actus reus and mens rea.
Question 23 – Which section of Indian Penal Code deals solitary confinement?
(a) Section 73
(b) Section 72
(c) Section 71
(d) Section 70
Answer - (a) Section 73

Question 24 – Which of the following pair is incorrect-
(a) Section 52- Good Faith

(b) Section 38 - “Voluntarily”
(c) Section 40 – Offence
(d) Section 44- Injury
Answer- Section 38 - “Voluntarily”

Question 25. Match List-I (Jurists) with List-II (Assumptions) and select the correct answer
using the codes given below:
List-I List-II
a. Lord Macauley i. Preparation of Indian Penal Code
b. Jeremy Bentham ii. Unwritten jurisprudence on penal principles
c. Kelson iii. Substantive law on crimes
d. Sir Barnes Peacock iv. Revision on Penal law
Code:
a b c d
A. i ii iii iv
B. ii iii iv i
C. iii iv i ii
D. ii iii iv i
Answer. A
Page 37 of 134
Question 26. Match the items of List-I(IPC section) with List-II and choose the correct answer
from the code given below:
List-I List-II
a. Section 44 i. Life
b. Section 45 ii. Death
c. Section 46 iii. Animal
d. Section 47 iv. Injury
Code:
a b c d
A. iv ii iii i
B. ii iii iv i
C. iv i ii iii
D. ii i iii iv
Answer. C
Question 27. How many types of punishments have been prescribed under the Indian Penal
Code:
A. three
B. six
C. five
D. four.
Answer. C
Question 28. Under section 65 of IPC sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of fine shall
be limited to:
a. one-third of the maximum term of imprisonment fixed for the offence
b. one-fourth of the maximum term of imprisonment fixed for the offence
c. one-half of the maximum term of imprisonment fixed for the offence
d. equal to the maximum term of imprisonment fixed for the offence
Answer. B.
Page 38 of 134
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, 1860

ELEMENTS of crime & Right of private defence

Page 39 of 134
CHAPTER II
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860, 1860

ELEMENTS of crime & Right of private defence

Page 40 of 134
CHAPTER II
[RIGHTS OF PRIVATE DEFENCE]
[Sections 96 to 106]
“The right of defence is absolutely necessary. The vigilance of Magistrates can never make up
for the vigilance of each individual on his own behalf. The fear of the law can never restrain
bad man as the fear of the sum total of individual resistance. Take away this right and you
become in so doing the accomplice of all bad men.”
Bentham
TABLE OF CASES IN SYLLABUS of DU LL.B.
S. No. Date of Judgments Name of Cases

1 Dec. 11, 1972 Deo Narain v. State of U.P.
2 Nov. 19, 1973 Kishan v. State of M.P.33
3 May 2, 1974. State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup
4 Dec. 16, 2003 James Martin v. State of Kerala
Previous Year Question Papers34
DU LL.B. 2011
Question 4 (a) – Explain the concept of right of private defence. State the circumstances in
which right of private defence of property extends to the causing of death of assailants.
Question 4 (b) – During a football match fight took place between members of two team. Mr.
X the member of team (A) received number of injuries. X shot at the assailant of opposite team
(B), however bullet hit an innocent person (T) a bystander killing her. In the prosecution case
X took right of private defence. Can he succeed?
DU LL.B. 2013
Question 8(a) - A’s car hit B’s scooter while taking a turn negligently. An argument ensued
between A and B. A slapped B. B left the place immediately and came back after 10 minutes
along with his 10 friends and hit A with lathis and hockey sticks. A died on the spot. B pleaded
‘right of private defence’. Will he succeed in availing this defence? Give your answer citing
relevant legal provisions and case law
DU LL.B. 2014
Question 4 (a) - Due to breaking of communal riots between community A and B, members
of community A caused loot, plunder and fire of the property belonging to members of
community B. X, who was a member of community B was also targeted. He tried to remain
33
AIR 1974 SC 244.
34
Question Papers of DU LL.B. Semester exams are available at: https://academichour.com/delhi-university-
faculty-of-law-llb-previous-year-questions.php (Visited on February 6, 2021).
Page 41 of 134
within closed door, to save himself and his family. However, the mob reached and started
knocking at his door. Before the mob could enter, X fired from his licensed revolver and killed
a member out of the mob. Mr. X is charged of murder, however he pleads his right of private
defence against his charge. Can he do so? Give reasons.
Question 4 (b) - Discuss statutory limitations on the exercise of right of private defence as laid
down in the Indian Penal Code.
DU LL.B. 2015
Question 2. (a)What are the circumstances wherein right of private defence of body extends to
voluntarily causing death?
Question 3(b) - A is attacked by Z, a person of unsound mind, who has a spear in his hand. In
order to protect himself, A strikes Z with a stick on his head, resulting in his death. During trial
A pleads the right of private defence. Decide, with the help of relevant legislative provision.
DU LL.B. 2018
Question (1) (b) - ‘A’ a man whose crop was frequently stolen, found ‘B’ committing theft
and gave him some blows with a Lathi which resulted in his death. Is he justified in killing ‘B’
in exercise of right of private defence of property?
Answer – A had right of private defence under Section 97 Secondly. But he had exceeded his
right of private defence. His acts came under section 99 Part 4. His act does not fall under
Section 103, Fourthly. He had exceeded his right of private defence. Mater comes under
Section 300, Exception 2. He will be punished under Section 304, IPC.
This matter will also not come under Section 95. His crop was frequently stolen.
DU LL.B. 2019
Question 5 - A, an enemy of B, pointed a toy pistol looking like real one, at B to scare him. B,
the treating the pistol as real one, finds his life in danger and draws out a loaded pistol from his
pocket and fires at B. Consequently B dies on the spot. B is prosecuted for murder of A.
B takes the defence that he killed A in exercise of RPD as he did not know that the pistol of A
was not real one but a toy. Will B succeed in his defence? Decide with reference to relevant
provisions and case laws.
Answer – Yes. B is entitled for right of private defence.
QUESTION PAPERS OF JUDICIARY EXAMS
 HJS 1984 – Discuss fully the right of private defence of body.
 HJS 1999 –
 Mention the limits within which the right of private defence should be exercised.
 When does the right of private defence of property extends to the causing of
death?
 Does the right of private defence extends to risk of harm to innocent person?
Illustrate your answer.
 Question [JJS 2001] -- What is meant by the right of private defence and under what
circumstances this right to the body extends to causing death? Explain.
 HJS 1999 - The right of private defence is said to be a limited right. Explain the
limitations of the right of private defence.
Page 42 of 134
 A was under attack from B. A had ample opportunity to save himself by fleeing away
but instead ‘A’ defended himself and thereby caused harm to B. Is it a valid exercise of
the right of private defence?
DJS 2014
 Discuss the relevance or otherwise of the concept of ‘retreat to the wall’ in the exercise
of right of private defence.
MP JS 2006
 A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled to enter. B, in good faith, taking
A for a house-breaker, attacks A. Whether A has right to private defence against B?
Uttar Pradesh {J}

1984
 The right of private defence extends under some circumstances the causing of death.
Explain the above statement with illustrations.
 A entered the house of B with the intention of committing theft. B and other members
of his family surrounded and attacked ‘A’ with lathis. Finding his life in danger, A
whipped out a revolver and fired causing the death of B. Is a guilty of murder under
Section 302 of the IPC?
1987
 Explain the right of private defence in respect of body stating the circumstances when
it extends to causing to death of the aggressor.
1991
 Explain the right of private defence of body. Under what circumstances does it extend
to cause death?
1997
 Explain and illustrate the provisions of the right of private defence as embodied in the
IPC.
1999
 The right of private defence is not available for retaliation but for averting am
impending danger not of his creation.” Discuss and also state under what circumstances,
a man can go to the extent to killing in defence of his person.
2003
 Under what circumstances will causing of death be justified in the exercise of right of
private defence?
2012
 A entered the house of B with the intention of committing theft. B and other members
of his family surrounded and attacked ‘A’ with lathis. Finding his life in danger, A
whipped out a revolver and fired causing the death of B. Explain what offence A has
committed.
2013
 Discuss the limits within which the right of private defence may be exercised.
Page 43 of 134
UGC NET 2018 Dec. and UP J (Mains) 2019
 ‘A’ enters into the house of ‘B’ with the intention to commit theft. ‘B’ along with other
members of the family surrounded and attack ‘A’ with wooden sticks. ‘A’ finding his
life in danger fires with pistol causing death to ‘B’. Here has ‘A’ committed any
offence?
Answer – Murder
TABLE OF CASES
S. No. Date of Judgments Name of Cases Remarks

1 March 20, 1952 Amjad Khan v. State
2 Sept. 3, 1959 Vishwa Nath v. State of U.P.
3 1965 Kanwar Singh v. Delhi
Administration
4 Nov. 27, 1967 Munshi Ram and Others v. Delhi Need of right of
Administration private defence.
4 1965 Gurdatta Mal v. State of U.P.
7 May 2, 1974 State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup
8 March 26, 1991 Buta Singh v. State of Punjab
INTRODUCTION
Chapter IV, IPC deals ‘General Exceptions’. It contains Sections 76 to 106. Section 96 to 106
deals right of private defence. It means ‘Right of Private Defense’ (RPD) is part of ‘General
Exceptions’.
The right of private defence has come to be recognized by all civilized societies as a preventive
and protective right where the state protection is not available. This right is essentially
protective and preventive and never punitive. There are limitations on the exercise of this right
both in relation to offences against human body and specific offences against property. The
extent of this right, against whom it can be exercised, when this right commences and how long
it lasts are dealt with elaborately in IPC.36
NEED OF RIGHTS OF PRIVATE DEFENCE
Self-help is the first rule of criminal law.37 State has limited resources and it cannot protect
every person in every circumstances. At the same time, it cannot be expected when offence is
going to be committed. In a room husband and wife is sleeping. For example, it might be that
35
AIR 1974 SC 244.
36
Case Material of FOL, DU, ‘Law of Crimes’ July 2020.
37
K D Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code 254 (LexisNexis,Gurgaon, 6th edn., 2016).
Page 44 of 134
sudden struggle starts on the issue of extra-matrimonial relation of either party and husband
starts to beat his wife. In this circumstances wife has right of private defence. Bentham in his
book ‘Principle of Penal Laws’ elaborated need of right of private defence and said, “The right
of defence is absolutely necessary. The vigilance of Magistrates can never make up for the
vigilance of each individual on his own behalf. The fear of the law can never restrain bad man
as the fear of the sum total of individual resistance. Take away this right and you become in so
doing the accomplice of all bad men.”38 So it has been provided under section 96 of IPC that
if an act is done in exercise of right of private defence that act would not be an offence.
In the case of Munshi Ram and Others v. Delhi Administration39 Justice K.S. Hegde said,
“The right of private defence serves a social purpose and that right should be liberally
construed. Such a right not only will be a restraining influence on bad characters but it will
encourage the right spirit in a free citizen. There is nothing more degrading to the human spirit
than to run away in the face of peril.”
NATURE OF RIGHT
In the case of Deo Narain v. State of U.P.40 (1972) nature of right of private defence was
discussed. Supreme Court said, “This right rests on the principle that where a crime is
endeavored to be committed by force, it is lawful to repel that force in self- defence. The right
of private defence is available for protection against apprehended unlawful aggression and not
for punishing the aggressor for the offence committed by him. It is a preventive and not a
punitive right. In case of excitement or disturbed mental equilibrium it is difficult to expect
parties facing grave aggression to coolly weigh, as if in golden scales, and calmly determine
with a composed mind as to what precise kind and severity of blow would be legally sufficient
for effectively meeting the unlawful aggression.”
OWN BODY & PROPERTY OR BODY & PROPERTY OF ANOTHER PERSON

Right of private defence is only for defence rather than for aggression. This right is available
for own body as well as body of another person (section 97). In case of property this right is
available in limited cases. This right is also available against a person who cannot commit
crime for example person of unsound mind or person doing act in mistake of fact (section 98).
But this right is subject to certain limitations (section 99). It may be used even there is risk for
innocent person (Section 106).
DEATH OR HARM
In exercise of right of private defence in certain cases either harm or death may be caused
(sections 100 and 103). In other case only harm can be caused and causing of death is not
allowed (sections 101 and 104).
COMMENCEMENT AND CONTINUANCE
38
V Suresh and D Nagasila, PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law 151, (LexisNexis, New Delhi, 9th edn. Fourth reprint
2007).
39
AIR 1978 SC 702. This case was decided on November 27, 1967.
40
AIR 1973 SC 473. This case was decided on December 11, 1972.
Page 45 of 134
Right of private defence of body and property commences from the reasonable apprehension
of danger of body or property as the case may be arises (sections 102 and 105).
SCHEME OF RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE IN IPC
Chapter IV (Sections 76 -106) deals ‘General Exceptions’. Right of private defence is part of
this chapter. Right of private defence has been provided under sections 96 to 106. Sections 96
to 106 may be divided into three categories namely;
(1) Common sections - Sections 96, 97, 98, 99, & 106
(2) Sections related to body - Sections 100,101&102
(3) Sections related to property - Sections 103,104 &105.
RPD is available in case of body & property
Common
[Sections 96,97, 98,99 & 106]
Body Property
[Sections 100,101&102] [Sections 103,104 &105.]
Common sections are applicable either right of private defence is related to body or property.
Compare between sections of body and property
There are following comparison between both -
(1) Section100 (Body)-103(Property) -Circumstances in which death or any harm may be

caused
(2) Section 101 (Body)-104(Property) - Circumstances in which harm may be caused &
(3) Section102 (Body)-105 (Property) - Commencement and continuance of right of
private defence.
Page 46 of 134
General
Exceptions
[Sections 76 -106]
Right of Private RPD is available

Defence [Sections to own and other
96 to 106] also
Body Property
Causing harm is Causing harm is

Causing harm and Causing harm and
allowed. But allowed. But
death both are death both are
causing death is causing death is
allowed allowed
not allowed. not allowed.
Sections 100 r/w Section 103 r/w

106 Section 101 106 Section 104
BURDEN OF PROOF (Preponderance of probabilities)

May 2, 1974 State of U.P v. Ram Swarup41
Nov. 24, 1978 Salim Zia v. State of U.P.
Dec. 16, 2003 James Martin v. State of Kerala
Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is relevant for this. In the case of State of U.P. v.
Ram Swarup42 victim had started to run away. He was shot dead. In this case Supreme Court
said that the right of private defence constitutes a general exception to the offences defined in
the Penal Code. The burden which rests on the accused to prove the exception is not of the
same rigour as the burden of the prosecution to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. It
is enough for accused to show as in a civil case that the preponderance of probabilities is in
favour of his plea.
In the case of Salim Zia v. State of U.P. (1978) Supreme Court observed, “ It is true that the
burden on all accused person to establish the plea of self defence is not as onerous as the one
which lies on the prosecution and that while the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt, the accused need not establish the plea to the hilt and may discharge his onus
by establishing a mere preponderance of probabilities either by laying a basis for that plea in
the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses or by adducing defence evidence”.
Same view was expressed by Supreme Court in the case of James Martin v. State of Kerala
(2003).
Common sections - Sections 96, 97, 98, 99, & 106
41
42
AIR 1974 SC 1570.
Page 47 of 134
Section 96
Section 96 says “Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private
defence.” This section is declaratory nature. If anyone exceeds his power in exercise of right
of private defence and matters comes under exception 2 of section 300, it will amount to
culpable homicide.
Section 9743
Section 97 is genus. This section contains two clauses. First clause deals right of private
defence against any offence affecting the human body (Sections 299-377). Second clause deals
right of private defence in respect of property (movable or immovable) when offence is related
to TRMC (Trinmool Congress)44 (T-Theft, R-Robbery, M-Mischief, C-Criminal Trespass) or
attempt to commit these offences. There are only four offences wherein rights of private
defence are available in case of property. If any offence which derives from these offences
even in that case right of private defence would be available. In case of criminal
misappropriation or breach of trust right of private defence is not available because these are
not covered under section 97(2). These rights are not absolute. These are subject to section 99
of the Code, 1860. Body or property may be of own or of other.
Right of Private
Defense
There are two

categories
Body Property
Own body Body of other Property of other
Against offences Against offences [TRMC]

Own Property [TRMC]
affecting bodies affecting bodies Theft, Robbery, Theft, Robbery,
Mischief & Mischief &
Criminal Trespass Criminal Trespass
43
Section 97- Right of private defence of the body and of property.—Every person has a right, subject to the
restrictions contained in section 99, to defend— First- His own body, and the body of any other person, against
any offence affecting the human body; Secondly —The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or
of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or
criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.
44
Only for the purpose of remembering provisions.
Page 48 of 134
Section9845
DU LL.B. 2015
Question 3(b) - A is attacked by Z, a person of unsound mind, who has a spear in his hand. In
order to protect himself, A strikes Z with a stick on his head, resulting in his death. During trial
A pleads the right of private defence. Decide, with the help of relevant legislative provision.
MP JS 2006
Question - A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled to enter. B, in good faith,
taking A for a house-breaker, attacks A. Whether A has right to private defence against B?
Answer -
Section 98 is extension of section 97. Section 98 makes right of private defence very wider.
This section is applicable in all circumstances either right of private defence is related to person
or property of his own or other. Rule is that right of private defence is available only against
offences. But section 98 declares that even in certain cases right of private defence would be
available against acts. For example, person of unsound mind cannot commit an offence due to
under section 84 but his act might cause reasonable apprehension of death of another person.
So against such act of person of unsound mind, another person has right of private defence.
There are following exceptional cases when right of private defence is available against acts –
Section 98 - When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence,
(1) by reason of the youth, (Section 82)

(2) the want of maturity of understanding, (Section 83)
(3) the unsoundness of mind, (Section 84)
(4) the intoxication of the person doing that act, (Sections 85 & 86)
(5) by reason of any misconception of facts, (Section 76 and 79)46
every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the
act were that offence.
Illustrations- There are two illustrations. First illustration is based on section 84 and second
illustration is based on section 76. These illustrations are -
(a) Person of Unsound mind [Section 84] - Z, under the influence of madness, attempts
to kill A; Z is guilty of no offence. But A has the same right of private defence which
he would have if Z were sane.
(b) Misconception of Facts [Section 76] - A enters by night a house which he is legally
entitled to enter Z, in good faith, taking A for a house-breaker, attacks A. Here Z, by
attacking A under this misconception, commits no offence. But A has the same right of
private defence against Z, which he would have if Z were not acting under that
misconception.
45
Section 98 - Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind, etc.—When an act, which
would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of
understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any
misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which
he would have if the act were that offence.
46
K D Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code 262 (LexisNexis,Gurgaon,6th edn., 2016).
Page 49 of 134
Section 97 (Offence) Section 98 (Act)

Right of private defence is available against Right of private defence is available against
offence act
Differences between Sections 97 & 98
Section 97 [ RPD is available Section 98 [ RPD is available

against 'Offence'] against 'Act']
Section 98 makes scope of RPD much wider. Due to

this section, RPD is also available against those persons
who are not competent to commit offence.
DU LL.B. 2014
Question 4 (b) - Discuss statutory limitations on the exercise of right of private defence as laid
down in the Indian Penal Code.
UP (J) 2013
Question - Discuss the limits within which the right of private defence may be exercised.
HJS 1999
Question - The right of private defence is said to be a limited right. Explain the limitations of
the right of private defence.
Question - A was under attack from B. A had ample opportunity to save himself by fleeing
away but instead ‘A’ defended himself and thereby caused harm to B. Is it a valid exercise of
SEC. 99 - ACTS AGAINST WHICH THERE IS NO RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE

Section 97
Section 99
Public On direction of time to

Servants public servants recourse No more
protection of harm than it
public is necessary
Exceptions Exceptions authorities.
Grievous Grievous
Death Death
Hurt Hurt
Section 99 may be divided into four parts.
Page 50 of 134
(1) First part deals that when right of private defence is not available against public
servant. According to this part if conditions mentioned in this part are not being fulfilled
then right of private defence is also available even against public servant. For example,
if there is reasonable apprehension that police is about to kill, other person has right to
kill that person. But this right is not available for stage manager. If you have created
such circumstances in which police is about to kill you in his self defence and in
counter, you kill him then right to private defence is not available for you.
(2) Second part covers those matters which had been done on the direction of public
servant.
(3) Third part covers those matters in which person has time to recourse protection of
public authorities.
(4) Fourth part deals that this right must not be used to take revenge. It must be used only
for the purpose of protection.
(1) Public Servant: There is no right of private defence against an act which does not
reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted
to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though
that act, may not be strictly justifiable by law.
Explanation 1 - A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act
done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant, as such, unless he knows or has
reason to believe, that the person doing the act is such public servant.
Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration47
A raiding party possessing authority u/s 418, Delhi Municipal Corporation Act seized
the stray cattle belonging to the accused. The accused resisted the seizure of the cattle
and inflicted injuries on the raiding party. Since the raiding party was public servants
discharging their lawful duties, they were justified in law to seize the cattle, no right of
private defence was available to the accused. He was convicted.
(2) Person doing on the direction of public servant: There is no right of private defence
against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of
grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant
acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly
justifiable by law.
Explanation 2 — A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an

act done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant, unless he knows,
or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is acting by such direction, or
unless such person states the authority under which he acts, or if he has authority in
writing, unless he produces such authority, if demanded.
(3) Time for recourse to the protection of the public authorities: There is no right of
private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the
public authorities.
47
AIR 1965 SC 871.
Page 51 of 134
Gurdatta Mal v. State of U.P.48
There was a land dispute between the accused and the deceased. There was prolonged
civil litigation wherein the deceased had established his right of title and physical
possession of the property. He went along with his men to harvest the crop with police
protection. In such a situation, it was held that the accused had ample time to have
recourse to authorities and had no right to assault the deceased to claim possession of
the properties. Hence, they had no right of private defence. Right of self defence of
either body or property can only be at the time when there is imminent danger or harm.49
(4) Extent to which the right may be exercised: The right of private defence in no case
extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of
defence.
Deo Narain v. State of U.P.50(1972)
Supreme Court said, “If a blow with a lathi is aimed at a vulnerable part like the head
it cannot be laid down as a sound proposition of law that in such cases the victim is not
justified in using his spear in defending himself. In such moments of excitement or
disturbed mental equilibrium it is difficult to expect parties facing grave aggression to
coolly weigh, as if in golden scales, and calmly determine with a composed mind as to
what precise kind and severity of blow would be legally sufficient for effectively
meeting the unlawful aggression.”
SECTION 100
DU LL.B. 2013
Question 8(a) - A’s car hit B’s scooter while taking a turn negligently. An argument ensued
between A and B. A slapped B. B left the place immediately and came back after 10 minutes
along with his 10 friends and hit A with lathis and hockey sticks. A died on the spot. B pleaded
‘right of private defence’. Will he succeed in availing this defence? Give your answer citing
relevant legal provisions and case law
Answer – B has committed murder. Here Melon Case is relevant. Section 100 and Section 102
is applicable. There was no reasonable apprehension of death. There was no continuation of
right of private defence.
DU LL.B. 2015
48
AIR 1965 SC 257. UGC NET -2008.
49
V Suresh and D Nagasila, PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law 151,(LexisNexis, New Delhi, 9th edn. Fourth reprint
2007).
50
AIR 1973 SC 473. This case was decided on December 11, 1972.
Page 52 of 134
DU LL.B. 2019
Question 5 - A, an enemy of B, pointed a toy pistol looking like real one, at B to scare him. B,
the treating the pistol as real one, finds his life in danger and draws out a loaded pistol from his
pocket and fires at B. Consequently B dies on the spot. B is prosecuted for murder of A.
B takes the defence that he killed A in exercise of RPD as he did not know that the pistol of A
was not real one but a toy. Will B succeed in his defence? Decide with reference to relevant
provisions and case laws.
Answer – Yes. There was reasonable apprehension of death. B will get benefit of Section 100.
QUESTION PAPERS OF JUDICIARY EXAMS

 HJS 1984 – Discuss fully the right of private defence of body.
 HJS 1999 –
 When does the right of private defence of property extends to the causing of
death?
 Does the right of private defence extends to risk of harm to innocent person?
Illustrate your answer.
 Question [JJS 2001] -- What is meant by the right of private defence and under what
circumstances this right to the body extends to causing death? Explain.
 HJS 1999 -
 A was under attack from B. A had ample opportunity to save himself by fleeing away
but instead ‘A’ defended himself and thereby caused harm to B. Is it a valid exercise of
Uttar Pradesh {J}

1984
 The right of private defence extends under some circumstances the causing of death.
Explain the above statement with illustrations.
1987
 Explain the right of private defence in respect of body stating the circumstances when
it extends to causing to death of the aggressor.
1991
 Explain the right of private defence of body. Under what circumstances does it extend
to cause death?
2003
 Under what circumstances will causing of death be justified in the exercise of right of
private defence?
Section 100 (Seven circumstances when death is allowed)

Section 100- When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death.—The
right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last
preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the
Page 53 of 134
offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter
enumerated, namely:—
(1) First (Death) -Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death
will otherwise be the consequence of such assault.
(2) Secondly (Grievous hurt) -Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension
that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault.
(3) Thirdly (Rape) -An assault with the intention of committing rape.
(4) Fourthly (Unnatural lust) - An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust.
(5) Fifthly (Kidnapping or abducting) -An assault with the intention of kidnapping or
abducting.
(6) Sixthly (Wrongfully confinement) - An assault with the intention of wrongfully
confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to
apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his
release.”
(7) Seventhly (Acid attack) (Ins. in 2013) - An act of throwing or administering acid or an
attempt to throw or administer acid which may reasonably cause the apprehension that
grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequences of such act.
(1) First (Death)

“Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise
be the consequence of such assault” Death may be caused by a person who is not competent
to commit an offence. For example, person come under section ss. 82, 83, 84 and 85. Even
his death may be caused in private defence. Death may also come under sections 299, 300,
304A and 304 B.
Amjad Khan v. State51 (1952) (Golden Scales) (Reasonable apprehension) - A
communal riot broke out at Katni on the 5th of March 1950, between some Sindhi refugees
resident in the town and the local Muslims. It was enough that the mob had actually broken
into another part of the house and looted it, that the woman and children of his family fled
to the appellant (Amjad Khan) for protection in terror of their lives and that the mob was
actually beating at his own doors with their lathis and that Muslim shops had already been
looted and Muslims killed in the adjoining locality. These things cannot be weighed in too
fine a set of scales or in golden scales.
Accused was justified to use right to private defence because there reasonable
apprehension of his death and death of his family.
(2) Secondly (Grievous hurt) (Section 320)

“Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will
otherwise be the consequence of such assault”
(3) Thirdly (Rape) (Ss. 375 & 376)

“An assault with the intention of committing rape”
51
AIR 1952 SC 165
Page 54 of 134
Yeshwant Rao v. State of M.P.52(1992) Minor daughter of the accused had gone to the
toilet on the rear side of the house. The deceased gripped her and had sexual intercourse
with her. The accused seeing his minor girl being raped by the deceased hit the deceased
with a spade. Daughter was minor so her consent was immaterial and act of the deceased
would amount to committing rape under section 376 and hence the father in defence of the
body of his daughter was justified in exercising his right of private defence.
(4) Fourthly (Unnatural lust) (Section 377)

“An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust”
(5) Fifthly (Kidnapping or abducting) (Sections 359 and 362)

“An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting”
Vishwa Nath v. State of U.P.53 (1959)
[Right of Private Defence in case of abduction rather than kidnapping]
The accused’s sister was staying with her father and brother (accused) because she did not
want to live with her husband. Husband, with three others, went to the quarter of wife’s
father and he went inside and came out dragging his reluctant wife behind him. She caught
hold of the door and husband started pulling her. At this brother shouted to his father that
sister’s husband was adamant and thereupon his father replied that he should be beaten. The
appellant took out a knife from his pocket and stabbed once. The knife penetrated the heart
of sister’s husband and he died.
The Court held that appellant had the right of private defence of person under the fifth clause
of s. 100 and did not cause more harm than was necessary. Supreme Court acquitted
accused.
(6) Sixthly (Wrongfully confinement) (Section 340)

“An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which
may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the
public authorities for his release.”
(7) Seventhly (Acid attack) (Ins. In 2013) (Ss. 326A and 326 B)
“An act of throwing or administering acid or an attempt to throw or administer acid
which may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the
consequences of such act.”
52
AIR 1992 SC 1683.
53
AIR 1960 SC 67. This case was decided on September 3, 1959.
Page 55 of 134
Causing death or harm is allowed in RPD
Total 12 Circumstances
4 Circumstances in Section 1 [Sec.
7 Circumstances in Section
100 103 106]
[Body] [Property] Comm
on
Death Grievou Unnat Kidnapp Wrongful Acid
Rape ural ing/ confinemen Attack
s Hurt Abducti t
Lust
on
Balbir Singh Balwant Singh v. The State

Date of Judgment – March 20, 1959
Court - Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab-Haryana High Court observed -
There are four cardinal conditions must have existed before the taking of the life of a person is
justified on the plea of self- defence:
1. the accused must be free from fault in bringing about the encounter;
2. there must be present an impending peril to life or of great bodily harm, either real or
so apparent as to create honest belief of an existing necessity;
3. there must be no safe or reasonable ‘mode of escape by retreat’ and
4. there must have been a necessity for taking life.
In this case doctrine retreat to wall was also discussed.
Section 101
Section 101 - When such right extends to causing any harm other than death. - If the offence
be not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section, the right of private
defence of the body does not extend to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant, but does
extend, under the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing to the assailant
of any harm other than death.
Combined reading of sections 100 and 101 denotes that in seven circumstances as mentioned
in section 100 either harm or death may be caused and in other cases only harm can be caused
in exercise of right of private defence. For example in the presence of reasonable apprehension
of rape, in exercise of right of private defence either harm or death may be caused. But in case
of reasonable apprehension of hurt, only harm can be caused. Causing death is not allowed
because offence of voluntary causing harm has not been mentioned in section 100.
Page 56 of 134
Differences
1 Section 100 and 103 You can cause ether death or any other harm
2 Section 101 and 104 Only harm can be caused. Causing death is not
allowed. If death is caused it will amount culpable
homicide under section 300 Exception 2.
Section 102
Section 102 - Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body
-The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of
danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence
may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the
body continues.
Golden Scales
1 March 20, 1952 Amjad Khan v. State

3 March 26, 1991 Buta Singh v. State of Punjab
In the case of Amjad Khan v. State (March 20, 1952) Supreme Court said that these things
cannot be weighed in too fine a set of scales or in golden scales.
In the case of Deo Narain v. State of U.P. (1972 SC) Supreme Court said, “…In such moments
of excitement or disturbed mental equilibrium it is difficult to expect parties facing grave
aggression to coolly weigh, as if in golden scales, and calmly determine with a composed mind
as to what precise kind and severity of blow would be legally sufficient for effectively meeting
the unlawful aggression.”
In the case of Buta Singh v. State of Punjab (1991 SC) he could not have weighed in golden
scales in the heat of the moment the number of injuries required to disarm his assailants who
were armed with lethal weapons.
In the case of James Martin v. State of Kerala (2003) Supreme Court observed, “a person who
is apprehending death or bodily injury cannot weigh in golden scales in the spur of moment
and in the heat of circumstances, the number of injuries required to disarm the assailants who
were armed with weapons. In moments of excitement and disturbed mental equilibrium it is
often difficult to expect the parties to preserve composure and use exactly only so much force
in retaliation commensurate with the danger apprehended to him where assault is imminent by
use of force, it would be lawful to repel the force in self-defence and the right of private-defence
commences, as soon as the threat becomes so imminent. Such situations have to be
pragmatically viewed and not with high- powered spectacles or microscopes to detect slight
or even marginal overstepping. Due weightage has to be given to, and hyper technical approach
Page 57 of 134
has to be avoided in considering what happens on the spur of the moment on the spot and
keeping in view normal human reaction and conduct, where self-preservation is the paramount
consideration.
But, if the fact situation shows that in the guise of self-preservation, what really has been done
is to assault the original aggressor, even after the cause of reasonable apprehension has
disappeared, the plea of right of private-defence can legitimately be negative”.
DU LL.B. 2011
Question 4 (a) –State the circumstances in which right of private defence of property extends
to the causing of death of assailants.
Answer – Section 103.
Section 103 -When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death.
The right of private defence of property extends, under the restrictions mentioned in
section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the wrong-doer, if the
offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise
of the right, be an offence of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:—
(1) First. - Robbery;
(2) Secondly. - House-breaking by night;
(3) Thirdly. - Mischief by fire committed on any building, tent or vessel, which building,
tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or as a place for the custody of property;
(4) Fourthly. - Theft, mischief, or house-trespass, under such circumstances as may
reasonably cause apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the consequence, if
such right of private defence is not exercised.
UPSC 2008
Question -The right of private defence of property extends to the voluntary causing of death
of wrong-doer under certain descriptions. Which one of the following descriptions is not
included in those?
(a) Robbery
(b) House breaking in night
(c) Lurking House trespass in night
(d) Mischief by fire on any human dwelling
Answer- (c) Lurking House trespass in night.
DU LL.B. 2018 Question (1) (b)

Question- ‘A’ a man whose crop was frequently stolen, found ‘B’ committing theft and gave
him some blows with a Lathi which resulted in his death. Is he justified in killing ‘B’ in exercise
of right of private defence of property?
Answer – This matter will not covered under section 95 of IPC because he was frequently
stealing crops. There was no reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. So matter will
not fall under section 103, Fourthly. He exceeded his right of private defence by casing death
in case of theft without reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt. This matter will
come under section 300 Exception 2 which deals exceeding of right of private defence. So he
will be liable for causing culpable homicide not amounting to murder. He will be punished
under section 304, IPC.
Page 58 of 134

Question 13 (NET)
‘A’ enters into the house of ‘B’ with the intention to commit theft. ‘B’ along with other
members of the family surrounded and attack ‘A’ with wooden sticks. ‘A’ finding his life in
danger fires with pistol causing death to ‘B’. Here ‘A’ has committed :
Option –
(1) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
(2) Murder
(3) Theft
(4) No offence as he acted in self –defence.
Answer - Murder.
Right of private defence is not available against right of private defence. It is also not available
for stage manager.
Question no. 10 (b) - UP (J) Mains 2019

This problem can be solved with the help of State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup which is
known as Melon Case decided by Supreme Court in 1974. In this case Supreme Court observed,
“The right of private defence is a right of defence, not of retribution. It is available in face of
imminent peril to those who act in good faith and in no case the right be conceded to a person
who stage-manages a situation wherein the right can be used as a shield to justify an act of
aggression. For example if a person goes with a gun to kill another, the intended victim is
entitled to act in self-defence and if be so acts there is no right in the former to kill him in order
to prevent him from acting in self-defence.”
From the ratio of Ram Swarup case, it can be concluded that ‘A’ has committed murder.
Section 104. When such right extends to causing any harm other than death-
If the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which occasions
the exercise of the right of private defence, be theft, mischief, or criminal trespass, not of any
of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section, that right does not extend to the
voluntary causing of death, but does extend, subject to the restrictions mentioned in section 99,
to the voluntary causing to the wrong-doer of any harm other than death.
Differences
1 Section 100 and 103 You can cause ether death or any other harm
2 Section 101 and 104 Only harm can be caused. Causing death is not
allowed. If death is caused it will amount culpable
homicide under section 300 Exception 2.
Page 59 of 134
Section 10554 - Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of

property-
I. First Para – Commencement- The right of private defence of property commences
when a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences.
II. Second Para – RPD in case of Theft- The right of private defence of property against
theft continues till the offender has effected his retreat with the property or either the
assistance of the public authorities is obtained, or the property has been recovered.
III. Third Para – RPD in case of robbery - The right of private defence of property against
robbery continues as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person
death or hurt or wrongful restraint or as long as the fear of instant death or of instant
hurt or of instant personal restraint continues.
IV. Fourth Para – RPD in case of criminal trespass or mischief - The right of private
defence of property against criminal trespass or mischief continues as long as the
offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass or mischief.
V. Fifth Para – RPD in case of house-breaking by night- The right of private defence
of property against house-breaking by night continues as long as the house-trespass
which has been begun by such house-breaking continues.
Continuance of RPD in case of TRMC
1 RPD in case of Theft (i) till the offender has effected his retreat with the property
(ii) till the assistance of the public authorities is obtained
(iii) till the property has been recovered.
2 RPD in case of Causes or attempts to cause death , hurt or criminal trespass
robbery instant death or of instant hurt or of instant personal restraint
3 RPD in case of Till the continuation of commission of criminal trespass or
criminal trespass or mischief
mischief
4 RPD in case of Till the continuation of house trespass
house-breaking by
night
DU LL.B. 2011
Question 4 (b) – During a football match fight took place between members of two team. Mr.
X the member of team (A) received number of injuries. X shot at the assailant of opposite team
(B), however bullet hit an innocent person (T) a bystander killing her. In the prosecution case
X took right of private defence. Can he succeed?
Answer – Section 106 is applicable. Strong arguments must be given.
DU LL.B. 2014
Question 4 (a) - Due to breaking of communal riots between community A and B, members
of community A caused loot, plunder and fire of the property belonging to members of
community B. X, who was a member of community B was also targeted. He tried to remain
54
UK (J) Mains 2016 , ( Regarding year I have some confusion. I appeared in this mains exam. It may be 2015).
Page 60 of 134
a member out of the mob. Mr. X is charged of murder, however he pleads his right of private
Answer – Section 106 & Ratio Amjad Khan v. State is relevant.
DU LL.B. 2015
Section 106. Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is risk of harm to
innocent person.—
If in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which reasonably
causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise
that right without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defence extends to the
running of that risk.
Illustration
A is attacked by a mob who attempt to murder him. He cannot effectually exercise his
right of private defence without firing on the mob, and he cannot fire without risk of harming
young children who are mingled with the mob. A commits no offence if by so firing he harms
any of the children.
DOCTRINE OF ‘RETREAT TO THE WALL’ & “STAND YOUR GROUND”

Common Law doctrine of “retreat to the wall” or “retreat to the ditch” was expounded by
Blackstone.
Doctrines ‘Retreat to the wall’ or “Stand Your Ground” [No Retreat
related to RPD ‘Retreat to the ditch’ Doctrine]55
HJS 1999 -
A was under attack from B. A had ample opportunity to save himself by fleeing away but
instead ‘A’ defended himself and thereby caused harm to B. Is it a valid exercise of the right
of private defence?
Answer – Answer of this depends upon application of doctrine.
B
‘Retreat to the wall’ “Stand Your Ground”
B is not entitled for RPD. B B is entitled for RPD. B

has committed an offence has not committed any
offence
55
Available at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2841&context=facpubs (Visited on
February 9, 2021)
Page 61 of 134
DJS 2014
Question - Discuss the relevance or otherwise of the concept of ‘retreat to the wall’ in the
exercise of right of private defence.
Question - Someone is threatening you with imminent and deadly force. You could safely
retreat from the threat but you choose, instead, to stand your ground and meet force with force.
In doing so, you kill the aggressor. Are you guilty of murder?
Answer – [USA] In most of the United States, the answer is no. By statute, court rulings, or a
combination of both, more than thirty states have adopted a “Stand Your Ground” (No Retreat)
rule which bars the prosecution of people who use deadly force against a deadly aggressor
without first attempting to retreat, or offers such persons a valid self-defense claim against a
charge of criminal homicide.
By contrast, a minority of states enforce a “Retreat” requirement, or “Duty to Retreat,” under
which a defendant may not successfully claim self-defense if the defendant could have safely
retreated, but did not, before using deadly force against a deadly attacker.
Balbir Singh Balwant Singh v. The State

Date of Judgment – March 20, 1959
Court - Punjab-Haryana High Court
In this Case, Punjab-Haryana High Court observed following important points –
1. Doctrine of retreat the wall - Life of an antagonist may not be taken if it can be
avoided by retreating, and if retreat is practicable consistently with one’s safety. Where
there are two courses equally feasible, open to a person one leading to and the other
from the difficulty he must take the latter in order to rely on the right of self-defence, if
he can do so without adding to his peril. But where such a course is not possible because
of suddenness or fierceness of the attack, he is not obliged to retire and in such a case
he might stand his ground and inflict counter blows.
2. Blackstone - The strict common law doctrine of “retreat to the wall” or “retreat to the
ditch” was thus expressed in the words of Blackstone - “The party assaulted must,
therefore, flee as far as he conveniently can either by reason of some wall, ditch, or
some other impediment; or as far as the fierceness of the assault will permit him for it
may be so fierce as not to yield a step, without manifest danger of his life, or enormous
bodily harm; and then in his defence he may kill his assailant instantaneously. And, this
is the doctrine of universal justice, as well as of the municipal law.”
3. Modification of Doctrine - This doctrine has undergone modification. A person
attacked in his own premises or where he has a legal right to be, is not bound to retreat.
The exemption from retreating is available to the fault less, but those in fault must
retreat if 'able to do so, there being a safe avenue of escape unless prevented by
fierceness of the attack.
State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup56

They themselves were the lawless authors of the situation in which they found themselves and
though the Common Law doctrine of “retreat to the wall” or retreat to the ditch" as expounded
56
Page 62 of 134
by Blackstone has undergone modification and is not to be applied to cases where a victim,
being in a place where he has a right to be, is in face of a grave uninvited danger, yet, at least
those in fault must attempt to retreat unless the severity of the attack renders such a course
impossible. The exemption from retreat is generally available to the faultless alone.
TABLE OF CASES IN SYLLABUS of DU LL.B.
S. No. Date of Judgments Name of Cases
3 May 2, 1974. State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup
Deo Narain v. State of U.P.58&59
Date of Judgment – December 11, 1972.

Forum – Supreme Court
 Hon’ble Justice I.D. Dua
 Hon’ble Justice A. Alagiriswami
 Hon’ble Justice C.A.Vaidyialingam
Author of Judgment - The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hon’ble Justice I.D. Dua
Method to approach – Special Leave Petition
Statutory Provisions –
 Section 99 [Fourth Part -No more harm than it is necessary]
 Section 100 [First – Reasonable apprehension of causing death]
 Section 102 [Commencement & Continuance of RPD]
 Section 300, Exception 2 [Exceeding of RPD]
 Sections 302 r/w 149
Facts – There was some dispute with respect to the possession of certain plots of land in village
Baruara, Police Station Dildarnagar, District Ghazipur. There were several legal proceedings
between the rival parties with respect to both title and possession of the said plots. On
September 17th, 1965 after 12 noon there was a clash between the party of the accused (Deo
Narain) and the party of the deceased (Chanderama). In this clash lathis and spear were used
from both sides.
The blow of lathi was aimed at a vulnerable part like the head of Deo Narain. In consequence
of this, Deo Narain in exercise of his right of private defence inflicted a fatal spear injury on
the chest of the e death of Chanderama. All these things were going on in excitement.
Deo Narain and Others were charged for offence committed under Section 302 r/w 149.
57
AIR 1974 SC 244.
58
AIR 1973 SC473
59
Page 63 of 134
PIC OF SPEARS
Decision
Session High Supreme

Court Court Court
Deo was Deo was Deo was

acquitted convicted acquitted
Session Judge, Ghazipur

 The Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the possession of the disputed plots of
land was undoubtedly with the accused persons.
 According to the trial court the deceased’s party had actually gone to the plots in
question for the purpose of preventing the accused persons from cultivating and
ploughing the said land.
 Dev has exercised his right of private defence under Section 100 IPC
 Trial Court concluded that Dev Narain had not exceeded his RPD as limitation
mentioned under Section 99.
 Trial Court acquitted five accused including Deo Narayan of various charges including
the charge under ss. 302/149, I.P.C.
High Court, Allahabad
State of Uttar Pradesh filed appeal to the High Court against the judgment of Session Court.
Allahabad High Court observed following important points
 Deo Narain had exceeded his right of private defence. He had inflicted more harms than
it was necessary. He had violated limitations mentioned under Section 99, part fourth.
 He had committed offence under Section 300, Exception 2.
 Deo Narain was convicted for exceeding the right of private defence under Section 304.
 Reason of conviction - High Court observed that merely using of lathi did not justify
for using the spear. Right had been exceeded by Deo Narain in inflicting the spear injury
on the chest of Chandrama, deceased.
Supreme Court
Special Leave Petition [SLP] was filed before Supreme Court by Deo against judgment of
Allahabad High Court.
Issue –
Page 64 of 134
 Who was an aggressor?

Answer – Deceased and his party members were aggressor. They went and tried to
dispossess Dev. This point was not discussed before Supreme Court. This fact was
accepted by Session Court and High Court.
 Had Deo Narayan exceeded his right of private defence?
Answer – No.
Supreme Court - Supreme Court said that High Court did not understand sections 100 and
102. Supreme Court acquitted the accused on the ground that he had not exceeded his right and
there was reasonable apprehension of death.
Decision of Supreme Court – There are following points were observed by Supreme Court –
(1) Philosophy of Right of Private Defence - This right rests on the general principle that
where a crime is endeavored to be committed by force, it is lawful to repel that force in
self-defense.
(2) Imminent danger -The threat must reasonably give rise to the present and imminent
and not remote or distant danger. This right rests on the general principle that where a
crime is endeavored to be committed by force, it is lawful to repel that force in self
defence. Deo had used spear in self defence. Use of lathi at head was imminent danger.
(3) Golden Scales - “….In such moments of excitement of disturbed mental equilibrium it
is somewhat difficult to expect parties facing grave aggression to coolly weigh, as if in
golden scales, and calmly determine with a composed mind as to what precise kind and
severity of blow would be legally sufficient for effectively meeting the unlawful
aggression.” At the time of fighting anyone cannot be expected to calm and decide how
much force have to use in self defence.
(4) Preventive Right - The right of private defence is available for protection against
apprehended unlawful aggression and not for punishing the aggressor for the offence
committed by him. It is a preventive and not punitive right. The right to punish for the
commission of offences vests in the State (which has a duty to maintain law and order)
and not in private individuals. Whatever Deo had done, he had done only to defend
himself.
(5) Section 102 & Imminent Danger - According to section 102, the right of private
defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the
body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence, though the offence may
not have been committed, and such right continues so long as such apprehension of
danger to the body continues. The threat, however, must reasonably give rise to the
present and imminent, and not remote or distant, danger.
(6) Error of High Court regarding Section 102 - What the High Court really seems to
have missed is the provision of law embodied in s. 102, I.P.C. To say that the appellant
could only claim the right to use force after he had sustained a serious injury by an
aggressive wrongful assault is wrong interpretation of section 102.
(7) Section 99 [more harm than it is necessary] - The right of private defence in no case
extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of
defence.
Page 65 of 134
Ratios of this Case

1. The right of private defence is a preventive and not a punitive right.
2. Extent of RPD can’t be measured with ‘Golden Scales’ with composed mind.
3. The threat, however, must reasonably give rise to the present and imminent, and not
remote or distant danger.
4. Right of Private Defence rests on the general principle that where a crime is endeavored
to be committed by force, it is lawful to repel that force in self-defense.
Conclusion
 Deo has exercised his right of private defence.
 He had not exceeded his right of private defence.
 He was acquitted.
Kishan v. State of M.P.60&61

[Nov. 19, 1973]
Facts – There was dispute regarding use of bricks. There were four brothers- (1) Kishan (2)
Damrulal (3) Ganesh & (4) Har Charan.
Four Brothers
Kishan Damrulal Ganesh Har Charan
He gave blow
on the head of He hold He hold He died
Bucha Bucha Bucha
Facts can be divided into four stages.

First stage of Facts - On May 4, 1968, Damrulal went to the house of Bucha. Bucha was
supervising foundation-digging near his house. Damrulal warned Bucha to abstain from using
bricks belonging to him. Bucha replied that he was using his own bricks. Then, there was an
exchange of hot words between them. Thereafter Damrulal left the place angrily after giving a
warning to Bucha that he would soon settle the score. The work came to a stop at about 9 a.m.
and the labourers left the place.
60
AIR 1974 SC 244.
61
Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/174989/ (Visited on February 14, 2021)
Page 66 of 134
Second Stage of Facts - Four brothers reached at the home of Bucha. Bucha was dragged out
of his house up to a nearly neem tree. There he was given a beating by fists and kicks by the
Kishan and his three brothers.
Third Stage of Facts - Bucha contrived to extricate himself from their grip and picked up a
Khutai lying nearby. He gave three blows on the head of Har Charan with the Khutai. Har
Charan fell down on the ground and became unconscious.
Fourth Stage of Facts- Thereafter Kishan and his remaining two brothers, Ganesh and
Damrulal, caught hold of Bucha. The appellant snatched the Khutai from the hand of Bucha
and gave two or three blows on his head. Bucha fell down on the ground and became
unconscious.
Later on Har Charan and Bucha died. Kishan, Damarula and Ganesh were prosecuted for
causing murder of Bucha.
Crux of Decision -
Decision
Session Court High Court Supreme Court
Kishan was Kishan was Kishan was convicted

acquitted convicted u/s 302 u/s 302
Session Court – Session Court acquitted Kishan and his brothers on the basis of exercise of
right of private defence.
High Court – High Court convicted them under Section 302, IPC. High Court held that they
were aggressor. High Court convicted
1. Kishan under Section 302 [Punishment for murder]

2. Ganesh under Section 323 [Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt]
3. Damrulal under Section 323 [Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt]
Supreme Court – Only Kashan went to Supreme Court. Supreme Court upheld decision of
High Court.
Supreme Court
There were following issues before Supreme Court –
1. Whether Kishan caused death of Bucha in the exercise of ‘Right of Private

Defence’?
Answer- No. From the very beginning, Kishan and his brothers were aggressors. Bucha
was exercising right of private defence. RPD is not available for aggressor. It is
preventive right rather than punitive rights.62
2. Whether Kishan had exceeded his right of private defence?
Answer – No. This was not matter of exceeding of RPD. From the very beginning, he
had no right of private defence. So, no question arise regarding exceeding of right of
private defence.
62
Ratio of Deo Narain Case.
Page 67 of 134
3. Whether Kishan had caused murder of Bucha?

Answer – Yes. Causing of death of Bucha by Kishan falls under Section 300 Thirdly.
Contentions of Appellant - Arguments of Kishan were that
1. He did in exercise of right of private defence.

2. [Alternative argument] His act of causing injury to Bucha falls not within Section 302
but within Section 304 Part II, I.P.C.
Rejection of RPD – The Court rejected this argument on the basis that appellant along with his
three brothers, Ganesh, Damrulal and Har Charan went to the house of Bucha, pulled him out
of his house up to the neem tree and there subjected him to punching and kicking. So they were
aggressors. They took the law in their own hands.
Bucha contrived to escape from their grip, caught hold of the khutai and struck three blows on
the head of Har Charan. Bucha was then acting in exercise of the right of self-defence.
Therefore, he was not an aggressor. The appellant could not claim to have beaten Bucha in
exercise of the right of self-defence.
Rejection of Section 304 - Dr. S. N. Banerji, who did the autopsy on the dead body of Bucha
has deposed: With these injuries death was inevitable. This medical opinion clearly brings the
case of the appellant within the purview of Section 300, third clause. So the High Court is
right in convicting him under Section 302 I.P.C. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Crux of Decision –
 RPD was rejected.
 His act was covered under Section 300, thirdly.
 He was convicted for murder under Section 302.
Conclusion - Right of Private defence is not available for aggressor.
State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup & Anr.63&64

[Melon Case]
Date of Judgment – May 2, 1974.

 Hon’ble Justice Y.V. Chandrachud
 Hon’ble Justice M. Hameedullah Beg
 Hon’ble Justice V.R. Krishnaiyer
Author of Judgment - Hon’ble Justice Y.V. Chandrachud [Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud65]
FACTS
First Stage of Facts [7.00 a.m.]- This is a case related to Subzi Mandi at Badaun, U.P. At
about 7 a.m. on June 7, 1970 Ganga Ram is alleged to have gone to the market to purchase a
basket of melons. Sahib Datta Mal alias Munimji (Deceased) declined to sell it saying that it
was already marked for another customer.
63
AIR 1974 SC 1570.
64
65
Hon’ble Justice Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud is son of Former CJI Yeshwant Vishnu Chandrachud.
Page 68 of 134
Hot words followed during which Sahib Datta Mal alias Munimji (Deceased), asserting his
authority, said that he was the Thekedar of the market and his word was final. Offended by this
show of authority, Ganga Ram is alleged to have left in a huff.
Second Stage of Facts [8.00 a.m.]- An hour later Ganga Ram went back to the market with
his three sons, Ram Swarup, Somi and Subhash. Ganga Ram had a knife, Ram Swarup had a
gun and the two others carried lathis. They threw a challenge saying that they wanted to know
whose authority prevailed in the market. They advanced aggressively to the gaddi of the
deceased who, taken by surprise, attempted to rush in a neighbouring kothari. But that was
much too late for before he could retreat, Ram Swarup shot him dead at point-blank range.
Ganga Ram
[Knife]
Three sons
Subhash
Ram Swarup [Gun] Somi [Lathi]
[Lathi]
Prosecution of accused. Ganga Ram and his three sons, Ram Swarup, Somi and Subhash were
prosecuted in connection with that incident.
Session Court – The Learned Sessions Judge convicted Ram Swarup under section 302 and
sentenced him to death. Ganga Ram was convicted under section 302 read with section 34 and
was sentenced to imprisonment for life. The other two sons [Somi & Subhash] were acquitted
of all the charges.
High Court [October 13, 1971] - On appeal, the High Court of Allahabad acquitted Ram
Swarup and Ganga Ram and confirmed the acquittal of the other sons.
Supreme Court [May 2, 1974] – Ganga Ram was acquitted for murder. Ram Swarup was
convicted for murder. But his punishment from death sentence (Convicted by Session Court)
was converted into life imprisonment.
Page 69 of 134
Conviction
There were four accused
Ram Swarup [D.S.] & Ganga Acquittal of Ram Ganga Ram was acquitted.
Ram [LI] were convicted u/s Swarup & Ganga Ram Swarup was convicted
302 Ram u/s 302. Punishment was LI.
Supreme Court
Special Leave Petition under Article 136 was filed by State Government to Supreme Court.
Issues before Supreme Court – There were following issues before Supreme Court –
1. Had Ram Swarup caused death of Munimji in exercise of RPD?
Answer – No. There was no right of private defence.
2. Had Ram Swarup exceeded RPD by causing of death of Munimji in exercise of
RPD?
Answer - There was no right of private defence. So, no question arises regarding
exceeding of RPD.
3. Whether existence of RPD must be proved beyond reasonable doubts?
Answer – No. There is no need to prove beyond reasonable doubts. Preponderance of
probabilities in favour of existence of RPD will be sufficient.
4. Whether State of Uttar Pradesh had locus standi in such types of cases.
Answer – Yes.
RATIOS OF THE CASE
The Court observed following important points -
(1) No right for stage manager -“The right of private defence is a right of defence, not of
retribution. It is available in face of imminent peril to those who act in good faith and
in no case the right be conceded to a person who stage-manages a situation wherein the
right can be used as a shield to justify an act of aggression. For example if a person
goes with a gun to kill another, the intended victim is entitled to act in self-defence and
if he so acts there is no right in the former to kill him in order to prevent him from
acting in self-defence.”
Evidently the accused went to the market with a preconceived design to pick up a
quarrel.
(2) Burden of Prove over Prosecution - The burden which rests on the prosecution to
establish its case beyond reasonable doubt is neither neutralised nor shifted because
the accused pleads the right of private defence. The prosecution must discharge its
initial traditional burden to establish the complicity of the accused and until it does so,
the question whether the accused has acted in self defence or not does not arise.
(3) Burden of prove over accused - Section 105 of Indian Evidence Act is relevant for this.
In this case Supreme Court said that the right of private defence constitutes a general
exception to the offences defined in the Penal Code. The burden which rests on the
Page 70 of 134
accused to prove the exception is not of the same rigour as the burden of the prosecution
to prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt. It is enough for accused to show as in
a civil case that the preponderance of probabilities is in favour of his plea. It is
responsibility of the accused to prove that his act come under general exception of
which right of private defence is part.
Section 105, Indian Evidence Act
Section 105. Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions - When
a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances
bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions66 in the Indian Penal Code (45
of 1860), or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the
same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume
the absence of such circumstances.
Burden of Prove
Civil Cases Criminal Cases
Exception
Rule [ It was also observed by Y.V.
Chandrachud in State v. Sanjay
Gandhi, 1978.
Beyond Preponderance of
Burden of Prove
Reasonable Burden of Prove probabilities in
over Prosecution
doubts over Accused case of Section
105, IEA, 1872
(4) Only for defence - The right of private defence is a right of defence, not of retribution.
(5) Retreat to wall – In this Case, Supreme Court observed, “They themselves were the
lawless authors of the situation in which they found themselves and though the
Common Law doctrine of “retreat to the wall” or “retreat to the ditch” as expounded by
Blackstone has undergone modification and is not to be applied to cases where a victim,
being in a place where he has a right to be, is in face of a grave uninvited danger, yet,
at least those in fault must attempt to retreat unless the severity of the attack renders
such a course impossible. The exemption from retreat is generally available to the
faultless alone”.
(6) State Governments has locus standi - The locus standi of State Governments to file
appeals in this Court against judgments or orders rendered in criminal matters has been
recognised over the years for a valid reason namely, all crimes raise problems of law
and order and some raise issues of public disorder. The State Governments are entrusted
with the enforcement and execution of laws directed against prevention and punishment
of crimes. They have, therefore a vital stake in criminal matters. The objection that the
State Government has no locus standi to file the appeal must be rejected.
66
General Exception – Chapter IV [Sections 76 to 106].
Page 71 of 134
Reasons of Decisions
There were following reasons on the basis of which Ram Swarup was convicted for murder –
1. Ram Swarup and his fathers & brothers were aggressor.
2. Ram Swarup killed when Munimji was running away.
3. Ram Swarup shot him dead at point-blank range.
4. Ram Swarup was not able to prove that his matters were covered under ‘General
Exceptions.
5. RPD is not available for ‘stage manager’.
Decision
Ram Swarup was convicted for murder under section 302. But his punishment from death
sentence (Convicted by Session Court) was converted into life imprisonment.
Jams Martin v. State of Kerala67
[Section 99 is Lakshman Rekha for RPD]
Date of Judgment – December 16, 2003

Division Bench –
 Hon’ble Justice Doraiswamy Raju &
 Hon’ble Justice Arijit Pasayat
Author of Judgment - Hon’ble Justice Arijit Pasayat

Facts of Case
First Stage of Facts - There was Bharat Bandh on 15.3.1988 sponsored by some political
parties. James and his father Xavier had their residence, besides a bread factory and a flour
mill in the same compound in suburb of Kochi.
It was, however, said that their success in business was a matter of envy for Thomas Francis,
their neighbour, particularly who filed complaints to the local authorities against the conduct
of the mill and the factory and also filed a writ petition to get them closed down, but without
success.
It was alleged by Martin that he was the kingpin and that the incident was wrought by him out
of hatred and deep animosity towards James and Xavier.
67
Page 72 of 134
Second Stage of Facts –

The incident involved in this case took place at about 2.30 p.m. on 15.3.1988 when five young
men, the two deceased in this case, namely, Mohan and Basheer (deceased), and PW-1, PW-2
and PW-4, who were activists of the bundh, as followers of the political parties which organized
that bundh on that day, got into the flour mill of the Xavier. They unlawfully entered into
residence and pressurized for closing the operation of flour mill. Bandh activists who got into
the place by scaling over the locked gate and that their entry was unlawful too, besides
intimidating and assaulting worker (PW -15) and making him flee without shutting down the
machines.
James on the instigation of his father Xavier fired at the bundh activists. Two activist died.
TRIAL - James Martin faced trial along with his father Xavier for alleged commission of
offences punishable under
 Sections 302, 307, 326 read with Section 34 and
 Section 326 read with Section 114 IPC and
 Sections 25(B) (1) of the Arms Act, 1959 and Sections 27 and 30 thereof.
Decisions
James and Xavier were James was convicted.

convicted James was acquitted.
Xavier was acquitted.
Session Court - Learned Sessions Judge found
 Jams Martin guilty of offences punishable under Section 304 Part I, 326 and 324 IPC,
 while father of Jams Martin was found guilty of the offences punishable under Section
304 Part I read with Section 34, 302 read with Sections 24, 324 IPC.
 They have exceeded right of private defence.
High Court –
 High Court approved the decision of Session Court regarding conviction of Jams
Martin. He had exceeded his right of private defence.
 Father of Jemes Martin was given benefit of doubts and he was acquitted.
Supreme Court
Issue –
Whether James Martin killed two persons in the exercise of right of private defence?
Answer - Yes. He killed in the exercise of right of private defence. There was imminent threat
to body and property.
Decision regarding facts
 The threat to life and property of the accused was not only imminent but did not
cease, and it continued unabated.
Page 73 of 134
 Not only there were acts of vandalism, but also destruction of property. The High
Court noticed that explosive substances were used to destroy the properties of the
accused, but did not specifically answer the question as to whether destruction was
prior or subsequent to the shooting by the accused.
 The trial Court found that an unruly situation prevailed in the compound of the accused
as a result of the violence perpetrated by the bandh activists who got into the place by
scaling over the locked gate and that their entry was unlawful too, besides intimidating
and assaulting PW-15 (employee of accused) and making him flee without shutting
down the machines. The circumstances were also found to have necessitated a right of
private defence.
 Even the High Court, candidly found that tense situation was caused by the deceased
and his friends, that employee of deceased suffered violence and obviously there was
the threat of more violence to the person and properties, that the events taking place
generated a sort of frenzy and excitement rendering the situation explosive and beyond
compromise. Despite all these to expect the accused to remain calm or to observe
greater restraint in the teeth of the further facts found that the accused had only PW-15
who was already manhandled though they were outnumbered by their opponents (the
bandh activists) and whose attitude was anything but peaceful would be not only too
much to be desired but being unreasonably harsh and uncharitable, merely carried away
only by considerations of sympathy for the lives lost, on taking a final account of what
happened ultimately after everything was over. In the circumstances, the inevitable
conclusion is that the acts done by the accused were in the reasonable limits of exercise
of his right of private defence and he was entitled to the protection afforded in law
under Section 96 IPC.
Ratio of the Judgment

In this case Supreme Court observed following important points -
(1) Scheme of Right of Private Defence –

 Sections 96 and 98 give a right of private defence against certain offences and acts.
 Section 97 deals with the subject matter of right of private defence. The plea of right
comprises the body or property (i) of the person exercising the right; or (ii) of any other
person; and the right may be exercised in the case of any offence against the body, and
in the case of offences of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, and attempts at
such offences in relation to property.
 Section 99 lays down the limits of the right of private defence. The right given under
Sections 96 to 98 and 100 to 106 is controlled by Section 99.
 Sections 100 and 101, IPC define the limit and extent of right of private defence.
 Sections 102 and 105, IPC deal with commencement and continuance of the right of
private defence of body and property respectively.
(2) Self-preservation is prime instinct - Self-preservation is the prime instinct of every
human being. The right of private defence is a recognized right in the criminal law.
Section 96 of IPC also recognize this right.
Page 74 of 134
(3) Lakshman Rekha –Section 99, IPC denotes ‘Lakshman Rekha’. Here ‘Lakshman
Rekha’ means boundary beyond which you cannot go. It means right of private defence
is not absolute right. It is subject to restrictions mentioned under section 99, IPC.
(4) Number of Injuries -The number of injuries is not always a safe criterion for
determining who the aggressor was.
(5) Consideration of entire facts - In order to find whether the right of private defence is
available to an accused, the entire incident must be examined with care and viewed in
its proper setting.
(6) Social purpose –The right of self-defence is a very valuable right, serving a social
purpose and should not be construed narrowly.
(7) Criteria to determine availability of right of Private Defence - In order to find whether
right of private defence is available or not, (i) the injuries received by the accused, (ii)
the imminence of threat to his safety, (iii) the injuries caused by the accused and (iv)
the circumstances whether the accused had time to have recourse to public authorities
are all relevant factors to be considered.
(8) Defensive right -The right of private defence is essentially a defensive right
circumscribed by the governing statute i.e. the IPC, available only when the
circumstances clearly justify it. It should not be allowed to be pleaded or availed as a
pretext for a vindictive, aggressive or retributive purpose of offence. It is a right of
defense, not of retribution, expected to repel unlawful aggression and not as retaliatory
measure. While providing for exercise of the right, care has been taken in IPC not to
provide and has not devised a mechanism whereby an attack may be a pretence for
killing. A right to defend does not include a right to launch an offensive, particularly
when the need to defend no longer survived.
(9) Golden Scales and high- powered spectacles or microscopes – It is not possible to
weigh with golden scales whether circumstances exist to exercise right of private
defence or not. Such circumstances must not be viewed with high- powered spectacles
or microscopes.
(10) Burden of prove –
 The accused need not prove the existence of the right of private defence beyond
reasonable doubt. It is enough for him to show as in a civil case that the preponderance
of probabilities is in favour of his plea.
 If the circumstances show that the right of private defence was legitimately exercised,
it is open to the Court to consider such a plea. In a given case the Court can consider it
even if the accused has not taken it, if the same is available to be considered from the
material on record.
 Under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the burden of proof is on the
accused, who sets up the plea of self-defence, and, in the absence of proof, it is not
possible for the Court to presume the truth of the plea of self-defence. The Court shall
presume the absence of such circumstances. It is for the accused to place necessary
material on record either by himself adducing positive evidence or by eliciting
necessary facts from the witnesses examined for the prosecution.
Page 75 of 134
 An accused taking the plea of the right of private defence is not necessarily required to
call evidence; he can establish his plea by reference to circumstances transpiring from
the prosecution evidence itself.
(11) Hartal or Bandh do not authorize to violate the right of other person – Supreme Court
said, “We part with the case it needs to be noted that in the name of Hartal or Bandh
or strike no person has any right to cause inconvenience to any other person or to cause
in any manner a threat or apprehension of risk to life, liberty, property of any citizen
or destruction of life and property, and the least any government or public property”.
(12) Advice to Government – Supreme Court said, “It is high time that the authorities
concerned take serious note of this requirement while dealing with those who destroy
public property in the name of strike, hartal or bandh. Those who at times may have
even genuine demands to make should not lose sight of the overall situation eluding
control and reaching unmanageable bounds endangering life, liberty and property of
citizens and public, enabling anti-social forces to gain control resulting in all around
destruction with counterproductive results at the expense of public order and public
peace. No person has any right to destroy another’s property in the guise of bandh or
hartal or strike, irrespective of the proclaimed reasonableness of the cause or the
question whether there is or was any legal sanction for the same”.
Final Decision – The case at hand is one which led to the destruction of property and loss of
lives, because of irresponsible and illegal acts of some in the name of bandh or hartal or strike.
Unless those who organize can be confident of enforcing effective control over any possible
turn of events, they should think twice to hazard themselves into such risk prone ventures
endangering public peace and public order. The question whether bandh or hartal or strike has
any legal sanctity is of little consequence in such matters. All the more so when the days are
such where even law-enforcing authorities/those in power also precipitate to gain political
advantage at the risk and cost of their opponents. Unless such acts are controlled with iron
hands, innocent citizens are bound to suffer and they shall be the victims of the highhanded
acts of some fanatics with queer notions of democracy and freedom of speech or association.
That provides for no license to take law into their own hands. Any soft or lenient approach for
such offenders would be an affront to rule of law and challenge to public order and peace.”
Supreme Court set aside the conviction and sentence.
Conclusion
There was reasonable apprehension of causing death. In the circumstances, the inevitable
conclusion is that the acts done by the accused were in the reasonable limits of exercise of his
right of private defence and he was entitled to the protection afforded in law under Section 96.
Supreme Court acquitted.
Page 76 of 134
Amjad Khan v. The State
Pic68
Date of Judgment: 20/03/1952

Bench: Division Bench
 Hon’ble Justice Vivian Bose

 Hon’ble Justice Saiyid Fazal Ali
Author of Judgment - Hon’ble Justice Vivian Bose.
Facts
Facts of the case can be divided into three parts –
First Part -
 A communal riot broke out at Katni on the 5th of March, 1950, between some Sindhi
refugees resident in the town and the local Muslims.
 Muslim shops had already been looted and Muslims killed in the adjoining locality.
 A mob looted his brother’s shop.
Second Part -
 The mob had actually broken into another part of the house and looted it, that the
woman and children of his family fled to Amjad Khan (the appellant) for protection in
terror of their lives and that the mob was actually beating at his own doors with their
lathis.
Third Part -
 Amjad Khan fired two shots from his gun which caused the death of one Sindhi and
injured three other Sindhis.
Issue -
Whether Amzad Khan caused death and injuries in the exercise of right of private defence?
68
It is not real pic. It is only for understanding. This pic is from Pakistan.
Page 77 of 134
Answer – Yes. There was reasonable apprehension of causing of his death and his family
members.
High Court
High Court convicted Amjad Khan.
Supreme Court
Supreme Court observed following important points -
1. Supreme Court said that these things cannot be weighed in too fine a set of scales or
in golden scales. Accused was justified to use right to private defence because there
reasonable apprehension of his death and death of his family.
2. Actual injury is not necessary. Reasonable apprehension is sufficient.
3. It is evident that the appellant had no time to have recourse to the authorities. The
mob or crowd had already broken into one part of the building and was actually beating
on the doors of the other part.
4. Muslim shops had already been broken into and looted and Muslims killed in the rioting
at Zanda Chowk which preceded this, in our opinion, the High Court was wrong in
thinking that the appellant had to wait until the mob actually broke into his shop and
entered it.
5. Reasonable apprehension death and grievous hurt was sufficient.
6. High Court did not observe section 102 properly. Reasonable apprehension was
sufficient. Actual commission of death or grievous hurt was not necessary.
Remarks - Section 106 and Section 103 were not discussed. Supreme Court clearly accepted
that this case was also involved to Section 103, but it was confined itself to right to private
defence in case of body.
Supreme Court said, “We have confined our attention to the right of private defence of the
person though in this case the question about the defence of property happens to be bound up
with it”.
Conclusion
Amjad Khan was acquitted.
Page 78 of 134
ANNEXURE
(Previous Year Question Paper 2014. LLB-DU)
Question 4. (a) Due to breaking of communal riots between Community A and B. Members
of Community A caused loot, plunder and fire of the property belonging to members of
Community B. X, who was a member of Community B was also targeted. He tried to remain
a member out of the mob. Mr. X is charged of murder, however he pleads his right of Pvt.
Answer – This problem is based on sections 100, 102, 103, 105 & 106 and Amjad Khan v.
State (AIR 1952 SC 165). According to section 96 “Nothing is an offence which is done in the
exercise of the right of private defence.” According to section 97 Firstly, every person has a
right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend his own body, and the body
of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body. According to Section 102
the right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of
danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence
may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the
body continues. Under section 100, there are seven circumstances when a person may either
cause death or any other harm. According to section 100 Firstly if there is an assault which
reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such
assault then victim may cause death.
Amjad Khan v. State (Golden Scales) (Reasonable apprehension) - A communal riot broke
out at Katni on the 5th of March, 1950, between some Sindhi refugees resident in the town and
the local Muslims. It was enough that the mob had actually broken into another part of the
house and looted it, that the woman and children of his family fled to the appellant (Amjad
Khan) for protection in terror of their lives and that the mob was actually beating at his own
doors with their lathis and that Muslim shops had already been looted and Muslims killed in
the adjoining locality. Supreme Court said that these things cannot be weighed in too fine a
set of scales or in golden scales. Accused was justified to use right to private defence because
there reasonable apprehension of his death and death of his family.
Co-relation between Law and problem – In these problem rioters had already caused loot,
plunder and fire of the property belonging to members of Community B. X was also member
of community B. X was also targeted. He tried to remain within closed door, to save himself
and his family. However, the mob reached and started knocking at his door. It was reasonable
apprehension of death of X and his family (Section 100 Firstly). After reasonable
apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence
though the offence may not have been committed. X was justified to use right of private defence
(Section 102). Although mob had not entered into the house but knocking to door was sufficient
for commencement of right to private defence. In the Amjad Khan Case Supreme Court said
that it is not possible to weight reasonable apprehension with golden scales.
Conclusion - Killing of member of mob by X is justified on the basis of sections 100 and 102
and Amjad Khan Case. According to section 96 nothing is an offence which is done in the
Page 79 of 134
exercise of the right of private defence. So X has not committed any offence. X will succeed
to defend himself on the basis of right to private defence.
Question 4 (b)
Discuss statutory limitations on the exercise of Right of Pvt. defence as laid down in Indian
Penal Code.
Answer – If there is right then question arises limitations on the right. In absence of right no
question arises any types of limitation. According to section 97 right to private defence can be
exercised subject to restrictions mentioned in section 99.
Section 99 (Acts against which there is no right of private defence)
Section 99 may be divided into four parts.
First part deals that when right of private defence is not available against public servant.
According to this parts if conditions mentioned in this part are not being fulfilled then right of
private defence is also available even against public servant. For example if there is reasonable
apprehension that police is about to kill then other person has right to kill that person. But this
right is not available for stage manager. If you have created such circumstances in which police
is about to kill you in his self defence and in counter you kill him then right to private defence
is not available for you. Second part covers those matters which had been done on the direction
of public servant. Third part covers those matters in which person has time to recourse
protection of public authorities. Fourth part deals that this right must not be used to take
revenge. It must be used only for the purpose of protection.
(1) Public Servant

There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the
apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public
servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act, may not be
strictly justifiable by law.
Explanation 1 - A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act
done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant, as such, unless he knows or has
reason to believe, that the person doing the act is such public servant.
Kanwar Singh v. Delhi Administration (1965 SC)- A raiding party possessing
authority u/s 418, Delhi Municipal Corporation Act seized the stray cattle belonging to
the accused. The accused resisted the seizure of the cattle and inflicted injuries on the
raiding party. Since the raiding party were public servants discharging their lawful
duties, they were justified in law to seize the cattle, no right of private defence was
available to the accused. He was convicted.
(2) Person doing on the direction of public servant
There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the
apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the
direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though
that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law.
Explanation 2 — A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an
act done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant, unless he knows,
Page 80 of 134
or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is acting by such direction, or
unless such person states the authority under which he acts, or if he has authority in
writing, unless he produces such authority, if demanded.
(3) Time for recourse to the protection of the public authorities
There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to
the protection of the public authorities.
Gurdatta Mal v. State of U.P. (1965 SC)- There was a land dispute between the accused
and the deceased. There was prolonged civil litigation wherein the deceased had
established his right of title and physical possession of the property. He went along with
his men to harvest the crop with police protection. In such a situation, it was held that
the accused had ample time to have recourse to authorities and had no right to assault
the deceased to claim possession of the properties. Hence they had no right of private
defence.
Right of self defence of either body or property can only be at the time when there is
imminent danger or harm.
(4) Extent to which the right may be exercised.
The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is
necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.
Deo Narain v. State of U.P. (1972 SC)
DU LLB 2018
Question (1) (b)
‘A’ a man whose crop was frequently stolen, found ‘B’ committing theft and gave him some
blows with a Lathi which resulted in his death. Is he justified in killing ‘B’ in exercise of right
of private defence of property?
Answer – He exceeded his right of private defence. Section 103, sections 300 Exception 2,
Page 81 of 134
OBJECTIVE QUESTIONS
Question 1- General exceptions are laid down in the Indian Penal Code in
(1) Chapter VI
(2) Chapter VIII
(3) Chapter IV
(4) Chapter IV and VI
Answer – 3. Chapter IV
Question 2- Chapter IV covers –
(1) Sections 76 to 106

(3) Section 95 to 106
Answer - 1
Question 3 - Which provisions deals rights of private defence –

(3) Section 95 to 106
Answer - 4
Question 4- No right of private defence is available against the offence of
(1) Criminal breach of trust

(2) Theft
(3) Robbery
(4) Criminal Trespass.
Answer -(1) Criminal breach of trust. Explanation- Section 97 Secondly.
Question 5 – Match the items of List I (Name of Cases) with the items of List II (Offence) and
choose the correct answer from the code given below –
List I List II
(a) Vishwanath v. State of U.P. (i) Kidnapping
(b) State of Punjab v. Major Singh (ii) Private defence
(c) S.Varadarajan v. State of Madras (iii) Modesty of women
(d) Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (iv) Dowry Death
Options
(1) (a)ii (b) iii (c) iv (d) i

(2) (a) iv(b) ii (c) i (d) iii
(3) (a) ii(b) iii (c) i (d)iv
(4) (a)iv (b) ii (c) iii (d) i
Page 82 of 134
Answer – (3) (a) ii(b) iii (c) i (d)iv

List I List II
(a) Vishwanath v. State of U.P. (ii) Private defence
(b) State of Punjab v. Major Singh (iii) Modesty of women
(c) S.Varadarajan v. State of Madras (i) Kidnapping
(d) Amar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (iv) Dowry Death
Question 6 – “The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable
apprehension of danger to the body arises and continues so long as such apprehension of danger
continues.” This observation was made by the Supreme Court in:
Option
(1) Ranga Billa v. Union of India
(2) State of Punjab v. Nanak Chand
(3) Deo Narain v. State of U.P.
(4) Ram Swarup v. State of U.P.
Answer – (3) Deo Narain v. State of U.P. 1972.

Question 7- No right of private defence is available against the offence of
(1) Criminal breach of trust
(2) Theft
(3) Robbery
(4) Criminal Trespass.
Answer – 1
Question 8- “The right of private defence is a preventive and not a punitive right. In case of
excitement or disturbed mental equilibrium it is difficult to expect parties facing grave
the unlawful aggression.” This was said in case of
(1) Amjad Khan v. State

(2) Vishwa Nath v. State of U.P.
(3) Deo Narain v. State of U.P.
(4) State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup
Answer – 3
Question 9 The right to private defence against an act done by a public servant is available:
(1) When it is discharged in good faith

(2) When it is attempted to be done by him
(3) When it was done while he was not in colour of his office
(4) When it is strictly to be justifiable by law
Page 83 of 134
Answer – 3
Questions 10.In which of the following offence right of private defence is available?
(1) Criminal breach of trust Robbery, Mischief & Criminal Trespass

(2) Theft, Robbery, Mischief & Criminal Trespass
(3) Cheating, Theft, Robbery & Mischief
(4) Criminal Misappropriation, Criminal Trespass, Theft & Robbery,
Answer – 2
Question 11-“The right of private defence is a preventive and not a punitive right. In case of
excitement or disturbed mental equilibrium it is difficult to expect parties facing grave
the unlawful aggression.” This was said in case of

(2) VishwaNath v. State of U.P.
(3) DeoNarain v. State of U.P.
Answer – 3
Question 12 - In which case it was observed, “Self-preservation is the prime instinct of every
human being..…Section 99, IPC denotes ‘Lakshman Rekha….. The right of self-defence is a
very valuable right, serving a social purpose and should not be construed narrowly…It is
not possible to weigh with golden scales whether circumstances exist to exercise right of
private defence or not. Such circumstances must not be viewed with high- powered spectacles
or microscopes’”
(1) DeoNarain v. State of U.P.

(2) James Martin v. State of Kerala
Answer- (2)
Question 13 –There are 12 circumstances when death may be caused in exercise of right of
private defence. Which of the following pair is correct?
(1) Section 100 (6 circumstances), Sec. 103 (4 circumstances) and Sec. 106 (One)
(2) Section 100 (7 circumstances) and Sec.103 (4 circumstances) and Sec. 106 (One)
(3) Section 100 (7 circumstances) and 104 (4 circumstances) and Sec. 106 (One)
(4) Section 99 (7 circumstances) and 103 (4 circumstances) and Sec. 106 (One)
Answer- 2
Question 14–When right of private defence is not available against public servant?
(1) Anact reasonably causes the apprehension of death

(2) Anact reasonably causes the apprehension of grievous hurt
(3) He is not acting in good faith
(4) He is acting under colour of his office
Page 84 of 134
Answer- 4.
Question 15-Nephews of ‘A’ was illegally arrested. A went to police Station and asked why
have you arrested me nephews? Police asked, “Who are you”? He replied that he was uncle of
these and also student of Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. After listening this, they started
to beat brutally and they tried to gratify unnatural lust.
A in exercise of right of private defence
(1) had right to cause death

(2) had right either to cause deathor other harm
(3) had no right either to cause death or other harm
(4) had right either to cause death or other harm under section 103, IPC
Answer- (2) had right either to cause death or other harm

Question 16 - Which of the following case is not related to right of private defence?
(1) Vishwanath v. State of U.P.

(2) YeshwantRao v. State of M.P.
(4) Fowler v. Padget
Answer-(4) Fowler v. Padget

Question 17 – A attempts to pull Z’s nose. Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence,
lays hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in
consequence, and kills Z.
(1) This is culpable homicide. A killed Z under grave and sudden and provocation.
(2) This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was giving by a thing done in the exercise
of the right of private defence.
(3) This is culpable homicide because A cause death in sudden fight
(4) None of the above.
Answer –(2)
Question 18. Right to private defence is:
(1) available under all circumstances
(2) available where there is time to have the recourse to the protection of public authorities
(3) available where there is no time to have recourse to the protection of public authorities
(4) all of the above.
Answer. 3
Page 85 of 134
Question 13 (NET)
‘A’ enters into the house of ‘B’ with the intention to commit theft. ‘B’ along with other
members of the family surrounded and attack ‘A’ with wooden sticks. ‘A’ finding his life in
danger fires with pistol causing death to ‘B’. Here ‘A’ has committed:
Option - (1) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder (2) Murder (3) Theft (4) No offence
as he acted in self –defence.
Answer - Murder. Right of private defence is not available against right of private defence. It
is also not available for stage manager.
Question no. 10 (b) (UP J, 2019)
This problem can be solved with the help of State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup which is known as
Melon Case decided by Supreme Court in 1974. In this case Supreme Court observed, “The
right of private defence is a right of defence, not of retribution. It is available in face of
imminent peril to those who act in good faith and in no case the right be conceded to a person
who stage-manages a situation wherein the right can be used as a shield to justify an act of
aggression. For example if a person goes with a gun to kill another, the intended victim is
entitled to act in self-defence and if be so acts there is no right in the former to kill him in order
to prevent him from acting in self-defence.”
From the ratio of Ram Swarup case, it can be concluded that ‘A’ has committed murder.
Question 1 - ‘A’ enters into the house of ‘B’ with the intention to commit theft. ‘B’ along with
other members of the family surrounded and attack ‘A’ with wooden sticks. ‘A’ finding his life
in danger fires with pistol causing death to ‘B’. Here ‘A’ has committed:
Option –
(1) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
(2) Murder
(3) Theft
(4) No offence as he acted in self –defence.
Answer - Murder. Right of private defence is not available against right of private defence. It
is also not available for stage manager.
UGC NET (Nov. 2017)
Question 5. The right to private defence against an act done by a public servant is not available:
(1) When it is discharged in good faith

(2) When it is attempted to be done by him
(3) When it was done while he was not in his office
(4) When it is strictly to be justifiable by law
Answer (1) When it is discharged in good faith. Explanation – Section 99 of IPC.

Page 86 of 134
Section 99 (Part 1) -There is no right of private defence against an act which does not
reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be
done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act, may
not be strictly justifiable by law.
Question UPSC 2009

To whom, among the following, is the right of private defence, under Chapter IV of IPC is
available?
(1) Only to the defender being a preventive right.

(2) An aggressor, while facing action on the part of the defender which is excessive?
Select the correct answer using the code given below.

(a)1 only (b) 2 only (c) Bothe 1 and 2 (d) Neither 1 nor 2
Answer – (a)
Question UPSC 2008 –
What is the prime object of Criminal Law?
(a) To punish the forbidden conduct
(b) To protect public property
(c) To protect public and private property
(d) To protect public by maintenance of law and order
Answer- (d).
……..The End….
Next Topic – Of Offences against Body (Sections 299 to 377)
Page 87 of 134
CHAPTER XVI [SECTIONS 299 TO 377]

OF OFFENCES AFFECTINGTHE HUMAN BODY
Section 299 to Section 304A

Krishna Murari Yaddav
Assistant Professor,
LAW CENTRE – I, FOL,
University of Delhi, Delhi.
Previous Year Question Papers
DU LL.B. (2013)
Question 2 - Critically explain the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Virsa Singh v. State
of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465 for invoking the charge of murder under section 300(3) read with
section 302 IPC. Comment on principles in Kapur Singh v. State of Pepsu AIR 1956 SC 654
and of Virsa Singh the latter case.
Question 3 (a) - Bring out clearly the distinction in the degree of rashness required under
section 304A IPC and that under section 304 part II, IPC for conviction of offenders with the
help of decided cases and illustrations.
Question no. 4 (a) - Bring out clearly the distinction between the requirements of the partial
defence contained in Exception I and IV to section 300 IPC with the help of decided cases and
also the similarity in some of the essentials, if any, of two exceptions.
Question no. 4 (b) - Explain with the help of decided cases the legal fiction of ‘reasonable
man’ for determining the ‘grave’ and ‘sudden’ provocation and the concept of ‘cooling down
period’ for reducing the criminality of an accused for murder to culpable homicide not
amounting to murder under Exception I to section 300 IPC.
DU LL.B. (2014)
Question 2 (a) - Arguments between X ((husband) and W (wife) on repayment of loan to the
Bank, turned ugly. Husband slapped his wife and not satisfied with this threw a burning stove
(kerosene oil) on her. The oil with flame resulted into fire in which the wife was engulfed.
Husband tried to dose it off. However, the burn injuries were beyond 70% which resulted into
death of the wife four days later in the hospital. Determine the liability of the Husband X in the
case.
Question (2) (Year is not certain)
Rajesh, a liquor baron, with intent to make quick money, adulterated country liquor with methyl
alcohol and water and sold the same in the market through his outlets on holi festival. As a
consequence, the festival day of holi brought disaster to many families inasmuch as 40 person
died and 14 lost eye sight permanently after consuming liquor bought from his outlets Rajesh
is being prosecuted for the offences under sections 302 and 326 IPC. He pleads that he neither
had intention to kill nor knowledge of such imminent disaster. Will the prosecution succeed?
Decide with the help of legal provisions and judicial decisions.
Question 3 (a). Due to rivalry arising out of landed property between A and B, A caused
multiple injuries to B and various parts of body to teach him a lesson. B was admitted to the
hospital, where he was treated and discharged. When B was on his way to recovery, he became
Page 88 of 134
negligent about his medicines. He, therefore, developed fever and septic of two wounds. B died
a week later. State the liability of A. Cite relevant legal provisions and decided cases.
Question - Accused X was running a bus at a high speed on a dusty and damaged road. While
negotiating a curve with the same speed, without applying brakes, the bus over turned, killing
a pedestrian and injuring some of the passengers. Prosecution is interested to prosecute X under
Section 304-A of IPC. Can they do so and will they succeed? Give reasons.
Question 8 Write notes on the following:
(a) Grave and Sudden Provocation
DU LL.B. (2015)
Question 3 (a) - A, a police sub-inspector, in exercise of his lawful powers goes to the house
of a murder suspect, B, to arrest him. The sub-inspector behaves in an unusually high-handed
manner that provokes B. Due to this, B picks up a kitchen knife lying nearby and thrusts it into
the abdomen of A resulting in grievous injury and ultimately death of A. During trial B pleads
the defence of grave and sudden provocation. Decide.
Question 8 -
Discuss the liability of X in the following. Attempt any two out of the three.
(a) X stabs B who is five year old son of A in his leg due to which there is significant blood
loss. Doctors advise blood transfusion. A refuses to get it done since his religious belief doesn’t
allow the same. B dies after three days due to extreme blood loss.
(b) X is learning shooting. Despite being cautioned against practicing in crowded places, he
fires shots at his dummy target after placing it in a crowded street. A shot from his gun hits a
person there causing his death.
(C) X and B are sworn enemies. One day, finding B alone, X gives him a deep wound in his
chest with the help of a sharp dagger that pierces his heart and causes his death.
DU LL.B. (2016)
Question 5 (a) - Discuss the criminal liability of Raghu in the following case -
Raghu stabs Rinku who is five years old son of Ram in his leg, due to which there is significant
blood loss. Doctor advises blood transfusion but Ram refuses to get it done since his religious
belief does not allow the same. Rinku dies three days later due to extreme loss of blood.
DU LL.B. (2017)
Question 2 (a) – Anil, Ajeet & VIkra, were good friends and decided to celebrate Vikram’s
birthday at Anil’s house. During the course of ce;ebration they started arguing about Anil’s
pairing up with Sonali, who was Vikram’s girlfriend for the dance competition in their college.
In the heat of the moment Vikram hit Anil on the head with the beer bottle which which was
lying on the table. Anil collapsed and became unconscious. Thinking him to be dead Vikram
and Ajeet threw him from the balcony of his 5th floor house. Anil died because of injuries
sustained on falling face down. The doctor opined that the blow given by the beer bottle on the
head was only likely to cause death, but the death actually resulted from the impact of the fall/
Decide the criminal liability of Ajeet & Vikram in this case. Are they guilty of murder of Anil?
Decide citing relevant case law.
DU LL.B. (2018)
Question (3) - Tej had scolded Teena, daughter of Shan, for misbehaving with his daughter.
Shan did not like this and was looking for an opportunity to give good thrashing to Tej. One
day Shan saw that Tej was passing through his place and seizing this opportunity, Shan caught
Page 89 of 134
hold of a stick lying nearby and gave nineteen blows with the stick on the legs and arms of
Tej. Tej was removed to a nearby hospital and died after two days. The post-mortem report
attributed death to multiple fractures on arms and legs and internal bleeding. Shan is tried for
the offence of murder under section 300 (3) IPC. Decide with the help of decided cases.
Question (5) (a) - ‘A’ was in the habit of beating up his wife over trivial issues. One day,
during such fight, ‘A’ picked up a lathi lying nearby and hit his wife on her head. Consequent
to the lathi blow, the woman fell unconscious. Believing her to be dead he hung her body by a
rope in order to create an appearance that the wife committed suicide. However, postmortem
examination showed that death was due to hanging. With the help of decided cases determine
the culpability of A.
DU LL.B. (2019)
Question 2- Elucidate the essential ingredients of Section 300 (iii) IPC in the light of R.
Punnayya and Virsa Singh Case.
Question 7 - Amit went to his wife’s parental house to bring her back to their matrimonial
house after Radha had spent her holydays over there. During his night stay Amit found Radha
missing from room in which they were sleeping. He went outside the room to find her
whereabouts and found Radha in compromising position with her brother in law (Jija) Suresh
in the drawing room. Amit returned to his room and after 15 minutes when Radha came back
and fell asleep, Amit stabbed her several times with a kitchen knife. Radha died of stab wounds,
Medical evidence showed that the injuries inflicted by Amit were sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. Amit is prosecuted for murder. He pleads grave and sudden
provocation. Will he succeed?
Previous Years Questions Papers of Judicial Service Exams
 HJS [1996] - What is Culpable Homicide? When does it amount to murder and when
it does not amount to murder?
 HJS [2001] - A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it. A, intending to cause,
or knowing it to be likely to cause Z's death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and
kills Z. What offence, if any, is committed by A?
 RJS [2014] – All murders are culpable homicide but all culpable homicide are not
murder. Explain and illustrate with the help of decided cases.
 HJS [2006] - “The distinction between ‘Murder’ and ‘Culpable Homicide’ not
amounting to murder is very fine but real”. Discuss.
 HJS [2009] – “Even without a murderous intention, a person may be guilty of murder”.
Elucidate.
 HJS [2010] – Examine as to whether a person who causes death of a pregnant woman
is guilty of committing one homicide or two.
 RJS 1991 – Define murder. Is there any offence which is punishable by death penalty?
 RJS 1994 – Define murder
 UPJS [2012] – ‘X’ gave a kick to ‘Y’ who had enlarged spleen, As a result of the kick,
the spleen was ruptured and ‘Y’ died. Giving reasons, state what offences has been
committed?
 Distinction between culpable homicide and murder has been asked many times.
Page 90 of 134
INTRODUCTION
Homicide
Homi means Human Cide means Cutting
Justified/Lawful Homicide Unjustified/Unlawful Homicide
Sections 299, 300, 304A and

General Exception (Ch. IV)
304B etc.
State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya & Another69 (Sept. 15, 1976, S.C.)

Hon’ble Justice Justice Ranjit Singh Sarkaria observed, “In the scheme of the Indian Penal
Code, ‘culpable homicide’ is genus and ‘murder’ its specie. All ‘murder’ is ‘culpable homicide’
but not vice versa.
Speaking generally, ‘culpable homicide’ sans (sans means without) ‘special characteristics of
murder’, is ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’. ‘Culpable homicide’ with ‘special
characteristics of murder’, is ‘culpable homicide amounting to murder’.”
Culpable Homicide
Section 299, Section 300 &

Section 300 Five
Exceptions
Culpable Homicide not Culpable Homicide

amounting to murder amounting to murder
Five Exceptions of Section 300

Section 299
Section 300
Punishment - Punishment - Punishment -

Section 304 Section 302 Section 302
69
AIR 1977 SC 45.
Page 91 of 134
SECTION 299
Section 299. Culpable homicide. - Whoever causes death 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 he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of
culpable homicide.
Illustrations
(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the
knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z, believing the ground to be firm, treads
on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it. A, intending to cause, or knowing it to
be likely to cause Z's death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be
guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B, who is behind a bush; A not
knowing that he was there.
Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable homicide, as he did
not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.
Explanation 1 - A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a
disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be
deemed to have caused his death.
Explanation 2. - Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily
injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies
and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.
Explanation 3. - The causing of the death of a child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But
it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child
has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.
Section 299:
(1) Cause-effect relationship -

(2) “Whoever causes death (Section 4670) by doing an act (Sections 3271 &3372)
(3) Guilty Mind -
(a) Intention to cause death - with the intention (Intention means desire and
foresight of consequences) of causing death, or
(b) Intention to cause bodily injury - with the intention of causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death (there is no intention to cause death, only
intention is to cause bodily injury) or
(c) Knowledge -with the knowledge (knowledge means foresight of consequences)
that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable
homicide.”
70
Section 46. “Death” - The word “death” denotes the death of a human being unless the contrary appears from
the context.
71
Section 32. Words referring to acts include illegal omissions.—In every part of this Code, except where a
contrary intention appears from the context, words which refer to acts done extend also to illegal omissions.
72
Section 33. “Act”. “Omission”. - The word “act” denotes as well as series of acts as a single act: the word
“omission” denotes as well a series of omissions as a single omission.
Page 92 of 134
The guilty intention in the first two conditions contemplates the intended death of the person
harmed or the intentional causing of an injury likely to cause his death. The knowledge in the
third condition contemplates knowledge of the likelihood of the death of the person.73
Illustrations
There are three illustrations. First illustration (a) is related to sticks and turf over a pit. It is not
intended to kill particular person.74 Second illustration (b) is related where A knows Z to be
behind a bush but B does not know it. This illustration denies role of innocent person and
victim.75 Third illustration is related to shooting at fowl with intent to kill and steal it. He was
doing without intention or knowledge to kill human being. He was not guilty of culpable
homicide.
Explanations
There are three explanations clarifies the culpable homicide. First Explanation is
related to bodily injury, disorder & disease (BIDIDI) and acceleration of death, second
Explanation is related to proper remedies and skilful treatment and third Explanation is
related to child who has been brought forth even though he has not taken breath.
These explanations are clarifying that merely acceleration of death, resorting of proper
remedies and skilful treatment and child not born completely cannot be taken defence. Even in
these circumstances persons shall be liable for culpable homicide.
73
Anda and Ors. vs The State Of Rajasthan, 9 March, 1965 SC
74
Emporer v. M.S.Murthy (Halva Case) 1912, Mad. H.C.
75
Emporer v. M.S.Murthy (Halva Case) 1912, Mad. H.C.
Page 93 of 134
Section 299 [Culpable Homicide]
Three Parts
Main Body Illustrations Explanations [Three

[Two Parts] [Three Illustrations] Explanations]
A lays sticks and turf labouring under a

Actus Reus over a pit disorder, disease or
bodily infirmity
Mens Rea A knows Z to be resorting to proper

behind a bush. B does remedies and skilful
not know it treatment
shooting at a fowl with death of a child in the

intent to kill and steal it mother's
Ingredients of Section 299 - There are two ingredients must be fulfilled namely:
(1) Actus Reus - There must be cause-effect relationship, and

(2) Guilty Mind. “Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea” is applicable in case of culpable
homicide and murder.
Section 299
Actus Reus
Mens Rea
[Causa causans ]
by doing an
Causing Death Intention Knowledge
act
Intention to
knowledge to cause
Intention to cause death cause bodily
bodily injury
injury
Likely to Likely to
Page 94 of 134
Differences between
Death & Injury
Death Injury
Intention to cause Intention to cause knowlege.....to bodily

death bodily injury injury
Section 299
[ Main Body]
Death [Four Comma Or [Two Intention Likely to Knowledge

TImes] [Three Times] Times] [Two Times] [Two Times] [One Time]
First Condition
There must be cause and effect relationship/ Causa causans (Immediate or operating cause)
(1) Moti Singh and Anr. v. State of UP,76&77 ( Jan. 23, 1963). (Primary cause and the death
should not be too remote. You have to prove that by act of accused, death of victim has
occurred.
Facts
Deceased had been injured during the occurrence and had been taken to the hospital
where his dying declaration was recorded. He left the hospital and died 20 days later.
Before any postmortem examination could be held, his body was cremated.
Decision
Prosecutor could not prove what the reason of cause of death of victim was whether it
was injury caused by accused or negligence in taking medicine after discharge of
hospital.
Moti Singh and Jagdamba were acquitted.
(2) Joginder Singh v. State of Punjab78 (1979)
The deceased Rupinder Singh had teased the sister of accused. In retaliation accused
reached at the house of deceased. Seeing these things deceased started to run away.
Accused tried to hold deceased. Accused was about 15 to 20 feet away from victim
when victim jumped into well. There was no cause & effect relationship. Here cause
and effect means, there must be death of victim by act of accused.
76
AIR 1964 SC 900
77
78
AIR 1979 SC 1876 n
Page 95 of 134
If this condition is not fulfilled, no further question regarding intention or knowledge.
Second Condition
There Must Be Guilty Mind.
Section 299 -Mens Rea
(a) Intention to cause Death
(b) Intention to cause Bodily Injury Likely to Death
(c) Knowledge Bodily Injury Likely to Death
Act must be done with guilty mind. There are three degrees of mens rea-
(i) Intention to cause death, or

(ii) Intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or
(iii)With the knowledge the he is likely by such act to cause death. Here ‘likely’ word
denotes probability. By aiding some special words, this probability would be converted
into certainty. Then culpable homicide would be converted into murder.
In absence of guilty mind, person would not be liable for Culpable Homicide. Example –
Dispute was going on between husband and wife. Wife was along with baby. Husband
struck a blow on her body rather than vital part of her body. Accidently that blow struck
baby and baby died.
 Husband was not doing lawful work. So he would not get benefit of section 80.
 He had no intention to cause death of his wife or his blow was not sufficient to cause
death of her wife. So, neither Section 299 nor Section 300, IPC is applicable. So,
Section 301 IPC which deals transfer of malice is also not applicable.
 If B knew that the woman was carrying the child in her arms and his blows might
hit the child, he will be liable under Section 304-A.
 If he was not knowing about child, he will be liable for causing voluntarily hurt.
Page 96 of 134
Emperor v. Mushnooru Suryanarayana Murthy

(Halva Case) 1912, Mad. H.C.
Majority Opinion: Justice Benson & Justice Rahim
M.S. Murthy
[Accused]
It haapend at the
house of
Brother-in-law
Targated Victim Real Victim
Appala
Narasimhulu Death
Appala Daughter of Death of one more children

Narasimhulu brother-in-law with whom Rajalakshmi
survived [Rajalakshmi] shared halva.
Facts - M.S. Murthy was not intended to kill Rajalakshmi. He was intended to kill Appala
Narasimhulu, (on whose life he had effected large insurances without Appala Narasimhulu’s
knowledge, and in order to obtain the sums for which he was insured), gave him some
sweetmeat (halva) in which a poison containing arsenic and mercury in soluble form had been
mixed. Appala after eating some poisonous sweetmeat (halva) remaining halva he threw.
Without knowledge of M.S. Murthy (accused), the girl (Rajalakshmi) took the halva and shared
with friend. They ate and died subsequently.
Crux of Fact –
 There was intention to cause death of Appala Narasimhulu.
 Motive to cause death of Appala Narasimhulu was to receive insurance money.
 There was neither intention nor knowledge to cause death of Rajalakshmi.
Issues –
1. Whether M.S. Murthy is guilty of the murder of Rajalakshmi?
Answer - Yes
Page 97 of 134
2. Whether causing death of particular person is necessary to make liable him for culpable
homicide or murder?
Answer – No. It becomes clear from Section 299, Illustration (a).
3. Whether contributory action of victim or third person provides exemption to accused
from liability of culpable homicide or murder?
Answer – No. Section
4. Is Section 301 [Transfer of Malice] applicable in the facts of this case?
Answer - Yes.
He was liable for murder under section 302. But in this case section 299 was also discussed
very thoroughly.
In this case Supreme Court discussed following important points –
(1) Intention to cause particular person is not necessary
(2) Contributory action of victim does not resolve the accused from his liability.
(3) Contributory action of third person does not resolve the accused from his liability.
(4) Contributory action of third party is also not relevant.
(1) Death of Particular person - Intention to cause death of particular person is not necessary.
It becomes very clear after cumulative readings of Sections 299 to 301 and illustrations of these
sections.
Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code says: “Whoever causes death 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 he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the
offence of culpable homicide.”
It is to be observed that the section does not require that the offender should intend to kill (or
know himself to be likely to kill) any particular person. It is enough if he “causes the death”
of any one, whether the person intended to be killed or anyone else.
Section 299, Illustration (a) – This is clear from illustration (a) of Section 299 which is
following– “
 A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the
knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused.
 Z, believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed
the offence of culpable homicide.”
(2) Contributory action of victim – Contributory action of victim is also not relevant. In
illustration (a), Z went and fallen into pit. He died. A was liable for culpable homicide.
(3) Contributory action of third party-

Nor is it necessary that the death should be caused directly by the action of the offender, without
contributory action by the person whose death is caused or by some other person. That
contributory action by the person whose death is caused will not necessarily prevent the act of
the offender from being culpable homicide, even if the death could not have occurred without
such contributory action, is clear from the illustration (b), and that contributory action by a
third person will not necessarily prevent the act of the offender from being culpable homicide,
even if the death could not have occurred without such contributory action, is clear from the
second illustration of Section 299.
Page 98 of 134
Section 299, Illustration (b) –

 A knows Z to be behind a bush.
 B does not know it.
 A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause, Z’s death, induces B to fire
at the bush.
 B fires and kills Z.
 Here B may be guilty of no offence;
 but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(4) Transfer of Malice (Section 301) - Accused in the present case is guilty of murder, and
this is rendered still more clearly by Section 301 of the Code. The cases in which culpable
homicide is murder under Section 301 are not confined to cases in which the act by which the
death is caused is done with the intention of causing death. Section 301 specifies other degrees
of intention or knowledge which may cause the act to amount to murder;
The language of section 299, Section 300, Section 301 and illustrations show that neither the
contributory action of Appala Narasimhulu in throwing away part of the sweetmeat, nor the
contributory action of the girl in picking it up and eating it prevent holding that it was the
accused that caused the girl’s death.
Conclusion –
 M.S. Murthy was convicted for causing murder of Rajalakshmi.
 He had not challenged his conviction for attempt to murder of Appala.
Ganesh Dooley Case (1879)

(Sometimes even gross negligence may amount to knowledge)
A snake charmer exhibited in public a venomous snake whose fangs he knew had not been
extracted and to show his own skill but without intention to cause harm to anyone, placed the
snake on the head of the one of the spectators. The spectator in trying to push off the snake was
bitten and died in consequence. The snake charmer was held guilty of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder.
Page 99 of 134
Relation between ‘Mens Rea’ and ‘Actus Reus’
LL.B. –DU 2016

Question 1(a) –
 A, B, and C assaulted their junior and fresher X in their hostel room while ragging him.
They punched and kicked him on non-vital parts of his body as he refused to dance on
a song played by them on their mobile phone. X fell down and became unconscious.
 Presuming him to be dead they hanged him from the ceiling fan by a rope, so as to
create an impression that X had committed suicide.
 The post-mortem examination showed that death was due to asphyxiation. Decide
culpability of A, B and C with the help of decided case.
Answer:
In this problem sections 201, 299, 321& 323 and ratio of judgment of Palani Goundan v.
Emperor (1919, Mad. H.C.) are involved.
LL.B. – DU 2018
Question (5) (a) –
 ‘A’ was in the habit of beating up his wife over trivial issues.
 One day, during such fight, ‘A’ picked up a lathi lying nearby and hit his wife on her
head. Consequent to the lathi blow, the woman fell unconscious.
 Believing her to be dead he hung her body by a rope in order to create an appearance
that the wife committed suicide. However, postmortem examination showed that death
was due to hanging.
 With the help of decided cases determine the culpability of A.
Answer – Palani Goundan v. Emperor [1919, Mad. H.C.] ‘A’ has not committed culpable
homicide. He has committed voluntarily grievous hurt.
Remarks – Answer depends upon your arguments. If you are able to give reasonable
arguments, matter may come under Section 300, thirdly.
Page 100 of 134
Palani Goundan v. Emperor79

[1919, Mad. H.C.]
Date of Judgment – April 07, 1919

Court – Madras High Court
Division Bench - Hon’ble Justice Napier and Hon’ble Justice Sadasiva Ayyar.
For Opinion – There was contradictory opinion of Justice Napier and Justice Ayyar. Matter
was referred to Hon’ble Justice Wills.
Total Three Judges –
1. Hon’ble Justice Napier
2. Hon’ble Justice Sadasiva Ayyar
3. Hon’ble Justice Wills.
FACTS
 Palani Goundan [Husband] struck a violent blow on the head of his wife (Ramayee)
with ploughshare on October 23, 1918.
 She became senseless.
 He believed her to be dead and in order to lay the foundation for a false defence of
suicide by hanging, which he afterwards set up, proceeded to hang her on a beam by a
rope.
 In fact the first blow was not a fatal one and the cause of death was asphyxiation by
hanging which was the act of the accused.
 The accused did not intend to cause death. He intended to cause bodily injury. It was
not shown that the blow was likely to cause death.
ISSUES –
1. Was Palani Goundan [Husband] had caused death of his wife (Ramayee) with
ploughshare?
Answer – No. She died when he hanged her with beam. She died of asphyxiation.
2. Was Palani Goundan [Husband] convicted for culpable homicide/murder for causing
death of his wife (Ramayee)?
Answer – Palani was not convicted either for culpable homicide or murder.
3. Had Palani committed offence of grievous hurt and offence of concealing evidence?
Answer – Yes. Palani had committed offence under Section 32680 and Section 201.81
79
(1919) ILR 547 (Mad).
80
Section 326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means.
81
Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence
Page 101 of 134
Session Court -
The accused was convicted of murder of his wife by the Sessions Judge of Coimbatore.
Madras High Court – Appeal was preferred by Palani to Madras High Court. Matter was
decided by Hon’ble Justice Napier and Hon’ble Justice Sadasiva Ayyar. Opinion of both judges
were contradictory. The Division Bench referred the matter to Hon’ble Chief Justice Wallis for
his opinion.
Opinion of Chief Justice Wallis
There are following important points were discussed and observed by Hon’ble Justice Wallis -
Ratio – The conclusion is irresistible that the intention of the accused must be judged, not in
the light of the actual circumstances, but in the light of what he supposed to be the
circumstances.
It follows that a man is not guilty of culpable homicide if his intention was directed only to
what he believed to be a lifeless body.
Conclusion of Justice Wallis -
1. The accused cannot be convicted either of murder or culpable homicide.
2. He can of course be punished both for his original assault on his wife and for his attempt
to create false evidence by hanging her.
3. With the above, the matter was returned to the referring to Division Bench. It was said
that the Bench will decide punishment.
Chief Justice Wallis [Accused had not

committed CH or murder]
Justice Sadasiva Ayyar

Justice Napier [Accused [Accused has not committed
has committed murder] murder]
Remarks - When the case came on again for hearing before the Division Bench, the court
convicted the accused of grievous hurt under section 326, IPC and concealing for evidence.
Conclusion
[Final Decision]
 He was not liable either for culpable homicide or murder.
 He was liable for causing of grievous hurt under section 326, IPC.
 He was liable for concealing evidence.
 Reason - He had neither intention nor knowledge to kill his wife.
Page 102 of 134
IN RE THAVAMANI CASE82&83
[1943 Mad. H.C.]
Date of Judgment - 29 March, 1943
High Court – Madras High Court
Author of Judgment – Justice King
FACTS
There were two accused who were tried for causing murder. There are following crux of facts
-
1. First accused was gardener employed in the garden by Meenakshi (Deceased).
2. Second accused [Thavamani] was friend of first accused. He was in need of money at
the time.
3. Motive – To take chain and other ornaments and gain property. Chain was sold chain
to P.W. 15. Proceeds of the sale of this portion of the chain were divided between the
two accused.
4. Intention – There was intention to cause death.
5. Method of killing & Confession – Method and manner of killing were narrated by
second accused in his confession. He narrated, “After the first attack had been made
upon the deceased he (second accused) prevented her leaving the garden and then seized
her legs and held her tight while, according to the confession, the murder was
completed. After she had died the first and second accused threw the body into the
well”.
Issue – Was Thevamani [Second accused] had caused murder?
Answer - Yes. Decision of Session Court was confirmed and Thevamani [Second accused]
was convicted for murder. Reason was that from the very beginning they had intention to cause
death.
Evidence –
82
AIR 1943 Mad. 571.
83
(1943) 2 MLJ 13.
Page 103 of 134
 There is no direct evidence of the offence and there is no direct evidence from the post
mortem certificate or the testimony of the doctor as to the cause of death.
 The body when found had marks of three punctured wounds upon the head; but
those wounds by themselves according to the doctor would not be sufficient to cause
death.
 P.W. 15 & P.W. 16 confirmed story narrated by accused second. Conduct and
confession of second accused were also relevant for his conviction.
 Ratio of Palani Goundan v. Emperor (1919) was not applied in this case.
Decision of Session Court –

 First accused was acquitted.
 Second accused was convicted.
High Court
There are two stages of the facts of the case.
(1) First stage - In the first stage there was intention to cause death. They hit the woman
(Meenakshi Achi) when she was in her flower garden. They thought that she had died.
In reality she was merely unconscious.
(2) Second stage - After believing her death they threw into well to conceal evidence. She
died in well.
Second stage was continuation of first stage. So he was guilty of murder.
Differences
S. No. Palani Goundan In Re Thavamani Case
1 1919 1943
2 From the very beginning there was From the very beginning there was
intention to cause bodily injury. intention to cause death.
3 Public Prosecutor failed to prove that Everything was proved properly
causing injury by ploughshare was likely
to cause death
4 Liable for causing of grievous hurt and Liable for causing murder
concealing evidence.
LL.B. –DU 2016
Question 1(a) - A, B, and C assaulted their junior and fresher X in their hostel room while
ragging him. They punched and kicked him on non-vital parts of his body as he refused to
dance on a song played by them on their mobile phone. X fell down and became unconscious.
Presuming him to be dead they hanged him from the ceiling fan by a rope, so as to create an
impression that X had committed suicide. The post-mortem examination showed that death
was due to asphyxiation. Decide culpability of A, B and C with the help of decided case.
Answer:
In this problem sections 201, 299, 321& 323 and ratio of judgment of Palani Goundan
v. Emperor (1919, Mad. H.C.) are involved. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea means the
act itself does not make a man guilty, unless the mind is also guilty.
Page 104 of 134
Section 321 related to voluntarily causing hurt and its punishment has been provided under
section 323. Section 299 deals culpable homicide.
Section 299 Culpable Homicide - Whoever causes death 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 he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable
homicide.
There are two parts of section 299. First part i.e. “Whoever causes death by doing an act” is
an actus reus i.e prohibited act. There must be cause effect relationship. Second part deals mens
rea i.e. guilty mind. Second part may be divided into three parts namely (a) Intention to cause
death or (b) Intention to cause bodily injury or (c) Knowledge. If either condition is missing,
section 299 shall not be applicable.
Palani Goundan v. Emperor (1919, Mad. H.C.)

Husband struck a violent blow on the head with ploughshare. She became unconscious. It was
not shown to be a blow likely to cause death. He thought that she had died. So for concealment
of evidence, he hanged her. She died due to hanging. He was not liable either for culpable
homicide or murder. He was liable only for causing of grievous hurt and concealing evidence.
He had neither intention nor knowledge to kill his wife.
Evaluation of problem
Section 299
(i) Cause – effect relationship
Here cause-effect relationship means death must be occurred by act of accused. If
reason of death is not act of accused then no further question arises regarding
application of guilty mind. In the Moti Singh v. State of U.P., Supreme Court said that
there must be connection between the primary cause and the death which should not be
too remote.
In this problem Z died due to hanging him by all accused from the ceiling fan by a rope.
So in this case first condition of section 299 is being fulfilled.
(ii) Guilty Mind – Without guilty mind homicide is possible but culpable homicide is not
possible. In this problem there was no intention to cause death. Although there was
intention to cause bodily injury but bodily injury was on non-vital part by which there
was no probability to cause death. Here knowledge was that they were inflicting the
injury on non-vital part. But by that injury there was no probability to cause death.
So in this problem guilty mind as required under section 299 is missing.
So conclusion is that they will not be liable to culpable homicide. Here death occurred
due to hanging. At the time of hanging mere intention was to conceal the evidence
rather than to cause death.
Palani Goundan Case

In this case it was held, “The conclusion is irresistible that the intention of the accused must be
judged, not in the light of the actual circumstances, but in the light of what he supposed to be
the circumstances. It follows that a man is not guilty of culpable homicide, if his intention was
directed only to what he believed to be a lifeless body.”
Page 105 of 134
In this problem they presumed him to be dead. So they hanged him from the ceiling fan by a
rope, so as to create an impression that X had committed suicide.
So we can say that they had not committed culpable homicide.
Voluntarily Causing Hurt
According to section 319 a person who causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any
person is said to cause hurt. Hurt is not punishable because here guilty mind is missing. Only
voluntarily causing hurt is punishable. According to section 321 if hurt is caused with the
intention or knowledge then it is called voluntarily causing hurt which is punishable under
section 323.
In this problem A, B, and C had caused hurt voluntarily. This hurt is not coming under the
category of grievous hurt as mentioned in section 320. So they will be liable for voluntarily
causing hurt.
Disappearance of evidence (section 201)
Presuming him to be dead they hanged him from the ceiling fan by a rope, so as to create an
impression that X had committed suicide. So they will be punished under section 201.
Conclusion
From the above discussion it becomes clear that A, B, and C had not committed culpable
homicide. They had committed offences under section 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and
section 201(Disappearance of evidence) of IPC, 1860.
Emperor v. Dhirajia (1940)

She jumped into the well along with her baby and her baby died. She jumped into the well with
excuse. Excuse was that she did due to fear of her husband who were running behind her.
Allahabad High Court held that every sane person shall be presumed to have knowledge about
his/ her own conduct. She had done with excuse. So she was liable only for culpable homicide
rather than murder.
Page 106 of 134
RELATION BETWEEN HOMICIDE, CULPABLE HOMICIDE & MURDEER
‘Culpable Homicide’ and ‘Murder’ is the weakest part of the Code

because in both cases death of a person is involved as well as intention
and knowledge.
Sir James Fitzjames Stephen84
The distinction lies between a bodily injury likely to cause death and a
bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
The distinction is fine but real, and, if over- looked, may result in
miscarriage of justice.85
Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh Sarkaria86
SECTION 299
Section 299
Original According to Justice Melvill
It has not been divided Justice Melvill divided it among

among (a), (b) & (c) (a), (b) & (c)
Section 299 (Original) Section 299 (According to Justice Melvill)

Section 299. Culpable homicide. Section 299. Culpable homicide. - Whoever causes
- Whoever causes death by doing death by doing an act
an act with the intention of causing (a) with the intention of causing death, or
death, or with the intention of
(b) with the intention of causing such bodily injury
causing such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death, or with the as is likely to cause death, or
knowledge that he is likely by such (c) with the knowledge that he is likely by such act
act to cause death, commits the to cause death,
offence of culpable homicide. commits the offence of culpable homicide.
SECTION 300
84
He is known as ‘Father of Indian Evidence Act, 1872’.
85
This statement was made to draw differences between Section 299 (b) & Section 300, Thirdly.
86
State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarapu Punnayya & Another. Date of judgment: September 15, 1976.
Page 107 of 134
Section 300
Original According to Justice Melvill
It has been divided among Justice Melvill divided it among

2ndly, 3rdly, 4thly. 1stly 1stly, 2ndly, 3rdly, 4thly.
word had not been used
Section 300
Section 300 [Original] Section 300 (According to Justice Melvill)

Section 300. Murder. Except in the cases Section 300. Murder. Except in the cases
hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is
murder, if the act by which the death is murder, if the act by which the death is
caused is done with the intention of causing caused is done
death, or - 1stly87 -with the intention of causing death,
2ndly. - If it is done with the intention of or
causing such bodily injury as the offender 2ndly. - If it is done with the intention of
knows to be likely to cause the death of the causing such bodily injury as the offender
person to whom the harm is caused, or - knows to be likely to cause the death of the
3rdly. - If it is done with the intention of person to whom the harm is caused, or -
causing bodily injury to any person and the 3rdly. - If it is done with the intention of
bodily injury intended to be inflicted is causing bodily injury to any person and the
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to bodily injury intended to be inflicted is
cause death, or - sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to
4thly. - If the person committing the act cause death, or -
knows that it is so imminently dangerous that 4thly. - If the person committing the act
it must, in all probability, cause death, or knows that it is so imminently dangerous that
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, it must, in all probability, cause death, or
and commits such act without any excuse for such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,
incurring the risk of causing death or such and commits such act without any excuse for
injury as aforesaid. incurring the risk of causing death or such
injury as aforesaid.
Murder
There are two

parts of Murder
Culpable Four Conditions

Homicide [Anyone is sufficient]
87
Justice Melvill used number (1) rather than 1stly.
Page 108 of 134
INTRODUCTION
There are two types of homicide namely; lawful homicide (Sections 76 to 106) and unlawful
homicide (299, 300, 301, 304A, 304B, 305, 306,307, 308, 309). All homicide is not culpable
homicide (unlawful homicide). But all culpable homicide is homicide. All culpable homicide
is not murders, but all murders are culpable homicide.
Example – Suppose there are three culpable children namely A, B and C. Age of all is 18 years
(Homicide). But at the sharp age of 18 years A died but B and C completed age of 60 Years
(Culpable Homicide). But at the sharp age of 60 years B died, but C still surviving and
completed age of 90 years (Murder).
Age of 18 years is equal to - Homicide.
Age of 60 years is equal to - Culpable Homicide.
Age of 90 years is equal to - Murder.
C is person who completed age of 90 years. But before completing age of 90 years, he had to
complete age of 18 years (Homicide). He had also completed age of 60 years (Culpable
Homicide). After completing age of 60 years, he also completed age of 90 years. So all murder
is culpable homicide but all culpable homicide is not murder. All culpable homicide is
homicide but all homicide is not culpable homicide.
Introduction of Section 300
Homicide
Justified Homicide Unjustified Homicide
Culpable Homicide
C. H. which could not CH which could enter

enter into Section 300 into Section 300
[CH + Four parts of
Mens Rea = Murder]
Murder - Five Exceptions = These are murder but due to

Culpable Homicide not exceptional circumstances have
amounting to murder been excluded from murder and
(Murder). come under Culpable Homicide
COUNTING FROM HOMICIDE
Page 109 of 134
Murder (Sub-Species)
Culpable Homicide (Species)
Homicide (Genus)
COUNTING FROM CULPABLE HOMICIDE

Hon’ble Justice Justice Ranjit Singh Sarkaria observed, “In the scheme of the Indian Penal
Code, ‘culpable homicide’ is genus and ‘murder’ its specie. All ‘murder’ is ‘culpable homicide’
but not vice versa.88
Murder (Species)
Culpable Homicide (Genus)
(I) All homicides are not Culpable Homicide (II) All Culpable Homicides are not murder.
Three babies A, B & C were born at same time. A died before attaining 18 years. B died before
attaining 60 years. C died after attaining 90 years. This can be applied to understand relation
between all these three.
Homicide Culpable Homicide Murder

(I) All murders are Culpable Homicide (II) All Culpable Homicides are homicide.
Homicide Culpable Homicide Murder
HOMICIDE-(1st Stage)
Homicide means killing of human being. All homicides are not punishable, for example, any
homicide which comes under chapter IV (Sections 76-106) of IPC. Here, there is a relation
between cause and death but guilty mind is absent. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. It
means, the act itself does not make a man guilty, unless his intention was so.
When a homicide is committed with guilty mind, that homicide would be either culpable
homicide or murder. So, it is said that all homicide is not culpable homicide, but all culpable
homicide is homicide. Preparation to commit murder is not punishable offence.89
CULPABLE HOMICIDE – (2nd Stage)
When homicide is done with guilty intention or knowledge and degree of intention or
knowledge is higher, then it is culpable homicide.
88
State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya & Another
89
U.P.H.J.S. Pre. 2009
Page 110 of 134
MURDER-3rd Stage
When homicide is done with guilty intention or knowledge and degree of intention or
knowledge is highest, then it is murder.
Difference between Culpable Homicide and Murder depends upon degree of intention and
knowledge.
Difference among Homicide, Culpable Homicide and Murder depends upon mental condition
of human being. If person is doing without intention to commit wrong that will amount only
Homicide. For example death caused by person under section 100 or 103 is merely homicide.
If homicide is caused with guilty mind that will amount to culpable homicide. If there is higher
degree of guilty mind that culpable homicide amount murder. There are five exceptions of
murder. All exceptions are murder but they have been put under categories of culpable
homicide because of special reasons.
DIVISION OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER

It may be divided on the basis of two grounds mental condition and nature of injury.
Differences between Culpable Homicide & Murder
Two grounds
Gravity of mens rea Nature of injury
Mental condition - Culpable Homicide and murder may be divided into two parts on the ground
of mental condition namely;
(1) Culpable Homicide and murder caused with intention and
(2) Culpable Homicide and murder caused with knowledge.
Nature of Injury - Culpable Homicide and murder may be divided into two parts on the ground
of nature of injury namely;
(1) Intention to cause death or
(2) Intention to cause bodily injury, and
(3) Knowledge of act.
Leading Cases regarding differences between Culpable Homicide and Murder.
There are two leading cases in which culpable homicide differences between culpable homicide
and murder were discussed thoroughly. These are –
1. R v. Govinda, July 18, 1876, Bombay High Court
2. State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya, September 15, 1976, Supreme Court.
R v. Govinda was decided by Hon’ble Justice Melvill. State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya was decided
by Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh Sarkaria.
S. No. R v. Govinda State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya
1 Bombay High Court Supreme Court
2 July 18, 1876 September 15, 1976
3 Hon’ble Justice Melvill Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh Sarkaria
4 Causing death of wife Causing death under political vendetta
Page 111 of 134
R v. Govinda,
(Justice Melvill, Bombay High Court, July 18, 1876)
Facts – The Court observed “In the present case the prisoner, a young man of 18,
appears to have kicked his wife, (a girl of 15) and to have struck her several times with his fist
on the back. These blows seem to have caused her no serious injury. She, however, fell on the
ground, and I think that the evidence shows that the prisoner then put one knee on her chest,
and struck her two or three times on the face. One or two of these blows, which, from the
medical evidence, I believe to have been violent and to have been delivered with the closed
fist, took effect on the girl’s left eye, producing contusion (A wound in which the skin is not
broken; often having broken blood vessels and discolouration) and discoloration. The skull
was not fractured, but the blow caused an extravasation (disculpable homicidearge) of blood
on the brain, and the girl died in consequence either on the spot, or very shortly afterwards.”
Decision - Prisoner was convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and he was
sentenced to transportation for seven years.
Ratio- Justice Melvill made differences between culpable homicide and murder. For
convenience he divided guilty mind for culpable homicide under three categories namely; (a),
(b) and (c).He made three categories to make difference namely;
(1) Intention to cause death, (C.H. – (a), Murder – Firstly)
(2) Intention to cause bodily injury, (C.H. – (b), Murder – Secondly & Thirdly)
(3) Knowledge of act. (C.H. –(c), Murder – Fourthly)
(1) Intention to cause death - S. 299(a) and S.300 (Firstly)

In case of intention to cause death culpable homicide is always murder.
Justice S.299 (a) - Intention to cause death - S. 300(Firstly) - Intention to cause death.
Melvill On this point, there is no difference. It “(a) and (1) show that where there is an
means homicide is committed with intention to kill, the offence is always
intention to cause death, that homicide murder.”
is always murder.
Page 112 of 134
Rawalpenta Venkalu & Anr. v. State of Hyderabad90
Date of Judgment – October 07, 1955 [The judgment is not available at website of SC]
Bench –Full Bench
 Hon’ble Justice Vivian Bose

 Hon’ble Justice B. Jagannadhas
 Hon’ble Justice B.P. Sinha.
Author of Judgment: Justice B.P. Sinha.
Summary –
Facts
Victim & His Party Accused & His Party
Md. Moinuddin Four Two Three

[Deceased] employee accused accused
Both were convicted Three were

for death sentence acquitted
Rawalpenta Bodla Ram

Venkalu Narsiah
Facts –
 On the night between the 18th and 19-2-1953 the two appellants along with the three
others (acquitted by the learned trial Judge) in pursuance of a conspiracy to commit the
murder of Md. Moinuddin had set fire to the single room hut in which he was sleeping,
after locking the door of the room from outside. PW 8, an old servant who was sleeping
in front of the cottage outside the room occupied by the deceased, was awakened by the
noise of the locking of the door from outside. Just at that time Moinuddin also called
out for him from inside and asked him to open the door. PW 8 replied that he could not
do so as he found the door locked from outside. Three other employees of Moinuddin,
viz., PWs 4, 11 and 12 who were watching his harvest about fifty paces away, were
also called out by him. When they came near the cottage, they were assaulted by the
culprits. Kasim Khan was beaten severely. The two appellants then set fire to the
cottage and the employees of Moinuddin were kept at bay by the superior force of the
accused and their associates. Those employees naturally, therefore, went towards the
main habitation in the village shouting for help. When the villagers came, the appellants
and others prevented them from going to the rescue of the helpless inmate of the cottage
90
AIR 1956 SC 171
Page 113 of 134
by throwing dust in their eyes, literally speaking, and by the free use of their sticks.
Finally deceased died.
 Confession of Venkalu – He said that there was tension between the deceased and
Bodla Ram Narsiah (the 2nd appellant). After they had been served with toddy and wine
they went to the house of the deceased and locked the house with his lock and the
second appellant set fire to the house with a match stick. The fire was extinguished by
wind. Then the second appellant beat Kasim Khan (one of the employees of the
deceased) who was approaching the cottage and again set fire to the house. It is
noteworthy that in the second incident of setting fire to the house he gives a part to
himself, as also to the second appellant. He also admits having thrown dust in the eyes
of people who were rushing from the village side for putting out the fire.
 Confession Bodla Ram Narsiah - The second appellant Bodla Ram Narsiah also
speaks about himself and the first appellant drinking wine and after that the first
appellant locking the door of the house of the deceased.
 Motive of Crime - It has been found by the courts below that there was longstanding
dispute between the deceased and the family of the second appellant over land which
belonged to the deceased but which was in cultivating possession of the second
appellant’s family.
 Evidence and Conviction of accused - But the case against the appellant does not
depend upon those confessional statements. The prosecution has examined as many as
19 witnesses, of whom PWs 4, 7 and 8 saw the occurrence from the beginning to the
end.
Session Judge – Session Judge acquitted three accused and Convicted two accused for causing
murder of Md. Moinuddin on 18-1-1954.
Division Bench of High Court – High Court confirmed death sentence of both accused on 15-
4-1954
Supreme Court –Two appeals were filed before Supreme Court. These two appeals by special
leave arise out of the same judgment and order of a Division Bench of the Hyderabad High
Court.
Two appellants -
 Rawalpenta Venkalu [First appellant]
 Bodla Ram Narsiah [Second appellant]
Issues –
 Were appellants had caused murder of Moinuddin?
Answer – Yes. Intention to cause death was clear.
 Were error in framing of charge was sufficient to misled accused?
Answer – No. They had sufficient notice and they defended properly.
 What was value of confession and retracted confession in this case?
Answer - In this case, they retracted very late. Their convictions were based on several
independent witnesses.
Arguments of Appellants –
 Confession was not voluntarily.
 It was contradictory.
 No offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code had been proved against the
appellants, firstly, because they only set fire to the cottage and secondly, because there
was no charge against either of them under Section 302 read with Section 34, Indian
Penal Code.
Judgment –
Page 114 of 134
 Error in framing of charge is not relevant here - “You are charged of the offence
that you with the assistance of other present accused, with common intention, on 18-2-
53 at Mohiuddinpur village, committed murder, by causing the death of Md.
Moinuddin….”
It is clear therefore that though Section 34 is not added to Section 302, the accused had
clear notice that they were being charged with the offence of committing murder in
pursuance of their common intention to put an end to the life of Moinuddin. Hence the
omission to mention Section 34 in the charge has only an academic significance, and
has not in any way misled the accused.
 Confession – SC observed that there were sufficient evidence. High Court had not
relied much more on the confession. So relevancy of confession was not discussed.
 Intention to cause death – In this case, from the facts, it becomes very clear that there
were intention to cause death. These facts are -
 Locking door
 Burning hut
 Preventing servants and villagers etc.
 Conclusion – Supreme Court convicted both of them for causing death. Judgment of
High Court was approved.
Crux of Facts and Decision - There was long dispute between the deceased and the family of
the second appellant (Bodla Ram Narsiah) regarding land. Rawalpenta Venkalu is the first
appellant. After taking toddy and wine, they went to the house of the deceased (Md.
Moinuddin) to burn alive him and locked the house and second appellant set the fire to the
house with a matchstick. Md. Moinuddin was crying for help. His servants tried to save him.
They were assaulted by the accused. Servants went towards village for help. When villagers
came for help they were also beaten indiscriminately. So they returned back.
Supreme Court found that there was clear intention to cause death. So appeal was dismissed. It
means death sentence of appellant was confirmed.
Remarks - This is not good case regarding Section 299 and 300, IPC. In this case, legal points
regarding in intention to cause death in context of Section 299 (a) and Section 300 Firstly was
not discusses. This is leading case on the point of error in framing of charge. In this case, facts
of the case were discussed thoroughly rather than law.
(2) Intention to cause bodily injury - (S.299 (b) & S.300– (Secondly) & (Thirdly)
In section 299 only (b) category talks about intention to cause bodily injury while S.300–
Secondly & Thirdly deals intention to cause bodily injury. In section 300– Secondly & Thirdly
certain specific words have been which increase the gravity of guilty mind.
2 (b) Secondly
(b)Intention to cause bodily injury + (Secondly)Intention to cause bodily injury +
by such bodily injury, it is likely to Offender knows that by such bodily injury, it is
cause death likely to cause death.( Intention + knowledge+
(Intention +Likely). likely).
Here knowledge is missing. Here knowledge of offender has enhanced
probability of death.
(b) Thirdly
Page 115 of 134
(b) Intention to cause bodily injury + Thirdly- With the intention of causing bodily
by such bodily injury, it is likely to injury to any person, and the bodily injury
cause death. (Intention + Likely). intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the
(The distinction lies between a bodily ordinary course of nature to cause death. By
injury likely to cause death and a using the words sufficient in the ordinary course
bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary of nature, enhanced the gravity of probability.
course of nature to cause death.) (1)State of A.P. v. R.Punnayya. J Ranjit Singh
Sarkaria.
(2)Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab, Justice
Vivian Bose.
(3) Knowledge of act. (S.299 –(c), S. 300 – Fourthly)
Existence of imminently dangerous (ID Card) and all probability to cause death enhance the
gravity of knowledge.
3 Knowledge (c) Knowledge(Fourthly)
No Knowledge + Knowledge+ Imminently Dangerous (ID) + all probability
intention, Likely to cause to cause death + without excuse. For example-Terrorist
only death attack
knowledge
With any excuse - Emperor v. Dhirajia. Dhirajia has done
with excuse. So she was liable only for culpable homicide.
Without any excuse - Gyarsibai w/o Jagannath v. The State.
Gyarsibai has done without excuse. So She was liable for
murder.
Conclusion – There are following stages -

Homicide - (1) There must be death, and (2) That death must be caused by act of accused.
(Cause -effect relationship).
Culpable Homicide- Cause-effect relationship must be result of guilty mind as mentioned in
299. Murder – Culpable homicide may come under the category of murder if conditions
mentioned under section 300 are being fulfilled. Murder may convert into culpable homicide
only in five exceptional circumstances mentioned in section 300.
Differences between Section 299 and Section 300
Grounds Culpable Homicide Murder

[Section 299] [Section 300]
1 Intention to cause death rather Intention to cause death rather than bodily
than bodily injury injury
Intention To (a)Intention to cause death (J. (Firstly) Intention to cause death. Justice
Cause Death Melvill, On this point , there is no Melvill-R v. Govinda (1876)
difference-. It means homicide is “(a) and (1) show that where there is an
committed with intention to intention to kill, the offence is always
murder.”
Page 116 of 134
cause death, that homicide is

always murder.
2 Intention to cause bodily injury
Intention to cause bodily injury
(b) Secondly & Thirdly
Intention to (b)Intention to cause bodily (Secondly)Intention to cause bodily injury
cause bodily injury + by such bodily injury, it
+ Offender knows that by such bodily
injury rather is likely to cause death injury, it is likely to cause death. (Intention
than death (Intention +Likely). + knowledge+ likely). Here knowledge of
Here knowledge is missing. offender has enhanced probability of death.
(b) Intention to cause bodily
Thirdly- With the intention of causing
injury + by such bodily injury, it
bodily injury to any person, and the bodily
is likely to cause death. injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient
(Intention + Likely). in the ordinary course of nature to cause
(The distinction lies between a
death; By using the words sufficient in the
bodily injury likely to cause
ordinary course of nature, enhanced the
death and a bodily injury gravity of probability.
sufficient in the ordinary course
State of A.P. v. R.Punnayya.
of nature to cause death). J Ranjit Singh Sarkaria.
In Virsa Singh v. The State of Punjab,
Justice Vivian Bose.
3 Knowledge (c) Knowledge(Fourthly)
No intention, Knowledge + Likely to cause Knowledge+ Imminently Dangerous + all
only death probability to cause death + without
knowledge excuse. For example-Terrorist attack
With excuse
(1) Emperor v. Dhirajia
Without any excuse,
(2) Gyarsibai W/O Jagannath v. The State
Difference Bet. Sec.299 & 300 Regarding Sentences
1st Degree (Highest Degree) 2nd Degree (Middle Degree) 3rd Degree (Lowest Degree)
Murder C H (Intention) C H (Knowledge)
Section 302 Section 304 (Part 1) Section 304 (Part 2)
Death or LI and fine LI or Ten years Ten years of either description or
imprisonment and fine fine or both. No L I.
Page 117 of 134
Section 299 (b) & Section 300 (3)

DU LL.B. Question 2 (2013)
Critically explain the test laid down by the Supreme Court in Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab
AIR 1958 SC 465 for invoking the charge of murder under section 300(3) read with section
302 IPC. Comment on principles in Kapur Singh v. State of Pepsu AIR 1956 SC 654 and of
Virsa Singh the latter case.
DU LL.B. 2018 Question (3)

Tej had scolded Teena, daughter of Shan, for misbehaving with his daughter. Shan did
not like this and was looking for an opportunity to give good thrashing to Tej. One day Shan
saw that Tej was passing through his place and seizing this opportunity, Shan caught hold of a
stick lying nearby and gave nineteen blows with the stick on the legs and arms of Tej. Tej was
removed to a nearby hospital and died after two days. The post-mortem report attributed death
to multiple fractures on arms and legs and internal bleeding. Shan is tried for the offence of
murder under section 300 (3) IPC. Decide with the help of decided cases.
Answer:
In this case Kapur Singh, Virsa Singh, Anda and Punnayya cases must also be quoted.
DU LL.B. (2019)
Question 2- Elucidate the essential ingredients of Section 300 (iii) IPC in the light of R.
Punnayya and Virsa Singh Case.
Remarks – I have not written all questions.
Summary
 Kapur Singh v. State of Pepsu - September 15, 1954

 Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab - March 11, 1958
 Anda and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan
 State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya & Another
Kapur Singh v. State of Pepsu91
Date of Judgment – September 15, 1954.

Bench – Division Bench
 Hon’ble Justice Bhagwati
 Hon’ble Justice V. Ayyar
Author of Judgment - Hon’ble Justice Bhagwati
Facts –
91
AIR 1956 SC 654
Page 118 of 134
 About a year before the date of the occurrence, Bachan Singh s /o the deceased caused
a severe injury on the leg of Pritam Singh s/o Kapur Singh resulting in the amputation
of his leg.
 Kapur Singh f/o Pritam Singh with the help of Chand Singh took revenge on
September 30, 1952. Chand Singh gripped the father of Bachan Singh by the head and
Kapur Singh inflicted as many as 18 injuries on the arms and legs of the deceased with
a gandasa.
 It is significant that out of all the injuries which were thus inflicted none was inflicted
on a vital part of the body.
Chand Singh –Kapur Singh absconded and his companion was in the meantime convicted of
an offence tinder Section 302 and a sentence of transportation for life was imposed on him,
which was confirmed by the High Court.
Kapur Singh –Kapur Singh was arrested thereafter and his trial was conducted.
Issue
 Had Kapur Singh caused Murder?

Answer –
 Session Court – Yes.
 High Court – Yes.
 Supreme Court – No. He had caused culpable homicide with intention of
causing bodily injury.
Sessions Judge - Sessions Judge convicted Kapur Singh for causing murder and awarded him
a sentence of death sentence under Section 302.
High Court - The High Court confirmed the death sentence. He went to Supreme Court in
appeal.
Supreme Court - Supreme Court observed that
 Kapur Singh had no intention to cause death.92 The fact that no injury was inflicted
on any vital part of the body of the deceased goes to show in the circumstances of this
case that the intention of the appellant was not to kill the deceased outright
 But by such bodily injury it was likely to cause death93. He inflicted the injuries not
with the intention of murdering the deceased, but caused such bodily injuries as, he
must have known, would likely cause death having regard to the number and nature of
the injuries.
 He was convicted under section 304(1) of IPC. The Court rejected to apply section 302.
Drawback of Judgment – Nothing was discussed about section 300, thirdly.
92
It means Section 299 (a) is not applicable.
93
It means Section 299 (b) is applicable.
Page 119 of 134
Brief of Facts and Decision

Bachan Singh s /o the caused a severe injury on the leg of Result- amputation of his
deceased Pritam Singh s/o Kapur Singh leg.
Kapur Singh f/o Pritam Kapur Singh f/o Pritam Singh Result – Death.
Singh inflicted as many as 18 injuries on There was only intention to
the arms and legs of the deceased cause bodily injury. Injury
with a gandasa. There was no was caused to take
injury on vital part. revenge.
Conviction Section 299(b) Section 304 1st Part
Defect of judgment Section 300, Thirdly was not
discussed.
Medical Report There was no medical report
Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab94

[Interpretation of Section 300, Thirdly]
Date of Judgment - March 11, 1958

 Hon’ble Justice Vivian Bose,
 Hon’ble Justice Syed Jaffer Imam,
 Hon’ble Justice P.B. Gajendragadkar
Author of Judgment – Hon’ble Justice Vivian Bose
Facts –
 Spear into the abdomen - Virsa Singh (21 or 22 Years Old) thrust a spear into the
abdomen of Khem Singh (Deceased). Three coils of intestines came out of the wound.
94
AIR 1958 SC 465.
Page 120 of 134
 Single injury - There was only one injury on the body of Khem Singh.
 Death of Khem Singh - The incident occurred about 8 p. m. on July 13, 1955. Khem Singh
died about 5 p. m. the following day.
 Medical Report - In the opinion of the doctor the injury was sufficient to cause death
in the ordinary course of nature.
 Virsa Singh was tried with five others under sections 302/149, 324/149 and 323/149 Indian
Penal Code. He was also charged individually under s. 302.
 Session Court - The other, were acquitted of the murder charge by the first Court but were
convicted under ss. 326, 324 and 323 read with s. 149, Indian Penal Code. Virsa Singh was
convicted by the first Court under s. 302.
 High Court - On appeal to the High Court they were all acquitted.
 Virsa Singh was convicted by the first Court under s. 302 and his conviction and sentence were
upheld by the High Court.
Section 300, thirdly

“If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.”
Contentions of Appellant – Main contention of the appellant was that there are two parts of
section 300 thirdly and in both parts intention is necessary. It means
(1) there must be intention to cause bodily injury and
(2) there must be intention to cause such bodily injury as is sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death.
According to contention in both cases subjective test must be followed.

Decision of Court – Supreme Court rejected this contention. Supreme Court observed
following important points –
(1) Two parts of Section 300, thirdly are disjunctive and separate – Supreme Court
held that there are two parts of section 300 thirdly. The Court said that these two parts
are disjunctive and separate. These parts are namely;
Part 1-If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person (Subjective
test95) and
Part 2- the bodily injury intended to be inflicted (It is description of part 1) is sufficient
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death (Objective Test96).
Part 1 & Intention – Intention is necessary only for part one. It must be proved that bodily
injury was caused with intention. It must not be accidental or unintentional. It must be decided
according to subjective test. Personal intention is necessary.
Part 2 & Intention – In the second part intention is not necessary. To decide whether bodily
injury is sufficient or not, objective test must be followed.
(2) Four Steps - To put it shortly, the prosecution must prove the following facts before it
can bring a case under section 300 thirdly-
95
Subjective Test is decided according to person to person.
96
Objective Test is decided according to reasonable man.
Page 121 of 134
(1) First Step - it must establish, quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present;
(2) Secondly Steps- the nature of the injury must be proved. This is purely objective
investigations.
(3) Thirdly Steps- it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular
bodily injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional, or that some
other kind of injury was intended- Subjective Test.
Once these three elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeds further and,
(4) Fourthly Steps - it must be proved that the injury of the type just described made up of
the three elements set out above is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective and inferential and has nothing to
do with the intention of the offender.
First Step Bodily injury is present Objective Test
Secondly Steps Nature of Injury Objective Test
Thirdly Steps Intention to inflict that particular bodily injury Subjective Test
Fourthly Steps Such bodily injury is sufficient to cause death Objective Test
in the ordinary course of nature
Once these four elements are established by the prosecution (and, of course, the burden is on
the prosecution throughout) the offence is murder under section 300 thirdly.
Medical Report - The doctor said that the injury was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary
course of nature.
Decision – Virsa Singh was convicted by the first court under section 302 and his conviction
and sentence were upheld by the High Court. Appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court.
Remarks – In Virsa Singh case Supreme Court has explained the meaning and scope of section
300(3).97 Guidelines were laid down to attract section 300(3).
Thus according to the rule laid down in Virsa Singh case even if the intention of accused
was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course
of nature and did not extend to the intention of causing death, the offence would be murder.
Comparison between Kapur Singh Case and Virsa Singh Case

Ground Kapur Singh Virsa Singh
Injury 18 injuries on arms & legs One injury in abdomen
Weapon Gandasa Spear
Mens Rea Intention to cause bodily injury Intention to cause bodily injury
Medical There was no medical report According to Medical Report, the
Report bodily injury was sufficient to
cause death
Sec. 300 Sec. 300 Thirdly was not discussed Sec. 300 Thirdly was discussed
Thirdly minutely.
Offence Section 299 (b) Section 300 Thirdly
Punishment Causing of Culpable Homicide with Causing of murder with intention.
intention. Section 304, First Part. Section 302.
97
M.P.H.J.S. (Pre) 2010.
Page 122 of 134
Anda and Ors. v. The State of Rajasthan, 9 March 1965

In this case Supreme Court observed following important points –“
(1) Murder is an aggravated form of culpable homicide.
(2) The existence of one of four conditions turns culpable homicide into murder while the
special exceptions reduce the offence of murder again to culpable homicide not
Section 300
Murder Culpable homicide not amounting to

murder
(Section 300 Firstly, Secondly,

Thirdly & Fourthly) (Section 300, Five Exceptions)
Section 302 With intention (Section With knowledge (Section

304, 1st Part) 304, 2nd Part)
(3) Taking the four clauses one by one we find that under the first clause of Section 300
culpable homicide is murder when the act by which death is caused is done with the
intention of causing death. This clause reproduces the first part of Section 299. An
intentional killing is always murder unless it comes within one of the special
exceptions in Section 300. If an exception applies, it is culpable homicide not
(4) The word ‘act’ in all the clauses of Section 299 or Section 300 denotes not only a single
act but also a series of acts taken as a single act”.
Page 123 of 134
State of A.P. v. R. Punnayya & Another98&99

Date of Judgment - Sept. 15, 1976,
Court –
Division Bench –
 Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh Sarkaria
 Hon’ble Justice Syed Murtaza Fazalali
Author of Judgment - Hon’ble Justice Ranjit Singh Sarkaria)
Facts -In Rompicherla village, there were factions belonging to three major communities
viz., Kammas, Reddys, and Bhatrajus.
Three Factions
Kammas Reddys Bhatrajus
Chopparapu
Rayavarapu Punnayya Sarikonda Kotamraju
Subbareddi
Accused Deceased
(1) Rayavarapu was the leader of Kamma faction. Kammas were supporters of Swatantra
Party.
(2) Chopparapu Subbareddi was the leader of the Reddys. The Reddys were supporting
the Congress Party.
Several times disputes had occurred between both groups during elections.
(3) Sarikonda Kotamraju, the deceased person in the instant case, was the leader of
Bhatrajus. In order to devise protective measures against the onslaughts of their
opponents, the Bhatrajus held a meeting at the house of the deceased, wherein they
resolved to defend themselves against the aggressive actions of the respondents and
their party men. PW 1, a member of Bhatrajus faction has a cattle shed. The passage to
this cattle-shed was blocked by the other party. The deceased took PW 1 to Police
Station Nekarikal and got a report lodged there. On July 22, 1968 Sub-Inspector visited
the place and directed to come at police station for compromise. There were some
disputes pending in Court before a Magistrate at Narasaraopet.
July 23, 1968 - On the morning of July 23, 1968, at about 6.30 a.m., the deceased with two
other person boarded bus for going to Nekarikal. Some minutes later, accused 1 to 5 also got
into the same bus. When the bus was stopped at Nekarikal Crossroads, at about 7-30 a.m. July
23, 1968, the deceased and his companions alighted for going to the Police Station. The five
accused also got down. The deceased and one companion went towards a Choultry while third
companion went to the roadside to ease himself. Two accused picked up heavy sticks and went
after the deceased into the Choultry. On seeing the accused the companion ran away towards a
hut nearby. The deceased stood up.
98
AIR 1977 SC 45.
99
Available at: https://main.sci.gov.in/judgment/judis/5531.pdf (Visited on March 8, 2021).
Page 124 of 134
He was an old man of 55 years. He was not allowed to run. Despite the entreaties made by the
deceased with folded hands, both accused indiscriminately pounded the legs and arms of the
deceased. One of the by-standers, asked the assailants as to why they were mercilessly beating
a human being, as if he were a buffalo. The assailants angrily retorted that the witness was
nobody to question them and continued the beating till the deceased became unconscious. The
accused then threw their sticks at the spot, boarded another vehicle, and went away. The victim
was removed to Narasaraopet Hospital. There, at about 8.45 a.m., Doctor Konda Reddy
examined him and found 19 injuries, out of which, no less than 9 were (internally) found to be
grievous. The deceased, however, succumbed to his injuries at about 4.40 a.m. on July 24,
1968, despite medical aid.
Autopsy Report - The autopsy was conducted by Dr. P.S. Sarojini in whose opinion, the injuries
found on the deceased were cumulatively sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of
nature. The cause of death, according to the Doctor, was shock and haemorrhage resulting from
multiple injuries.
Decision of Supreme Court
Supreme Court laid down several important points –
(1) Genus and Species – Hon’ble Justice Justice Ranjit Singh Sarkaria observed, “In the
scheme of the Indian Penal Code, ‘culpable homicide’ is genus and ‘murder’ its specie.
All ‘murder’ is ‘culpable homicide’ but not vice versa.
Murder (Species)
Culpable Homicide (Genus)
(2) Speaking generally, ‘culpable homicide’ sans (sans means without) ‘special
characteristics of murder’, is ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’. ‘Culpable
homicide’ with ‘special characteristics of murder’, is ‘culpable homicide amounting to
murder’.
Page 125 of 134
Culpable Homicide
Section 299, Section 300 &

Section 300 Five
Exceptions
Culpable Homicide not Culpable Homicide

amounting to murder amounting to murder
Five Exceptions of Section 300

Section 299
Section 300
Punishment - Punishment - Punishment -

Section 304 Section 304 Section 302
(3) Degrees of Culpable Homicide –
Degrees of Culpable
Homicide
1st Degree 2nd Degree 3rd Degree

[Gravest Form] [Middle Degree] [Lowest Degree]
Culpable
Culpable Homicide
Murder Homicide with
with knowledge
intention
For the purpose of fixing punishment, proportionate to the gravity of this generic
offence, IPC practically recognizes three degrees of culpable homicide.
(a) 1st Degree -The first is, what may be called, culpable homicide of the first
degree. This is the gravest form of culpable homicide which is defined
in section 300 as ‘murder’.
(b) 2nd Degree -The second may be termed as ‘culpable homicide of the second
degree’. This is punishable under the 1st part of section 304. Culpable homicide
committed with intention
(c) 3rd Degree - There is ‘culpable homicide of the third degree.’ This is the lowest
type of culpable homicide and the punishment provided for it is, also, the lowest
among the punishments provided for the three grades. Culpable homicide of this
degree is punishable under the second Part of Section 304. Culpable homicide
committed with knowledge.
Page 126 of 134
Difference Bet. Sec.299 & 300 Regarding Sentences

1st Degree (Highest 2nd Degree (Middle Degree) 3rd Degree (Lowest Degree)
Degree) Culpable Homicide Culpable Homicide (Knowledge)
Murder (Intention)
Section 302 Section 304 (Part 1) Section 304 (Part 2)
Death or Life Life imprisonment or Ten Ten years of either description or
Imprisonment and fine years imprisonment and fine fine or both. No Life Imprisonment.
Differences between Culpable Homicide and Murder

The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of these provisions seems to
be to keep in focus the key words used in the various clauses of ss. 299 and 300. With the help
of comparative table, distinction was discussed.
(i) Clause (b) of s. 299 corresponds with cl. (2) of s. 300.
The distinguishing feature of the mens rea requisite under cl. (2) is the knowledge
possessed by the offender regarding the particular victim being in such a peculiar
condition or state of health that the intentional harm caused to him is likely to be fatal,
notwithstanding the fact that’ such harm would not in the ordinary way of nature be
sufficient to cause death of a person in normal health or condition. It is noteworthy that
the ‘intention to cause death’ is not an essential requirement of cl. (2). Only the intention
of causing the bodily injury coupled with the offender’s knowledge of the likelihood of
such injury causing the death of the particular victim, is sufficient to bring the killing
within the ambit of this clause. This aspect of cl. (2) is borne out by illustration (b)
appended to s. 300.
(ii) Clause (b) of s. 299 corresponds with cl. (3) of s. 300.
In clause (3) of s. 300, instead of the words ‘likely to cause death’ occurring in the
corresponding cl. (b) of s. 299, the words “sufficient in the ordinary course of nature”
have been used. Obviously, the distinction lies between a bodily injury likely to cause
death and a bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The
distinction is fine but real, and, if over-looked, may result in miscarriage of justice. The
difference between cl. (b) of s. 299 and cl. (3) of s. 300 is one of the degree of
probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. To put it more broadly,
it is the degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicide
is of the gravest, medium or the lowest degree. The word “likely” in cl. (b) of s. 299
conveys the sense of ’probable’ as distinguished from a mere possibility. The words
“bodily injury... sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death” mean that
death will be the “most probable” result of the injury having regard to the ordinary
course of nature.
Difference bet. Section 299(b)….likely Section 300, Thirdly… sufficient in

299(b) & Section to the ordinary course of nature to cause
300, Thirdly death
Probable Most Probable
Page 127 of 134
(iii) Clause (c) of s. 299 and cl. (4) of s. 300

Both require knowledge of the probability of the causing death. It is not necessary for
the purpose of this case to dilate much on the distinction between these corresponding
clauses. It will be sufficient to say that cl. (4) of s. 300 would be applicable where the
knowledge of the offender as to the probability of death of a person or persons in general
as distinguished from a particular person or persons being caused from his imminently
dangerous act, approximates to a practical certainty. Such knowledge on the part of the
offender must be of the highest degree of probability, the act having been committed
by the offender without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury
as aforesaid.
Bodily Injury (Singular) v. Bodily Injuries (Plural) –

The mere fact that the beating was designedly confined by the assailants to the legs and
arms, or that none of the multiple injuries inflicted was individually sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death, will not exclude the application of Clause 3rdly of section 300.
The expression “bodily injury” in Clause 3rdly includes also its plural, so that the clause would
cover a case where all the injuries intentionally, caused by the accused are cumulatively
sufficient to cause the death in the ordinary course of nature, even if none of those injuries
individually measures up to such sufficiency. The sufficiency spoken of in this clause is the
high probability of death in the ordinary course of nature, and if such sufficiency exists and
death is caused and the injury causing it is intentional, the case would fall under Clause 3rdly
of section 300.
Virsa Singh Case (1958)

Ruling of Virsa Singh Case was accepted. According to the rule laid down in Virsa Singh’s
case even if the intention of accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient
to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and did not extend to the intention of causing
death, the offence would be murder. Illustration (c) appended to s. 300 clearly brings out this
point.
CONCLUSION
All the conditions which are a pre-requisite for the applicability of Section 300, thirdly have
been established and the offence committed by the accused in the instant case was ‘murder’.
Page 128 of 134
Knowledge of act. [Section 299 (c) & Section 300, Fourthly)

Existence of imminently dangerous (ID Card) and all probability to cause death enhance the
gravity of knowledge.
S.299(c) Section 300 – Fourthly
Knowledge (c) Knowledge(Fourthly)
No intention, Knowledge + Knowledge+ Imminently Dangerous (ID) + all
only Likely to cause probability to cause death + without excuse. For
knowledge death example-Terrorist attack
With any excuse - Emperor v. Dhirajia. Dhirajia has done
with excuse. So she was liable only for culpable homicide.
Without any excuse - Gyarsibai w/o Jagannath v. The
State. Gyarsibai has done without excuse. So She was
liable for murder.
Emperor v. Mt. Dhirajia100
Date of Judgment - June 4, 1940

Court – Allahabad High Court
Author of Judgment - Justice Braund
Impugned provisions –
 Section 309
 Section 299 (c).
 Section 300, Fourthly
 Section 302
 Section 304
Facts
 This is the case of Varanasi.
 There were dispute between Mt. Dhirajia and her husband Jhagga. Husband was
continuously beating.
 They had a six months old baby.
 The wife desired to go to visit her parents while Jhagga was opposing. One day she
woke up and started to move with her baby along with railway track. Late that night
Jhagga woke up and found his wife and the baby missing. He went out in pursuit of
100
AIR 1940 All. H.C. 486
Page 129 of 134
them and when he reached a point close to the railway line he saw her making her way
along the path.
 When she heard him coming after her, she turned round in a panic, ran a little distance
with the baby girl in her arms and jumped into an open well which was at some little
distance from the path on August 09, 1939.
 Baby died and she eventually survived.
 She was charged for committing murder of baby [Section 302] and attempt of suicide
[Section 309].
Decision of Jury &
Session Court
Jury Session Court
Not guilty of attempt to suicide Guilty of Murder

Against this judgment, Session Court Dhirajia went to

referred the matter to High Court appeal
Decision of Session Court – Session Court trued for offence under Section 302. Session Court
convicted Dhirajia for causing murder. She filed appeal before High Court.
Jury – Jury tried her for attempt to suicide (Section 309). Jury acquitted for attempt to suicide.
Session Court referred the matter to High Court to reconsider the decision of Jury.
Decision of High Court
Attempt to Culpable Murder

suicide Homicide
She was She was liable for She was not liable
acquitted Culpable Homicide for murder [Section
[Section 309] [Section 299 (c)] 300, Fourthly]
Reason -She jumped to Reason - There Reason - She did

save her life from Jhagga was knowledge. with excuse
Issues – There were following issues before Supreme Court –

Section 299 & Section 300
1. First Stage - Was Dhirajia committed homicide without any justification?
Answer- Yes. She had committed homicide without any excuse/justification.
2. Second Stage - Was Dhirajia committed culpable homicide with the intention of
causing death?
Answer- No.
Page 130 of 134
3. Third Stage - Was Dhirajia committed culpable homicide with the intention of causing
bodily injury which was likely to cause death?
Answer- No.
4. Fourth Stage - Was Dhirajia committed culpable homicide with the knowledge of
causing bodily injury which was likely to cause death?
Answer- Yes. Dhirajia had committed culpable homicide with the knowledge of causing
bodily injury which was likely to cause death.
5. Fifth Stage - Was Dhirajia committed murder with knowledge without any excuse?
Answer – No. Dhirajia had not committed murder. She had caused death with an
excuse.
Section 309
6. Was Dhirajia committed attempt to suicide punishable under Section 309, IPC?
Answer - Dhirajia had not committed attempt to suicide.
Decision –
Important point of this case –
(1) First step CH and Second step Murder – According to the scheme of IPC, ‘murder’ is
merely a particular form of culpable homicide, and one has to look first to see in every
murder case whether there was culpable homicide at all. If culpable homicide is present
then the next thing to consider is whether it is of that type which under section 300 is
designated ‘murder’ or whether it falls within that residue of cases which are covered
by Section 304 (Punishment for CH) and are designated ‘culpable homicide not
amounting to murder’.
(2) Intention v. Knowledge – In this case the Court accepted that Dhirajia had neither
intention to cause death nor intention to cause bodily injury. But she was sane. So she
had knowledge.
The Court said, “ ‘Intention’ appears to us to be one thing and ‘knowledge’ appears to
us to be a different thing.
In order to possess and to form an intention there must be a capacity for reason. And
when by some extraneous force the capacity for reason has been ousted, it seems to us
that the capacity to form an intention must have been unseated too.
But to our minds, knowledge stands upon a different footing. Some degree of
knowledge must be attributed to every sane person. Obviously, the degree of
knowledge which any particular person can be assumed to possess must vary. For
instance, we cannot attribute the same degree of knowledge to an uneducated as to an
educated person. But we think that to some extent knowledge must be attributed to
everyone who is sane.”
(3) ..such act…. must be “without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death....”
–
She feared her husband and she had reason to fear her husband. She was endeavouring
to escape from him at dawn and in the panic into which she was thrown when she saw
him behind her she jumped into the well. She had excuse and that excuse was panic or
fright. For these reasons Mt. Dhirajia is not guilty of murder.
Page 131 of 134
(4) Attempt to suicide – She was acquitted. She did not take conscious effort to take own
life. She did so in an effort to escape from her husband.
(5) Conviction for Killing of baby – She was convicted under section 304 because she had
done with knowledge under excusable circumstances.
(6) Punishment – She was sentenced for six months with rigorous imprisonment. She had
already been in prison for a period of eight months. So she was released at once.
Gyarsibai w/o Jagannath v. The State101
Date of Judgment – October 23, 1952.

Court - M. P. High Court
Author of Judgment - Hon’ble Justice Dixit
Impugned provisions –
 Section 309
 Section 299 (c).
 Section 300, Fourthly
 Section 302
 Section 304
Leading Case –
 Emperor v. Mt. Dhirajia
Facts - Gyarsibai, her children, her husband Jagannath and her sister-in-law Kaisar Bai used
to reside together. There were constant quarrels between the appellant and her sister-in-law and
very often Jagannath used to slap the appellant for picking up a quarrel with her sister-in-law
Kaisar Bai. It is alleged that one such quarrel took place on the morning of 14.8.1951 when
Jagannath was away from his home. In this quarrel Kaisar Bai asked the appellant to leave the
house. Thereupon, the appellant left the house, taking her three children aged 7 years, 5 years
and 1½ years and saying that on account of her sister-in-law she would jump into a well. Soon
after, the appellant went to a well in the village and threw herself into the well along with her
three children. A few hours after, some inhabitants of the village found Gyarasibai supporting
herself on an edge of the well and the three children dead in the well. The appellant admitted
before the Committing Magistrate as well as before the Sessions Judge that she jumped into
the well together with her children on account of her sister-in-law Kaisar Bai’s harassment.
Session Court - The appellant has been convicted by the Sessions Judge of an offence under
Section 302, Penal Code, for the murder of her three children and also of an offence under
Section 309, Penal Code, for an attempt to commit suicide. She has been sentenced to
transportation for life under Section 302 Penal Code, and to six months simple imprisonment
under Section 309, Penal Code. Both these sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
She has now preferred this appeal from Jail against the convictions and sentences.
101
M.P.Civil Judge, 1989.
Page 132 of 134
Decision of Session Court
Attempt to Suicide Murder

She was convicted She was convicted
Madhya Pradesh High Court

Issues – There were following issues before High Court -
1. Whether Gyarsibai is guilty of the offence of murder of the three children under Section
302?
Answer - Yes
2. Whether Gyarsibai is guilty of attempted suicide under Section 309?
Answer – Yes
Observation of High Court

There are following observation of High Court –
1. Omission in Judgment of Session Court and its correction - The learned Sessions
Judge has found her guilty under Section 302, Penal Code, but he has not stated under
which clause of Section 300, Penal Code, the act of the appellant in jumping down into
a well together with her three children is murder.
This act of the appellant clearly falls under the 4th clause of Section 300, Penal Code,
which defines murder.
2. No intention to cause death or bodily injury - On the facts it is clear that the appellant
Gyarasi Bai had no intention to cause the death of any of her children and she jumped
into the well not with the intention of killing her children but with the intention of
committing suicide. That being so, Clauses 1, 2 and 3 of Section 300, Penal Code,
which apply to cases in which death is caused by an act done with the intention of
causing death or causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause the death of person or
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death cannot be applied to the present
case.
The only clause of Section 300. Penal Code, which then remains for consideration is
the 4th clause.
3. Without any excuse – There are four ingredients of Section 300, fourthly –
 Knowledge
 imminently dangerous
 All probabilities
 Without any excuse
4. It will be seen from clause fourthly that if death is caused merely by doing an act with
the knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause
death, then the act is not murder as is defined in Clause 4, but is mere culpable
Page 133 of 134
homicide not amounting to murder. In order that an act done with such knowledge
should constitute murder, it is essential that it should have been committed “without
any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such bodily injury”.
5. Meaning of Knowledge - Every sane person is presumed to have some knowledge of
the nature of his act. This knowledge is not negatived by any mental condition short of
insanity.
Decision - Gyarsibai was sane.
6. “Without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid” - These words indicate that the imminently dangerous act is not murder if
it is done to prevent a greater evil. If the evil can be avoided without doing the act, then
there can be no valid justification for doing the act which is so imminently dangerous
that it must, in all probability, cause death or such injury as is likely to cause death.
Decision - Here there is no material, whatsoever, to come to the conclusion that the
appellant could not have escaped the harassment at the hands of her sister-in-law except
by jumping herself into a well with her three children.
7. Comparison with Dhirajia Case – This case was compared with Dhirajia Case. In
Dhirajia Case, the fear of her husband and the panic into which she was thrown could
be an excuse for incurring the risk of causing death. The Allahabad High Court said,
“In assessing what is excuse or is not excuse, we must consider the state of mind in
which the accused person was”.
Here there is no question of any panic or fright of the Gyarsibai. M.P. High Court
observed, “I think in considering the question we must take into account the state of
mind of a reasonable and legally sane person and then determine whether the risk of
causing death could have been avoided.
Conclusion
Appeal was dismissed. There are following decision with reasons
(1) Attempt to suicide - She jumped into the well in consciousness. So she was liable for
attempt to suicide.
(2) Murder - She was liable for causing murder of three children because she had jumped
into the well without any excuse. She did this only for satisfaction of self-ego. There
was no any imminent danger.
Decision of High Court
Attempt to Suicide Murder

[Section 309] [Section 300, Fourthly]
She was convicted She was convicted
Page 134 of 134
Comparison between Dhirajia Case & Gyarsibai Case

There are following comparison between both cases -
S.No. Emperor v. Mt. Dhirajia Gyarsibai v. The State
1 W/O Jhagga W/O Jagannath
2 One baby Three Babies
3 Dispute was husband & wife Dispute was between sisters-in law
(Wife and sister of Jagannath)
4 4 June , 1940 23 Oct., 1952
5 Justice Braund Justice Dixit
6 Allahabad High Court MP High Court
Similarities Matter came under Culpable Matter came under Culpable
homicide [Section 299 (c)] homicide [Section 299 (c)]
7 Culpable homicide [Section 299 (c)] Culpable homicide [Section 299
could not come under Section 300, (c)] converted into Section 300,
Fourthly. Fourthly.
8 Punishment under section 304 2nd She was convicted for murder
Part (Reason – She had jumped with (Reason – There was no excuse.
excuse. Excuse was that her husband She jumped into the well for her
was following him). ego satisfaction).

Murari Sir IPC Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Murari Sir IPC Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

ELEMENTS of crime & Right of private defence, Sections 299 &

KRISHNA MURARI YADAV 3/11/21

Previous Years Question Papers in Judiciary Exams

DU LL.B Previous Years Question Papers

Total sections are 511.

Differences between Crime and Offence

Exams Jurist Definition

DU LL.B. Previous Year Question Paper 2010

Mens Rea / Actus reus / Injury to society or

(3) Actus reus / Prohibited act-

Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea

Prohibited Act Guilty Mind

(9) Selling of obscene books8

Exceptions of Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea

These exceptions are following -

Schools of Mens Rea (Interpretation of statutes)

These Schools are

(1) Presumption of Existence of Mens Rea, and

Both presumptions are rebuttable.

Statute is cleary talks about Statute is silent. For example

i. Cases related to Presumption of existence of Mens Rea

S. No. Name of Cases Justices Years

ii. Cases related to Presumption of absence of Mens Rea

S. No. Name of Case Hon’ble Justice Year

INTENTION, KNOWLEDGE & MOTIVE

Previous Year Question Paper

Question 1. Write short notes on any two of the followings:

Grounds Motive Intention Knowledge

i,g., the satisfaction of case in presence of desire foresighted that

Example sec. 304

Differences between motive and intention

is relevant under section 8 of Indian Evidence

(1). Intention of Contemplation

State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George17

Date of Judgment - August 24, 1964.

 Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947

Nov. 24, 1962 RBI published notification

1 To prevent smuggling of gold

R. v. Prince19 (1875) (Blackburn)

Ranjit D. Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra (August 19, 1964)

Arguments of Respondent [M.H. George]

S. No. Name of Cases Justices Years

There are some leading cases related to elements of crime –

Fowler v. Padget23 (1798) (Lord Kenyon)

R. v. Tolson25 (1889) (Wills) (Koi Mere Dil Se Puchhe – Hindi Movie)

Sherras v. De Rutzen27 (1895) (Wright )

R. v. Prince Section 55, Offences Against Person Act, 1861 Abduction

Brend v. Wood (1946) (Goddard) - Revival of Mens rea

DECISION OF M.H. GEORGE CASE

Nathu Lal v. State of M.P.28 (22 March 1965)

Essential Commodities (Amendment) Act, 1967

State of M.P. v. Narayan Singh31 (25 July 1989)

Impugned Statutory Provisions –

Issues – There were following issues in this case -

Nathu Lal v. Section 7, The Essential Acquitted Unauthorized store

IMPORTANT MAXIMS RELATED TO CRIMINAL LAW

Schools of Mens Rea (Interpretation of statutes)

(2) Presumption of Non-requirement of Mens Rea- According to second School, statute

Question1 (2013) & Question1 (2015)

Archbold (Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice)

Nathulal v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1965)

Options – (a) Sir James Fitzjames Stephen