













































































Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Prepare for your exams
Study with the several resources on Docsity
Earn points to download
Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan
Community
Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts
Discover the best universities in your country according to Docsity users
Free resources
Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors
INDIAN PENAL CODE NOTES FOR 3 RD SEMESTER
Typology: Study notes
1 / 85
This page cannot be seen from the preview
Don't miss anything!
General Definition of Crime Doctrine of Mens Rea Difference between Tort, Crime and Contract General Explanations Important Questions
General Exceptions Abetment Criminal Conspiracy Offences Against Public Tranquility False Evidence Offence Affecting Public Health Important Questions
Offences Affecting Life Hurt Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement Criminal Force and Assault Kidnapping and Abduction Sexual Offences Unatural Offences Important Questions
Theft, Extortion, Robbery & Dacoity Criminal Misappropriation of Property Criminal Breach of Trust Cheating and Mischief Criminal Trespass Forgery, Making False Documents Defamation Important Questions
Special Provision for Women in IPC Cruelty by Husband or Relatives of Husband Criminal Intimidation, Insult and Annoyance Attempt to Commit Offences Important Questions Suggested Readings
Specific Offences (Section 120A to 511)
Crime is what the State has by an act of legislature definitely declared as punishable.
The I.P.C. no where defines what is Crime. A crime can be said to be an act of commission or omission, contrary to law, tending to the prejudice of community for which punishments can be inflicted as the result of judicial proceeding. It tends directly to the prejudice of community, while torts tends more directly and immediately to the prejudice of a private right.
To define Crime is a task which so far has not been satisfactorily accomplished by any writer. So it would be appropriate to examine some of the definitions in order to understand the crime in correct Perspective.
"Commentaries on the Laws of England" define crime as - "An act committed or omitted in violation of public law forbidding or commanding it."
Blackstone - "A crime is a violation of public rights and duties to the whole community."
Criminal Conspiracy (SS120-120B) Offences Against the State (SS 121-130) Offence related to Army, ASR, Navy, Force (SS 131-140) Offence against Public Tranguility (SS 141-160) Offences by or relating to Public Servants (SS 161-171) Offence Related to Elections (SS 171 A-171) Contempt of Public Servants (SS 172-190) Giving False Evidence, offences Against Pub. Jus. (SS 1910229) Offences relating to Coin & Govt. Stamps (SS 2300263A) Offences Affecting (1) Public Health (2) Safety, Convenience (Decency & Moral (SS 268-294A)
Offence Related to Religion (SS 295-298) Offence Against Human Body (SS 299-377) Offence Against Property (SS 378-462) Offence Relating to Document and to Property Marts (SS 463 489E) Criminal Breach of Contract (SS490-492) Offence Related to Marriage (SS 493-498) Defamation (SS 499-502) Criminal Intimidation, Insults, Annoyance (SS 503-510) Attempts to Commit Offences (SS 511)
Specific Offences
Stephen - modified the definition of Blackstone as - "A crime is a violation of right considered in reference to the evil tendency of such violation as regards the community at large."
This definition is not fully free from error, it narrows the scope of crime.
The definition given by Blackstone and Stephen further stresses that crimes are those breaches of laws which injure the community.
Romans define crime as "delicta publica" (Public wrong) and criminal trial as "judica publica (Public Justice).
Kenny pointed out that "all the acts that are injurious to the community are not necessarily crimes." One who commits a wrong is said to be liable for it. Liability is bond of necessity that exists between wrongdoer and the remedy for wrong. Penal liability arises when the following two conditions exist -
DOCTRINE OF MENS REA
Guilty mind (Mens Rea): The fundamental principle of liability is that an act alone does not amount to a crime. It must be accompanied by a guilty mind. The Latin maxim "Actus non facit nisi mens sit rea" is a cardinal principle of Criminal Law.
Doctrine of mens rea and the IPC
a) The Act done by the accused person. b) The required state of mind while doing that act.
suit filed by him.
In the case of crime, on the other hand, even though the immediate victim is an individual the criminal wrong is considered be to a public wrong and criminal proceedings are therefore brought by the state and not by the injured party. Moreover, in certain exceptional cases law does not permit a settlement in the criminal case between the wrongdoer and the aggrieved party.
In the case of tort the ends of justice are met by awarding compensation to the injured party. In the case of crime the wrongdoer is punished. The idea of awarding compensation to the injured party under civil law is to make good the loss suffered by him. The punishment under the criminal law protects the society by preventing the offender from committing further offences and deterring him and other potential offenders from committing further wrongs.
Smetimes, the same set of facts may constitute both a tort and a crime. The civil and criminal -emedies in such a case are not alternative but they are concurrent. The wrongdoer may be required to ay compensation under the law of torts; he may also be liable under criminal law. For example, if A digs a ditch on road resulting in inconvenience to public at large A has committed the offence of public isance under section 268 IPC. If X, a passerby, falls into that ditch and thereby gets injured A's act also becomes a tort of private nuisance as against X. A will be punished under criminal law for the offence of public nuisances, he will also be liable to compensate X under torts.
Object of Passing Act: The main purpose of passing this Act was to protect society from those people. ho either for their benefit do those activities which directly or indirectly affect people at large and to prevent them. So it became necessary to pass this code.
Title and extent of operation of the code: Section-
India except the state of Jammu & Kashmir."
territory itself; State of Jammu and Kashmir cannot be taken as a foreign territory.
extends to 12 nautical miles measured from the base line.
Territory.
Territorial Operation of the Code
Every person within territory of India- Intra territorial operation (Section.2)
Indian Territory territory Continental shelf.
Section.2 Intr Territorial Operation Every person (Irrespective) of Citizenship Within territory of India
Guilty Act Omission IPC
Cases
a) President of India Under Article 361 of the constitution of India. b) Governors of states c) Foreign Sovereign, Ambassadors Warships d) Enemies Alien (dealt in accordance with martial law) if commit an offence, be tried Under IPC. e) Foreign troops
Extra territorial operation of the code: Sec. 3 & 4.
1. Section-3 provides that an act which, would have constituted offence, if committed in India, may be an offence if committed beyond India. That would be so if any Indian law provides for that. 2. Section-3 refers to following laws: a) The extradition Act, 1962, (matters covered therein) b) Sec. 187 & 188 Cr P.C. (matters covered therein) 3. Section-4 provides that the Act shall apply to following also: a) Act or omission by the Indian Citizens outside India.
A
same or similar intention.
Furtherance of Common Intention
It was held that in a planned murder, one of the persons played the role of keeping of people from coming to the rescue of deceased. He and others were held guilty of murder u/s 302 read with Section 34.
Common Intention Must Precede the Criminal Act
Difference between Common intention, same or similar intention
In Mehboob Shah case , it was held that common intention and same intention are different. The^9 difference or distinction may be few but it is real and substantial.
Sec. 34 requires common intention. Concerted Action is the essence of the term. In case of same or similar intention there is no concerted action.
Framing of Charge U/s 34 is not necessary
The Principle of Common Object (Section 149 IPC): Every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common Sec. 149 provides:
"If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members to that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offence.
Ingredients: The following are the essentials of common object:
a) There must be an unlawful assembly. b) Any of the members of the unlawful assembly must have committed an offence. c) Offence must have been committed in prosecution of common object. (It includes the offence the likelihood of the commission of which was known to the members)
If the above requirements are satisfied all the members of the unlawful assembly would be liable for the offence provided they were members at the time of commission of offence.
Unlawful Assembly (Section 141):
According to Section 149 IPC-
An assembly of five or more persons is designated as 'Unlawful Assembly', if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is:
First - To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Union or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any state, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or
Second - To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or Third - To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or
Fourth - By means of criminal force, or by show of criminal force, to any person to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
Fifth - By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
Explanation - An assembly, which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an
Q.1. Discuss the various definitions of crime and explain the essential elements of crime.
Q.2. Explain the doctrine of mensrea and its importance in I.P.C.
Q.3. Explain the maxim "Actus non facit mens sit rea".
Q.4. Whether Common intention is different from same intention. Discuss. Q.5. What is the difference between common intention and common object?
Q.6. "Mistake of fact is defence but not the mistake of law". Explain the statement.
Q.7. Explain mens rea and its exception with illustration.
Q.8. Distinguish between Tort and Crime.
UNIT – II
GENERAL EXCEPTIONS (SECTION 76 TO 106)
General Exceptions can be divided into two parts:
Mistake of Fact (Section 76): Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound by law.
According to section 76 IPC: "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistakes of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law, in good faith believes himself to be bound by law to do it."
In the case of Chaman Lal (1940) 21 Lah 521; Mangal Singh, 1981 Cr. LJ 84 (Cal) : Held that for a manifestly illegal superior order, that is an order which is illegal on the face of it, e.g., to kill an innocent bystander or to torture an accused in custody or to fire on a group of people who have assembled for a lawful purpose, the superior order affords no protection to a subordinate.
In the case of Gopalia Kalliaya : A^1 police-officer came to Bombay from up-country with a warrant to arrest a person. After reasonable inquiries and on well-founded suspicion he arrested the complainant under the warrant, believing in good faith that he was the person to be arrested. The complainant having proceeded against the police-officer for wrongful confinement, it was held that the police-officer was guilty of no offence as he was protected by this section.
Accident in Doing a Lawful Act - Section-
a) By accident or misfortune.
b) Without any criminal intention or knowledge
i) In the doing of a lawful act. ii) In a lawful manner. iii) by lawful means
4. Illustration: 'A' is at work with a hatchet. The head flies off and kills a man who is standing by. Here, if there was no want of proper caution on the part of '1, his act is excusable and not an offence.
Accident of Misfortune
An effect may be accidental. It is to be seen whether the act done was intentional or with knowledge or not. Any effect caused by an act which was not done with an intention to cause that effect or which was done without a reasonable forcibility of the effect so caused cannot create a liability.
Accident and event are not one and the same thing. Accident contemplates something unexpected; it is something which takes place outside the ordinary course of things.
Lawful Act: Accident may be a good defence only when the act done was lawful and it was done in a lawful manner and by lawful means and with care but without mens rea.
Lack of Care and Cautions:
2) Rangaswamy, 1952, Nag. 93: Accused fired a shot from an unlicensed gun. The court took a liberal view and held that shooting with an unlicensed gun does not debar an accused from claiming immunity under this section.
Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent and to prevent other harm Section- 81
3) Sec. 81 provides:- "Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if :
The harm intended to be avoided is to be judged in reference to following:-
a) the nature of the harm intended to be avoided.
b) the imminence of the harm sought to be avoided.
To avail the benefit of Sec. 81 the accused must plead and prove the following:
That the act causing harm was not done with an intention of causing harm (although it was known that the act was likely to cause that harm).
That he was acting in good faith while doing the act complained of.
That the act complained of was done to prevent any other harm to person or property.
That in view of the nature of the harm sought to be avoided the act complained of was justifiable or excusable.
R. V/s Dudley & Stephens, (1884): The question was whether the need for self preservation extends to causing harm to an innocent person, and that to what extent it would be justified. Held: Accordingly, the court convicted the accused persons for murdering the minor boy, R. V. Martin, (1889) - Sir James Stephen has Criticized : The decision; he suggests that when the two persons holding a plank after a ship wrecked, and one of them pushes the other off resulting into death of that person would not be an offence. At the best it can be said that he has left such person to a chance of holding some other support.
Bakhul Shah, 1866 : The accused purchased for one anna, from a child aged six years, two pieces of cloth valued at fifteen annas, which the child had taken from the house of a third person. It was held that, assuming that a charge of an offence of dishonest reception of property (section 411) could not be sustained owing to the incapacity of the child to commit an offence, the accused was guilty of criminal misappropriation, if he knew that the property belonged to the child's guardians and' dishonestly appropriated it to his own use.
Section 83
Relates to an act done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve.
Unsoundness of Mind: Persons of unsound mind are called non compos mentis.
Persons of unsound mind / non compos mentis.
Idiot - Acquired Non campos Non compos
At the Time of Doing
English Law as to Insanity: Under English law the principle laid down in Mc Naughton's, case6 where the accused, Daniel Mc Naughton's, was charged for the murder of Edward Drummond, Secretary to then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, on January 20, 1843. The accused was suffering from an insane delusion that Sir Robert Peel had injured him and that he mistook Drummond for Sir Robert. Accordingly, he shot and killed him. The accused pleaded not guilty on the ground of insanity. The defence led evidence of accused's insanity, particularly his obsession with the given morbid delusion. The jury returned a verdict of 'not guilty' on the. ground of insanity. English law now recognized social and medical insanity.
Criticism u/sec. 84 IPC
Act of a Person Suffering Intoxication - Section-85 read with Section-
Essentials u/sec. 85-
a) At the time of doing it; b) By reason of intoxication a) Is incapable of knowing the nature of his ct; or b) That what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law. c) Provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.
From the Analysis of Section-85 following Essentials are Made Out:
Presumption of particular intention of knowledge- Section – 86
Sec. 86 provides for a presumption of law.
Thus where a person does an act requiring a particular knowledge or intention to constitute an offence, such intention or knowledge is to be presumed against the accused person.
There shall be a presumption that accused did entertain the required criminal intent or criminal knowledge.
The presumption is rebutable. Accused may show that he did not entertain the required criminal intention or knowledge in as much as he was intoxicated against his will or without his knowledge.
5) Basudev v/s State of PEPSU :^7 The appellant was charged with the murder of a young boy. The two of them and others of the same village went to attend a wedding in another village. All of them went to the house of the bride to take the mid-day meal. Some had settled down in their seats and some had not. The appellant asked Maghar Singh, the young boy, to step aside a little so that he might occupy a convenient seat. But Maghar Singh did not move. The appellant whipped out a pistol and shot the boy in the abdomen. The injury proved fatal. He was charged rejecting the plea of the accused to allow him the benefit of section 86 and reduce the charge from murder to culpable homicide.
The Director Public Prosecution v. Beard :^8 In this case the accused was held guilty for his offence of murder of a girl aged thirteen whom the accused raped and placed his hand over her mouth and pressed his thumb on her throat in a bid to prevent her from screaming. In this endeavour he unintentionally killed her. The Court of Criminal Appeal found him guilty of manslaughter but the House of Lords restored the conviction for murder.