The Indian Penal Code

(Act No. 45 of 1860)

Faculty: -

Prof. (Dr.) Bhavish Gupta

Head (Academics),
School of Law,
DME.
Definition of Crime: -
• BLACKSTONE defined crime as an act committed or
omitted in violation of a public law either forbidding or
commanding it.
• STEPHEN observed a crime is a violation of a right
considered in reference to the evil tendency of such
violation as regards the community at large.
• Kenny defines crimes as wrongs whose sanction is
punitive and is no way remissible by any private person:
but is remissible
Therefore, in a nutshell we can conclude that a crime is a
wrong, committed against the society as a whole which
disturbs the peace in a community which INDIAN
PENAL CODE seeks to prevent, by punishing the wrong
doer.
 ELEMENTS OF CRIME

 There are four elements which go to constitute

a crime, these are:-
A) Human being /A person
B) An evil intent on the part of such a human being
(Mens Rea or guilty intention)
C) An Act committed or omitted in furtherance of
such an intent. (Actus Reus or illegal act or
omission)
D) Injury to another human being
A. HUMAN BEING: - 
The first element requires that the
wrongful act must be committed by a
human being, who must be under the
legal obligation to act in a particular
manner and should be a fit subject for
awarding appropriate punishment.
Corporations and other artificial persons
are not capable of being punished.
B. MENS REA: -
The second important element of a crime is mens
rea or evil intent or guilty mind. There can be no
crime of any nature without mens rea or an evil
mind.
‘Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’ is a
well known maxim of Criminal Law. It means
‘the act itself does make a man guilty unless his
intentions were so’
The term Mens rea has not been used anywhere
in the entire length and breadth of the IPC but
its corresponding terms such as intentionally,
knowingly, willfully, maliciously,
fraudulently, dishonestly have been employed
in the code to represent the mental involvement
of the accused in the commission of a crime.
These terms are all indicative of the state of
mind
These terms have been defined under Section –
24 (Dishonestly), Section – 25 (Fraudulently),
and Section – 39 (Voluntarily)
 Degree of Mens Rea: -
• The degree of mens rea indicates the degree of mental
involvement in the crime and bears a direct relation to the
culpability attached to any crime.
• Higher the degree of mens rea higher would be the
punishment attached to the crime.

FOR EXAMPLE:

An act of intentionally killing a human being, which

would constitute the offence of murder would attract the
highest punishment owing to the highest degree of mens
rea associated with the same, on the other hand, if a person
accidentally hits someone resulting in such person’s death
then he would not be liable for any crime in the absence of
mens rea on his part. 
THREE DEGREES OF MENS REA ARE:

1. INTENTION  (First Degree)

• The intention is the conscious objective to do an act or cause it
to be done with a positive desire to cause some consequences.
• This is the reason that intention is treated as the highest degree
of mens rea.

 CASE LAW: RAWALPENTA VENKALU V. STATE OF

HYDERABAD, (AIR 1956 SC 171)

• RATIO DECIDENDI: In this case the accused had set fire to the
single room in which the deceased was sleeping after locking
the door from outside and also prevented other villagers from
going to the rescue of the man being burnt alive in that room.
It was held that the intention to kill the deceased was
clear and the accused should accordingly be punished.
2. KNOWLEDGE (Second Degree)
• Knowledge signifies awareness or certainty of
the effect.
• A person acts knowingly when he is practically
certain of the consequences.
• Knowledge is the second highest degree of
mens rea after the intention. It attracts slightly
lesser culpability.
• Under the law, every reasonable and sane
person is presumed to know the nature and
consequences of his actions.
• Thus if someone does an act, he cannot be
allowed to plead that he was not aware of the
consequences that his act might entail.
 CASE LAW: EMPEROR V. DHIRAJIA,
(AIR 1940 ALL 486)
Dhirajia, a young woman left her home with her six
months old baby. After she had gone some distance she
turned around and found her husband pursuing her. She
panicked and in that state jumped into a nearby well along
with her baby. By the time the woman was pulled out the
baby had died.
• It was held that the woman was guilty of culpable
homicide. The court observed that the woman did not
intend to cause the death of her child but knowledge could
be attributed to her that such an imminently dangerous act
as jumping down the well was likely to cause the child’s
death.
However primitive a man or woman may be, and however
frightened he or she may be, knowledge of the likely
consequence of so imminently dangerous an act must be
supposed to have remained with him or her.  
3. RASHNESS/NEGLIGENCE (Third Degree)
• Rashness means “recklessness”. Recklessness signifies
a state of being mentally indifferent to obvious risk.
A Rash Act is primarily a over
hasty act, and is thus opposed to a deliberate act.

Negligence is the breach of duty caused by omission to

do something (which a reasonable man guided by
those considerations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs would do) or the doing of
something which a reasonable man would not do).
Negligence is the genus of which Rashness is species.
• Recklessness can become knowledge where the accused
despite being aware of the consequences not only
continues with his actions but also hopes that his
actions will result in some illegal act.
e.g:- to explain the degree of mens rea:-
Suppose ‘A’ Kills ‘B’,
(now based upon the degree of Mens Rea on the part of ‘A’,
the following punishment can be inflicted upon him):-
1) If ‘A’ has killed ‘B’ with the Intention of killing ‘B= Max.
punishment either Death Sentence or Life Imprisonment
2) If ‘A’ has killed ‘B’ with the Knowledge of killing ‘B: (e.g
Exception 5 of Sec. 300) Punishment can be up to 10 years
or with fine or with both
3) If ‘A’ has killed ‘B’ with the Negligence: Max. Punishment
can be up to 2 Years or with fine or with Both.
4) If ‘A’ has killed ‘B’ but the case is covered under General
exceptions than No punishment
C. ACTUS REUS [GUILTY ACT OR
OMISSION]: -  

The third essential element of a crime is Actus

Reus.
In other words, some overt act or illegal omission
must take place in pursuance of the guilty
intention. The act done or omitted must be an act
forbidden or commanded by some Law.
Actus reus is the manifestation of mens rea in the
external world. Thus Actus Reus means “such
result of human conduct as the law seeks to
prevent”.
‘actus me invito factus non est mens actus’
which means ‘an act done by me against my
will is not act at all’
This means an act in order to be punishable at
Law must be a willed act or a voluntary act
and at the same time must have been done
with a criminal intent
D. Injury: -
The fourth requirement of a crime is injury to
another person or to the society. The injury
should be illegally caused to any person in body,
mind, reputation or property as per Section 44 of
IPC, 1860.

Thus the equation can be summarised as

under: -

Crime: - Human Being + Mens Rea +

Actus Reus + Injury
However, there are few exceptions to this rule: -

1) Sometimes a crime is committed even though the act is not

accompanied with guilty mind. These are the cases of Strict Liability.
e.g., bigamy u/s 494 IPC.

2) A crime is also constituted even though the actus reus has not
consummated. e.g., Incohate crimes like attempt, abetment,
conspiracy.

3) There may be crime where there is neither actus reus nor injury to a
human being. These are the cases of serious offences which are taken
notice of by the state prior to the actual commissionin the larger
interest of maintaining the peace in the society. e.g., preparation to
commit Dacoity under section 399 IPC and assembling for the purpose
of committing Dacoity under section 402 of IPC.
• Mens Rea and Statutory Offences: -
1) R. v. Prince (1875 L.R 2 C.C.R. 154)
2) Queen v. Tolson (1889) 23 Q.B.D. 168)
3) State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George (AIR
1965 S.C. 722)

4) R. v. Thomas Wheat (1921) 2 K.B. 119

5) Nathu Lal v. State of M.P (AIR 1966 SC. 43)
. Exceptions to Mens Rea:- (Strict Liability)
6) Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895) L.R. 1 Q.B.D. 918
7) Cundy v. Le Cocq (1884) 13 Q.B.D. 207
1) R. v. Prince (1875 L.R 2 C.C.R. 154)
Absolute liability – Mens rea of abduction under
the Offences Against the Person Act 1861
Facts: -
Henry Prince (H) was convicted under to section
55 of the Offences Against the Person Act
1861 of taking an unmarried girl under the age
of 16 out of the possession of her father without
the father’s consent.
The girl, Annie Phillips (A), was in fact 14 years
old, however A had told H that she was 18, and
H reasonably believed that that was her
age. The appellant appealed against his
conviction.
Issue: -
Section 55 of the Offences Against the
Person Act 1861 is silent as to the mens
rea required for the offence.
The issue in question was whether the court
is required to read a mens rea requirement
into a statute which is silent as to the mens
rea for an offence, and therefore if H’s
reasonable belief was a defence to the
offence under Section 55.
Ratio Decidendi: -

Where a statute is silent as to the mens rea for an

offence, the court is not bound to read a mens
rea requirement into the statute.
The offence was one of strict liability as to age,
therefore a mens rea of knowledge of the girl’s
actual age was not required to establish the
offence.
H’s reasonable belief was therefore no defence,
and the conviction was upheld.
2) Queen v. Tolson (1889) 23 Q.B.D. 168)
Facts: -
The marriage of the prisoner to Tolson took place on
September 11,1880; that Tolson deserted her on December
13, 1881; and that she and her father made inquiries about
him and learned from his elder brother and from general
report that he had been lost in a vessel bound for America,
which went down with all hands on board.
On January 10, 1887, the prisoner, supposing herself to be
widow, went through the ceremony of marriage with anothe
r man. The circumstances were all known to the second
husband, and the ceremony was in no way concealed. In
December, 1887, Tolson returned from America.
Ratio Decidendi: -
When her first husband reappeared alive and well
she was charged with bigamy. Allowing her
appeal, the Court said her honest and reasonable
belief in circumstances making her act innocent
was a good defence. She was afforded the
defence of mistake as it was reasonable in the
circumstances to believe that her husband was
dead.
 In R. v. Prince the prisoner knew that in
taking the girl away from her father he was
altogether apart from the question of her
age, doing an improper and immoral act
while in Q. v. Tolson there was nothing
wrong in the remarriage of the prisoner,
who reasonably supposed herself to be a
widow.
3. State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George (AIR
1965 S.C. 722)
In this case the respondent Mayer Hans George, a foreign
national, who left Zurich on 27 November 1962 for Manila
by a Swiss plane. The plane stopped for transit in Bombay
where he did not embark but sat inside the plane. Based
on prior information when the officials conducted a
personal search they found 34kg gold slabs which was kept
inside his jacket and he had not declared it in the
“Manifest” for transit.
According to the notification of the RBI on 8th of
November 1962, it was necessory that the gold must be
declared in the ‘Manifest’ of the aircraft
Since George had not made such a
declaration, he was arrested and charged for
importing gold into India in contravention of
the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act. He was
also sentenced to one year’s rigorous
imprisonment by the trial court, which was
set aside by the High Court on appeal.
However, the state of government filed an
appeal before the Supreme Court. One of the
main grounds argued was that he was not
aware of the notification.
Ratio Decidendi:-
The ignorance of law was not an excuse so the court
while upholding the conviction ruled that the
sentence alone be reduced for the period already
undergone. It was held in this case that it is not
necessary for the law to be published or made
known outside India.  
4) R. v. Thomas Wheat (1921) 2 K.B. 119
Facts: -
Wheat’s wife had committed adultery. In May
1919, Wheat instructed his solicitors to obtain
a decree of Divorce from his wife. During the
series of conversations with his solicitors he
thought that he was divorced as wheat was a
man of little Education. Wheat was charged
with having on July 21, 1920, married the
prisoner Marion Stocks, his wife being then
alive and the prisoner was charged with
abetting Wheat by aiding in the commission of
that offence.
Ratio Decidendi: -
It was held, that a belief reasonably and in good
faith that the accused person has been divorced,
when in fact he has not been divorced, affords
no defence to a charge of bigamy
5) Nathu Lal v. State of M.P (AIR 1966 SC. 43)
Facts: -
• The appellant was a dealer in a foodgrains at Dhar in Madhya Pradesh.

• He was Prosecuted in the court of Additional District Magistrate, Dhar, for

having in stock 885 maunds and 21/4 seers of wheat for the purpose of sale
without license.

• Thus the appellant was charged for committing an offence under section 7 of
the ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955.

• The appellant pleaded that he did not intentionally contravened the

provisions of the said section, and he did the storing of grains on the ground
that he had applied for the license and was under believe that it will be
issued to him.

• Moreover he made continuous effort to get the license for two months,
where the Inspector gave him assurance that that he need not worry and the
license will be sent to his residence
• The appellant also continued to submit the returns on the food grains
stored and purchased to the respected authority.

• So when tried in the court of Additional District Magistrate, Dhar, the

appellant was acquitted on the finding that he had not the guilty mind.

• On appeal a division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Indore,

set aside the order of acquittal and convicted him on the basis that in
case arising under the act the idea of guilty mind was different from that
arising in the case like theft, and that he contravened the provision of the
act and the order made thereunder.

• It sentenced the appellant to rigorous punishment for one year and to a

fine of Rs.2000. and in its default a further imprisonment of 6 months.

• So Nathulal appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Court considered

both English and Indian case law authority on deciding the issue.
• Ratio Decidendi: -
The Apex court held that “Mens rea is an essential
ingredient of a criminal offence unless the statute
expressly or by necessary implication excludes it.
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.”
In the Instant case the storage of food grains was
under a bonafide belief that he could legally do
so. He did not, therefore, intentionally
contravene the provisions of section 7 of the Act
or those of the order made under section 3 of the
Act. Therefore he was not liable.
6) Sherras v De Rutzen [1895] 1 QB 918 

Facts: -

The defendant was convicted of selling alcohol to a police

officer whilst on duty under s.16(2) Licensing Act 1872.
It was customary for police officers to wear an armlet
whilst on duty but this constable had removed his armlet.
The appellant therefore believed he was off duty.
He was a frequent visitor to the appellants house.
Neither the appellant nor his daughter made any inquiry
of the Police constable that he was or was not on duty,
but they took it for granted that he was off duty in
consequence of his armlet being off and served him
liquor under that belief
Ratio Decidendi: -
It was held that an appellant had no
intention to do a wrongful act. He acted
in a bonafide belief that the constable
was off the duty and therefore the
contention that he committed an
offence is utterly eroneous.
7) Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) 13 QBD 207 

The appellant was convicted of unlawfully selling alcohol to an

intoxicated person under S.13 Licensing Act 1872. The appellant
appealed on the grounds that he unaware of the customer's
drunkenness.

Held:

Appeal dismissed and conviction was upheld.

S.13 was silent as to mens rea, whereas other offences under the

same Act expressly required proof of knowledge on the part of
the defendant.
It was therefore taken that the omission to refer to mens rea was
deliberate and the offence was one of strict liability.

 
 Stages of a crime
If a person commits a crime voluntarily or after preparation
the doing of it involves four different stages. In every crime,
there is first intention to commit it, secondly, preparation to
commit it, thirdly, attempt to commit it and fourthly the
accomplishment/final offence. The stages can be explained
as under-
1) INTENTION-  Intention is the first stage in the commission
of an offence and known as mental stage. Intention is the
direction of conduct towards the object. Mere intention to
commit an offence not followed by any act, cannot constitute
an offence otherwise it would be very difficult for the
prosecution to prove the guilty mind of a person.
• 2) PREPARATION- Preparation is the second stage in
the commission of a crime. It means to arrange the
necessary measures for the commission of the intended
criminal act. This stage is not punishable except in few
cases like Preparation to wage war against the
Government, preparation to commit dacoity, preparation
for counterfeiting of coins or stamps.

• EXAMPLE :If ‘A’ purchases a pistol and keeps the same

in his pocket duly loaded in order to kill his bitter enemy
‘B’, but does nothing more. ‘A’ has not committed any
offence as still he is at the stage of preparation and it will
be impossible for the prosecution to prove that A was
carrying the loaded pistol only for the purpose of killing
‘B’.
• 3) ATTEMPT- Attempt is the direct movement
towards the commission of a crime after the
preparation is made. According to English law, a
person may be guilty of an attempt to commit an
offence if he does an act which is more than merely
preparatory to the commission of the offence.

 THERE ARE THREE ESSENTIALS OF AN

ATTEMPT:-
1. Guilty intention to commit an offence;
2. Some act done towards the commission of the offence;
3. The act must fall short of the completed offence.
4) ACCOMPLISHMENT: This is the final stage of
Crime. Generally most of the crimes are
punishable only after the crime has been
committed.
If the accused attempt to commit the crime and
such attempt succeeds, he will be liable for the
offence.
If such an attempt is successful, he will be liable
for attempt to commit such an offence.
Thank You