Download Law of crime i jurisdiction inchoate crimes and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!
Declaration - the author ****** of this work holding copyright over document as a whole which includes ‘arrangement’ & ‘use’ of words, fonts, sentences, ideas, thoughts, personal opinions, diagrams, images & background and not exclusively or solely on images, pictures, background, diagrams etc. used for the purpose of creation of this work.
J urisdiction “section – 1, 2, 3, 4”
Section 1 – territory upon whole India expect Jammu and Kashmir
Section 2 – intra-territorial
Section 3 – escalatory provisions
Section 4 – extra-territorial
In India
India India √
India Foreign √
Foreign India √
Foreign Foreign √
Outside India
India Foreign √
Foreign India χ
Intra-territorial Offences
Nullum Tempes Occurut Regi
No fixed period for launching of a criminal proceeding.
Execution in IPC under Section 468 (police officer has limitation of time)
Mubarak Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay
A man – businessman in Goa – scarcity of rice in goa – enters into a contract with a person in Karachi – pays money – but the rice is not delivered in Goa. The court said that it is a case of intra-territorial offence because it was mainly performed in Goa, money was paid in Goa.
Exception in case of Intra-territorial offences
⇒ Foreign Ambassadors ⇒ Foreign Sovereign ⇒ Alien Enemy ⇒ Article 361of Constitution of India – President and Governors
Within 12 nautical miles in water body, then the offence will be intra-territorial offence.
A police officer can arrest, a man who has committed any act which is an offence in India, outside India, with the permission of the Govt.
Section 4 – Admiralty Jurisdiction “Related to Indian ship seas crime committed at high seas or foreign ship in India ship. IPC is applicable”
Inchoate Crime
Inchoate crime are the incomplete crimes; where the commission does not take place.
Attempt
Inchoate crime Abetment
There are 4 stage where we talk about commission of crime
Intention – 120A, 503, 506 “verbal expression”
Preparation – 122, 126, 399 “punishable”
Attempt - # nowhere defined in IPC
Commission
27 offences: attempt + commission
Sections - [ 121; 124; 124A; 125; 130; 131; 152; 153A; 161; 162; 163; 165; 196; 198; 200; 213; 397; 398; 460; 239; 240; 241; 251; 385; 387; 389; 391]
4 offences: attempt mentioned separately
Section 307 – attempt to murder
Section 308 – attempt to culpable homicide
Section 309 – attempt to suicide
Section 398 – attempt to robbery
Section 511 – residuary attempt
Any other attempt is punishable here.
Attempt is something that leads to commission, it is always punishable
Preparation is devising/arranging, it is not always punishable.
3 important element of attempt
III. Social Alarm Test – in England not in India, given by Prof. Sayre
Common Wealth v. Kennedy
Person – has intention – to implant bomb on the railway track – has a fight with policeman – caught with bomb – life of large number at stake – he must be held liable for attempt.
Attempt is a direct movement towards commission of a crime. It is a complete offence in itself. It is an action wherein all contemplations of crime were done in that case it is a an attempt under section 511. No injury is necessary.
R v. Collins
There will have to be no injury physically or mentally then only attempt becomes an offence.* (*wrong judgement)
Under section 511: requirement
i. Punishable under IPC. ii. Any act towards the commission of an offence.
Azghar Ali Pradhania v. Emperor
Circumstances evidence + intention wherein an act done is qualified to an offence + actus-rea + intention of offence.
Facts – poor lady had an ill father and a man who lend money. The woman got married. Then abortion happened. The man gives a liquid but the abortion did not happen because of that. People came on spot. Section 312 + Section 511.
Popul Venkat Narain v. State of Tamil Nadu
Actions inherently depict your intention and attempt must be given.
Conspiracy – it is a contract between two minds when they agree to bring a consequences.
Abetment
It is intentional aiding of conspiracy or instigation. Describe under Section 107 of IPC. There is a problem in differentiating between the degree of offence of abettor and offender.
A ----- Abettor ------ Accessory
B ----- Offender ----- Principal
Illustration – A, master gives his servant some money to steal things at X’s house ----- case of Incitement.
A plans to murder B – goes to friend X and tell him the plan – X says do whatever you like. A goes and murders B. X is not liable for instigation
R v. Taylor
2 people fight – give money to X, a passer by – the winner had to get the money – X will not be held liable for instigation.
R v. Kromme
A, gives money to a servant to steal goods from his master’s place. He steals. Servant is liable for intentional aiding. A will be liable for instigation / incitement.
Silent approval
For example in case of sati pratha
Queen v. Mohit
A woman on the way to perform ritual of sati – people were accompanying her – people will be liable for instigation - no verbal expression but silent approval is present.
Intentional aiding, before, even at the time of commission, not only act but also
commission.
Mere facilitation ≠ intentional aiding
Queen v. kalicharan
A head constable – he knows extortion going to take place – still keeps away – omission of legal duty – held liable for intentional aiding.
Gopal v. Foolmani
A village chaukidar – in-front of him – A extorts money from B – chaukidar has no legal duty to stop extortion – not held liable for intentional aiding.
Emperor v. Fayaz Hosan
Zamindar rents a house to a man – knowing that he would torture somebody – clear cut case of abetment – intentional aiding.
Emperor v. Ram Lal
A is going to perform sati – X,Y,Z stopped her to perform – not legal – A says a ritual – A did not agree – A goes and X,Y,Z had no other option than accompanying her – even though they stopped her – helped to achieve object of the crime. X, Y, Z for Intentional aiding.
General Rule 1
A asks B to kill C in middle of the night. B goes and mistakenly kills X, thinking him to C
C
A B
Incitement X
Here also, A will be liable for abetment.
General rule 2
A incites B to cause grievous hurt to X, as a consequences B kills X. law takes care of probable and likely cause. A should have known that B might kill X. A is liable for abetment.
The abettor cannot go uncaught, offender is not liable ≠ abettor not liable
