cheating, the person cheating must with the deliberate intention to cause, wrongful loss to such person induce the cheated person to deliver any property or to make any valuable security, or to alter any valuable security or to deliver anything which is signed or sealed or which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. Cases State vs Ramesh Chandu Sharma (1980) In this case, the accused was charged with cheating bank A by encashing cheque through bank B by opening an account with it in a fictitious name. It was held that it was no cheating, it is also not personation. Rama Rao vs K(1960} The accused K.V Rama Rao was an overseer, had by his representation that he was k. Rama Rao, an engineering graduate of Mysore University, induces the public service commission to select him for a post in government service. It was held that all ingredients of section 416 are fulfilled and is liable under section 419 Another important person when we talk about cheating is Mr. Natwarlal, who was one of the well-known con of India. He was known for selling popular monuments such as “Taj mahal”, “red fort”, “Rashtrapati Bhawan” also the “parliament of India’ along with its sitting members. 27. What is criminal misappropriation of property? How does it differ from criminal breach of trust? Dishonest misappropriation of property ( Section 403).—Whoever dishonestly mis-appropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Whereas, Section 405,IPC defines Criminal breach of trust as, “Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust.”Basis of Difference (Criminal Misappropriation | (Criminal Breach of Trust Provision under IPc,1860, offence of criminal misappropriation is defined under section 403 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust is \defined under section 405 of Indian Penal Code,1860 Relationship: [in misappropriation, there is no Icontractual relationship [But in Criminal Breach of Trust, there is la contractual relationship of the loffender regarding the property. Possession lin misappropriation, the property| is obtained by some casualty or lotherwise In criminal breach of trust, the property| is obtained due to the truest vested by Ithe owner on the offender. (Misappropriation (The property is misappropriated lby the offender for his own use. lin criminal breach of trust, the property| lis misappropriated for his own personall luse. A breach of trust includes criminal Imisappropriation, but the converse is Inot always true. \Nature of Property| lIn, Criminal misappropriation the lproperty is always movable in nature. |Whereas, in criminal breach of trust, |the nature of property can either be Imovable or immovable Punishment loffence of Criminal IMisappropriation is punishable lwith imprisonment of either ldescription for a term which may lextent to 2 years or with fine, or lwith both (Sec.403,1PC) |Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust is punishable with imprisonment of leither description for a term which may lextent to 2 years or with fine, or with lboth (Sec.406,1PC) In the case of Badsudeb Patra v. K.L. Haldar (32 C.W.N. 641), Where the accused got a loan of certain ornaments from the complainant for use on an occasion on the understanding that they should be returned after the purpose was served and the accused failed to return them, it was held that the accused was guilty under Sec. 406 and not Sec. 403 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 28. In all robbery there is either theft or extortion? Explain ? Robbery. In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.When theft is robbery.—Theft is “robbery” if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. When extortion is robbery.—Extortion is "robbery' if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted. Explanation.—The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. Illustrations {a) A holds Z down, and fraudulently takes Z's money and jewels from Z's clothes, without Z's consent. Here A has committed theft, and, in order to the committing of that theft, has voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to Z. A has therefore committed robbery. (b) A meets Z on the high road, shows a pistol, and demands Z's purse. Z, in consequence, surrenders his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z by putting him in fear of instant hurt, and being at the time of committing the extortion in his presence. A has therefore committed robbery. (c) A meets Z and 2's child on the high road. A takes the child, and threatens to filing it down a precipice, unless Z delivers his purse. Z, in consequence, delivers his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z, by causing Z to be in fear of instant hurt to the child who is there present. A has therefore committed robbery on Z. (d) A obtains property from Z by saying "Your child is in the hands of my gang, and will be put to death unless you send us ten thousand rupees". This is extortion, and punishable as such: but it is not robbery, unless Z is put in fear of the instant death of his child. 28. Explain the provision relating to offence of criminal Misappropriation of property and criminal breach of trust. Section 40: honest misappropriation of property.Whoever venally mis-appropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be chastened with imprisonment of either description for a term which can reach 2 years, or with fine, or with each. Illustrations a) A takes property happiness to Z out of 2’s possession, in straightness, believing, at any time once he takes it, that the property belongs to himself. A isn’t guilty of theft; however if A, when discovering his mistake, venally appropriates the property to his own use, he’s guilty of Associate in Nursing offence beneath this section. b) A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z's library in Z's absence, and takes away a book while not Z’s categorical consent. Here, if A was beneath the impression that he had Z's silent consent to require the book for the aim of reading it, A has not committed thievery. But, if A afterward sells the book for his own profit, he’s guilty of Associate in Nursing offence beneath this section. Essential Ingredients of Section 403 of IPC To make an individual accountable for Associate in Nursing offence of Criminal Misappropriation, the subsequent essential ingredients should be fulfilled: + The property should be of another person: The property should be of another person, assuming to say, the owner of the property mustn’t come back beneath the definition of ‘another person’. The property should belong to its owner and venally embezzled by another person to satisfy his own purpose. Dishonest Intention: once anyone embezzled or converts any property of another person with dishonest intention, has committed the offence of criminal misappropriation. The wrongdoer should possess dishonest intention whereas committing the crime. Conversion of the property: For constituting Associate in Nursing offence of criminal misappropriation the essence behind this section is once an individual converts any property for his own use. A word ‘converts to his ‘own use’ connotes the usage or deals with the property in derogation of the proper of the owner, as per Ramaswami Nadar vs The State of Madras, 1957. In the case of U. Dhar vs The State of Jharkhand, 2003, the Supreme Court of Asian nation control that any dispute associated with the recovery of cash is usually of civil nature and criminal grievance during this regard isn’t reparable. Section 405 - Criminal Breach of TrustUnder Section 405 of the Indian legal code, 1860, once an individual is entrusted with the property or that person has power or dominion over that property, venally embezzled or uses that property to satisfy his own purpose or to capitalise it for one’s own use, or disposes of that property is contrary to a law that prescribes a way to discharge such trust or in violation of any contract, categorical or silent, or willfully directed anyone to try to therefore, has committed the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust. Under Section 406 of the Indian legal code, anyone commits Associate in Nursing offence of Criminal Breach of Trust, shall be chastened with imprisonment for not but a term which will reach two years or with fine or even with each. Essential Ingredients of Section 405 of IPC To make an individual accountable for Associate in Nursing offence of Criminal Breach of Trust, the subsequent essential ingredients should be fulfilled: + Entrustment: As per the case of Surendra Pal Singh Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 2017, entrustment suggests that handling over the property or giving them management over the property from one person to a different so the person on whose behalf the property is transferred remains the owner of that property. To represent Associate in Nursing offence of criminal breach of trust, the essence of word entrustment may be a should. The interpretation of this Section is extremely wide because it takes servants, clerks, business partners, or the other one who is capable of holding a grip of trust, beneathits scope. Such entrustment of the property should be in trust: just in case of Ramaswami Nadar vs The State of Madras ¢1957}, the apex court control that to represent Associate in Nursing offence of Criminal Breach of Trust or to form anyone liable beneath Section 405 of the Indian legal code, 1860, the essence of word entrust ment may be a should. There should be Associate in Nursing entrustment of property. The litigant should bear with the trust Associate in Nursing possess the property with an authority. Dominion over the property: The domain is that the superior or the fullest right over merchandise or property. The domain includes the proper over merchandise or property likewise because the possession of the property and additionally includes the proper to use that property. Section 407, 408 and 409 of IPC Section 407, 408, and 409 of the Indian penal code, 1860 are the aggravated kind of Criminal Breach of Trust. Section 407 of the Indian penal code, 1860 deals with Criminal Breach of trust by carrier, etc. once any individual is entrusted with the property as a carrier,warehouse keeper, or wharfinger, commits a criminal breach of trust concerning that property, shall be reproved with imprisonment for not but a term which will touch seven years or with fine or even with each. Section 408 of the Indian penal code, 1860 deals with Criminal Breach of trust by clerks and servants. once any individual is entrusted with the property as a clerk or a servant, or that person having power or dominion over that property, commits a criminal breach of trust concerning that property, shall be reproved with imprisonment for not but a term which will touch seven years or with fine or even with each. 30. What is robbery? When does it become dacoity? Robbery Section 390 of the IPC deals with Robbery. According to Section 390 of the IPC in every robbery, there is either theft or extortion. When theft is a robbery When a person commits theft or while committing the theft, or in carrying away, or attempting to carry away a thing obtained by such theft When extortion is a robbery Extortion will amount to “robbery” if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting the person in a fear of instant death, or instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person, or to some other person, and, by 0 putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted. The explanation to section 390 provides that the offender is to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in the fear of instant death, or instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. Thus, Robbery is a special and aggravated form of theft or robbery. When a person puts the person under the fear of death, hurt or wrongful restraint to commit the theft or extortion then it amounts to robbery. It must be noted that it is not essential that the violence should be committed even the attempt to commit violence will amount to robbery.When does the Robbery become Dacoity Section 391 of the IPC defines Dacoity. There is no difference between the Robbery and Dacoity except the number of people committing the offence. If the number of people while committing robbery is 5 or exceeds 5 then the same amounts to dacoity. It must be noted that it is necessary to show that all the persons had the common intention to commit robbery. @ or More persons Persons committing or attempting to commit robbery and persons present and aiding must not be less than five. If the number is less than five then the same will not amount to Dacoity but Robbery. Conjointly The word conjointly means that the five or more persons have collectively or unitedly committed robbery. Essentials of Section 391 Commission or attempt to commit robbery 4 . Persons committing or attempting to commit robbery must not be less than five. 3. The persons should act Conjointly Punishment for Robbery Section 392 of the IPC provides punishment for Robbery. The Section states that the punishment for robbery may extend to 10 years along with fine. If the robbery is committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise then the same is punishable up to 14 years of imprisonment. Punishment for Dacoity Section 396 of the IPC provides the punishment for Dacoity. The section prescribes that those convicted of dacoity may be awarded the imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years along with fine31.Write a note on rape. As defined in Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, a man is said to commit the ‘rape’ if he penetrates his penis into the vagina, mouth, urethra, or anus of a woman to any extent; if he inserts any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra, or anus of a woman, or makes her do so with him or any other person, or if he applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman, or makes her do the same with him or any other person. The court decides the acts mentioned above are rape on the following points: . It happens without her consent and against her will. . She agrees, but just because she or someone she knows is in danger. . She agrees because she believes the other person to be her husband. . When she is under 18 years of age. . The act is performed with her consent, but at the time of giving consent, she is of unsound mind, intoxicated or unconscious. Gang Rape Section 376 of IPC defines gang rape as where a woman is raped by one or more persons constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention; each of those persons shall be deemed to have committed the offence of gang rape. In short, when a woman is raped by one or more persons of a group, each of them has committed the gang rape. Aggravated Rape Aggravated rape is an offence of rape that is committed when either the victim or that criminal is in a special position. Rape, which results in the death of the victim or her ending up in a permanent vegetative state, and gang rape, is another form of aggravated rape. Marital Rape Marital rape is an act of sexual intercourse by a man with his wife without her consent. It is not a criminal offence under the IPC. Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code considers forced sex in marriages as a crime only when the wife is below age 15. Ifa couple is married, but living separately, then the ‘marital rape’ exception no longer applies, and the husband can be convicted of rape ifthere is no consent. The punishment for the husband is imprisonment for a term of between 2-7 years witha fine. Delhi Gang Rape Case, 2012 The case is also known as the Nirbhaya Rape case. In 2012, a 23-year-old student was gang-raped on a bus. The girl was with her male friend, and they boarded an off-duty bus to return home after watching a movie at an upscale mall. Six men who were already on the bus raped the girl after brutally assaulting her with an iron rod. Her friend was beaten by the same rod. They were then thrown out of the bus, naked. The victim died after two weeks. Mumbai Gang Rape Case, 2013 This case is most famously known as the Shakti Mills Gang Rape case. In 2013, a 22-year-old photojournalist was gang-raped by five persons, including a juvenile, when she had gone to the deserted Shakti Mills compound, near Mahalaxmi in South Mumbai, with a male colleague for an assignment. Her colleague was beaten and tied with the belt during the incident. Three of the accused, who were adults, were hanged till death, and the juvenile was sent to a correction facility for three years to the Juvenile Justice Board and sentenced to three years (including time in custody) in a Nasik reform school. 32. Define criminal breach of trust? Distinguish criminal breach of trust from criminal misappropriatiot The Offences of Criminal Misappropriation and Criminal Breach of Trust are given under the head of crime against property in IPC. Section 403, IPC defines Dishonest misappropriation of property as, "Whoever dishonestly mis-appropriates or converts to his own use any movable property.” Whereas, Section 405,IPC defines Criminal breach of trust as, “Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust.”Basis of Difference Provision under IPC,1860 Criminal Misappropriation Offence of criminal misappropriation is defined lunder section 403 of Indian Penal] |code, 1860 | Criminal Breach of Trust Offence of Criminal Breach of defined under section 405 of Indian Penal Code,1860 Relationship lin misappropriation, there is no |contractual relationship [But in Criminal Breach of Trust, there is la contractual relationship of the loffender regarding the property. Possession lin misappropriation, the property| is obtained by some casualty or lotherwise. lin criminal breach of trust, the property| is obtained due to the truest vested by Ithe owner on the offender. (Misappropriation |The property is misappropriated lby the offender for his own use. In criminal breach of trust, the property| is misappropriated for his own personal luse. A breach of trust includes criminal Imisappropriation, but the converse is Inot always true. INature of Property In, Criminal misappropriation the lproperty is always movable in Inature. |Whereas, in criminal breach of trust, ithe nature of property can either be movable or immovable Punishment lOffence of Criminal Misappropriation is punishable with imprisonment of either Idescription for a term which may lextent to 2 years or with fine, or [Offence of Criminal Breach of Trust is punishable with imprisonment of leither description for a term which may} lextent to 2 years or with fine, or with both (Sec.406,PC) lwith both (Sec.403,1PC) In the case of Badsudeb Patra v. K.L. Haldar (32 C.W.N. 641), Where the accused got a loan of certain ornaments from the complainant for use on an occasion on the understanding that they should be returned after the purpose was served and the accused failed to return them, it was held that the accused was guilty under Sec. 406 and not Sec. 403 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. UNIT-V 33. Write a note on dowry death. Dowry is a type of payment given by the bride’s family to the groom's family in the form of property or money. This payment is given to the groom’s family at the time of the wedding. Most of the bride’s families offer a dowry to keeptheir daughter happy with their in-laws, but they do not realize that dowry can also cause harm to their children. Many disputes in dowry cases have resulted in violence against women, such as acid attacks and killings. Dowry deaths are married women forced to suicide or murdered by their husband's family. The married woman is forced to drive to suicide by the continuous harassment and torture faced at the hands of the husband their in-laws over a dispute about the dowry. Dowry deaths are most commonly seen in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Iran. The dowry disputes make the in-law’s house the most dangerous place for the married woman. Dowry deaths are seen as one of the many categories of violence against women alongside bride burning, female genital mutilation, rape, eve- teasing, and acid throwing. Steps Taken By the Government: Dowry death IPC Central Government Act section 3048 in the Indian Penal Code is commonly known as the Dowry death IPC. Section 304B states that when the death of the woman is caused by any burns or bodily harm that occurred in any other situations other than standard conditions within seven years of marriage and if proved that prior to her death, she was subjected to harassment or cruelty by husband or husband's family in connection for a request for dowry such that can be called as dowry death and the relative of the husband shall be believed to have caused the death. And whoever caused the dowry death shall be penalized with imprisonment for a period which shall not be less than seven years and can extend to life imprisonment. Despite the steps taken by the Government of India to prevent dowry deaths, itis still commonly seen in the country. There is a dowry prohibition act of 1961 according to which any property or valuable security should not be given to the in-laws for a valid marriage proposal. Giving and taking of dowry are both considered offenses. These are a few initiatives taken by the government to keep women safe. Dowry deaths in India Even though the Indian laws against dowry have been effective for decades, giving and taking dowry still exist. Many murders have continued to take place because of not giving dowry. There is the practice of dowry deaths, and many are still getting a blind eye in many parts of India. Some of the few types of dowry crimes are CrueltyThe cruelty can be a form of verbal attacks or beating and force the women and a family to yield to dowry demands. In some cases, the harassment has forced women to commit suicide. Domestic violence Domestic violence can consist of a broad spectrum of threatening and abusive behaviour: emotional, physical, economic, and sexual violence. Most of the victims of dowry deaths in India are young women who cannot withstand the harassment and torture and commit suicide by consuming poison or hanging themselves. Dowry death is executed when the groom’s family is not satisfied with the dowry given by the bride’s family. Dowry Death Cases According to the statistics from 1999 to 2018, dowry accounted for 40 to 50 % of the former size in the country. In 2019 7115 dowry death cases were reported in the country under section 304b of the Indian Penal Code. In 2020 the number of cases related to dowry deaths was 7000. In 2014, the amount was 8500. There has been a gradual decrease in dowry deaths. Conclusion Now we have reached the end of the article, and you must have an idea of dowry and the dowry deaths. A significant part of the country is illiterate, and they do not realize that dowry is indirectly causing trouble for their daughters in their in-law’s families. Because of systems and customs like these, gir! children are killed during birth or orphaned. The girl child is seen as a burden to their families because someday they have to be married and sent off. 34.Write a note on criminal trespass . Introduction - Section 442 to Section 462 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 deals with Criminal Trespass House-trespas: According to Section 442 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit "house-trespass". Explanation- The introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser's body isentering sufficient to constitute house-trespass. Lurking house-trespas: As per Section 443 of the Indian Penal Code, whoever commits house-trespass having taken precautions to conceal such house-trespass from some person who has a right to exclude or eject the trespasser from the building, tent or vessel which is the subject of the trespass, is said to commit “lurking house- trespass", Lurking house-trespass by night. According to Section 444 of the said Code, whoever commits lurking house- trespass after sunset and before sunrise, is said to commit “lurking house- trespass by night". House-breaking. According to Section 445 of the Indian penal code 1860, a person is said to commit "house-breaking" who commits house-trespass if he affects his entrance into the house or any part of it in any of the six ways hereinafter described; or if being in the house or any part of it for the purpose of committing an offense, or having committed an offense therein, he quits the house or any part of it in any of it in such six ways, that is to say - First - If he enters or quits through a passage made by himself, or by any abettor of the house-trespass, in order to the committing of the house- trespass. Secondly - If he enters or quits through any passage not intended by any person, other than himself or an abettor of the offense, for human entrance; or through any passage to which he has obtained access by scaling or climbing over any wall or building. Thirdly - If he enters or quits through any passage which he or any abettor of the house-trespass has opened, in order to the committing of the house- trespass by any means by which that passage was not intended by the occupier of the house to be opened. Fourthly- If he enters or quits by opening any lock in order to the committingof the house-trespass, or in order to the quitting of the house after a house- trespass. Fifthly- If he affects his entrance or departure by using criminal force or committing an assault, or by threatening any person with assault. Sixthly - If he enters or quits by any passage which he knows to have been fastened against such entrance or departure and to have been unfastened by himself or by an abettor of the house-trespass. Explanation - Any out-house or building occupied with a house, and between which and such house there is an immediate internal communication, is part of the house within the meaning of this section. Mlustrations - (2) A commits house-trespass by making a hole through the wall of Z's house and putting his hand through the aperture. This is housebreaking. (b) A commits house-trespass by creeping into a ship at a porthole between decks. This is house-breaking. (c) A commits house-trespass by entering Z's house through a window. This is house-breaking. (d) A commits house-trespass by entering Z's house through the door, having opened a door which was fastened. This is house-breaking. (e) A commits house-trespass by entering 2's house through the door, having lifted a latch by putting a wire through a hole in the door. This is house- breaking, [Section 493 to 498) 493. Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage.Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished with imprisonment of cither description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment—Imprisonment for 10 years and fine—Non-cognizable—Non- bailable—Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable. 494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife. 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 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. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment—Imprisonment for 7 years and fine—Non-cognizable—Bailable— Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Compoundable by the husband or wife of the person so marrying with the permission of the court. 495. Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contractes Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section having concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact of the former marriage, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment—Imprisonment for 10 years and fine—Non-cognizable— Bailable— Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable. 496. Marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without lawful marriage. Whoever, dishonestly or with a fraudulent intention, goes through the ceremony of being married, knowing that he is not thereby lawfully married,shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment—Imprisonment for 7 years and fine—Non-cognizable—Bailable— Triable by Magistrate of the first class—Non-compoundable. 497. Adultery. Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall be punishable as an abettor. 498. Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman. Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment—Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both—Non-cognizable— Bailable—Triable by any Magistrate—Compoundable by the person with whom the offender has contracted. 36. Explain the essentials of criminal trespass, house trespass_and house breaking. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF CRIMINAL TRESPASS Criminal trespass has two essentials, firstly, entering into the property of another with criminal intent, and secondly, entering lawfully but remaining in the property with a criminal intent to harm or cause annoyance. Thus the essential ingredients for committing Criminal trespass are:1. Whoever enters To commit the offence of criminal trespass, there must be an actual entry into the property of another by the accused person. No trespass can occur if there is no physical instrument by the accused into the private property of the victim. In the state of Culcutta vs Abdul Sukar[1] the court held that constructive entry by a servant does not amount to entry, under this Section as even though there was no possession in law, there was possession in fact. For instance, X throws garbage outside Y’s house on a daily basis, in this case, X may be liable for nuisance but he has not committed criminal trespass as there is no entry by X into Y's property. + Property The term property under this Section includes both movable and immovable property. Wrongful entry into one’s car or other movable property would have similar liability as wrongful entry into one’s house. In Dhannonjay v Provat Chandra Biswas, the accused drove away from the boat of the possessor after attacking him. The court held that this would amount to criminal trespass even though it was movable property. But the term property does not include incorporeal property or something which cannot be touched, such as patent rights. + Possession of another The possession of the property should be in the possession of the victim and not the trespasser. Having ownership of the property is not necessary, mere possession is sufficient to claim criminal trespass against the trespasser. However, it is not necessary for the person having possession or the owner of the property to be present at the time when the trespassing occurred, no presence of the owner or possessor would also amount to trespassing as long as the premises are entered into by the trespasser to annoy. For instance, writing love letters and delivering them to a girl’s house against her will would also amount to criminal trespass, even if at the time of delivering such letters, the girl was not at home. + Intention If it is proved that the intention of the accused parties was not to insult, harm or annoy the owners or possessors of the property, then it would not amount to criminal trespass. The Intention is the essence of this crime, and if there is no dominant motive to commit the crime, no criminal trespass. The test for determining whether the entry was done with an intent to cause annoyance or 2?any kind of harm is to determine the aim of a trespasser at the time of such entry. DISHONESTLY BREAKING OPEN RECEPTACLE CONTAINING PROPERTY Meaning and punishment for dishonestly breaking open receptacles containing property are defined under Section 461 of IPC. The said section punishes whoever dishonestly or with the intent of committing mischief, breaks or opens any receptacle or container used as storing place. The offence is cognizable, non-bailable, and triable by any magistrate and the punishment for the same may extend up to 2 years, fine, or both. The ingredients of this offence would be: . There was a closed container or receptacle; It contained property or the accused believed it contained property; . The accused intentionally broke opened the receptacle; The accused did so dishonestly; . The accused did so with the intent to cause mischief. 37.Discuss the offence of adultery with recent developments. INTRODUCTION / CONCEPT OF ADULTERY Adultery is described as a married person’s consensual sexual activity with a partner other than his or her spouse. In various states and laws, the legal definition of adultery varies. Adultery is a serious crime in India and hence there are provisions relating to the Indian Penal Code of Adultery, 1860. Adultery is described by Section 497 as: “Anyone who, without the permission or connivance of that man, has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows, or who has cause to assume to be the wife of another man, such sexual intercourse does not contribute to the crime of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery and shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term of up to five years or with a fine or witness”. It is necessary to create an institution which, from the very beginning, does not seek to maintain the sanctity of marriage, but seeks to protect the institution’s structure. It was asserted in the case of “V. Revathi v. Union of India” that the man was a seducer, not a feminist. It was essentially claimed that Section 497 would not include the wife with the right to sue the husband who committedadultery with another wife. In its attempt to imprison only the ‘outsiders’ of marriage, the above-mentioned statute hits and the group often claims that it punishes the stranger who enters into a marital home and threatens the sacredness of marriage. In India, IPC Section 497 has a history of 150 years of colonial period and, since its introduction, has been spinning into contentious and dubious controversies on many accounts, such as its approach to gender inequality, challenging the equity clause, representing cultural conflicts, and strong objections have been raised either for its preservation, modification, or full alteration and elimination from penal statues. SUPREME COURT'S TAKE ON ADULTERY The Supreme Court declined to revisit its 2018 decision in which adultery was decriminalized. A five-judge Review Bench led by India’s Chief Justice Sharad A. Bobde reinstated a Constitution Bench that had stripped adultery out of the penal statute book in September 2018. “We thoroughly went through the petitions for review and forwarded the relevant documents. We do not find any ground, anyway, for the same entertainment. Accordingly, the appeal requests are dismissed,” the review court said in a short order recently. ‘A Constitution Bench headed by then Chief Justice Dipak Misra, who ruled that Section 497 (adultery) of the Indian Penal Code could not “command” married couples to keep true to each other for fear of penal punishment, was the original judgement. If one cheats, two people may part, but Justice Misra had observed in his separate opinion that adding criminality to infidelity is going too far. The court had argued that little evidence existed to support arguments that the elimination of adultery as a felony would lead to “chaos in sexual morality” or a rise in divorce. Section 497 considers a married lady, held by the Bench, as a commodity for her husband.Adultery is not a felony if the henpecked husband connives or consents to his wife's extra-marital affair. “Article 497 considers a married woman as the “chattel” of her husband. The provision is a result of the dominant social superiority of men 150 years ago. The husband is not the owner... Obituaries of these past perceptions should be written,” Misra, then chief justice, had observed. The Bench also held that the CrPC’s Section 198(2), which allowed the cuckolded husband the exclusive right to sue the lover of his wife, was simply unconstitutional. However, adultery can be a cause for civil remedies such as marital separation, the 2018 verdict had said. 38.Discuss the term of defamation with exceptions. Introduction Section 499 of the IPC defines defamation. According to this section, any person who makes or publishes any false imputation or allegation relating to any person, by words either spoken or written or by signs or visible representations, is said to defame that person. However, it must be done to harm the reputation of such a person against whom the imputation has been made. Further, any imputation or allegation made to a deceased person shall amount to defamation if it would harm that person's reputation if he would be alive or harm the reputation of their family members. And, it may also amount to defamation if any imputation or allegation is made related to any company or an association or collection of persons. Furthermore, this section states that an imputation or an allegation is not said to harm someone's reputation unless it directly or indirectly lowers the moral or intellectual character of that person in the eyes of others or lowers the character of that person concerning his caste or makes everyone to believe that the body of such person is in an unpleasant state. The following circumstances are exceptions to defamation:1. Imputation of Truth Which Public Good Requires to Be Made or Published If a true imputation or allegation is made related to a person, it does not amount to defamation. But, it must be made for the good of the public. 2. Public Conduct of a Public Servant When any opinion is expressed in good faith respecting the conduct of the public servants in the discharge of their public functions, it does not amount to defamation. 3. Conduct of Any Person Approaching Any Public Question When any opinion is expressed in good faith respecting the conduct of any person approaching the public question or who discharges public functions, it does not amount to defamation. For example, the act of publicists who take part in politics or other matters related to the public in good faith does not amount to defamation. Publication of Reports of Proceedings of Courts Publishing a substantially authentic report of the proceedings of any Court of Justice or result of any such proceedings does not amount to defamation. 5. Merits of a Case Decided in Court or Conduct of Witnesses and Other Related to the Case An unrestricted statement on the judgements of the courts, the jury’s verdict, the act of parties and witnesses is necessary. And therefore, if any opinion is expressed relating to the merits of any case decided by a court of justice or conduct of parties and witnesses does not amount to defamation. 6. Merits of Public Performance This exception covers criticisms of the book published on literature, art, singing, etc. It is not defamation to express any opinion in good faith regarding the qualities of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public.Gv 7. Censure Passed in Good Faith by a Person Having Lawful Authority Over Another When a person who has authority over another person either by law or arising out of a valid contract condemns in good faith the conduct of that person, it does not amount to defamation. 8. Accusation Desired in Good Faith to Authorised Person When a person who has lawful authority over another person accuses him, he will not be liable for defamation. However, the complaint must be bona fide. Further, accusation in newspapers is not covered under this section. 9. Imputation Made in Good Faith by a Person for the Protection of His or Others Interests This exception is applied when a defamatory statement is made against any person in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person who made it. 10. Caution Intended for the Good of a Person to Whom Conveyed or the Public Good Any caution or warning conveyed in good faith from one person to another or for the good of the public does not amount to defamation. 39. Briefly explain criminal intimidatior Section: 503, Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation. Explanation.—A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section.Mlustration A, for the purpose of inducing 8 to resist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B's house. Ais guilty of criminal intimidation. The offence of criminal intimidation is defined under Section 503 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The provision states that anyone who threatens any other person on the following grounds is liable for criminal intimidation. 1. Threatens injury to his person; 2. Threatens injury to his reputation; 3. Threatens injury to his property; 4. Threatens injury to the person or reputation of anyone in whom the person is interested. Further, the intention should be to cause alarm to that person; or to make them perform any act which they are not legally bound to do; or to omit any act which they are legally entitled to perform. If they are forced to do all of these acts as a means to avoid execution of such threat, this amounts to criminal intimidation The Supreme Court in the case of Vikram Johar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2019) has observed that the mere act of abusing a person ina filthy language does not satisfy the essential ingredients of the offence of criminal intimidation. The complaint was that the accused came with a revolver to the complainant's house and abused him in a filthy language. They also attempted to assault him but when the neighbours arrived, they fled from the spot. The Bench held that the above allegations prima facie do not constitute the offence of criminal intimidation. The Tripura High Court in its recent judgment of Shri Padma Mohan Jamatia vs. ‘Smt. Jharna Das Baidya (2019) has observed that the mere use of abusive words/ filthy language and body posture during the speech of a political leader is not included within the ambit of the provisions of criminal intimidation under the IPC. rite a note on “stolen property”. Section 410 to Section 414 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 deals with Receiving Stolen property. Stolen property is defined under Section 410 of the Code. Stolen property.Section 410 of the Indian Penal Code says that, property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft or by extortion or by robbery and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as "stolen property", whether the transfer has been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without India. But, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property According to Section 410 of the Indian Penal Code, a property will be termed as stolen property the possession of which has been transferred by any of the following ways - i) Theft ii) Extortion; iv) Criminal misappropriation; v) Criminal Breach of trust Ingredients To invoke Section 410 of the Indian Penal code following essential ingredients are to be satisfied. (1) Property is stolen Property if (i) Possession thereof has been transferred by theft, extortion or robbery, or (ii) Itis Property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respected of which criminal breach of trust has been committed. (2) It is immaterial whether the transfer has been made or the misappropriation or breach of trust committed within or without India (3) But if Such property subsequently comes into possession of a person legally entitled to its possession then it ceases to be stolen property. 41. ‘R’ pulls down the house wall of ‘H’ to prevent spreading of fire. ‘H’ intends to file criminal case of mischief against ‘R’. Advise.Explanatior Section 81 of indian Penal Code. Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm. Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that itis likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property. Explanation. It is question of fact in such a case whether the harm to be prevented or avoided was of such a nature and so imminent as to justify or excuse the risk of doing the act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause harm. 42. ‘A’ an officer of the court, on being ordered by the court to arrest ‘B’ and after a due enquiry, believing ‘C’ as ‘B’ arrests ‘C’. What is the offence that ‘A’ Section 76 in The Indian Penal Code: Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it. 43. ‘X’ Brahmin married ‘Y’ who belonged to Vysha community in the temple. Later he obtained a release from the wife and marries ‘2’ from a Brahmin community in the style of ceremonies of Brahmin community. Has ‘x’ committed offence. Answe! Yes ‘x’ has committed the offence as per Hindu marriage act. Decree of divorce is mandatory to remarry in India. Effect of such marriages : proviso : And all marriages made contrary to the provisions of this section may be declared void by a Court of law; Provided, that in any question regarding the validity of a marriage made contrary to the provisions of this section, consent as is aforesaid shall be presumed until the contrary is proved, and that no such marriage shall be declared void after it has been consummated.44. ‘A’ with the intention of permanently disfiguring ‘2’ face, gives ‘2’ a blow which does not permanently disfigure ‘Z's face, but causes ‘Z’ to suffer a Answer: Ahas voluntarily caused grievous hurt. comments Explanation The offence of grievous hurt is not caused unless the offender both causes grievous hurt and intends, or knows himself to be likely, to cause grievous hurt; Reference case law: Ramkaran Mohton v. State, AIR 1958 Pat 452. Explanatio! Section 322 in The Indian Penal Code Voluntarily causing grievous hurt.—Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he intends to cause or knows himself to be likely to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is said “voluntarily to cause grievous hurt.” A person is not said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt except when he both causes grievous hurt and intends or knows himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt, But he is said voluntarily to cause grievous hurt, if intending or knowing himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt of one kind, he actually causes grievous hurt of another kind. 45. ‘A’ had sexual intercourse ‘B’ a minor girl below 16 years of age with her consent. Whether ‘A’ has committed any offence? Give reasons. Answer: Yes A has committed offence as per the section 375 of Indian Penal Code. Explanatiot With or without her consent, when she is under sixteen years of age. Explanation.—Penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of rape. BY ANIL KUMAR K T LLB COACH