Page 1 :
LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, , INDIAN PENAL CODE, NOTES

Page 2 :
2, , INDIAN PENAL CODE, (ACT NO – 45 OF 1860), General 1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 was drafted by Maccaulay with three other, Commissioners: Macleod, Anderson and Millet., 2. This Act was drafted by the first Indian Law Commission., 3. It received the assent of the Governor-General on 6-10-1860 and came, into force on 1.1.1862., 4. There was 511 sections in the original Code., 5. Sections 228-A, 376-C, 3766-D and 498-A are inserted by the Criminal, Law Amendment Act, 1983 (43 of 1983)., 6. Sections 153-AA, 174-A and 229-A are inserted by Criminal Procedure, (Amendment) Act, 2005 (25 of 2005)., 7. Section 29-A is inserted by I. T. Act, 2000 (21 of 2000)., 8. Section 195-A is inserted by Act No. 1 of 2006 (w.e.f. 16-4-2006)., Definitions of Crime, According to Russel to define crime is a task which so far has not been, satisfactory accomplished by any writer., Blackstone, in “Commentaries of the Laws of England, has defined’ a, crime as an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law, forbidding or commanding it., He also observed the crime as a violation of the public rights and duties, due to the whole community., Austin defined crime as a wrong which is pursued by the sovereign or, his subordinates., Kenny - defines crime as wrongs whose sanction is punitive and is in, no way remissible by any private person, but is remissible by Crown, alone if remissible at all., In the I.P.C. word ‘offence’ is used in the place of the word ‘crime’., According to section 40 I.P.C. “the world ‘offence’ denotes a thing made, punishable by this Code” except those sections and chapters made, applicable by this section to some special or local or any other law., Elements of Crime., , There are four elements of a crime-, , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 2

Page 3 :
3, , 1., 2., 3., 4., , A human being or a person, Evil intent (mens rea), Act or omission (actus reus), Injury to another person, (1) A human being or person.-- The first element of a crime is a human, Being or person bound by law to act in, a particular way., Section 11, I.P.C. defines ‘person’. According to section 11, the world, ‘person’ includes any company or association, or body of persons,, whether incorporated or not., In the modern jurisprudence corporations and artificial person are also, punished but the imprisonment of those is not possible. They can be, punished monetarily only., (2) Evil intent or mens rea.-- An evil intent on the part of that human, Being is essential for a crime., ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’ is a well-known maxim of, criminal law which means that the act itself does not make a man guilty, unless he intends so., (3) Act or Omission (actus reus).—Actus reus means ‘Physical event’. It, Is a physical result of a human, conduct which is sufficiently harmful and therefore punishable., According to section 32 of I.P.C. ‘act’ includes ‘illegal omissions’., (4) Injury to another person.—It is essential for a crime that there must, Be an injury to another human being or, the society at large by that act., Section 44, I.P.C> defines injury., According to section 44, the word ‘injury’ denotes any harm whatever, illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property., , Mens rea, ‘Mens rea’ is a Latin word which means an evil intent., ‘Mens rea’ is an essential element of a crime., “Mens rea” in India is not of much importance because the law is, codified and the offence are carefully defined to include mens rea in the, definition itself., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 3

Page 4 :
4, , The worlds denoting mens rea in I.P.C. are: ‘intentionally’, ‘voluntarily’,, ‘dishonestly’, ‘fraudulently’, ‘wantonly’, malignantly, ‘corruptly’,, ‘negligently’, etc. this gives a positive, force to the mens rea., Chapter IV (sections 76 – 106) of the I.P.C. wherein the provisions of, general exceptions are laid down provides for the circumstances when, the liability for the crime is negativated. This chapter thus negatively, gives force to the doctrine of mens rea., Mens rea and statutory crimes.—Important cases on mens rea., R.V. Prince (1875) LR 2 CCR 154 (16 judges). In this case Henry Prince, was prosecuted for abducting a girl below the age of 16 years under the, belief that she was abobe 18 years of age. It was pleaded that the, accused should not be held responsible as he has no mens rea. The, Court did not accept the argument and Prince was convicted. According, to Justice Bramwell, prince intended to commit an immoral act. Denman, J. held him liable because he knowingly committed civil wrong. Only, Brett. J. did not found Prince guilty., R.V. tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168. This is the case of bigamy. The accused, married in 1880 with Mr. Tolson. Tolson deserted her and before seven, years’ of desertion, believing her husband dead, accused married, another man. She came back. In appeal the Court of Queens Bench by a, majority judgment of nine to one quashed her conviction. Justice Cave, observed that honest and reasonable mistake stand, in fact, on the same, footing as an absence of reasoning faculty, as in infancy or perversion of, that faculty, as in lunacy., R.V. wheat and stokes (1921) 2 KB 119 – This is a case of bigamy. In this, case after this information that he would receive very soon some papers, of divorce for signature. Wheat misunderstood it and thinking that the, divorce was complete he married, another lady stocks. He was, prosecuted and punished for bigamy. With comparison of this case, (Wheat and stocks) to the . R.V. Tolson, there was a mistake of fact and, mens rea was applied in the Tolson’s case but in Wheat and stocks case, there was a mistake of law and therefore mens rea was not applied., Sherras v. De Rutzens (1895) 10 B 918. (Lord Wright). – in this case it, was declared as an offence to give a liquor to a policeman was not in the, proper uniform by which it could be ascertained that he was on duty., The accused was held not guilty., LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 4

Page 5 :
5, , According to Lord Wright, mens rea is inherited in every statue while it, is not proved against it., Candy v. Le Cocq (1884). – A man supplied liquor to a drunken person, which was prohibited by the statue. Stephen. J. held publican guilty., Brend v. Wood (1946) (Lord Goddard). – with this case starts the, modern approach of courts regarding mens rea., Some Indian cases on mens rea—, (1) State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George, AIR 1965 SC, (2) Nathu Lal V. State of M. P. AIR 1960 SC, (3) R.S. joshi v. Ajit Mills Ltd. (1977) 4 S.C.C. 94., Generally, the vicarious liability does not arise for the crime. The master, is not liable for criminal act of his servant unless the act is authorized by, the master., The theory of vicarious liability was prescribed in the case of R.v., Higgins (1730) 2 LD., No person is criminally liable for the act of another unless he has, authorized for assented to it. The exceptions in common law to this rule, are—, (a) Libel,, (b) Public nuisance, and, (c) Contempt of Court, Under sections 154 and 155 of I.P.C. the liability of the master is strict., In Hari Prasad Rao v. state, AIR 1951 SC, the Supreme Court has not, firmly settled the law that mens rea is an essential ingredient of offence, Motive is not essential element of crime., The maxim ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’ was developed by, common law courts., The maxim ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’ was developed by, common Law Courts., Introduction, [chapter 1, sections 1 – 5], The Indian Penal Code shall extend to the whole of India except the state, of Jammu and Kashmir [Section 1], Sections 2, 3 and 4 are about territorial operation of I.P.C., LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 5

Page 6 :
6, , The intra-territorial operation of the Code has been dealt with section 2., According to this section every person is criminally liable if he has, committed an offence within the territory of India., Some persons are given certain immunities and I.P.C. will not be, applicable i.e. foreign sovereigns, Ambassadors, alien enemies, foreign, army and warships., Under Article 361 of the Constitution of India, the President of India, and the Governors of states have also been given immunity from, criminal liability., Sections 3 and 4 are related with the extra-territorial operation of the, I.P.C., Section 4 is amended by the I.T. (Amendment) Act, 2008. It deals with, the offences which are committed abroad by the citizens and the, offences committed by the “person” whether citizens are not on any, ship or air-craft registered in India wherever it may be at the time the, offence is committed thereon., Section 188 of Cr. P.C. is in similar terms to the section – 4., Illustration.—A, who is a citizen of India, commits a murder in Uganda., He can be tried and convicted of murder in any place in Indian in which, he may be found., Section 5 provides that the provisions of I.P.C. will not affect the, provisions of any Act punishing, meeting and desertion of officers,, soldiers, sailors, airmen in service of Government of India or the, provisions of any special law or local law., ‘special law” is defined under section 41 while ‘Local Law’ is defined, under section 42 of the I.P.C., General Explanations, [chapter 2, Sections 6-52-A], Section 6 Provides that the provisions of the I.P.C. making the acts liable, for penal consequences shall be subject to exceptional circumstances, falling under the chapter of ‘General Exceptions’., Section 19 defines “judge”. The person delivering the judgment of the, Court is a judge. The person other than officially designated as judge. Is, also a ‘judge’. A member of Panchayat is a judge. A sarpanch is a judge, when he sits to decide cases., LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 6

Page 7 :
7, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , A Magistrate is a judge but a judge is not a Magistrate., Section 21 defines ‘Public Servant’. The term ‘Public Servant’ denote a, person falling under any of the twelve clauses of section 21. Definition, of ‘public servant’ under section 21 is not exhaustive. A person may be a, public servant in terms of another statute., the test for determination of public servant is to, viz.(1) whether the person is in the service or pay of the Government; and, (2) whether he is entrusted with the performance of public duty., Besides the persons included in section 21 the following persons are, held to be public servantA member of Executive Committee or servant of registered security, Members of India Air Force., Employee of a National bank., Chief Minister of a state and Ministers [M. Karunanidhi v. Union of India,, AIR 1979 SC and Dattatraya v. state of Maharashtra, AIR 1975 SC], Chairman of Film Censor Board., Khalasis of Railway carriage section., Village Kotwal., Employees of Local Bodies or Corporation or Board etc., Following persons are held not to be public servantA member of India Administrative service whose services are placed at, the proposal of co-operative societies., Assistant Civil Engineer employed by co-operative society., Examiner appointed by University., M. L. A. (R. S. Nayak v. A. R. Antulay, AIR 1984 SC), Insurance surveyor., Section 22 defines ‘movable property’. The definition is not exhaustive., It can apply to all corporeal property except property excluded from the, definition., The land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to, anything which is attached to the earth have not been included in the, movable property. However, when any part of the earth is severed from, it, it becomes movable property., Animals and birds, fish, water, cut crops, a cheque etc. are movable, property : electricity is not a movable property (Avtar singh v. state of, Punjab, AIR 1965 SC), , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 7

Page 8 :
8, , (i), (ii), , , , , , , , , , , , , Section 24 defines ‘Dishonestly’. There must be wrongful gain or, wrongful loss to anyone., Section 25 defines ‘fraudulently’; intention to defraud is the main, ingredient of a thing done fraudulently., Section 28 defines ‘counterfeit’. The main ingredients of counterfeiting, areCausing one thing to resemble the other., Taking advantage of the said resemblance, intending to practice deceit., Section 29 defines ‘Document’. According to this section ‘document’, means any matter expressed or described on any substance, paper,, stone or anything by means of letters, figures, marks, etc. and intended, to be used or which may be used, as evidence., The definition of ‘document’ under section 29 is same as under Indian, Evidence Act, 1872., Section 29-A which defines ‘electronic record’ is inserted by, information Technology Act, 2000., Section 30 defines ‘valuable security’. The word ‘valuable security, denotes a document. If a document does not affect any right, it cannot, be a valuable security., Following documents have been held to be valuable security –, Obtaining of pass-port, Assessment order of Income-tax., Import Licence ., Account Books., Rent Note, etc., Following are held not to be a valuable security –, A receipt, mere endorsement for calling a person for interview., Certificate to be used for admission., A character certificate, Account Books, Postal slip of a insured parcel etc., According to section 32 the word ‘act’ includes ‘illegal omission’., , Joint Liability, , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 8

Page 9 :
9, , (i), (ii), (iii), (iv), , When a criminal act is committed by more than one person with a, common intention or object, the liability is called, joint liability., Normally a person may be a participant in the crime in following four, waysWhen he himself commits a crime;, When he participates in the commission of a crime;, When he sets some third agency to work with a view to commit a crime;, When he helps the offender in screening him from justice after the, commission of a crime., Sections 34 to 38 and 149 of the I.P.C. deals with such situations of, joint liability (other sections are : 114, 396, 460)., Section 34 which is based on the facts of R.v. Crush, lays down the, principle of joint criminal liability, it does not create a distinct offence., According to section 34 –, ‘When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of, common intention of all, each of such person is liable for that act in the, same manner as if it were done by him alone’., , 1., 2., 3., , Section 34 has following essentials –, A criminal act, By several persons (more than one), In the furtherance of a common intention of all., The expression “in the furtherance of the common intention” was added, by Amendment Act, 1870 in section 34., In the case of Mahboob Shah v. Emperor, AIR 1945 P.C., the privy, Council has held that common means a pre-arranged plan or prior, concert., Mahboob shah case is also known as ‘Indus River Case”., In Krishna Govind v. state of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC. It was observed, by the Supreme Court (Subharao, J) that it is well settled law that, common intention within the meaning of the section 34 implies a prearranged plan and the criminal act was done pursuant to the prearranged plan. The said plan may also develop on the spot during the, course of the commission of the offence. (also in Rishidev v. state of U.P., AIR 1955 SC), , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 9

Page 10 :
10, , Section 34 provides a rule of evidence and does not create any offence, [state of M.P. v. Deshraj, 2004 Cr. LJ (SC)]., For the application of section 34 the accused must take part in the crime, but it is not necessary that the accused should be present at the vary, spot where the crime is committed., In Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. king Emperor case, which is also known as, ‘Shankari Tola Post Office case” it was held that, even if the appellant did, nothing as to stood outside the door, it is to be remembered that in, crimes as in other things they also serve who only stand and wait., In shree Kantia v. state of Bombay Supreme court, held that physical, presence and active participation in crime is necessary. But in J. M. Desai, v. state of Bombay Supreme Court observed that the physical presence, and active participation is not necessary in all cases. In offence involving, violence, physical presence of the offender at the scene of offence, the, offender sought to be rendered liable on the principle of joint liability,, may be necessary but such is not the case in respect of other offences, where the offence consists of divert acts which may be done at different, time and places, Kishore Eknath Nikam v. state of Maharashtra,. AIR, 2007 SC and Girind singh Yadav and others v. state of U.P. AIR 2008 SC, are also important in this regard., Common intention and same or similar intention – In Mahboob singh, case it was held that the common intention required in section 34 is, different from the ‘same intention’ or similar intention., In Pandurang v. state of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC the Supreme Court, (Bose J). observed that in the case of section 34 it is well established, that a common intention presupposes prior concert. It requires a prearranged plan because before a man can be vicariously convicted for a, criminal act of another, the act must have been done in furtherance of, common intention of them. Several persons can simultaneously attack a, man and each can have the same intention, namely, the intention to kill,, and each can individually inflict a separate fatal blow and yet none, would have the common intention required by the specific section, because there was no prior meeting of minds to form a pre-arranged, plan., Sewa Ram and another v. state of U.P. 2008 Cr. L. J. (SC) is also, important. Justice Dr. Arijit Pasayat observed that, section 34 has been, enacted on principle of joint liability in doing of a criminal act. The, LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 10

Page 11 :
11, , section is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive, offence., When two persons are convicted and one of them is acquitted on the, basis of doubt then the other person cannot be punished., , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Important cases on Section 34., Barendra kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, Mahboob shah v. king Emperor, Krishna Govind Patil v. state of Maharshtra, Rishidev Pande v. state of U.P., State of M.P. v. Deshraj, Shree Kantia v. state of Bombay, J. M. Desai v. state of Bombay, Kishore Eknath Nikam v. state of Maharashtra, Giring singh Yadav and others v. state of U.P., Pandurang v. state of Hyderabad, Seva Ram and other v. state of U.P., U.M. Dauna v. state of Bombay, Nanak Chandra v. state of Punjab (distinction between sections 34 and, 149), Section 35 supplements the principles of section 34. Under section 35 if, several persons do an act jointly but with different intention or, knowledge and not beyond that., Section 36 is a corollary to section 32 which provides that the words, referring to acts include illegal omissions also. This section makes it, clear that an offence can be committed partly by an act and partly by an, illegal omission., Illustration.- A intentionally causes Z’s death partly by illegally, omitting to give Z food, and partly by beating Z. A has committed, murder., Section 37 supplements sections 34 and 35. According to this section,, when, several acts are done so as to result together in the commission of, an offence (which may not be the same as an intention to all) makes the, actor liable., Illustrations, , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 11

Page 12 :
12, , (a), , (b), , (c), , A and B agree to murder Z by severally and at different times giving him, small doses of poison. A and B administer the poison according to the, agreement with intent to murder Z. Z dies from the effects of the several, doses of poison so administered to him. Here A and B intentionally cooperate in the commission of murder and as each of them does an act by, which the death is caused, they are both guilty of the offence though, their acts are separate., A and B are joint jailors, and as such, have the charge of Z, a prisoner,, alternatively for six hours at a time. A and B, intending to cause Z’s, death, knowingly co-operate in causing that affect by illegally omitting,, each during the time of his attendance, to furnish Z with food supplied, to them for that purpose. Z dies of hunger. Both A and B are guilty of the, murder of Z., A, a jailor, has the charge of Z, a prisoner. A, intending to cause Z’s death,, illegally omits to supply Z with food; in consequence of which Z is much, reduced in strength, but the starvation is not sufficient to cause his, death. A is dismissed from his office, and B succeeds him. B, without, collusion or co-operation with A, illegally omits to supply Z with food,, knowing that he is likely thereby to cause Z’s death, Z dies of hunger. B, is guilty of murder, but, as A did not co-operate with B.A is guilty only of, an attempt to commit murder., Section 38, unlike section 34 makes the liability of the offenders, according to their own acts when a crime has been committed this, section provides for different punishment for different offences,, whether such persons are actuated by one intention or the other,, Illustration – A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave, provocation that the killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not, amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill, him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing, Z. hero though A and B are both engaged in causing Z’s death, B is guilty, of murder, and A is guilty only for culpable homicide., Section 149 incorporates the principle of constructive liability on the, basis of the common object of an unlawful assembly regarding the, commission of an offence or the knowledge of the member of an, unlawful assembly of likelihood of the commission of an offence., Section 149 has the following ingredients –, , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 12

Page 13 :
13, , (1), (2), , An offence should be committed by any member of an unlawful, assembly (as defined in section 141)., The offence should be committed in prosecution of the common object, of that assembly or such as the members knew to be likely to be, committed in prosecution of the common object., In state of Punjab v. Sanjiv Kumar and others, 2007 Cr LJ (SC), the, Supreme Court interpreted the expression in prosecution of the, common object., The object should be common to the persons who compose the, assembly, that is to say they should be aware of it and concur in it., Section 34 (common intention) is distinguished to section 149, (common object) in many cases by the Supreme Court, i.e.-, , , , , 1., 2., 3., , 4., 5., , Nanak Chand v. state of Punjab, AIR 1955 SC, Om Prakash v. state of U.P. AIR 1956 All (High Court), State of Punjab v. Sanjiv kumar and others, 2007 Cr. LJ 3519 (SC)., Distinctions between sections 34 and 149 –, Section 34 is applicable when an offence is committed in furtherance of, common intention, whereas section 149 applies when an offence is, committed in prosecution of the common object., Section 34 does not necessitate the existence of an unlawful assembly,, while in section 149 there must be an unlawful assembly., Section 34 pre-supposes the existence of at least two persons even, though it is not necessary that at least two should always be convicted,, whereas under section 149 there must exist at least five persons even, though it is not necessary that a minimum of five persons must always, be convicted., Meeting of minds and consequently a pre-arranged plan or a prior, concert is always a requirement under section 34, but that is not, necessary under section 149., Active participation of all must be proved under section 34, but liability, under section 149 arises by virtue of being a member of an unlawful, assembly., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 13

Page 14 :
14, , 6., , Section 34 is merely a principle of joint liability, but section 149 besides, being a principle of joint liability also creates a specific offence even, though generally the punishment must depend on the offence of which, the offender is by that section made guilty., Punishment, [Chapter 3, section 53 – 75], , Theories of Punishment. – To punish crimes is a recognized function of, all civilized states for centuries. But in the, present concepts, regarding both the need and mode of punishment have been, profoundly modified. There are following well known theories of punishment., (1) Deterrent Theory,, (2) Preventive Theory,, (3) Retributive Theory, (4) Reformative Theory, (5) Expiatory Theory,, 1., , Theories of Punishment. – According to this theory, the object of the, Punishment is to deter the offender from, repeating the same course of conduct so that the person and property of, others or the society at large may not be harmed. By getting punishment the, offender is afraid of with the pains of punishment. This not only deters the, actual offenders but the others also from adopting the same course of conduct., 2., , Preventive Theory. – The object of punishment is to prevent the, Offences. The offences can be prevented when, the offender and his notorious activities are checked, which is possible by the, disablement. By providing imprisonment, the offender is disabled for a, limited period from committing the offence. The death penalty is also based, on this theory. Suspension or cancellation of a licence is a punishment under, this theory., Deterrent theory and preventive theory both are the two aspects of the, same things. One is to deter the offender and the other is to prevent the, commission of the offence., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 14

Page 15 :
15, , 3., , Retributive Theory. – According to this theory, the object of the, Punishment is to satisfy the feeling of vengeance, in the victim. Tooth for tooth, eye for eye and nail for nail is the dominating, principle of the theory., 4., , Reformative Theory. – The theory says that the object of punishment, Should be reformatory. The offender should be, reformed. The prison should be converted into reformatory schools. The, motive behind the offences, and the other backgrounds of the offenders, should be clearly examined and there should be made a ways so that the, offender’s mental environment may be changed. In Rajendra Prasad v. state of, U.P, AIR 1979 SC Justice Krishna Iyer observed, It is illegal to award capital, sentence without considering the correctional possibilities inside prison., Anger, even judicial anger, solves no problems but creates many., 5., , Expiatory Theory. – This theory holds that the punishment whips away, The sin and the offender become innocent. In, Hindu law expiation and penance means that the sin is washed away. These, days this theory has become close to Retributive. Theory Salmond on, Jurisprudence says that, on this view, crime is done away with, cancelled,, blotted out or expiated by the sufferings of its appointed penalty. To suffer, punishment is a debt due to the law that has been violated. Guilt plus, punishment is equal to innocence., It we study the underlying principles of all the basis theories of the, punishment, we come to know that none of the theories is complete in itself., Each and every theory is interlinked with the other. If there is the idea of, retribution, the victim or his relative will not take revenge by his own hands, and thus a large number of persons can be prevented from become offender., , 1., 2., 3., 4., , ‘Punishments’ (Section 53). – section 53 prescribed the following, Kinds of punishment., Death, Imprisonment for life,, Imprisonment which is of two kinds –, (i) Rigorous, that which is with hard labour, (ii) Simple, Forfeiture of property, , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 15

Page 16 :
16, , 5., , (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6), (7), (8), (9), , Fine., There was another type of punishment given in section 53, “transportation” which has been omitted., The death penalty may be awarded in the following offences., Waging war against the Government of India (Section 121), Abetting mutine and it actually being committed (Section 132), Giving or fabricating false evidence upon which an innocent person, suffers death (Section 194)., Murder (Section 302), Murder by life convict (303) (The offender must be punished with, death), Abetment of suicide of a minor (Below 18 years), insane delirious, idiot, or an intoxicated person, who commits suicide (Section 305), Attempt to murder by a person under a sentence of imprisonment for, life if hurt is caused in such attempt (Section 307), Kidnapping for ransom (Section 364-A), Dacoity accompanied with murder (Section 396), According to section 354 (3) of Cr. P.C., 1973, in murder imprisonment, for life is a general rule and death penalty is an exception., Section 354 of Cr. P.C., 1973 provides that the Court has to give the, special reasons in awarding the death penalty., In Bachan singh v. state of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC, the Supreme Court, ruled that death sentence should not be passed except in ‘rarest of the, rare cases’., In Mithu v. state of Punjab, 1983 Cr. L.J. (SC), the Supreme Court, declared that section 303 is unconstitutional and voilative of Article 21, and also of Article 21 and also of Article 14 as there is no 303 is, unconstitutional and voilative of Article 21 and also of Article 14 as, there is no reasonable classification between an offence of murder, committed by a life-convict and others., Forfeiture of property as a punishment is prescribed under sections, 126.127 and 169 of I. P. C., In Attorney-General of India v. Lachma Devi and others, 1986 Cr. L.J., (S.C) the Supreme Court held that execution of death sentence by public, , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 16

Page 17 :
17, , hanging would be a clear barbaric practice voilative of Article 21 of the, Constitution., In Sher Singh v. state of Punjab, 1983 Cr. L.J (SC) was called upon to, decide whether a delay in execution of death sentence for over than two, years was sufficient for quashing the death sentence. The Supreme, Court overruled T.V. Vatheeswaran v. state of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1983 SC,, and held that the delay by itself would not entitle the convict to demand, quashing the death sentence and substitute it with life imprisonment ., Imprisonment for Life. – The words ‘imprisonment for life’ were, Substituted for ‘transportation for life’ by Act, 26 of 1955., Life imprisonment means imprisonment for life unless it is commuted, by the competent authority (K.U. Chako v. state of Kerala, 2004 Cr. L.J., 481 (Kerala)., In Gopal Vinayak Godse v. state, AIR 1961 it was observed by the, Supreme Court that life imprisonment means an imprisonment that, continues till the life of the convict and is nothing less., The Supreme Court has reiterated that imprisonment for life means, rigorous imprisonment for life. (Md. Munna v. Union of India and others,, 2005 Cr. L.J. (SC)., Imprisonment. – there are two kinds of imprisonment under section, 53. rigorous, that is, hard labour, and simple., Offence under sections 194 and 449 of the Code are punishable with, rigorous imprisonment only., There are a few sections like 304-B, 376, 397, 398 wherein a minimum, mandatory imprisonment have been provided., The minimum duration of imprisonment provided for an offence under, the code is imprisonment for twenty for hours under section 510 of the, code, However, sentences of imprisonment till rising of the court have, been imposed in very exceptional cases., Section 54 empowers the appropriate Government to commute, sentence of death and section 55 empowers the same authority to, commute sentence of imprisonment for life which may be commuted to, imprisonment of either description not exceeding fourteen years. A, similar provision exists in section 433 of the Cr. P.C., LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 17

Page 18 :
18, , According to section 57 in calculating fractions of terms of punishment,, imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment, for twenty years., As is clear from the language of his section, this section comes into play, only when fractions of terms of punishment are to be calculated. For, instance under sections 110, 119, 120 and section 511 of the code., According to section 65 the limit to imprisonment for non-payment of, fine shall not exceed one-fourth of the term of imprisonment which is, the maximum fixed term for the offence., Solitary Confinement. – According to section 73 solitary confinement, Is permissible only when an offender has, committed such an offence under the Code which is punishable with, rigorous imprisonment. This period of solitary confinement must follow, the scale provided in this section, that is –, One month – imprisonment is six months., Two months – imprisonment is six months to one year., Three months – imprisonment is more than one year., Section 74 prescribes the limit of solitary confinement. The solitary, confinement should be imposed only in intervals. Such confinement, shall never be for more than fourteen days at a stretch. In case of, imprisonment of more than three months solitary confinement shall not, be for more than seven days in any month of the total imprisonment, awarded., General Exceptions, [Chapter 4, sections 76, 105], General. – If a person commits an act in self defence. Without any guilty, Intention, it is excusable. In I.P.C. General Exceptions have, been dealt with by sections 76-106 under Chapter IV “General, Exceptions” on the ground of which the liability in crime is negativated., This chapter applies to the offences not only defined by I. P. C. but also, the offences defined by any local or special law. This becomes clear by, section 40, I. P. C. ], This chapter is based on the principle of actus non facit reum nisi mens, sit rea., LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 18

Page 19 :
19, , The chapter of General Exceptions helps the Court in performing its, healthy tradition of determining the guilt of the accused without any, reservation., According to section 105, Indian Evidence Act, if an accused person, claims the benefit of exceptions, the burden of proving his plea that his, case falls under the general exception lies upon the accused. The section, is an important qualification of the general rule that in criminal trial, the, burden of proving everything essential to establishment of the charge., Against the accused lies upon the prosecution., The Supreme Court in K.M. Nanawati v. state of Maharashtra, has, observed that if. An accused pleads an exception of the I.P.C. there is a, presumption against him and the burden to rebut that presumption is, on him., The theories prescribed in chapter IV are actually the theories of, evidence which are related to conclusive and rebuttable presumptions., Huda says these theories are conditions of non-importability. And keny, says ‘conditions of immunity from criminal liability’., Chapter 4 provides two categories of exceptions –, 1. Excusable (Section 76-95), 2. Justifiable (Section 96-105)., For the sake of clarity and convenience these general exceptions may be, classified in the following table –, , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 19

Page 20 :
20, , GENERAL EXCEPTIONS, Where there is an absence of, Criminal intent or knowledge, , Privilege act, , Act of, Judge, (section, 77), , Absence of will, Will, , Act done, Infancy, pursuant to, (sections, judgment or, 83-83), order of, Court, (Section 78), , where there is criminal, intent or knowledge, (act causing slight harm, Faling under triviality), (section 95), will not, directed, To deed, , Insanity, (Section, 84), , will overborne, Act done by, by necessity, consent, (section 81) or, (section, Compelled by, 87-91), Threats (section 94), , Acts done in, exercise of, right of private, defence (section, 96-106), , Intoxication Mistake Accident Act done, (Sections, of Act, in doing or commun85-86), (sections a lawful ication made, 76 & 79) Act, in good faith, (Section, (sections, 80), 92-93), , Mistake of fact, (Sections 76 & 79), Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself, bound by law [section 76]. – Nothing is an offence which is done by, 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., (a), (b), , Illustrations, A, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in, conformity with the commands of the law, a has committed no offence., A, an officer of a Court of justice, being ordered by that Court to arrest Y, and after due enquiry, believing Z to be. Y, arrests Z. A has committed no, offfence., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 20

Page 21 :
21, , 1., 2., 3., 4., , Ingredients –, The person must be bound by law., A mistake of fact and not a mistake of law., In good faith., Believes himself to be bound by law., Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified by law [Section 79]. – nothing is an offence which is, Done by any person who is, justified by law, 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 justified by law,, in doing it., Illustration . – A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A in, Exercise, to the best of his judgment, exerted in good, faith, of the power which the law gives to all persons of apprehending, murderers in the act, seizes Z, in order to bring Z before the proper, authorities. A has committed no offence, it may turn out that Z was, acting in self-defense., Sections 76 and 79 is based on the well known maxim ‘ignorantia facit, excusal : ignorantia juris non excusal’., The mistake of fat is excusable under sections 76 and 79. The mistake, should be in good faith., Under section 76, the person doing the act believes himself to be bound, by the law to do the same. Under section 79 the person doing the act, believes himself to be justified by the law to do the same. Section 76 is, based on legal compulsion but section 79 is based on legal justification., Mistake of law is not excusable under the both sections. For an Indian, law to operate it is not necessary that the same. Must be published or be, made known outside India. It applies to a foreigner also., Mistake of law does not save one from liability but it may be relevant for, determining the sentence to be imposed [M.H. George v. state, AIR 1965, SC]., R. v. Prince (1875) LR 2 CCR 154, in this case the accused was charged, with the offence of kidnapping a minor girl. He pleaded mistake of fact, as he believed that the girl was not a minor. The defence was rejected, , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 21

Page 22 :
22, , (1), (2), (3), (4), , because kidnapping was a wrong in itself and, therefore, made a crime., In such cases there could not be a good faith., In R. v. Tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168 the accused was charged with the, offence of bigamy having married a second time within a period of, seven years after she had been deserted by her first husband. The Court, allowed the defence of mistake of fact as it was satisfied that at the time, of his second marriage she in god faith believed her first husband to be, dead., The appellant under the influence of delusion, due to defect in vision,, assailed, his son with an axe considering that his son was a tiger, a, dangerous animal, and not a human being and that he was justified in, doing so. It was held that the accused was protected under section 79, (Chiranji v,. state, AIR 1951 Nag)., An order issued by the superior officer which is unjustified and unlawful, need not to obey it., Under section 77 the act of a ‘Judge’. Is protected from criminal, liability. The immunity has been extended to a judge where he not only, act irregularly but also where he exceeds his powers and jurisdiction in, good faith., Section 78 is a natural corollary to section 77 of the code. It protects, those who execute a judgment or order of the court of justice., Section 80 says that if anything is done by accident or misfortune it, would not be an offence. To claim the benefit of this section it has to be, shown, that –, The act done by accident or misfortune, The act done without any criminal intention or knowledge, The act done in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner and by, lawful means, The act done with proper care and caution, , Illustration. – a is at work with a hatchet ; the head fillies off and kills a man, Who is standing by. Here if, these was no want of proper, caution on the part of A, his act is excusable and not an offence., In Jogeshwar v. Emperor, 1923 Cr. LJ 789, the accused was fighting with, a man. The wife of the latter carrying a baby intervened. He aimed a, blow at the woman but it hit the baby who was killed. It was held that, , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 22

Page 23 :
23, , the accused would not be protected by section 80 as he was not doing a, lawful act., If A work with a hatchet at a place where children are playing and the, head fillies off and kills a child A cannot plea the defence of section 80, because his work is not done with proper care and caution., In Tunda v. Rex, AIR 1950 all. There were two friends, fond of wrestling., In a wrestling between them, one of them was throne away and struck, to the stone causing his death. It was held a case of accident., In state v. Rangaswami, AIR 1952 Raj. The accused fires at an object, believing it be a hyena. The visibility was not clear. However, the object, was a man who was grazing cattle or cutting grass. It was held that the, amount of care and circumspection taken by the respondent were, adequate to be taken by a prudent and rationale man., In R. v. Swindall and Orborue two car drivers after getting drunk began, race with each other and drove over an old man. Both were charged, with contributing to death of deceased by their negligence and, improper conduct., In R. v. Walker, (1824) C & P 320, it was held that the driver of a cart, with a pair of horses without reins was responsible for manslaughter, because it was his duty to drive the cart in such a way as to prevent any, accident or injury and the intoxicated condition of victim would not in, any way mitigate the responsibility of the accused., Section 81 deals with the defence of necessity. The person claiming this, defence must prove that he did not possess any criminal intention to, cause harm and that his purpose in good faith was to prevent or avoid, other harm to person or property., It is not necessary for the accused to prove that he caused smaller harm, to prevent or avoid greater harm., Illustration. – a, in a great fire, pulls down houses in order to prevent, The conflagration from spreading. He does this with the, intention in good faith of saving human life or property. Here if it be, found that the harm to be prevented was of such a nature and so, imminent as to excuse A’s act, A is not guilty of the offence., The Supreme Court has opined in Veeda Menezes v. Yusuf Khan, AIR, 1966 SC 1773, that the word harm used in this sections 87-89, 91-93,, 95, 100, 104 and 106 can only mean physical harm., LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 23

Page 24 :
24, , In R. v. Dudlley and stephens (1884) 14 QBD 273, the case is famous as, Mignette case, Dudly, Stephen, Brooks and a boy Parker of 18 years of, age were lost in a sea-storm. They had no supply of food and water,, when their death was almost imminent of starvation Dudly killed the, boy with consent of Stephen and continued to eat his flesh when they, were rescued. Both accused were held guilty of murder. It was held that, upon the facts there was no proof of any such necessity as could justify, the killing of the boy. [Lord Coleridge], In Bishambhar v. Roomal, AIR 1951 Alld, the complainant had molested, a girl of Chamar community. Two hundred members of that community, in an assembly decided to punish the complainant. The Panchayat, ordered that he should be taken around the village with a blackend face, and he should be also be given shoe-beating , it was held that the, intervention of Panchayat was in good faith for the protection fo the, complainant and for saving from the serious consequences of indecent, behavior. The accused, member of Panchayat, was protected under, setion 81 as well as 87 because the accused had given consent., In Dhonia Dadji (1868) 5 BHC Cr. LJ 50, a person placed poison in his, Toddy pot knowingly that it might cause injury to the person drinking it, but he did it in order to detect a person who used to steal toddy from his, pot. It was held that he was not protected under section 81., If the accused while committing the act was not capable of knowing the, nature of the act due to the non-mentality he should not be held guilty, because he did it without any criminal intention. Such non-mentality, may be due to following reasons(1) Infancy (Section 82, 83), (2) Insanity (Section 84), (3) Intoxication (Section 85, 86), Section 82 confers immunity to the child below seven years of age. No, act done by a child under 7 years of age is an offence because he is doli, incapax (incapable of criminal intention or malice)., Section 83 confers immunity to the child above 7 years of age but, before 12 years of age if he has not attained sufficient degree of, maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his, conduct., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 24

Page 25 :
25, , Section 82 and 83 both make no provision for a child who is exactly, seven year’s of age. According to Sri H.S. Gaur such an infant should be, dealt with under section 82 rather than under section 83., In Ulla Mahapatra’s case (AIR 1950 Cal 293), a boy between eleven and, twelve years age ran towards the deceased with a threatening gesture, and saying he would cut him to bits which he did. The court held him, guilty., Act of a person of unsound mind (Section 84), Section 84 deals with act of a person of sound mind. Under section, 84, a person is exempted from criminal responsibility, if at the time of, doing the act –, (1) He was of unsound mind., (2) He was incapable of knowing either, (i) The nature of the act, or, (ii) That what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to, law., The test of “wild beasts” was evolved to distinguish same from insane., In the case of R. v. Arnold (1724) 16 St, Tr. 65. Tracy J. observed that if, one was under the visitation of God, and could not distinguish between, good and evil, and did not know that what he did, though he committed, the greatest offence, yet he could not be guilty of any offence against any, law whatsoever., In Hadfield (1800) 27 St. Tr. 128, case ‘the insane delusion test’ was, evolved., In Bouler (1812) case the test of distinguishing between just and unjust, was evolved., In M’ Naughten (1843) case the law of insanity was discussed, comprehensively by the House of Lords (Tindal C.J) which still holds a, good authority. The case was defended by Cockburn (Who later on, became Chief justice)., The Indian law of insanity is based on the opinion of M’ Naughten case., Medical insanity and legal insanity (unsoundness of mind) are different, from each other. The former is dependent solely on medical grounds, while the latter depends on the factor as to be proved in a Court of law, to enable the accused to be acquitted of charge., LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 25

Page 26 :
26, , The disease of somnambulism or sleep walking, when proved, may, ground protection to the accused under section 84., The case of S. Tuba Chetia v. state of Assam, 1976 Cr. LJ 1416 is on legal, insanity., Irresistible impulse is not a form of insanity., Other important cases of section 84 –,  R. v. Sullivan (1983) 3 WLR 123,  R. v. Bailey (1983) 1 WLR 760,  Sudhir Ch. Biswas v. the state, 1987 Cr. L.J. (Cal).,  Dayabhai Chhagganbhai Thakkar v. state of Gujarat, AIR 1984 SC, 1563., Act of an intoxicated person (Section 85 & 86), Section 85 and 86 deal with the act of an intoxicated person. Section, 85 provides the same protection to an intoxicated person as section 84, affords to a person of unsound mind. Section 85 provides defence to a, person who is intoxicated involuntary., There are following ingredients of section 85 –, (1) The act the accused must be under the state of intoxication at the, time of doing an act., (2) That the thing, by which the accused was intoxicated, was given to, him without his knowledge or against his will., (3) That due to intoxication the accused was –, (i) Incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or, (ii) Incapable of knowing that what he was doing was either, wrong or contrary to law., Under section 86, a person who is voluntarily intoxicated or drunken is, presumed have the same knowledge as an un-intoxicated person, such, person is deemed as having the knowledge but not intention. He may be, held guilty in cases of the offences requiring the knowledge as one of its, essentials. But he may not be liable, if there is a lack of intention., in D. P. P. v. Beard (1920) AC 479, the accused, a watchman, caught a girl, and ravished her. She struggled to escape but died due to suffocation., The evidence was given that the accused was in a drunken state while, LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 26

Page 27 :
27, , raping the girl. In a appeal to the House of Lords the accused was held, guilty of murder (Lord Birkenhood)., The case of D. P. P. v. Beard was approved by the Supreme Court of India, in Basudeo v. state of Pepsu, AIR 1956 S.C. 488 in this case the accused, was retired Military Jamadar. He went to a wedding party with a boy. At, the time of mid-day meal, he asked the boy to step aside so that he, might get a comfortable seat but the boy resisted. Being enraged by it,, he killed the boy by firing a pistol-shot. In defence, drunkenness was, pleaded. The Supreme Court held that the offence was not mitigated, from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder., , , , , , , Other important cases on sections 85 and 86 –, R. v. Meade (1909) 1 K. B. 895., Reminger v. Fogossa (1851) K. B. 75., R. v. Lipman (1970) 1 Q. B. 152., A. G. for Northern Ireland v. Galladhar (1963) AC 349., Bablu alias Mubarik Hussain v. State of Rajasthan , AIR 1956 S. C. 488., Consent, (sections 87, 88 and 89, 90, 91 and 92), , (i), , Sections 87, 88, 89 of the I. P. C. deal with the law of consent. –, Consent does, not justify causing of death or grievous hurt, as far as death is concerned. The, prohibition in some cases consent has the effect or reducing the gravity of the, offence., Consent 87, is based on the principle ‘volenti non fit inuria’ which means he, who consents suffers no injury. The ingredients of section 87 are following –, The act should not be intended to cause death or grievous hurt ,, (ii) Which is not known by the doer to be likely to cause death or grievous, hurt,, (iii) The harm, is caused to a person with his express or implied consent,, (iv) The person who give consent is above 18 years of age., (v) The act should be in good faith., Illustration. - A and Z agree to fence with each other for amusement., LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 27

Page 28 :
28, , Agreement implies the consent of each to suffer any, harm which, in the course of such fencing may be caused without foul, play; and if A while playing fairly, hurts Z, A commits no offence., In Sukaroo Kaviraj (1887) 14 Cal 466, Kaviraj, the accused, performed, an operation on a person for internal piles by cutting them out with an, ordinary knife. The patient died of profuse bleeding. It was held that he, was not protected under section 87 as he had not acted in good faith., In Poonai Fattemah v. Emperor (1869) 12 W. R. (Cr) 7, the accused, who, professed to be a snake-charmer, inducted the deceased to believe that, he had the power to protect him from any harm caused by snake bite., Section 88 has the following ingredients –, The act is done without the intention of causing death though it may, amount to an offence by reason of any harm., The act is done with the consent of implied, The act is done in good faith for benefit, Mere pecuniary benefit is not benefit within the meaning of sections, 88,89 and 92, Illustration___A a surgeon ,knowing that a particular operation is likely, to cause the death of Z who suffers under a painful complaint but not, intending to cause Z with Z,s consent A has committed no. offence, Section 89 offers protection to guardians as well as to other persons, acting with the consent (expressed or implied) of a person under 12, years of age or of unsound mind., A school teacher is protected under section 89 to beat a student to, maintain the school discipline., Section 90 provides that it should be proved in order to mitigate the, liability that the victim have consented to suffer wrong or injury freely, The consent should not be given by,(1) A man under fear of injury or under misconception of fact ., (2) A child under twelve years of age., (3) By an insane who is unable to understand the nature and consequences, to which he has given his consent., When the accused makes a representation to marry the victim to elicit, the assent of the victim for sexual intercourse without any intention or, inclination to the accused to exculpate him from the ambit of section, LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 28

Page 29 :
29, , 375 clause 2. (pradeep kumar verma v. state of bihar 2007 Cr.L.j 4333, (SC) ., A man could not pass repeatedly annual examination of Class X He and, his wife due to disgust entered into a pact that the husband should kill, his wife first and then himself He killed wife but could not kill himself, since the consent of wife was not under fear of injury or misconception, of fact he was guilty under section 304 d, When a man engaged a party of eunuchs to get himself emasculated the, man was emasculated by cutting his private parts without proper, precaution so the man died it was held that the accused was guilty for, culpable homicide not amounting murder on the ground that they had, acted with free consent of the discussed (Babulan Hijra ,6 WR7), Where the accused a music teacher had sexual intercourse with a girl, pupil under the guise of improving her voice he was held guilty rape as, the consent obtained from her was under a misconception of fact that, he was trying to improve her voice (R Williams (1923) 1KB 340), On the similar reason accused was held guilty of rape when a 19 years, old girl, consulted the accused, a medical doctor, with regard to certain, decease for which the doctor advised operation. She gave her consent, for the operation under the guise of which he had sexual intercourse, intercourse with her. [R. v. Flattery (1877) 2 QBD 410]., According to section 91 if an act is offence without taking into, consideration any harm which it may cause, or may be intended to, cause or known to be likely cause, the exception mentioned in sections, 87, 88 and 89 are not available. One such act has been mentioned in the, illustration of his section., Other acts where exception under sections 87, 88 and 89 of the Code do, not extend may be offences affecting the public health, safety,, convenience, decency, morals and the like. Thus, obscene publications, or indecent exhibition even if done with the consent of the concerned, person will entail criminal prosecution. Under section 92 when any act, is done, in good faith for the benefit of a person without his consent or, consent of his done, in good faith for the benefit of a person without his, consent or consent of his guardian etc. because such consent is not, possible, it will not constitute an offence only because it may cause, some physical harm to the person for whose benefit the work is done., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 29

Page 30 :
30, , The benefit of section 92 would not be available to the following acts :, (provisos of section 92), (1) Intentionally causing death,, (2) The doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely, to cause death if the work is not done for preventing death or, grievous hurt or for causing any grievous decease or infirmity,, (3) Voluntarily causing hurt if it is not done for preventing death,, (4) The abetment of any offence to the commission of which the, exception of this section would not apply., The first, second and fourth provisos under this section and section 89, are identical but there is a slight difference between the third provisos, where under section 89 mention about grievous hurt., Section 92 covers the cases of operation and other treatments of, surgeons., (a), , (b), , (c), , (d), , Illustrations, Z is thrown from his horse and is insensible, A, a surgeon, finds that Z, requires to be trepanned. A not intending Z’s death, but in good faith, for, Z’s benefit, performs the trepan before Z recovers his power of judging, for himself. A has committed no offence., Z is carried off by a tiger. A fires at the tiger knowing it to be likely that, the shot may kill Z, but not intending to kill Z, and in good faith, intending Z’s benefit. A’s bullet gives Z a mortal wound. A has, committed no offence., A, a surgeon, sees a child suffer an accident which is likely to prove fatal, unless an operation be immediately performed. There is no time to, apply to the child’s guardian. A performs the operation in spite of the, entreaties of the child, intending, in good faith, the child’s benefit. A has, committed no offence., A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a, blanket. A drops the child from the housetop, knowing it to be likely that, the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child, and, intending in good faith the child’s benefit. Here, even if the child is, killed, by the fall. A has committed no offence., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 30

Page 31 :
31, , Section 93 gives protection to a person who makes a communication to, another person in good faith for the benefit of that other person even if, the same may cause harm to that other person., The defence provided under section 94 is also known as the defence of, compulsion, or of duress, or of coercion., This defence is not available where a murder or an offence against the, state punishable with death is committed., According to section 94 when something is done by a person who is, compelled to do it by threats, which, at the time of doing it, cause a, reasonable apprehension in the mind of the doers that if he does not do, it instant death to him may result, his act does not amount to an offence., Explanation -1 of the section makes it clear that a person who, voluntarily joins a gang of dacoits simply in the fear of being beaten,, shall not be excusable. However, a man under Explanation 2 is, excusable who is seized by a gang of dacoits to the something at the, instance of threat of instant death., Section 95 is intended to prevent penalization of negligible wrongs or, of offence of trivial character. This section is based on the common law, maxim diminis non curate lex, which means that the law does not care, about trifles., Right of Private Defence, [section 96 – 106], Private defene is the defence offered by accused when he reasonable, apprehends that danger to his person or property is imminent., Section 96 to 106 codify the entire law relating to right of private, defence of person and property including the extent of and limitation to, exercise of such right., The right of private defence is a very valuable right serving a social, purpose and should not be construed narrowly [Krishna and others v., state of U. P. 2007 (SC)., The right of private defence is essentially a defensive right, circumscribed by the governing statute, available only when the, circumstances clearly justify it. It should not be allowed to be pleaded as, a pretext for a vindictive, aggressive or retributive purpose of offence., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 31

Page 32 :
32, , Section 96 merely gives a recognition to the fact that whenever, something is done in the exercise of one’s right of private defence, it, would not amount to an offence., Section 97 specifically provides that every person has a right to defend, the person and property of his own and that of any other person. The, first part states that every person has a right to defend his own body of, any other person against any offence affecting the human body., The second part of section 97 states that every person has a right to, defend the property, both movable or immovable, of any person, including his own, against any act which is an offences falling under the, definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass or which is an, attempt of any of these., Section 98 lays down the principle that the right of private defence is, also available against such other persns who may not be liable for their, acts in view of the fact that certain specific denfeces have been provided, to them by the I. P. C. under section 82, 83 (infancy), 84 (unsoundness),, 85, 86 (intoxication) and 76, 79 (any misconception on the part of that, person)., Under section 99 certain limits have been laid down beyond which the, right or private defence cannot be exercised. According to section 99 in, the following cases, there is no right of private defence –, (1) In case of an by a public servant., (2) In case of an act under to the direction of a public servant., (3) When recourse to the authorities possible., (4) No more harm than it is necessary, For the purpose of (1) and (2) above –, (a) The act should be done in good faith, (b) The act should be under colour of office, (c) The act does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or, grievous hurt., (d) Act may not be security justified in law there should be, reasonable ground to believe that he act is done by public servant, and or under his direction and under colour of office., Where a thief was caught at midnight with half his body and head inside, the wall of a house, he was struck on the head five times with a pole, LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 32

Page 33 :
33, , causing his death. It was held that more harm was done than necessary., The accused was, however, convicted to culpable homicide not, amounting to murder [Queen v. Fakeera Chammar, 6 WR 50], Where the accused fiding a thief entering his house on a night held him, down by force which resulted in the death of the thief due to, suffocation, the Court did not hold that the accused had exceeded his, right [Queen v, Karim Bux, 3 WR (Cr) 12]., Section 100 shows that the criminal law of our country recognizes the, fact that there can be certain situation wherein a person may have no, other way-out except to cause even death while exercising right of, private defence of body., The six circumstances enumerated under section 100 wherein even, death of the assailant may be caused in right of private defence of body, are –, (1) When the assault causes apprehension of death;, (2) When the assault causes apprehension of grievous hurt;, (3) When the assault is committed with the intention to commit rape;, (4) When the assault is committed with the intention of committing, unnatural lust;, (5) When the assault is committed with the intention of kidnapping, or abduction;, (6) When the assault is committed with the intention fo wrongful, confinement and the person is under reasonable apprehension, that he will not be able to have recourse to the protection of the, public authorities against his illegal confinement., In Onker Nath singh v. state of U. P. AIR 1974 SC it was held that where, there is time to have recourse to the protection of public authorities, a, person must adopt that recourse instead of retaliating. The right of, private defence has been given to prevent the commission of the offence, not for punishing the offender., In Amjad Khan v. state, AIR 1952 SC; it was held that the circumstances, in which the appellant was placed were amply sufficient to give him, right to private defence of body even to the extent of causing death,, since these things could not be weighed in a set of scales or as it is said, golden scale., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 33

Page 34 :
34, , When the appellant’s sister was being abducted from her father’s home, even though by her husband and there was assault on her body by the, husband, the appellant would have the right of private defence of the, body of her sister which would extend to the causing of death., [Vishwanath v. state of U. P. AIR 1960 SC 67]., Section 101 is a corollary to section 100. It states that if any of the, circumstances enumerated under section 100 does not exists the right, of private defence of body does not extent to causing of death of the, attacker but the defender is entitled, subject to the restrictions of, section 99, to voluntarily cause to him any other harm other than death., Section 102 deals with the commencement and continuance of the right, o f private defence of body. The right to defence the body commences as, soon as reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises and it, continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues., Under section 103, the right of private defence to property extends,, subject to the limitations of section 99, to the voluntarily causing death, or any other harm to the wrong-doer if the following offence is, committed or attempted to be committed by the wrong-doer –, (1) Robbery., (2) House-breaking by night,, (3) Mischief by fire committed on any building, tent or vessel which is, used as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of, property., (4) Theft, mischief or house-trespass under such circumstances as, may reasonable cause apprehension that death or grievous hurt, will be the consequence., Section 104 is a corollary of section 103. It says that where the offence, of theft, mischief or criminal trespass has been committed or attempted, but the description are different from those enumerated in section 103,, the right of private defence of property extends only up to the extent to, voluntarily causing of any other harm than death., Section 105, deals with the commencement and continuance of the, right of private defence of property. The section very closely follows, section 102. According to this section the right commences as soon as, the reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences. The, right continues, in the case of theftLEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 34

Page 35 :
35, , (1) Offender has effected his retreat with the property, or, (2) Assistance of the public authority is obtained, or, (3) Property is recovered., In the case of robbery so long as the offender causes or attempts to, cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or instant fear, of that., In the case of criminal trepass, mischief and house-breaking as long as, the aforesaid offences continue., As section 100 and 103, section 106 also provides to cause death in the, exercise of right of private defence. By virtue of this section, if there is, an assault which reasonable causes the apprehension, of death and a, person due to his situation cannot exercise effective right of private, defence without risk of harm to an innocent person, he can exercise his, right of private defence although there is a risk of harm to the innocent, persons. The illustration of the section makes it clear., Illustration. – A is attacked by a mob who attempt to murder him. He, Cannot effectually exercise his right of private defence, without firing on the mob, and he cannot fire without risk of harming, young children who are mingled with the mob. A commits no offence if, by so firing he harms any of the children., Abetment, [Chapter 5, Section 107 – 120], A crime may be committed by one or more persons where more than, one persons are involved in its commission, their liability will depend, on the extent of their participation. It may be similar or different., The English criminal law classifies the criminals into the following four, categories(i), (ii), (iii), , Principle in the first degree, i.e. one who commits the crime or gets the, same committed by an innocent agent., Principle in the second degree, i.e. one who is present at the scene and, aids and assists in the commission of the crime., Accessory before the act, i.e. one who though absent from the scene of, crime, counsels, procures or commands another to commit the crime., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 35

Page 36 :
36, , (iv), , Accessory after the fact, i.e. one who knowing well that the perpetrator, has committed a crime harbours and assists him to escape punishment., The Indian Penal Code does not make out any diference among above, categories of criminals., Principle in the second degree and accessory before the fact is known as, abettor in the I. P. C. though these terms have not been put by the, framers of the code yet these terms were not altogether without having, any effect on them which we may gather by reading sections 114 and, 109 of I. P. C., While section 107 defines ‘abetment of a thing’, section 108 defines, ‘abettor’., According to section 107 abetment may be practiced by a person in any, of the following ways(i) By instigation,, (ii) By engaging persons in conspiracy,, (iii) By intentionally aiding or illegal omission., A person is said to instigate another when he incites, urges, encourages, goads, solicits, provokes, counsels, procures or commands to do, something., The first explanation of this section states that a person who, by willful, misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he, is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures or attempts to cause, or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing., Illustration. – A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a, Court of justice to apprehend Z, B knowing that fact and, also that C is not Z, willfully represents to A, that C is Z, and thereby, intentionally causes A to apprehend C. her B abets by instigation the, apprehension of C., Mere advice is not instigation but it may be so where the intention is to, actively suggest or stimulate the doing of something., The giver of a bribe to a public servant is an abettor of the offence of, ‘accepting illegal gratification by a public servant’ whether the bribe is, given voluntarily or in response to a demand made. (Biswobhusan v., state, 1952 Cr. L. J. 1533]., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 36

Page 37 :
37, , A newly wedded girl died of burns. The evidence of her father and, sisters indicated that the deceased had complained about harassment, and torture by her in-laws for bringing insufficient dowry. It was held, that the deceased had committed suicide at the instigation of her, husband and in-laws (Guarbachan singh v. Satpal singh, AIR 1990 SC, 209]., Where a married woman whose husband had died prepare herself to, commit suicide in presence of the accused persons who followed her to, the funeral pyre and remained there with her step-sons chanting ‘Ram, Ram’ and she would become ‘sati’. It was held that the accused were, liable to abetment of suicide by instigation [Queen v. Mohi pandey, (1871) 3 NW P 316]., Where instigation to commit an offence by letter, the offence of, abetment is complete only when the contents of the letter come ot the, knowledge of the person who is being instigated. [Queen Emp. V. Sheo, Dial Mal, (1894) 16 All 389]. If the letter never reaches, it will be a case, of attempt by instigation. Similar rule will apply for instigation through, telephone., Conspiracy to do a thing would amount to abetment if an act or illegal, omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the, doing of that act., The basis of abetment by conspiracy is ‘engagement’ between the, abettor and other person or persons in conspiracy for the doing of the, thing., The Explanation 5 to section 108 says that it is not necessary to the, commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy that the abettor, should concert the offence with the person who commits it, it is, sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which the, offence is committed., The third clause of section 107 states that a person abets the doing of, a thing who intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission the doing of, that thing. The explanation clarifies that aiding is possible only either, prior to or at the time of commission of an act., Where the accused persons tried their utmost to dissuade a woman, from committing suicide by becoming ‘sati’ and even informed the, police about it, but ultimately finding it impossible to dissuade her,, complied with her and helped her in the process, it was held that they, LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 37

Page 38 :
38, , were liable for abetment by intentional aiding of suicide. [Emperor v., Ram Lal. (1914) 36 all 26]., Where the accused allowed an illegal marriage to take place at the, accused’ s house, no liability for abetment by aiding exists because the, facility given must be such as is essential for the commission of the, offence in question. [Queen v. Kudum, 1864 W. R. 13]., But a priest who solemnized an illegal marriage intentionally and, thereby facilitated such marriage to take place was held liable for, abetment by aiding [Emp v. Umi (1882) 6 Bom 126]., Giving consent to be present in an illegal marriage or being actually, present in it will not make one liable for abetment by aiding., Where a head constable intentionally went away from the place, knowing fully well that third degree methods would be used against a, person there with a view to export confession from him, it was held that, he was guilty of abetment by aiding [Emp. V. Kalicharan, (1873) 21 WR, (Cr) 11]., Who is an abettor :, Section 108 defines an abettor:- According to this section there can be, two ways by which a person can become an abettor, Firstly, when he, abets the commission of an offence, or secondly, when he abets the, omission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person, capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or, knowledge as that of the abettor., According to the first explanation of section 108 the abetment of the, illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor, may not himself be found to do the act., The second explanation states that to constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed or that the, effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused. This, explanation shows that the effect of an abetment is immaterial., Illustrations, (a) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of, abetting B to commit murder., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 38

Page 39 :
39, , (b), , A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs, D. D recovers from the wound. A is, guilty of instigating B to, commit murder., According to Explanation 3 it is not necessary that the person abetted, should be capable by law to commit an offence or having same, knowledge or intention as that of abettor or any., Illustrations, (a) A, would a guilty intention abets a child or a lunatic to commit an, act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable, by law of committing an offence, and having the same intention as, A. here A, whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of, abetting an offence,, (b) A, intending to cause a theft to be committed, instigates B to take, property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession. A induces B to, believe that eth property belongs to A. B takes the property out of, Z’s possession, in good faith believing, it to be A’s property. B,, acting under this misconception, does not take dishonestly, and, therefore, does not commit theft. But A is guilty of abetting theft,, and is liable to the same punishment as if B had committed theft., Explanation 4 says that the abetment of an offence is itself an offence., So the abetment is also offence., The fifth explanation is applicable only to the offence of abetment by, conspiracy., Section 108-A extends the law of abetment to the offences committed, outside India. It states that a person who, in India, abets the commission, of an act without and beyond India, which would constitute an offence if, committed in India, is an abettor within the meaning of this Code,, Illustrations – A, in India, instigates, B, a foreigner in London, to, Commit a murder in London, A is guilty of abetting, murder., Section 109 is the first penal section of the I. P. C. by this section the, liability of the abettor has been made co-extensive with the principal, provided that he act is committed in consequence of abetment and has, not been expressly made punishable by any other provision of the Penal, Code., LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 39

Page 40 :
40, , Illustrations, (a) A offers a bribe to B, a public servant, as a reward for showing A, some favour in the exercise of B’s official functions. B accepts the, bribe. A has abetted the offence defined in section 161., (b) A instigates B to give false evidence. B, in consequence of the, instigation, commits that offence. A is guilty of abetting that, offence and is liable to the same punishment as B., Section 110 makes it clear that the liability of the abettor is not affected, even if the person abetted does the act with different intention or, knowledge., Section 111 deals with the liability of abettor when one act abetted and, different act is done, under this section the abettor is liable even if the, act done is different from the act abetted. But it has to be proved that, the act done was a probable consequence of the abetment., Illustrations. – A instigates B to burn Z’s house. B sets fire to the house, And at the same time commits theft of property there., A, though guilty of abetting the burning of the house, is not guilty of, abetting the theft, for the theft was a distinct act, and not a probable, consequence of the burning., Section 112 and 113 are an extension of section 111., According to section 112 if the act, for which the abettor is liable under, section 111, I committed in addition to the act abetted and constitute, distinct offences, the abettor is liable to punishment for each of the, offences., Section 113 provides that the abettor is liable, if the act, as instigated,, has been committed but a different effect is caused by the Act., Illustration. – A instigates B to cause grievous hurt to Z, B., Inconsequence of the instigation causes grievous hurt, to Z. Z dies in consequence. Here, if A knew that the grievous hurt, abetted was likely to cause death; A is liable to be punished with the, punishment provided for murder., Under section 114 if he offence is committed in presence of the abettor,, he shall be deemed to have committed the very offence., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 40

Page 41 :
41, , Criminal Conspiracy, [Chapter 5 – A, Sections 120 – A-120-B], Criminal Conspiracy, (Section 120-A, 120-B) is added by an amendment, in Indian Penal Code in 1913., Section 120 – A defines criminal conspiracy and section 120-B provides, punishment for criminal conspiracy., According to definition of criminal conspiracy the following are, essential ingredients(1) An agreement between two or more persons., (2) To do an illegal act or to do a legal act by illegal means., (3) An overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy other than the, conspiracy to commit an offence., The Supreme Court in Tapan Das v. state of Bombay, AIR 1956 held that, the fourth accused could not be punished when three were acquitted on, a charge of conspiracy., But in Bimbadhar Pradhan v. state of Orissa, AIR 1954 SC 469 the, Supreme Court observed that it is not essential that more than one, person should be convicted of the offence or conspiracy. It is enough if, the Court is in a position to find that two or more persons were actually, concerned in the conspiracy and mere agreement is not enough., For an offence under section 120-A mere an agreement is enough if the, agreement is to commit an offence. But for an offence under the second, clause of section 107 an act or illegal omission must take place in, pursuance of the conspiracy and a mere agreement is not enough., The case of state v. Nalini is on section 120-A., Offences against the State, [Chapter 6, Sections 121-130], Section 124-A defines ‘sedition’ which is added in the Code in 1870., Ingredients of an offence of sedition are(1) Bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt or the, exciting or attempting to excite disaffection towards Government,, and, (2) Such act or attempt may be doneLEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 41

Page 42 :
42, , (i) By words (spoken or written), or, (ii) By signs, or, (iii) By visible representation., , , , , , , Disaffection includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity., The comments which express the disapprobation of the measures of the, Government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means do, not constitute the offence., Comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other, action of the Government without exciting or attempting to excite, hatred, contempt or disaffection do not constitute the offence of, sedition., Important cases on seditionQ. Emp. V. Yogendra Chandra Bose, (1891) cal., Q. Wmp v. Bal Gangadhar Tilak, (1897) Bom., Nihrendra Dutt Majumdar v. Emp., AIR 1942 SC, Kedar Nath v. state, AIR 1962 SC. [Held Section 124-A I. P. C. does not, violate Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution as it is a reasonable, restriction]., Offences relating to the Army, Navy and Air Force, [Chapter 7, sections 131-140], Section 131-140 deals with offences relating to the Army, Navy and Airforce., Offences against the public Tranquillity, [Chapter 8, sections 141-160], Section 141 defines an unlawful assembly while sections 142 states as, to who can be said to be a member of an unlawful assembly and section, 143 provides punishment to a member ingredients of an unlawful, assembly., The ingredients of an unlawful assembly are-(section 141), (1) An assembly of five or more persons., (2) The common object of that assembly-, , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 42

Page 43 :
43, , (i) To overawe by criminal force or show of criminal force(a) The Central Government or the state Government; or, (b) The Parliament or the Legislature of state or, (c) Any public servant in the exercise of lawful power, or, (ii) To resist the execution of any law or legal process, or, (iii) To commit mischief, criminal trespass or any other offence, or, (iv) By means of criminal force or show criminal force(a) To take or obtain possession of any property, or, (b) To deprive any person of any property, or, (c) To deprive any person of the right of way or of the use of, water, or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession, or enjoyment, or, (d) To enforce any right or supposed right., (v) By means of criminal force or show of criminal force to compel, any person(a) To do what he is not legally bound to do, or, (b) To omit what he is legally entitled to do., A person who is present in the unlawful assembly as a curious spectator, does not become one of the members of that unlawful assembly. [Muthu, Naicker v. state of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1978 SC]., Where on the finding, the identity of only four persons in the assembly, is established while it is proved that five or more persons were present, there to constitute it, section 149 can be applied without any serious, difficulty. [Dana, AIR 1960 SC 284]., The common object of the assembly should be one of the mentioned in, section 141. The members should be aware of the common object and, they should concur in it., Section 146 defines the offence of “Rioting” and section 147 provides, punishment for it. The ingredients of rioting are(1) An unlawful assembly, (2) Using of force or violence by(a) The unlawful assembly, or, (b) Any member thereof,, (c) In prosecution of the common object of that assembly., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 43

Page 44 :
44, , Section 149 incorporates the principle of constructive Liability on the, basis of the common object of an unlawful assembly regarding the, commission of an offence or the knowledge of the member of an, unlawful assembly of likelihood of the commission of an offence., Following are the ingredients of section 149 –, (1) Offence must be committed by the member of an unlawful, assembly, (2) It must be committed in prosecution of the common object of that, assembly., (3) It is such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be, committed., Section 159 defines ‘affray’ while section 160 provides punishment for, committing affray. Following are the ingredients of affray(1) Two or more persons fight., (2) They fight in a public place., (3) By fighting they disturb the public peace., Chapter 9 (Sections 166 to 171) deals with “Offences relating to, public servants”., Chapter 9-A (Sections 171-A to 171-I) deals with “Offences relating to, Elections”., Chapter 10 (Section 172 to 190) deals with “Contempt’s of the Lawful, authority of Public Servant”., False Evidence and Offences against Public Justice, [Chapter 11, Sections 191-229-A], Section 191 defines the offence of ‘giving false evidence’. The offence of, ‘giving false evidence’ under I. P. C. is based on the English law of, ‘Perjury’., There are following ingredients of the offence of giving false evidence(1) A person should be legally bound –, (a) By an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or, (b) To make a declaration upon any subject., (2) He should make a statement which is false, and, , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 44

Page 45 :
45, , (3), , He knows or believes that the statement is false or does not, believe the statement true., Illustrations, (a) A, in support of a just claim which B has against Z for one thousand, rupees, falsely swears on a trial that he heard Z admit the justice of, B’s claim. A has given false evidence., (b) A, knowing the general character of Z’s handwriting, states that he, believes a certain signature to be the handwriting of Z; A in good, faith believing if to be so. Here A’s statement is merely as to his, belief, and is true as to his belief, and therefore, although the, signature may not be the handwriting of Z, A has not given false, evidence., Section 192 defines the offence of ‘fabricating false evidence ‘The, ingredients of this offence are(1) The offender causes any circumstances to exist or makes any false, entry in any book or record, or makes any document or electronic, record containing a false statement., (2) The offender does one of the above acts with the intention that it, may appear in a judicial proceeding or in a proceeding taken by law, before a public servant or an arbitrator., (3) The offender does such an act with the intention that it may cause, any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the, evidence to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point, material to the result of such proceeding., To constitute the offence of section 192, the injury to another, person is not material. The material is the intention to fabricate the, false evidence., Illustrations, (a) A puts jewels into a box belonging to Z, with the intention that, they may be found in the box, and that his circumstance may, cause Z to be convicted of theft. A has fabricated false evidence., (b) A makes a false entry in his shop book for the purpose of using it, as corroborative evidence in a Court of justice. A has fabricated, false evidence., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 45

Page 46 :
46, , Section 193 provides the punishment for the intentionally giving false, evidence and fabricating false evidence. In any stage of judicial, proceeding and in any other case., For the purposes of section 193 a trial before a Court Martial is a judicial, proceeding and an investigation directed by law or a Court of justice is a, stage of a judicial proceeding., Section 228-A is inserted by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983, which declares that the disclosure (by printing or publishing) of identity, of the victim of rape is an offence unless it is contrary to the provisions., Chapter 12 (Sections 230 to 263-A) deals with “Offences relating to, Coin and Government stamps”., Chapter 13 (Sections 264 to 267) deals with “Offences relating to, weights and Measures”., Offences affecting the Public Health, Safety,, Convenience, Decency and Morals, [Chapter 14, Sections 268-294-A], Section 268 defines the offence of ‘public nuisance’., The Penal Code makes penal only nuisance against public. The public, nuisance is an act which may affect the members of the public at large, or a considerable portion of them., The private nuisance or nuisance against a particular person is not, punishable under I. P. C. it furnishes a ground for civil action., There are following ingredients of public nuisance(1) A person does any act or illegal omission., (2) Such act or omission must cause, (a) Any common injury, danger or annoyance(i) To the public, or, (ii) To the people in general who dwell or occupy property in, the vicinity, or, (b) Injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may, have occasion to use any public right., Nuisance is not excusable on the ground that some convenience or, advantage is caused to the members of public., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 46

Page 47 :
47, , Cutting up of two cows before the sunrise by the Mohammedans for, their religious performance in their private compound partly visible, from a public road is not a nuisance although it offended the sentiments, of a class., However, slaughtering cattle in the public street the grones of which, were heard and the blood seen by the passer-by was held to be a public, nuisance., A person having a furious mastiff and letting it to go an the road, unmuzzled. Causes terror in the public due to its ferocity and therefore, he is guilty of nuisance., In case of public nuisance, the master will be liable for the act of his, servant. The liability cannot be excused as the ground of mens rea., A civil suit against the public nuisance would lie when it satisfies the, requirements of section 268. The provision for a civil suit against public, nuisance finds place in section 91, C. P. C. A private person is not, debarred to bringing an civil suit in case of public nuisance if thereby a, private nuisance also occurs., General public nuisance is punishable under section 290. The other, sections enumerate specifically the kinds of nuisance., Chapter 15 (Sections 295 to 298) deals with “Offences relating to, Religion”., Offences affecting the Human Body, [chapter 16, Sections 299-377], Section 299 defines the offence “culpable homicide” while section, 300 defines “murder”., Homicide means killing of a human being by a human being while, culpable homicide means illegal killing of a human being by a human, being., Homicide may be lawful or unlawful. Lawful homicide may be excusable, or justifiable. Examples of excusable homicides are the general, exceptions given under sections 80, 82, 83, 84, 85, 87, 88 and 92 while, those of justifiable homicides are the general exceptions given under, sections 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, 100, 103 and 106., Unlawful homicides can be classified into following categories(i) Culpable homicide amounting to murder,, LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 47

Page 48 :
48, , (ii) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder,, (iii) Death caused by rash and negligent act, and, (iv) Abetment to commit suicide., Section 299 defined the offence of culpable homicide while section 304, provides the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to, murder and section 308 provides punishment for attempt to commit, homicide., Ingredients of section 299 – Causing of death must be –, (a) By doing an act with the intention of causing death, or, (b) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause, death, or, (c) With the knowledge that one is likely by such act to cause death., Illustrations, (a) A lays sticks and turn over a pit, with the intention of thereby, causing death, or with the knowledge, that death is likely to be, thereby caused. Z, believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls, in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide., (b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does know it. A, intending to, cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z’s death induces B to fire, at the bush. B fires and kills Z. here B may be guilty of no offence,, but Z has committed the offence of culpable homicide., According to Explanation 3 death of a child in mother’s womb is not a, homicide but if any part of a living child is brought forth causing its, death may amount to culpable homicide even though the child may not, have breathed or it may not have been completely born., Section 300 defines “murder” while section 302 provides the, punishment for murder and section 307 provides the punishment for, attempt to murder., The following are essential ingredients of murder – Culpable homicide, is murder, if it is done with(1) Intention to cause death,, (2) Intention to cause bodily injury, knowing that the injury caused, is, likely to cause death., (3) Intention of causing bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course, of nature to cause death,, LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 48

Page 49 :
49, , (4), , Knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that in all, probability it will cause death or bodily injury likely to cause, death and such act should be without justification., , Culpable homicide is not a murder in following cases (exceptions, of section 300)(1) Where the act is done or grave and sudden provocation., (2) Where the act is done in exceeding the right of private defence of, person or property., (3) Where the act is done in exceeding the right by public servant or in, aiding a public servant., (4) Where the act is done in sudden fight without premeditation., (5) Where the act is done with the consent of deceased of the age of, above 18 years., All the cases of murder fall under the category of culpable homicide but, all the cases of culpable homicide do not fall under the category of, murder., The case of K. M. Nanawati v. state of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC is no, grave and sudden provocation., Section 299 is distinguished from section 300 in following cases(1) R. v. Govinda, ILR (1876) 1 Bom. 342 (Melvill J)., (2) State of Andhra Pradesh v. Punnayya (1976) SC (Sarkriya J)., (3) Shakti Das v. state of Rajasthan, 2007 Cr. L.J. (C.C.) (Justice Dr. Arjit, Pasayat)., Section 301 says that a person commits culpable homicide by causing, death of person other than person whose death was intended. This, section is based on the principle that the malicious act will not be, exampled from the liability if it causes the injury to a person whom the, malice was not intended., Section 303 provides punishment for murder by life-convict, which is, death. There is no discretionary power to the Court., In Mithu v. state of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC, the Supreme Court held section, 303 unconstitutional, as, it is against the Article 14 an 21 of the, Constitution [C. J. Chandrachud]., Section 304-B is inserted by Act 43 of 1986. It defines dowry death and, provides punishment for it. The basic ingredients to attract the, provisions of section 304-B are as followsLEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 49

Page 50 :
50, , (1) The death of a woman should be caused by burns or fatal injury or, otherwise than under normal circumstances., (2) Such death should have occurred within seven years of her, marriage., (3) She must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her, husband or any relative of her husband., (4) Such cruelty or harassment should be for in connection with, demand for dowry., In Reema Agarwal v. Anupam, 2004 Cr. L.J. 892 (SC), justice Arijit, Pasayat has stated that the concept of ‘dowry’ is intentionally linked, with a marriage and the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act apply, in relation of marriages if the validity of the marriage in under legal, scrutiny the demand in respect of an invalid marriage would be legally, not recognizable. Even then the purpose for which sections 498-A and, 304-B, I. P. C. and section 113-B of the Evidence Act were introduced, cannot be lost right of., Section 305 and 306 make punishable the abetment of suicide, under, section 305 abetment of suicide of child or insane person or delirious, person, or idiot or intoxicated person is punishable while under section, 306 abetment of any person is punishable., Under section 305 a child must be below the age of 18 years., Section 309 penalises the crime of attempt to commit suicide. This is, the only section in the I. P. C. where punishment could be meted for an, unsuccessful act only and never for a successful one. In other words,, suicide is not a crime, its attempt is., The constitutionality of section 309 is challenged in many cases., In Maruti Sripati Dubal v. state, 1987 Cr. L. J. (Bom) the Bombay High, Court held that section 309 is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the, Constitution. Right to life includes right to live and right not to live., Andhra Pradesh High Court in Chenna Jagdeeswar v. state (1988) Cr. L., J. 549 (A. P) has ruled that right to life does not include right to not live, or right to die and, therefore, section 309 is not violative of Articles 19, and 21 of the Constitution., In P. Rathinam v. Union of India, AIR 1994 S. C. the Supreme Court, observed that section 309 is a cruel and irrational provision, and it may, , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 50

Page 51 :
51, , result in punishing a person again who has suffered agony and,, therefore, violates Article 21 of the Constitution., In Smt. Gyan Kaur v. state of Punjab, JT 1996 (3) SC 339, the Supreme, Court held that section 309 is not constitutional and right to life does, not include right to die., Section 312 punishes the offence of causing miscarriage. The, ingredients of section 312 may be stated as under –, (1) The woman must be with child or quick with child., (2) The miscarriage not be caused in good faith for the purpose of, saving the life of the woman., Section 319 defines hurt. It says that whoever causes bodily pain,, disease or infirmity to any person commits hurt. Section 323 provides, punishment for voluntarily causing hurt., Section 320 defines grievous hurt and section 325 provides, punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt., Section 320 specifies the following types of hurt as grievous hurt(1) Emasculation., (2) Permanent privation of the sight of either eye., (3) Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear., (4) Privation of any member or joint., (5) Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member, or joint., (6) Permanent disfiguration of the heard of face., (7) Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth., (8) (i) Hurt which endangers life, or, (ii)Hurt which cause the suffer to be during the space of twenty, days in service bodily pain, or, (iii) Hurt which causes the suffer during the space of twenty days, unable to follow his ordinary pursuits., Section 339 defines the offence wrongful restraint while section 341, provides punishment for it., The ingredients of section 339 are(1) A person should be voluntarily obstructed,, (2) By this obstruction he should be prevented from providing in any, direction., LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 51

Page 52 :
52, , (3), , The person obstructed has a right to proceed in that direction., , In a wrongful restraint victim is not stopped from moving. He is stopped, from moving in the direction in which wants., Illustration. – A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass, A, not believing in good faith that he has a right to stop the path. Z is, thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z., Following are the illustrations of wrongful restraint(a) A person is wrongfully restrained., (b) By it, he is prevented from proceeding beyond certain, circumscribing limits., Illustrations, (a) A cause Z to go within a walled space, and locks Z in, A is thus, prevented from proceeding in any direction beyond the, circumscribing line of wall. A wrongfully confines Z., (b) A place men with fire-arms at the outlets of a building, and tells Z, that they will fire at Z if Z attempts to leave the building. A, wrongfully confines Z., In a confinement, a person is restrained from going beyond certain, limits. If this restraint is illegal, it is a wrongful confinement., When a Civil Surgeon ordered the jail hospital assistant to give some, enemae to a prisoner but the prisoner objected, he was confined in a, solitary cell on the order of the hospital assistant. It is a wrongful, confinement., If a person keeps his brother in chains, who is under intermittent, insanity, so that he may be medically treated, hi is wrongful, confinement., If a person is forced to walk in a particular direction under duress, this, amounts to wrongful confinement., Section 349 defines force, section 350 defines criminal force and, section 351 defines assault., To exercise one’s energy upon the other human being is a force. The, force may be exercised directly or indirectly., It a man by raising his stick causes another man to move away although, he does not strike it upon him, he used force., There are following ingredients of criminal forceLEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 52

Page 53 :
53, , (1) Intentionally using of force to any person., (2) The force is used without the consent of that person., (3) The force should be used(i) In order to the committing of an offence, or, (ii) With the intention to cause or knowingly it to be likely that the, injury, fear or annoyance will be caused to the person to whom, the force is used., Illustrations, (a) A intentionally pulls up a woman’s veil. Here A intentionally used, force to her, and if he does so without her consent, intending or, knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy, her, he has used criminal force to her., (b) A incites a dog to spring upon Z, without Z’s consent. Here, if A, intends to cause injury, fear or annoyance to Z, he uses criminal, force to Z., According to section 351 there are following ingredients of an assault(1) Gesture should be given or preparation should be made by a person, in the presence of another., (2) The person giving the gesture or doing the preparation should, intend or know that by it he is likely to cause the person present to, apprehended that the criminal force will be used against him., Mere words do not amount to an assault, but with gesture or, preparation they may amount to an assault., Illustrations, (a) A shakes his fist at Z, intending or knowing it to be likely that he, may thereby cause Z to believe that A is about to strike Z. A has, committed an assault., (b) A begins to unloose the muzzle of a ferocious dog, intending or, knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause Z to believe that, he is about to cause the dog to attack Z. A has committed an assault, upon Z., (c) A takes up a stick, saying to X, “I will give you a beating”. Here,, though the words used by A could in no case amount to an assault,, and though the mere gesture, unaccompanied by any other, LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 53

Page 54 :
54, , circumstances, might not amount to an assault, the gesture, explained by the words may amount to an assault., The modesty of a woman intended to be outraged by an assault or, criminal force is punishable under section 354., Section 359 declares kidnapping of two kinds(1) Kidnapping from India, and, (2) Kidnapping from lawful guardianship., Kidnapping from India is defined under section 360 and kidnapping, from lawful guardianship defined under section 361., The essentials of kidnapping from India are(1) The person should be conveyed beyond the limits of India., (2) He should be conveyed without his consent or without the, consent of any person legally authorized to consent on behalf of, that person., The essential of kidnapping from lawful guardianship are(1) A minor or person of unsound mind should be taken or enticed, away., (2) If the minor is male, he should be under 16 years of age and if a, female, she should be under 18 years of age., (3) Such person should be taken or enticed away out of the keeping of, lawful guardianship., (4) Taking or enticing away should be without the consent of guardian., The taking need not be forceful, “To take” means to cause to go, escort, or to get into possession., When a girl left the house of her parents on her own accord and for her, own comfort and the conduct of the girl left no doubt regarding it, the, accused was not guilty. [Jai Narain v. state of Haryana, 1969 Punj]., When a girl leaves her home due to her parents unkindness to her by, attempting to thrust an unwanted husband ob her, the person giving her, shelter to whom she runs away is not guilty. [Mst. Asma v. state, AIR, 1967 All. 158]., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 54

Page 55 :
55, , In Vardarajan v. state of Madras, AIR 1962 SC 942, the Supreme Court, said that there was a distinction between the ‘taking’ and ‘allowing a, minor to accompany any person’., The offence of kidnapping is not a continuing offence. The offence is, completed as soon as a person is conveyed beyond the limits of India or, is taken away out of the keeping of lawful guardianship., To word ‘entices’ means that the minor is taken away with some, inducement by the accused., Section 362 defines ‘abduction’. Abduction means compelling or, inducing by deceitful means to go from any place., The essentials of abduction are(1) Compelling by force or inducing by deceitful means any person,, (2) Such compulsion or inducement should be for going from any place., Abduction is a continuing offence., In kidnapping the intention of the kidnapper is immaterial, but in, abduction intention is material., Kidnapping is itself a substantive offence punishable under section, 363, whereas abduction is not an offence in itself. It is punishable only, were the abduction is made so in the circumstances mentioned in, section 364, 365, 366, 367 and 369., Rape is defined by section 375 and punishable under section 376., Under Section 375, rape is sexual intercourse with a woman when it, is under any of the following circumstances –, (1) Against her will., (2) Without her consent., (3) With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting, her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death, or of, hurt., (4) With her consent when the man knows that he is not her husband,, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is the, man to whom she is lawfully married., (5) With her consent if she is unable to understand the nature and, consequences of the act to which the consents because of insanity, or intoxication or the administration of some stupefying or, unwholesome substance by the man doing sexual intercourse or, though another person., LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 55

Page 56 :
56, , (6) With or without her consent, when she is under 16 years of age., The explanation of section 375 provides that mere penetration is, sufficient to constitute the sexual intercourse necessary to the offence of, rape., The exception of the section does not make it a rape when a man does, sexual intercourse with his own wife and the wife is not under 15 years, of age., In Rajendra Datta Zarekar v. state of Goa, 2008 Cr. L. J. (SC), it was held, that to constitute the offence of rape, it is not necessary that there, should be rupture of hymen., Sections 376-A, 376-B, 376-C, 376-D are interested by Act 43 of 1983., Section 376-A makes punishable an intercourse by a man with his wife, during separation., Intercourse by public servant with woman in his custody or in custody, of a public servant subordinate to him is punishable under section 376B., Intercourse by Superintendent of jail, remand home, etc. is punishable, under section 376-C., Intercourse by any member of the management or staff of a hospital, with any woman in that hospital is punishable under section 376-D., Section 377 makes unnatural offences punishable under I. P. C., Sodomy, buggery or bestiality are the instances of unnatural offences., Offences against property, [Chapter 17, Sections 378-462], Section 378 defines “theft” while section 379 provides punishment for, theft and sections 380-382 are aggravated form of theft., Theft is an offence against possession and not against ownership. There, are following ingredients of theft(1) Dishonest intention to take property., (2) Property should be movable., (3) Property should be taken out of the possession of another person., (4) Property should be taken without consent of that person., (5) The property should be moved in order to such taking., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 56

Page 57 :
57, , There are five explanations attached to section 378, which are very, important., Explanation first states that a thing is attached to the earth is not a, movable property but as soon as it is severed from the earth it becomes, a movable property and capable of being the subject of theft., The second Explanation says that a moving affected by the same act, which effects the severance may be a theft., According to third Explanation removing an obstacle which prevented a, thing from moving is said to cause a thing move., The Fourth Explanation states that a person who cause an animal to, move by any means is said to move that animal and to move everything, which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved by that animal., According to fifth Explanation consent may be express or implied and, may be given by either the possessor or any other person who has, express or implied authority for that purpose., In Avatar singh. V. state, AIR 1965 SC, the Supreme Court held that, electricity is not a movable property., Water, gas, a human body (living or dead) are not a movable property,, but where a human body has been preserved as a mummy or where any, part of it has been preserved with some purpose, like for research etc., would amount to theft., Illustrations, (a) A cuts down a tree on Z’s ground, with the intention of dishonestly, taking the tree out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent. Here, as, soon as A has served the tree in order to such taking, he has, committed theft., (b) A find a ring belonging to Z on a table in the house which Z, occupies. Here the ring is in Z’s possession, and if A dishonestly, removes it, A commits theft., (c) A finds a ring lying on the high road, not in the possession of any, occupies. A, by taking it, commits no theft, though he may commit, criminal misappropriation of property., (d) A, in good faith, believing property belonging to Z to be A’s own, property, takes that property out of B’s possession. Here, as A does, not take dishonestly, he does not commit theft., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 57

Page 58 :
58, , Tame animals have been held to be movable property, thus theft of a, dog, cow, goat etc. is possible., Section 383 defines the offence of “extortion” and section 384, provides its punishment., There are following essentials of the extortion(1) Intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to himself or to, another., (2) Thereby dishonestly inducing such person to deliver to any person, property or valuable security., Illustrations, (a) A threatens to punish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z, gives him money. He thus induces Z to give him money. A has, committed extortion., (b) A threatens Z that he will keep Z’s child in wrongful confinement, unless Z will sign and deliver to Z a promissory note binding Z to, pay certain monies to A, Z signs and delivers the note. A has, committed extortion., (c) A threatens to send club-man to plough up Z’s field unless Z will, sign and deliver to B a bond binding Z under a penalty to deliver, certain produce to B, and thereby induces Z to sign and deliver the, bond. A has committed extortion., (d) A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign, or affix his seal to a blank paper and delivers it to A, Z signs and, delivers the paper to A. here, as the paper so signed may be, converted into a valuable security, A has committed extortion., Extortion is not necessarily in respect of movable property and consent, is not free though there is consent., Section 390 defines ‘robbery’ while section 392 provides punishment, for robbery and section 393 provides punishment for attempt to, commit robbery., Robbery is an aggravated from of theft or extortion. When theft or, extortion is accompanied by force it becomes robbery. According to, section 390, ‘In all robbery there is either theft or extortion., In following conditions theft becomes robbery(1), When a person voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any, LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 58

Page 59 :
59, , Person(a) Death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or, (b) Fear of instant death or hurt or wrongful restraint., (2), Above act must be(a) In order to commit the theft, or, (b) In committing the theft, or, (c) In carrying away or attempting to carry away stolen property., 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, in, order to the committing of the 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 Z’s child on the high read. A takes the child, and, threatens to fling 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-“You 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., If a thief inflicts an injury accidentally, it is not robbery. Thus a thief, while attempting to steal the basket was cutting a string by which the, basket was tied. Cut the wrist of the owner who tried to seize the basket,, it was held that he was guilty of theft and not robbery. [Edwords, (1843), 1 Cox 32]., When in snatching the nose ring, the nostril was wounded causing, bleeding, the accused was guilty of robbery. [Tekai Bheer, (1866) 5 WR, (Cr) 95]., In robbery by extortion(1) The offender must be in presence of the person put in fear., LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 59

Page 60 :
60, , (2) This extortion must be committed by putting that person or some, other persons in fear of instant death, or of instant hurt, or of, instant wrongful restraint., (3) By so putting him in fear, the offender must induce the person so, put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted., Illustrations, (a) 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., (b) A meets Z and Z’s child on the high road. A takes the child, and, threatens to fling 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., (c) 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., According to explanation of section 390 the offender is said to be, present if he is sufficient near to put the other person in fear of instant, death, or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint., Section 391 defines “docaity”. Docaity is an aggravated form of offence, of robbery. It is punishable at al the stages. When the minimum number, of five persons is in robbery, they make it dacoity., When the number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to, commit robbery and the persons present and aiding the commission of, robbery or in its attempt is five or more, it is docity., For dacoity motive is irrelevant [Rambaran, AIR 15 All. 299]., Section 395 provides punishment for dacoity and dacoity with murder, is punishable under section 396., Making preparation to commit dacoity is punishable under section 399, while section 400 provides punishment for belonging to gang of, dacoits., LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 60

Page 61 :
61, , The offence of “dishonest misappropriation” is defined and punished, under section 303., Section 403 has the following ingredients(1) Dishonest misappropriation or conversion by a person to his own, use of any property of another., (2) The property must be movable., Illustrations, (a) A takes property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession in good faith,, believing, at the time when he takes it, that the property belongs, to himself. A is not guilty of theft, but if A, after discovering his, mistake dishonestly appropriates the property of his own use, he, is guilty of an offence under this section., (b) A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z’s liable in Z’s absence,, and takes away a book without Z’s express consent. Here, if A was, under the impression that he had Z’s implied consent to take the, book for the purpose of reading it, A has not committed theft. But,, if A afterwards sells the book for his own benefit, he is guilty of an, offence under this section., (c) A and B, being joint owners of a horse, A takes the horse out of B’s, possession, intending to use it. Here, as A has a right to use the, horse, he does not dishonestly misappropriate it. But, if A sells the, horse and appropriates the whole proceeds to his own use, he is, guilty of an offence under this section., The first Explanation of section 403 states that a dishonest, misappropriation for a time only is also a misappropriation., The second Explanation lays emphasis on a finder’s duty and on his title., Illustrations, (a) A finds a rupee on the high-road, not knowing to whom the rupee, belongs. A picks up the rupee. Here A has committed the offence, defined in this section., (b) A finds a letter on the road, containing a bank note. From the, direction and contents of the letter he learns to whom the note, belongs. He appropriates the note. He is guilty of an offence under, this section., LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 61

Page 62 :
62, , (c) A finds a purse with money, not knowing to whom it belongs, A, afterwards discovers that it belongs to Z, and appropriates it to his, own use. A is guilty of an offence under this section., (d) A finds a valuable ring, not knowing to whom it belongs. A sells it, immediately without attempting to discover the owner. A is guilty, of an offence under this section., Section 405 defines the offence of “criminal breach of trust”., There are following ingredients of criminal breach of trust(1) A person should be entrusted with property or he should have any, dominion over property., (2) That person(a) Should dishonestly misappropriate or convert the property to, his own use, or, (b) Should dishonestly use or dispose of that property or willfully, suffers any other person so to do., (3) In volition of(a) Any law of trust, or, (b) Any legal contract of trust, Illustrations, (a) A, being executor to the will of a deceased person, dishonestly, disobeys the law which directs him to divide the effects according, to the will and appropriates them to his own use. A has committed, criminal breach of trust., (b) A is a warehouse-keeper, Z, going on a journey, entrusts his, furniture to A, under a contract that it shall be returned on, payment of a stipulated sum for warehouse-room. A dishonestly, sells the goods. A has committed criminal breach of trust., (c) A, residing in Calcutta, is an agent for Z, residing at Delhi. There is, an express or implied contract between A and Z, that all sums, remitted by Z to Z shall be invested by A, according to Z’s direction., Z remits a lakh of rupees to A, with directions to invest the same in, company’s paper. A dishonestly disobeys the directions and, employs the money in his own business. A has committed criminal, breach of trust., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 62

Page 63 :
63, , But if A, not dishonestly but in good faith, believing that it will be, more for Z’s advantage to hold shares in the Bank of Bengal,, disobeys Z’s directions and buys shares in the Bank of Bengal, for, Z, instead of buying company’s paper, here, though Z should suffer, loss, and should be entitled to bring a civil action against A, on, account of that loss, yet A, not having acted dishonestly, has not, committed criminal breach of trust., Thus in the section 405 has a comprehensive meaning. It covers the, relationship of trustee and bailee, master and servant, pleaders and, pleadee, guardian and ward and other fiduciary relationship., The word ‘entrusted’ means entrustment of any property for same, purpose. The dishonest disposition of the same is subject-matter of this, section., When a money-order clerk received some money as money order but he, gave credit of money less than that to the post master he was guilty., If he accused receives the jewellery with a promise to pay for it but he, retains it and does not make over the payment, he is guilty under, section 405., The words of section 405, I. P. C., are large enough to include the case of, a partner; if it be proved that he was in fact entrusted with the, partnership property. Or with a dominion over it, and had dishonestly, misappropriated it or converted it to his own will. [R. K. Dalmia v. Delhi, Admns, 1962 SC]., Misappropriation of stridhana by a woman’s husband or relatives, makes them liable under section 405 and 406., Section 410 defines “stolen property”. Stolen property has been defined, as that property which has been stolen, extorted or robbed or which has, been obtained by criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust., The transfer of possession of the property by any of the modes stated is, must., It is of no consequence at all whether the transfer has been made, or the, misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within India or, without India., If stolen property later on comes into the possession of someone who is, legally entitled to its possession them the property does not remain, stolen property any more., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 63

Page 64 :
64, , Section 415 defines the offence of “cheating” and section 417 provides, punishment for it., The Supreme Court in Raj Jas v. state of U. P. 1971 2 SCJ 264;, enumerated the ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating as, following(1) There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person by, deceiving him., (2) (a) The person so deceived should be induced to deliver any, Property to any person or to consent that any person shall, Retain any property; or, (b)the person so deceived should be intentionally induced to do, Or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit it he, Were not so deceiver, and, (3) In cases covered by (2) (b) the act or omission should be one, which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to the person, induced in body, mind, reputation or property., The explanation of section 415 says that dishonest concealment of fact, is deception., Illustrations, (a) A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil service, intentionally, deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit, goods for which he does not mean to pay. A cheats., (b) A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives, Z into a belief that this article was made by a certain celebrated, manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to by and pay for the, article. A cheats., Section 416 defines “cheating by personation” which is one of the ways, in which the offence of cheating is committed and section 419 provides, punishment for it., For the offence of cheating by personation the cheating should be by(1) Pretention by a person to be some other person; or, (2) Knowingly substituting one person for another; or, , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 64

Page 65 :
65, , (3) Representation that he or any other person is other than he or such, other person really is., The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or, imaginary person., Illustrations, (a) A cheats by pretending to be a certain rich banker of the same, name. a cheats by personation., (b) A cheats by pretending to be B, a person who is deceased. A cheats, by personation., Section 420 is concerned with more serious classes of cheating when, there is dishonest inducement to deliver the property., Section 425 defines the offence of “mischief” and section 426 provides, punishment for it., Ingredients of section 425(1) An intention or knowledge of likelihood to cause wrongful loss or, damage to the public or to any person., (2) Causing destruction of any property or change in the situation, thereof., (3) Such change or destruction destroys or diminishes value or utility, of the property and affects it injuriously., Illustrations, (a) A voluntarily burns a valuable security belonging to Z intending to, cause wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief., (b) A introduces water into an ice-house belonging to Z and thus causes, the ice to melt, intending wrongful loss to Z, A has committed, mischief., (c) A voluntarily throws into a river a ring belonging to Z, with the, intention of thereby causing wrongful loss to Z. A has committed, mischief., (d) A causes a ship to be cast away, intending thereby to cause damage, to Z who has lent money on bottomry on the ship. A has committed, mischief., LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 65

Page 66 :
66, , (e) A, having joint property with Z in a horse, shoots the horse,, intending thereby to cause wrongful loss to Z. A has committed, mischief., (f) A causes cattle to enter upon the field belonging to Z, intending to, cause and knowing that he is likely to cause damage to Z’s crop. A, has committed mischief., Section 441 defines “criminal trespass” and section 447 provides, punishment for it., For a criminal trespass, the following ingredients are necessary(1) A person enters into or after having entered into remains in or, upon the property in the possession of another., (2) He enters or remains there with intent to commit an offence or to, intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of the, property., House breaking is defined in the Section 445. House breaking is a, serious kind of house trespass which is defined in section 442. Section, 442, 443, 444 and 445 are aggravated form of section 441., According to section 445 a person commits house-breaking who, commits house trespass if he enters into the house or any part thereof, for the purpose of committing an offence or quits from there is an of the, six ways described in the section 445., Illustrations, (a) 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 port-hole, 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., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 66

Page 67 :
67, , (e) A commits house-trespass by entering Z’s house through the door,, having lifted a latch by putting a wire through a hole in the door., This is house-breaking., (f) A finds the key of Z’s house door, which Z had lost, and commits, house-trespass by entering Z’s house, having opened the door with, that key. This is house-breaking., (g) Z is standing in his doorway. A force, passage by knocking Z down,, and commits house-trespass by entering the house. This is housebreaking., (h) Z, the door-keeper of Y, is standing in Y’s doorway. A commits, house-trespass by entering the house, having deterred Z from, opposing him by threatening to beat him. This is house-breaking., Offences relating to documents and to property marks, [Chapter 18, sections 463-489 E], Many sections of Chapter 18 are amended by the Information, Technology Act, 2000 and I. T. (Amendment) Act, 2008, i.e., section 463,, 464, 466, 468, 469, 470, 471, 474, 476, 477-A., Section 463 defines the offence of “forgery” as making any false, document, and what is making a false document has been explained, under section 464., Forgery has following ingredients(1) Making a false document or false electronic record or part of the, document or electronic record., (2) It should be with the intention –, (a) To cause damage or injury to the public or to may person,, (b) To support any claim or little, or, (c) To cause any person to part with property or, (d) To enter into any express or implied contract, or, (e) To commit fraud or that fraud may be committed., A man’s signature of his own name may amount to forgery., Offences relating t marriage, [Chapter 20, sections 493-498], , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 67

Page 68 :
68, , Certain important offences like bigamy and adultery are part of the, Chapter 20., Cohabitation caused by a man against a woman deceitfully inducing a, belief of lawful marriage in her mind is punishable under section 493., Marrying again during the lifetime of husband or wife, that is to say,, bigamy, has been made a punishable offence under section 494., The ingredients of the sections 494a re., (1) That the accused was already legally married to another., (2) That the husband or wife as the case may be married second time., (3) That at the time of the second marriage the other spouse must be, alive,, (4) That the second marriage of the accused was void because the, previously married spouse was alive. U, Section 494 does not extend to any person whose marriage has been, declared void. Kt also does not apply to a person who marriage when, the husband or wife is alive but has been continually absent from such, person for at least seven years and has not been heard of by him as, being alive during that time., For this section, it is necessary that the previous marriage should be, valid and subsisting., Section 494 does not apply to Mohammedan men but it does apply to, Mohammedan women., If the accused bona fide believes that there has been a divorce between, him and his first wife and so that first marriage is not subsisting and on, such belief he enters into a second marriage he would not be guilty, under section 496. [Shankaran v. serr Shran, 1984 Cr. LJ 317 (Ker)]., Where the essential conditions of a valid marriage have not been, fulfilled, such as ‘homa’ and ‘saptapadi’ in the case of Hindus the second, marriage is not a valid marriage, and consequently the charge of bigamy, against the accused must fail. [priya Bala Ghosh v. Suresh Chandra, Ghosh, AIR 1971 SC 1153]., A married Hindu male whose spouse is alive when after conversion to, Islam marries another girl, it is bigamy and the second marriage is void., [Sarala Mudgal v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC]., Section 497 defines and punishes “adultery” for the offence of adultery,, the following essentials are necessary under this section –, LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 68

Page 69 :
69, , (1) a man does sexual intercourse with a woman., (2) He knows or has reason to believe her to be the wife of another man., (3) He does sexual intercourse without the consent of her husband., (4) Such sexual intercourse does not amount to rape., Adultery is an invasion on the right of husband over his married wife., Adultery is an offence doing sexual intercourse is not punishable even, as an abettor., In adultery the woman doing sexual intercourse is not punishable even, as an abettor., In Yusuf Abdul Aziz v. state of Bombay, AIR 1954 SC, it was held that, Articles 14 and 15 of the Indian Constitution read together validate, section 497 which prohibits the woman to be punished even as an, abettor., In Sowmithri Vishnu v. Union of India, AIR 1985 SC, the Supreme Court, has held that section 497 is not violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the, Constitution because it confers the right on husband to prosecute the, adulterer but no on the wife to prosecute the woman with whom her, husband has committed adultery. The Court said that this is the, commonly accepted contemplation of the law that the man is seducer, not the woman., Chapter 20-A and section 498-A is inserted by Criminal Law (second, Amendment) Act, 1983 w.e.f. 25-12-1983 which punishes a husband of, a woman or any relative of the husband subjecting her to cruelty., The explanation of the section defines cruelty. It must be established, that beating or harassment was with view to coerce woman to commit, suicide or fulfil illegal demands of husband cr in laws., in Pawan Kumar v. state of Haryana, AIR 1998 SC, the Supreme Court, held that cruelty or harassment under section 498-A need not be, physical, mental torture in a grave case would be sufficient for, conviction., Reema Agarwal v. Anupam is a very important case where the relevance, of sections 304-B and 498-A I. P. C. and section 113-B of the Indian, Evidence Act in cases where validity y of the marriage itself was in, question, was looked into by the Supreme Court. Mere possibility of, abuse of a provision of law does not per se invalidate legislation. It must, be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that administration and it, LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 69

Page 70 :
70, , must be presumed, unless the contrary is proved. That administration, and application of a particular law would be done not with an evil eye, and unequal hand. [Satish Kumar Batra v. state of Haryana, 2009 Cr. LJ, 2447 (SC)]., The offence under section 498-A is a continuing offence and on each, occasion on which the respondent which was subjected to cruelty, she, would have a new starting point of limitation. [Arun Vyas v. Anita Vyas,, 1999 Cr. LJ (SC)]., A person can become a relative only by blood or marriage. A woman, who is a keep of the husband of the victim is not a relative. The second, wife cannot assume the character of a wife it the marriage is void., [Ranjana Gopal Thorat v. state of Maharashtra, 2007 Cr. LJ 3866 (SC)]., Defamation, [Chapter 21, sections 499-502], Section 499 defines “defamation” and section 500 provides, punishment for defamation., Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory has been, punished under section 501, and sale of printed or engraved substance, containing defamatory matter has been made punishable under section, 502., Defamation is of two kinds –, (1) Slander – statements made orally, (2) Libel – Statements made by writing, engraving, etc., The Indian law on the defamation both in civil and criminal law is, entirely different from the English law. In India, the English rule that the, slander is not actionable per se except in exceptional circumstances is, not applicable., The defamation gives right of action in Civil Law as well as it furnishes a, ground for criminal action. In one case the compensation is awarded to, the persons who suffers injury, in the other wrongdoers is punished., There are following ingredients of the offence of defamation –, (1) Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person., (2) Such imputation must have been made by words either spoken or, intended to be read or by signs or visible representation., LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 70

Page 71 :
71, , (3) The imputation must have been made with the intention to harm or, with knowledge or having reason to believe that it will harm the, reputation of the person concerning whom it is conveyed., Illustrations, (a) A says – “Z is an honest man; he never stole B’s watch”; intention to, cause it to be believed that Z did steal B’s watch. This is defamation,, unless it falls within one of the exceptions., (b) A is asked who stole B’s watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to, be believed that Z stole B’s watch. This is defamation, unless if falls, within one of the exceptions., (c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B’s watch, intending it to, be believed that Z stole B’s watch. This is defamation unless it falls, within one of the exceptions., The person does not mean only a living and natural person., Explanation 1 of Section 499 provides that to impute anything to a, deceased person, it the imputation would harm the reputation of that, person if living, and which is intended to be hurtful to the feeling of his, family or other near relatives, is also a defamation., The person means a company, an association or collection of persons., Explanation 3 of section 499 provides that, an imputation in the form, of an alternative or expressed ironically, may, amount to defamation., The words may be used in the sense of praise also though they are, ironical e.g. ‘an honest lawyer’., Making or publishing means to make known to other or to make, publication available to others. [Explanation 4 of section 499]., Reference to advocates as ‘Kajia dalals’, that is to say, dispute brokers,, was held to be non-dafamatory because it referred to the lawyers as a, whole and not to a particular. [Narrottam C. Shah v. Patel Maganbhai, Revabhai, 1984 Cr. LJ 1790 (Guj)]., The Supreme Court, in Satrughna Prasad Sinha v. Rajbhau Surajmal, Rathi, 1997 (Cr. LJ 212 (SC), held that the statement in the complaint, that Marwari Community had no faith and love towards India, their, motherland, was not sufficient to constitute the offence of defamation., There are following exceptions of section 499 -, , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 71

Page 72 :
72, , (1) Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or, published., (2) Public conduct of public servants., (3) Conduct of any person touching any public question., (4) Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts., (5) Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others, concerned., (6) Merit of public performance., (7) Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority, over another,, (8) Accusation preferred in good faith to authorized person., (9) Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his of, other’s interests., (10) Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for, public good., Apart from the above exceptions given in Indian Penal Code there are, other exceptions under Indian Constitution., The members of Parliament under Article 105 and the members of state, Legislatures under Article 194 enjoy certain privileges and immunities., A member is absolutely privileged what he says within the precincts of, the House but he was qualified privilege if he wants to publicize it, outside the House., Offences relating to Criminal Intimidation, Insult and Annoyance, [Chapter 22, Sections 503 – 510], Chapter 23 [Sections 503 – 510] defines and punishes the offences, relating to criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance., Section 503 defines “criminal intimidation” and section 506 provides, punishment for criminal intimidation., There are following ingredients of criminal intimidation –, (1) Threat to another –, (a) For injury to his person, or reputation or property, or, (b) For injury to person or reputation of anyone in whom the, person threatened is interested., (2) The intention should be –, LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 72

Page 73 :
73, , (a) To cause harm to that person, or, (b) To cause that person to do any act which he is not legally, bound to do as the means of avoiding execution of such threat,, or, (c) To omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat., For the offence of criminal intimidation, it is not necessary that the, person threatening should himself threat. He may get his threat, communicated through others., Illustration. – A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from, Prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B’s house. A is, guilty of criminal intimidation., The accused took indecent photograph of a girl after showing false love, to her and them wrote a letter to her father threatening to publish the, photographs of the girl with the intent of extorting money from him. It, was a criminal intimidation. [Ramesh Chandra Arora v. the state, (1960), SC 154]., Section 504 makes punishable an intentional insult with intent to, provoke breach of the peace., By the section 505, the rumours and the reports which may produce, mutiny or which may create or promote breach of peace between the, sections of the public has been made punishable., Section 507 provides an additional punishment when the offence of, criminal intimidation is committed by a person without disclosing his, identity or with an anonymous communication., Ward, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman is, punishable under section 509., Misconduct in public by a drunken person is punishable under section, 510. By this section, mere intoxication is not punishable. It is, punishable only when a person in the state or intoxication behave, improperly in a public place or in place where he has no right to enter., Section 510 provides minimum punishment in the I. P. C., which is, simple imprisonment of 24 hours or fine of ten rupees or both., Attempt to Commit Offences, [Chapter 23, Section 511], LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 73

Page 74 :
74, , Chapter 23 and section 511 is the last Chapter and section in Indian, Penal Code., Section 511 is a residuary section. The offences, the attempts of which, do not fall under any of the sections of the I. P. C. are punishable for, their attempts under section 511., The term ‘attempt’ has not been defined in the I. P. C., Generally, an offence has to pass under the following stages(1) Intention, (2) Preparation, (3) Actual commission of the offence., The intention is not punishable unless it is followed by any overt act, because intention without any overt act is not capable of being, ascertained., The preparation is punishable only in serious classes of offence. These, are the following –, (1) Preparation to wage war against the Government of India (Section, 122)., (2) Preparation to commit depredations on the territories of a friendly, country (Section 126)., (3) Making, selling or being in possession of instruments for, counterfeiting of coins or stamps (Section 233, 234, 235 and 237)., (4) Possession of counterfeit coins, false weights and forged documents, (Sections 242, 243, 259, 266)., (5) Preparation to commit dacoity (Section 399)., (6) Mere assembly for the purpose of committing dacoity (Section, 402)., There are following testes to distinguish attempt from preparation(1) Proximity Rule., (2) Impossibility Rule, (3) Locus Paenitentiae Rule., (4) Object Theory., (5) On the Job Theory., An act is attempt if the offender has done all the necessary acts for the, offence., LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 74

Page 75 :
75, , If a shoots at B but due to want of skill he fails to take correct target or, the gun was not loaded and consequently fails to affect any injury to the, B, A is guilty of attempt to murder., In R. v. Ring the cases Queen v. Callings and R. v. Mcpherson were, overruled by Coleridge. J. and impossible attempt was punished., Section 511 provides punishment for impossible attempts. The, illustrations make it clear which are based on R. v. Ring case., Illustrations, (a) A makes an attempt to steal some jewels by breaking open a box,, and finds after so opening the box, that there is no jewel in it. He, has done an act towards the commission of theft, and therefore is, guilty under this section., (b) A makes attempt to pick the pocket of Z by thrusting his hand into, Z’s pockets, A fails in the attempt in consequence of Z’s having, nothing in his pocket. A is guilty under this section., In R. v. Spicer the accused was charged of attempt to cause miscarriage, by manual manipulation. The accused was punished., In R. v. Ranford, A wrote a letter to B to commit a felony, B never read, the letter but A was guilty of attempt to incite B to commit felony., If A buys silver for making falls coins, he is not punishable because he, may change his mind, bit if he procures a dye, he attempts to make falls, coins., Important cases on attempt(1) Queen v. Dayal Bauri (1809) 4 BL RAR., (2) Asgar Ali v. Emperor, AIR 1933 Cal., (3) Abhaya Nand Mishra v. state of Bihar, AIR 1901 SC., (4) Om Prakash v. state of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC., (5) State of Maharashtra v. Md. Yakub, AIR 1980 SC, (6) Kopula Venkal Rao v. State of A. P., (2004) 3 SCC 602, (7) R v. Asborn (1920) 84 JP 63., (8) Haughton v. Smith, (9) Sudhir Kumar Mukerjee v. state of West Bengal., (10) Queen v. Kalyan Singh., Some other important sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 75

Page 76 :
76, , Section 8. Gender., Section 10. “Man”, “Woman”., Section 11. “Person”., Section 12. “Public”., Section 14. “Servant of Government”., Section 21. “Public servant”., Section 22. “Movable property”., Section 23. “Wrongful gain”-“Wrongful loss” – Gaining wrongfully –, Losing wrongfully., Section 24. “Dishonestly”., Section 25. “Fraudulently”., Section 26. “Reason to believe”., Section 28. “Counterfeit”., Section 29. “Document”., Section 29.A. Electronic record”., Section 30. “Valuable security”., Section 33. “Act” – “Omission”., Section 39. “Voluntarily”., Section 40. “Offence”., Section 41. “Special law”., Section 42. “Local Law”., Section 43. “Illegal” – “Legally bound to do”., Section 44. “Injury”., Section 45. “Life”., Section 46. “Death”., Section 49. “Year”, “Month”., Section 50. “section”., Section 51. “Oath”., Section 52. “Good faith”., Section 52-A “Harbour”., Section 54. Commutation of sentence of death., Section 57. Fractions of terms of punishment., Section 63. Amount of fine,, Section 64. Commutation of sentence of death., Section 65. Limit to imprisonment for non-payment of fine, when, imprisonment and fine awardable., LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 76

Page 77 :
77, , Section 66. Description of imprisonment for non-payment of fine., Section 73. Solitary confinement., Section 74. Limit of solitary confinement., Section 121. Waging, or attempting to wage war or abetting waging of, war, against the Government of India., Section 121-A. conspiracy to commit offences punishable by section, 121., Section 122. Collecting arms, etc. with intention of waging war against, the Government of India., Section 124. Assaulting President Governor, etc. with intent to compel, or restrain exercise of any lawful power., Section 125. Waging war against any Asiatic Power in alliance with the, Government of India., Section 126. Committing depredation on territories of power at peace, with the Government of India., Section 127. Receiving property taken by war or depredation, mentioned in sections 125 and 126., Section 145. Joining or continuing in unlawful assembly, knowing it has, been commanded to disperse., Section 151. Knowingly joining or continuing in assembly of five or, more persons after it has been commanded to disperse., Section 153-A. Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds, of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc. and doing acts, prejudicial to maintenance of harmony. – Offence committed in place of, worship, etc ., Section153 AA. Punishment for knowingly carrying arms in any, procession or organizing, or holding or taking part in any mass drill or, mass training with arms., Section 153-B. imputations, assertions prejudicial to national, integration., Section 170. Personating a public servant., Section 172. Absconding to avoid service of summons or other, proceeding., Section 174. Non-attendance in obedience to an order from public, servant., Section 174A. non-appearance in response to a proclamation under, section 82 of Act 2 of 1974., LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 77

Page 78 :
78, , Section 175. Omission to produce document or electronic record to, public servant by person legally bound to produce it., Section 176. Omission to give notice or information to public servant by, person legally bound to give it., Section 177. Furnishing false information., Section 179. Refusing to answer public servant authorized to question., Section 181. False statement on oath or affirmation to public servant or, person authorized to administer an oath or affirmation., Section 182. False information with intent to cause public servant to use, his lawful power to the injury of another person., Section 188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant., Section 189. Threat of injury to public servant., Section 191. Giving false evidence., Section 192. Fabricating false evidence., Section 193. Punishment for false evidence., Section 195A. Threatening or inducing any person to give false, evidence., Section 196. Using evidence known to be false., Section 197. Issuing or signing false certificate., Section 201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving, false information to screen offender., Section 209, dishonestly making false claim in Court., Section 211. False charge of offence made with intent to injure., Section 212. Harboring offender., Section 228-A. disclosure of identity if the victim of certain offences, etc., Section 229A. failure by person released on bail or bond to appear in, Court., Section 231. Counterfeiting coin., Section 232. Counterfeiting Indian coin., Section 242. Possession of counterfeit coin by person who knew it to be, counterfeit when he became possessed thereof., Section 255. Counterfeiting Government stamps., Section 259. Having possession of counterfeit Government stamp., Section 268. Public Nuisance., Section 272. Adulteration of food or drink intended for sale., Section 273. Sale of noxious food or drink., Section 274. Adulteration of drugs., LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 78

Page 79 :
79, , Section 290. Punishment for public nuisance., Section 291. Continuance of nuisance after injunction to discontinue., Section 292. Sale, etc. of obscene books, etc., Section 293. Sale, etc. of obscene objects to young person., Section 294. Obscene acts and songs., Section 294-A keeping lottery office., Section 295. Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult, the religion of any class., Section 295-A. deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage, religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs., Section 310. Thug., Section 312. Causing miscarriage., Section 313. Causing miscarriage without woman’s consent., Section 317. Exposure and abandonment of child under twelve years, by, parent or person having care of it., Section 318. Concealment of birth by secret disposal of dead body., Section 326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons, or means., Section 327. Voluntarily causing hurt to extort property, or to constrain, to an illegal act., Section 329. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort property, or to, constrain to an illegal act., Section 330. Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession, or to compel, restoration of property., Section 331. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort confession, or to, compel restoration of property., Section 334. Voluntarily causing hurt on provocation., Section 335. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation., Section 345. Wrongful confinement of person for whose liberation writ, has been issued., Section 354. Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage, her modesty., Section 355. Assault or criminal force with intent to dishonor person,, otherwise than on grave provocation., Section 364. Kidnapping or abduction gin order to murder., Section 364-A. kidnapping for ransom, etc., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 79

Page 80 :
80, , Section 369. Kidnapping or abducting child under ten years with intent, to steal from its person., Section 436. Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to, destroy house, etc., Section 441. Criminal trespass., Section 442. House-trespass., Section 443. Lurking house-trespass., Section 444. Lurking house-trespass by night., Section 445. House-breaking., Section 446. House-breaking by night., Section 447. Punishment for house-trespass., Section 448. Punishment for house-trespass., Section 453. Punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-breaking., Section 456. Punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-breaking, by night., Section 463. Forgery., Section 464. Making a false document., Section 465. Punishment for forgery., Section 479. Property mark., Section 481. Using a false property mark., Section 482. Punishment for using a false property mark., Section 489. Tampering with property mark with intent to cause injury., Section 491. Breach of contract to attend on and supply wants of, helpless person., Section 493. Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief, of lawful marriage., Section 494. Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife., Section 495. Same offence with concealment of former marriage from, person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted., Section 496. Marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without, lawful marriage., Section 498. Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a, married woman., Section 498-A. husband or relative of a husband of a woman subjecting, her to cruelty [Chapter 20-A]., , LEGAL SUCCESS LAW CLASSES, Basement Kamla Complex, 217 Chhipi Tank , Opp. R. G. Inter College, Meerut 8958859236[Type text], Page 80