OBJECTIVES OF THE

CLASS
• Conceptualising CRIME AND
PUNISHMENT, CRIMINAL LAW

• HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF THE

INDIAN PENAL CODE
CRIMINAL
LAW
• Harm to Societal Interests
• Prohibited by Penal Law
• Through a Conduct (Act and Omission)
• With an Intent to harm(Mens Rea)
• Concurrence of Conduct and Harmful Intent.
• Relationship between the harm or injury and the
misconduct
• Legally Prescribed Punishment
HISTORY OF PENAL LAWS IN
INDIA
• Hindu- Manusmriti, Arthashastra,
Yajnvalkya;
• Mohammedan- Mohammedan
Criminal Law
• British Era- REGUATING ACT , 1773
Faujdari Adalat- kazis and maulvis as judge
Nizamat Sadar Adalat
Four appellate Courts
Sadar Nizamat Adalat (Supreme court )
• Provincial Autonomy :- conflict of laws
• Thus there was an appointment of a Law Member under
the Charter Act of _____ in the Governor General's
Council to bring a Single Law through the establishment
of Law Commission. _______ was the first member
along with .

• The first final draft of the Indian Penal Code was

submitted to the Governor General of India in council in
1837.
• Revised thereafter , The Statute Book as "The Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860) came on 6th October 1860 and
is the main criminal code of India.
 ELEMENTS OF CRIME

ACTUS REUS- MENS REA

A wrongful Act which the A wrongful/blameworthy
law seeks to prevent mental condition
 ACTUS REUS
• External Circumstances and Consequences
• Overt Act
• PHYSICAL RESULT OF VOLUNTARY
HUMAN CONDUCT
• It should be distinguished from the event
which produced the result
Ex- A pulls the trigger of the gun at B, the
bullet leaves the gun. In order to constitute
actus reus the bullet has to enter into B's
Body, thereby causing Death
• Voluntary act :- Driven by Will
Section 39, Indian Penal Code - Intended to cause the
act or by means which at the time of employing it ,
he knew or had reasons to believe to be likely to
cause it .
Illustration
A sets fire to house at night for causing robbery , thus
causes death of a person. Here A maynot have
intended to cause death, may even be sorry for it,
yet if he knew that by such causing of fire , he was
likely to cause death , he is liable
Test of intended consequence and Test of
Probable consequences
• Includes both an Act as well as ommission.
Section 32 and 33, Indian Penal Code
(Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961
SC 1782 )
• Act must be reus i.e the law must forbid it
• Act may result into harm
• Act to be direct cause of harm
• Actus reus can with reference to many
aspects :- Place, Time, Person, Consent,
State of Mind of the Victim
 Causation of Crime
• Causation is what cascaded into the actus
reus;Causa Causans

• Causation and Negligience

Sulemani Rahiman Mulani v. State of
Maharastra (AIR 1968 SC 829)
the death(harm) should be the direct consequence of the
negligent act.
 MENS REAS
• A man expects the natural consequences
of his acts and therefore he is presumed to
intend the consequences of his acts.
1. Patricia sets fire to her apartment intending to kill her husband.
2. Patricia sets fire to her apartment intending to destroy it, but not intending
to kill her husband-though she knows that her husband is inside the
apartment and will in all likelihood die in the fire.
3. This is similar to (2), though this time Patricia is not certain that her
husband is inside; she suspects that it is likely that he is inside, and this
suspicion is not enough to dissuade her from carrying out her intention.
4. Patricia forgets to turn off the stove, and as a result the apartment is set on
fire and her husband is killed. She intends neither to kill her husband nor to
set a fire, and she is unaware that she actually kills him or even creates a
fire.
5. Patricia turns on her TV set intending to watch the news; the TV set
subsequently malfunctions, it explodes, and it causes a fire. As in (4), she
has the intention neither to kill her husband nor to cause a fire
 STAGES OF CRIME
• CONTEMPLATION
• PREPARATION
• ATTEMPT
• ACCOMPLISHMENT
 ATTEMPT
• The word ‘’Attempt’’ means to try to do something.
It can also be understood as an act towards the commission of the offence
which fails due to circumstances independent of the attempter’s will.
Thus, it means any voluntary act which does NOT yield the intended results.
• Criminality of the attempt lies in the intention (mens rea), but this
must be evidenced by what the accused has actually done towards the
attainment of his ultimate objective. (KENNY)
• 3 Tests differentiating between Preparation and an Attempt
• Cases:-
Abhayanand Mishra v State of Bihar
Munha Binti Ali v Public Prosecutor
R v Shivpuri
 PROXIMITY RULE
• Melissa and Matthew decide they want to poison their
neighbor’s dog because it barks loudly and consistently
every night. Melissa buys some rat poison at the local
hardware store. Matthew coats a raw filet mignon with the
poison and throws it over the fence into the neighbor’s
yard. Fortuitously, the neighbors are on an overnight
camping trip, and the dog is with them. The next day, after
a night of silence, Melissa feels regret and climbs over the
fence to see what happened to the dog. When she sees the
filet untouched on the ground, she picks it up and takes it
back over the fence, later disposing of it in the trash.
The proximity test measures the defendant’s
progress by examining how close the defendant
is to completing the offense. 

It is the amount left to be done, not what

has already been done
 LOCUS POENINTENTIAE
TEST
A, who was found in the act of striking a
match behind a haystack, which he
extinguished on perceiving that he was
being watched/he had a change of heart ,
was held guilty of attempt to commit arson of
haystack.
 Res Ipsa loquitor /
unequivocality test/mens rea test
• Accused’s act—which manifests the intent to
commit the crime
A is running towards B with a Huge Knife .
A has put poison in B s food
 Social Evil test
• Decides on the basis of the potential threat
that can be caused by the supposed act