Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

LAW OF CRIMES IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

SHORT ANSWER QUESTIONS

1. COMMON INTENTION (SECTION 34).

2. PREPARATION
3. ATTEMPT (INCHOATE CRIME) (SECTION 511).
4. MENS REA IS THE CARDINAL PRINCIPLE
(ACTUS NON TACIT REUM MINI MENS SIT REA)
5. MISTAKE OF FACT (SECTIONS 76 & 79).
6. PRIVATE DEFENCE WITH SUITABLE EXAMPLES (SECTIONS 96 TO 106).
7. ACT OF CHILD (SECTIONS 82 & 83).
8. INSANITY (SECTION 84).
9. ABETMENT (SECTION 107).
10. DEFINE KIDNAPPING (359) AND DIFFERENTIATE FROM ABDUCTION (362).
11. CHEATING (SECTION 415), EXPLAIN THE LAW RELATING TO CHEATING.
12. SECTION 498 - A (CRUELTY BY HUSBAND OR RELATIVES OF HUSBAND)
ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES
13. DEFINE DOCUMENT (SECTION 29) & WHAT ARE THE OFFENCES RELATING TO
DOCUMENTS (FORGERY – SECTION 463)

LONG ANSWER QUESTIONS

1. DEFINE CRIME & DIFFERENT STAGES OF CRIME, EXPLAIN INCHOATE CRIMES

2. DEFINE CRIME. WHAT ARE THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CRIME
3. DEFINE CRIME AND DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CRIME & TORT
4. GENERAL EXCEPTIONS, WITH SUITABLE EXAMPLES (SECTIONS 76 - 106)
5. DEFINE MURDER AND DISCUSS WHEN CULPABLE HOMICIDE AMOUNTS TO
MURDER & NOT AMOUNTS TO MURDER & DIFFERENCES, EXCEPTIONS OF MURDER
6. DEFINE THEFT (SEC. 378) AND ESSENTIALS OF THEFT,
AND DISTINGUISH BETWEEN EXTORTION, ROBBERY AND DACOITY
7. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF DEFAMATION AND EXCEPTIONS TO DEFAMATION

PART C CASES
1. MURDER, SECTION 300 and 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.
2. Decoity, Sections 391, 397 and 398.
3. Communication made in good faith, Section 93.
4. Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence.
5. Section 467. Forgery of valuable security.
6. Section 84, Act of a person of unsound mind.
7. Section 80, Accident in doing a lawful act (it includes unlawful acts also).
8. Robbery Section 390; Section 392 Punishment for Robbery.
9. Cheating Section 415, Punishment 417.
10. Culpable homicide Section 299, Punishment Section 304 of IPC.

PAPER – IV - SYLLABUS

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

1
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

LAW OF CRIMES
Unit-I:
Concept of crime - Definition and meaning of crime - Distinction between crime and
tort - Stages of crime - Intention, Preparation, Attempt and Commission of Crime -
Elements of Crime - Actus Reus and Mensrea - Codification of Law of Crimes in
India - Application of the Indian Penal Code - Territorial and Extra-Territorial
application - General Explanations - Punishments.
Unit-II:
General exceptions - Abetment - Criminal Conspiracy - Offences against the State -
Offences against public peace and Tranquility – Increasing tendency of offences under
S.153-A and S.153-B
Unit-III:
Offences affecting human body (offences affecting human life) Culpable Homicide
and Murder – Hurt and Grievous Hurt - Wrongful restraint and Wrongful confinement
- Criminal force and Assault - Kidnapping and Abduction - Sexual offences -
Unnatural offences.
Unit-IV:
Offences affecting the public health, safety, convenience, decency and morals -
Offences against Property - Theft - Extortion - Robbery & Dacoity - Cheating -
Mischief - Criminal Trespass – Criminal misappropriation and Criminal breach of
trust.
Unit-V:
Offences by or relating to public servants - False Evidence and Offences against
Public Justice - Offences relating to documents - Offences relating to Marriage -
Cruelty by husband and relatives of husband - Defamation.

Suggested Readings:
1. Ratanlal and Dhiraj Lal: Indian Penal Code, Wadhwa & Co.
2. Achutan Pillai: Criminal Law, Butterworth co.
3. Gour K.D.: Criminal Law - Cases and Materials, Butterworth Co.
4. Kenny's: Outlines of Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press.
5. K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai, General Principles of Criminal Law, Indian Law
Institute, New Delhi.
6. K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai,

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

2
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

[Link] IMPORTANT SECTIONS SEC

1 Common Intention 34
2 Mistake of fact 76 & 79
3 Act of a child under 7 years 82
4 Act of a child above 7 & below 12 years 83
5 Act of a person of unsound mind 84
6 Act of a person incapable of judgment by involuntary intoxication 85
7 Communication made in good faith 93
Things done in private defence (Secs. 96 -106 Right of private
8 defence) 96
9 Culpable homicide 299
10 Murder 300
11 Culpable homicide (transfer of malice) 301
12 Punishment for murder 302
13 Punishment for culpable homicide 304
14 Dowry death 304B
15 Attempt to murder 307
16 Attempt to culpable homicide 308
17 Hurt 319
18 Grievous hurt 320
19 Kidnapping 359
20 Kidnapping from India 360
21 Kidnapping from lawful guardianship 361
22 Abduction 362
23 Rape 375
24 Punishment for rape 376
25 Punishment for causing death 376A
26 Theft 378
27 Punishment for theft 379
28 Extortion 383
29 Punishment for extortion 384
30 Robbery 390
31 Dacoity 391
32 Punishment for robbery 392
33 Attempt to commit robbery 393
34 Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery 394
35 Punishment for dacoity 395
36 Dacoity with murder 396
37 Cheating 415
38 Bigamy 494
39 Cruelty by husband or relatives 498A
40 Defamation 499

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

3
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

SHORT ANSWER QUESTIONS

1. COMMON INTENTION (SECTION 34).

Answer: Common intention is also called as ‘Joint Liability” in Criminal Law Sections 34 of
IPC explains the provisions about common intention.
Definition of Common Intention (Section 34): Acts done by several persons in furtherance
of common intention - When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the
common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if
it were done by him alone.
Principle of Joint Liability: There are some provisions in the Penal Code which determine the
liability of a person committing a crime in combination with some others. In all such
provisions, a joint liability is created either because the intention is common or the object is
common to all the persons forming a group alleged to have committed a crime. Under the
Indian Penal code, the criminal liability of a person is determined according to the manner in
which he becomes associated with the commission of crime. Normally a person may be a
participant in a crime in the following four ways:
1. When he himself commits a crime.
2. When he shares in the commission of it.
3. When he, with a view to the commission of crime, sets some third agency to work,
that is, he makes some third party his own agent for committing the crime.
4. When he helps the offender, after the commission of the crime, in screening him
from justice.
Ingredients: To attract the principle of joint liability under Section 34 there should be:
1. Some criminal act,
2. A criminal act done by more than one person,
3. A criminal act done by such persons in furtherance of the common intention of all of
them,
4. Common intention in the sense of a pre-arranged plan between such persons,
5. Participation in some manner in the act constituting the offence by the persons
sought to be prosecuted,
6. Physical presence at the time of the commission of the crime of all the persons, but
the physical presence of all is not necessary in some cases.
Crimes in which common intention plays a big role: Robbery (Sec. 390), Dacoity (Sec.
391), Cruelty by husband and relatives (Sec. 498A).

2. PREPARATION.
Answer: The second stage in the commission of a crime is ‘preparation’ (Sec 8 of the Indian
Evidence Act). Preparation means “to arrange the means or measures necessary for
commission of the intended criminal act”.
Preparation is the action of preparing or getting ready, something that is prepared, and
something made for a specific purpose, to make ready beforehand. It is very difficult for the
prosecution to prove that necessary preparation has been made for the commission of the
offence.
At the stage of preparation, the intention to cause harm starts manifesting itself in the
form of physical actions. Preparation consists of arranging or building things that are
needed to commit the crime, for example, purchasing poison.

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

4
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

Preparation is driven by a motive. A motive is that which stimulates or incites an action;

the mainspring of human action; some cause or reason that moves the will and induces
action.
It is very difficult for the prosecution to prove that necessary preparation has been made
for the commission of the offence. For example,
Purchasing a knife with the intention to kill someone is not a crime because it cannot be
determined whether the knife was bought to kill someone or to cut vegetables.
Mere preparation is punishable under the Indian Penal Code in respect of the following
offences.
1. Waging War (Section 122),
2. Preparation to commit dacoity (Section 399),
3. Preparation for counterfeiting coins and Government stamps (Sections 233 to 235,
255 and 257), and
4. Possessing counterfeit coins, false coins, false weights or measurement and forged
documents (Sections 242, 243, 259, 266 and 474).
The preparation itself constitutes the actus reus.

3. ATTEMPT (INCHOATE CRIME) (SECTION 511).

Answer: Attempt is the third stage in commission of a crime. It is also known as
‘preliminary crime’ and ‘inchoate crime’ (inchoate means incomplete). Attempt is an effort
or endeavour to do something; to try to accomplish or attain any action or object.
Attempt to commit an offence can be said to begin when the preparations are complete
and the culprit commences to do something with the intention of committing the offence
and which is a step towards the commission of the offence. The moment he commences to
do an act with necessary intention, he commences his attempt to commit the offence. The
word ‘attempt’ is not itself defined and must, therefore be taken to its ordinary meaning.
Any over act connected with the commission of an offence forming part of a series of acts
which, if not interrupted or frustrated would end in the commission of the actual offence, is
if done with a guilty intent an attempt to commit offence Code, but ordinarily to constitute
an attempt the following elements are necessary:
1. Mens rea to commit the offence,
2. An act which constitutes the actus reus of a criminal attempt,
3. Failure in accomplishment i.e., the act must fall short of completion of the intended
crime.
Attempt in Penal Code: the Indian Penal Code deals with ‘attempt’ in three different
ways:
1. In some cases, the commission of an offence and the attempt to commit it, are dealt
with in the same section and the extent of punishment is also the same for both.
E.g. waging war and attempting to wage war (Section 121),
2. In the case of certain offences, attempts are described separately and separate
punishment is prescribed for completed offences and attempt.
E.g. Section 302 describes the punishment for murder (Sec 300) and attempt to
murder is punishable under Section 307; similarly, for culpable homicide (Sec 299),
the punishment is given under Section 304 and for attempt to culpable homicide the
punishment is given under Section 308.

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

5
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

3. Provision has been made in Section 511 in respect of those offences which are not
covered by the above two categories i.e., which are not otherwise provided for in
the Indian Penal Code.
Ingredients of Section 511: Attempt under this section requires the following ingredients:
1. Attempt must be to commit an offence punishable by the Indian Penal Code with
imprisonment for life or imprisonment or to cause such an offence, to be committed.
2. The person attempting must do an act towards the commission of the offence as state
above.
3. Attempt under Section 511 is punishable where there is no express provision for
punishment of such an attempt under the Code.
Locus Penitentiae: This is a Latin word which means an opportunity to withdraw from the
commission of a crime. For example, ‘A’ intending to murder ‘B’ by administering poison
purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains in ‘A’ keeping. A is not guilty
of an attempt to murder because there is still time when better reason might prevail at any
moment and A might change his mind and desist from giving that poisonous food to B.
In Malkiat Singh v State of Punjab, the appellant Malkiat Singh was a truck driver. He was
carrying paddy out of the jurisdiction of the State of Punjab without a licence in violation of
the Punjab (Export) Control Order, 1959. He was stopped 14 miles away from the Punjab
Delhi border and was prosecuted for an attempt to contravene the said order. Allowing the
appeal Supreme Court held that the act of carrying paddy did not amount to a criminal
attempt.

4. MENS REA IS THE CARDINAL PRINCIPLE (ACTUS NON-FACIT REUM NISI MENS SIT REA).
Answer: One of the main characteristics of our legal system is that the individual’s liability
to punishment for crimes depends, among other things, on certain mental conditions. The
absence of these conditions, where they are required, negatives the liability. These
conditions can best be expressed in negative form as excusing conditions. The liability to
conviction of an individual depends not only on his having done some outward acts which
the law forbids but on his having done them in a certain frame of mind or with a certain will.
These are known as ‘mental elements’ in criminal responsibility.
“It is a maxim older than the law of England that no man is guilty unless his mind is guilty”
observed Lord Arbinger in R. v Alldayz.
Now it is the combination of act and intent which makes a crime. The intent and the act
must both concur to constitute a crime. An act by itself is not wrong. But the act, if
prohibited, done with a particular intent makes it criminal. There can be no crime large or
small without any evil intent. The responsibility in crimes must depend on the doing of a
‘willed’ or ‘voluntary act’ and a particular intent behind that act.
The basic requirement of the principle of mens rea is that accused must have been aware
of all those elements in his act which make it the crime with which he is charged. That
means, he must have intended the actus reus or have been reckless whether he caused an
actus reus or not. It is not necessary that he must know that the act which he is going to
commit is a crime.
As per the IPC mens rea may be of any of the following forms:
A. Intention,
B. Voluntarily,
C. Fraudulently,

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

6
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

D. Dishonestly,
E. With knowledge,
F. Corruptly,
G. Malignantly,
H. Maliciously,
I. Wantonly: wantonly means doing a thing recklessly or thoughtlessly without regard
to its consequences.
J. Negligently,
K. Rashly.
Exceptions to Mens Rea:
A. The penalty incurred is not great,
B. The damage caused to the public by the offence is, comparison with the penalty,
very great,
C. Where at the same time, the offence is such that there would usually be peculiarity
and difficulty in obtaining adequate evidence of the ordinary mens rea if that degree
of guilt were to be required.

5. MISTAKE OF FACT (SECTIONS 76 AND 79).

Answer:
 Introduction: Chapter IV (Sections 76 to 106) deals with the various defences which a
person, accused of an offence under the Code or any special or local law can plead.
 Applicability of chapter IV: General exceptions are available to accused of all
offences.
 Burden of proof (Sec 105 of Indian Evidence Act): The general rule is that it is the
duty of the prosecution to prove the case, But the burden of proving the existence of
circumstances bringing the case of the accused within any of the general exceptions
in the Penal Code, or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other
part of the Code, or in any law defining the offence is upon him, and the court shall
presume the absence of such circumstances. It means if an accused pleads an
exception within the meaning of this Chapter there is a presumption against him and
the burden to rebut that presumption is on him.
 Sec 76 states that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by
reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith
believing himself to be, bound by law to do it.
 Section 79: Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself
justified, by law: Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified
by law, or who by reason of 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.
 Sec 76 and 79 of the IPC are based on the maxim ‘ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia
juris non-excusat’ which means ‘ignorance of fact excuses, ignorance of law does not
excuse’.
 Mistake or ignorance of law: Ignorance of law is no excuse either in the case of a
native or a foreigner.
Mistake is one of the defences available to the accused to get exemption from criminal
liability. Mistake is of two kinds, namely (1). Mistake of fact and (2). Mistake of law.
Mistake of fact is a mistake which takes place when some fact which really exists is

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

7
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

unknown; or some fact is supposed to exist which really does not exist. Mistake of law is a
mistake occurring when a person having full knowledge of fact comes to an erroneous
conclusion as to their legal effect.
Essentials of Section 76:
1. An act done by a person who is bound by law in doing that, or
2. An act done by a person who believes himself to be bound by law in doing that,
3. The belief must be by reason of mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law
i.e., mistake must relate to fact and not to law,
4. The belief must be a bona fide belief in good faith i.e., he must believe in good faith.
Essentials of Section 79:
1. An act done by a person under a mistake of fact,
2. Mistake must relate to fact and not to law,
3. Mistake must be committed in good faith.
4. The person doing the act is either justified by law or believes himself to be justified
by law in doing an act.
Illustration: A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A in the 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, though it may turn out that Z was
acting in self-defence.

6. PRIVATE DEFENCE WITH SUITABLE EXAMPLES (SECTIONS 96 TO 106).

ANSWER: Self-preservation is the primary instinct of every human being. Every man has
the right to defend his own body and property.
 According to Russel, “A man is justified in resisting by force anyone who manifestly
intends and endeavours by violence or surprise to commit a known felony against
either his person, habitation or property.
 Right of private defence is dealt under Sections 96 to 106.
 According to Mayne the whole law of self-defence rests on the following four
propositions:
1. Society undertakes, and, in the great majority of cases, is able to protect private
persons against unlawful attacks upon their person and property,
2. Where the aid of society can be obtained, it must be resorted to,
3. Where the aid of society cannot be obtained, individual may do everything
necessary to protect himself,
4. The violence used must be in proportion to the injury to be averted and must not
be employed for the gratification of vindictive or malicious feelings.
 However, there are two important limits on the right of private defence.
1. Right of private defence can under no circumstances justify anything which
strictly is no defence but an offence.
2. The right cannot be claimed when you have yourself courted the attack.
 The right of private defence cannot be exercised to cause harm to another as
revenge. In other words, the right of private defence can be used as a shield and not
a sword.
 Sec 96: Things done in private defence – Nothing is an offence which is done in the
exercise of the right of private defence.

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

8
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

 Sec 97: Right of private defence of the body and of property – Every person has a
right, subject to the restrictions contained in Section 99, to defend –
1. His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting
the human body;
2. The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person.
 Sec 98: Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind, etc.,
 Sec 99: Acts against which there is no right of private defence,
 Sec 100: When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death
 Sec 101: When such right extends to causing any harm other than death,
 Sec 102: Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the
body,
 Sec 103: When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death,
 Sec 104: When such right extends to causing any harm other than death,
 Sec 105: Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of
property,
 Sec 106: Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is risk of harm
to innocent person.

7. ACT OF CHILD (SECTIONS 82 & 83).

Answer:
 Introduction: Chapter IV (Sections 76 to 106) deals with the various defences which
a person, accused of an offence under the Code or any special or local law can plead.
 Applicability of the chapter IV: General exceptions are available to accused of all
offences.
 Burden of proof (Sec 105 of Indian Evidence Act): The general rule is that it is the
duty of the prosecution to prove the case, But the burden of proving the existence
of circumstances bringing the case of the accused within any of the general
exception in the Penal Code, or within any special exception or proviso contained in
any other part of the Code, or in any law defining the offence is upon him, and the
court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. It means if an accused
pleads an exception within the meaning of this Chapter there is a presumption
against him and the burden to rebut that presumption is on him.
 The exception for act of child is dealt under category “absence of criminal intent”.
 Section 82: Act of the child under seven years of age – Nothing is an offence which is
done by a child under seven years of age.
-In India a child below 7 years of age is considered to be doli incapax and therefore
cannot be held guilty of any offence.
-A child below 7 years of age is absolutely immune from criminal liability.
 Section 83: Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding
– Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under
twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the
nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
The following are ingredients of Section 83:
1. An act done by a child above 7 years but under 12 years of age.
2. The child must not have attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of
the nature and consequence of his conduct.
3. Incapacity must exist at the time of commission of the act.

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

9
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

 Section 83 deals with the cases of qualified immunity because a child above 7 but
below 12 years of age is presumed to be possessed with maturity of understanding
and capacity to commit a crime.
 However, the presumption is rebuttable and the burden to rebut this presumption
lies upon the defendant.
 A child between 7 to 12 years of age is qualified to avail the defiance of doli incapax
if it is proved that he has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to
understand the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
 Hiralal v State of Bihar, 1978, a boy of 11 years abused and killed a person, the
defence under Section 83 was not allowed.
 Critique of Indian Law – It may be pointed out that the Indian Law relating to infancy
suffers from one lacuna. Section 82 deals with an act done by a child below 7 years
of age, Section 83 deals with acts of children who are above seven but below 12
years of age. The sections make no provision for an infant who is of exact 7 years. It
is submitted that such an infant should be dealt with under section 82 of the Code
because penal statutes are to be interpreted strictly.

8. INSANITY (SECTION 84).

Answer: Persons of unsound mind (Defence of Insanity): Section 84 of the Indian Penal
Code states regarding the act of a person of unsound mind thus:
Section 84: “Act of a person of unsound mind:- Nothing is an offence which is done by a
person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of
knowing the nature of the Act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law”.
The ingredients of Section 84 are:
1. Act must be done by a person of unsound mind.
2. Such person must be incapable of knowing:
a).The nature of the act; or
b).That the act was contrary to law; or
c).That the act was wrong,
3. Such incapacity must be by reason of unsoundness of mind of the offender,
4. The incapacity of knowing the nature of act must exist at the time of doing of the
act constituting the offence.
 Burden of proof (Sec 105 of Indian Evidence Act): The general rule is that it is the
duty of the prosecution to prove the case, But the burden of proving the existence
of circumstances bringing the case of the accused within any of the general
exception in the Penal Code, or within any special exception or proviso contained in
any other part of the Code, or in any law defining the offence is upon him, and the
court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. It means if an accused
pleads an exception within the meaning of this Chapter there is a presumption
against him and the burden to rebut that presumption is on him.
In order to hold a person legally responsible for a crime, generally speaking, a criminal
intent is necessary and therefore capacity of the wrong-doer to form a criminal intent is a
relevant consideration in determining the criminal liability of that person.
Mc Naghten Rule: Fifteen Law Lords formulated some principles which later became famous
as “Mc Naghten’s Principles of Insanity”. They are:

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

10
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

1. Every man is presumed to be sane and to posses sufficient degree of reason to be

responsible for his crimes, until contrary be proved to the satisfaction of the jury or
the court.
2. To establish defence on ground of insanity it must be clearly shown that at the time
of committing the act, the accused was labouring under such a defect of reason from
disease of mind that he did not know the nature and quality of the act he was doing
or that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong,
3. If the accused was conscious that the act was one which he ought not to do and if
that act was at the same time contrary to the law, he would be punishable.
4. A medical witness who has not seen the accused previous to the trial should not be
asked his opinion whether on evidence he thinks that the accused was insane.
5. Where the criminal act is committed by a man under some insane delusion as to the
surrounding facts, which conceals from him the true nature of the act he is doing, he
will be under the same degree of responsibility as he would have been on the facts
as he imagined them to be.
Persons of unsound mind: There are four kinds of persons who may be said to be not of
sound mind (non-compos mentis):
1. An idiot,
2. A lunatic,
3. Unsound due to illness,
4. Drunken or intoxicated person.
 Amrutha v State of Maharashtra, the accused killed his wife, and immediately
danced with the dog by keeping a broken bottle on his head, to prove his case that it
falls under insanity, but the court dismissed his plea and punished him.

9. ABETMENT (SECTION 107).

Answer: Section 107, Abetment of a thing:
“A person abets the doing of a thing, who:-
First: - Instigates any person to do that thing; or
Secondly:- Engage with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing
of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in
order to the doing of that; or
Thirdly: - Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
 Abetment is described in chapter V of IPC, from Section 107 to 120.
 When several persons take part in the commission of an offence, each one of them
may contribute in a manner and degree different from the others to the commission
of it.
 The offence may be committed by one person at the instigation of another person,
while some others may only be present for offering help at the time of commission
of it.
 English Law: Clear distinction is made between Principals who may be of the first or
second degree and the accessories before and after the fact.
1. Principal in the first degree is one who commits or actually takes part in the
commission of a crime.
2. Principal in the second degree is one who aids or abets the actual commission of
a crime.

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

11
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

3. Whoever directly or indirectly incites, counsels, procures, encourages or

commands any person to commit a felony is accessory before the fact.
4. Whoever, knowing that a felony has been committed by another person,
receives, comforts or assists him in order to enable him to escape from
punishment is known as accessory after the fact.
 The Indian Penal Code makes a broad distinction between principals and abettors
but does not recognise the accessory after the fact except that harbouring of
offenders has been made a substantive offence in some cases.
Under the Indian Penal Code abetment is constituted in the following ways:
1. By instigating a person to commit an offence; or
2. By engaging in a conspiracy to commit an offence; or
3. By intentionally aiding a person to commit an offence.
 Abetment is an offence only if the act abetted would itself be an offence punishable
under the Indian Penal Code or under any other law for the time being in force.

10. DEFINE KIDNAPPING (SEC. 359) AND DIFFERENTIATE FROM ABDUCTION (SEC. 362)
Answer: Kidnapping as per Indian Penal Code (Sections 359-361 & 363).
Section 359: Kidnapping – Kidnapping is of two kinds; kidnapping from India and kidnapping
from lawful guardianship.
Comment: The literal meaning of kidnapping is ‘child stealing’. Kidnapping is of two kinds:
1. Kidnapping from India, and
2. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship.
In certain cases two forms of kidnapping may overlap each other. For example a minor
kidnapped from India may well at the same time be kidnapped from his lawful guardianship
also.
Section 360. Kidnapping from India – Whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of
India without the consent of that person, or of some person legally authorised to consent on
behalf of that person, is said to kidnap that person from India.
Comment: For an offence under this section the victim may be a male or a female, whether
major or a minor. This offence consists of the following ingredients:
1. Conveying of any person beyond the limits of India.
2. Such conveying must be without the consent of that person.
If a person has attained the age of majority and has given his consent to his being
conveyed, no offence is committed. The age of consent for the purposes of the offence of
kidnapping is 16 years for boys and 18 years for girls.
Section 361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship – Whoever takes or entices any minor
under sixteen years of age if a male, or under 18 years of age if a female, or any person of
unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of
unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person
from lawful guardianship.
Section 362. Abduction – Whoever by force, compels, or by any deceitful means induces,
any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.
Comment: The section defines the word ‘abduction’. Abduction under this section is not a
substantive offence by an auxiliary act which is not punishable by itself but made criminal
only when it is done with one or other of the intentions specified in the following sections.
Ingredients – The following are its essentials:-
1. Forcible compulsion or inducement by deceitful means.

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

12
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

2. The object of such compulsion or inducement must be the going of a person from
any place.
Distinction between kidnapping from Guardianship and Abduction:
Kidnapping from guardianship Abduction
1. Kidnapping is an act of simply taking or Whoever by force compels or by any
enticing away of a minor or a person of deceitful means induces, any person to go
unsound mind (Sec. 361). from any place is said to abduct that person
(Sec. 362)
2. The offence of kidnapping is committed Abduction may be committed in respect of a
only in respect of a minor under 16 years of person of any age.
age if a male and under 18 years if a female
or a person of unsound mind.
3. In kidnapping the person kidnapped is Abduction refers exclusively to the person
removed out of lawful guardianship. abducted. The person abducted need not be
Therefore a child without guardian cannot in the keeping of anybody.
be kidnapped. There can be no kidnapping
of an orphan.
4. In kidnapping, the minor or the person of In abduction, means used are material and
unsound mind is simply taken away or therefore force, compulsion or deceitful
enticed to go with the kidnapper. The means must have been used.
means employed may be innocent.
Generally force is not applied.
5. In kidnapping, consent of the person In abduction, consent of a person moved, if
taken or enticed is immaterial because they freely and voluntarily given, condones the
are not competent to signify a valid consent. offence.
6. In kidnapping, the intent of the kidnapper In abduction intent of the offender is an
is a wholly irrelevant consideration. important factor to constitute the offence
because abduction by itself is not offence
unless committed with certain intent.
7. Kidnapping is not a continuing offence, Abduction is a continuing offence, and the
because it is complete the moment a person offence of abduction continues so long as a
is deprived of his lawful guardian. person is moved from one place to another.
8. Kidnapping from guardianship is a Abduction is an auxiliary act, not punishable
substantive offence under the code. by itself, but made criminal only when it is
done with one or other of the intents
specified in Section 364, et seq.
9. Kidnapping is punishable per se with Abduction is not punished per se and is
imprisonment of either description for a punishable only when accompanied by a
term which may extend to seven years, and particular purpose; imprisonment for life if it
shall also be liable to fine, Sec. 363. is in order to murder (Sec. 364); with death
of imprisonment for life if is for ransom (Sec.
364A); imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to ten years
and also to fine if it is to confine person (Sec.
365) or to illicit intercourse (Sec. 366) or for
a procuration of minor girl (Sec. 366A).

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

13
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

11. CHEATING (SECTION 415). EXPLAIN THE LAW RELATING TO CHEATING.

Answer: Meaning of Cheating (Sec. 415):
Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so
deceived to deliver any property, to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain
any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything
which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes
or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is
said to “cheat”.
Explanation: A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this
section.
Essential ingredients of the offence of cheating are:
1. The accused must deceive the complainant fraudulently or dishonestly or
intentionally.
2. The complainant must have been induced, to :
A). deliver any property or allow any person to retain any property; or
B). do or omit to do anything which he ought not have done, if he was not so
deceived.
3. The act or omission likely to cause any harm to the complaint in body, mind,
reputation or property.
Section 416: Cheating by personation- A person is said to “cheat by personation” if he
cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for
another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other that he or such other
person really is.
Explanation: The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or
imaginary person.
Section 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property – Whoever cheats and
thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or
to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is
signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine.

12. SECTION 498A (CRUELTY BY HUSBAND OR RELATIVES OF HUSBAND).

Answer: 498A, Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:-
“Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such
woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to
three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation: - For the purposes of this section, “cruelty” means –
1. Any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether
mental or physical) of a woman; or
2. Harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or
any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

14
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such
demand”
 Meaning of relatives: - It was held in [Link] v. State by Inspector of Police that
in the absence of any statutory definition of the term “relatives” of husband, the
term relative must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Ordinarily it
would include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister,
nephew, niece, grandson or grand-daughter of an individual or the spouse of any
person. Therefore a girl friend or concubine of husband cannot be charged under
Section 498-A, of IPC.
 Meaning of Cruelty: Cruelty is a common essential in offences under both the
sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC.
 Section 498-A has been introduced in the IPC by the Criminal Law (Amendment)
Act, 1983 to combat the menace of dowry deaths.
 The sole constituent of the offence under Sec 498-A, IPC is ‘cruelty” which means
any ‘wilful conduct”, which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to
commit suicide or to cause a grave injury.
 Cruelty or harassment need not be physical, even mental torture would be a case of
cruelty.
 Cruelty or harassment was with a view to force the wife to commit suicide or to
fulfil illegal demand of the husband and his relatives.
 Difference between Section 304-B and 498-A of the IPC. Section 304-B deals with
dowry death being subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
relative of her husband. Section 498-A includes cruelty or harassment by her
husband or any other relative of her husband for dowry and wilful conduct of her
husband and his relatives, to cause her grave injury or danger to life, or to drive the
woman to commit suicide, Section 498-A is more wider in meaning than 304-B.
 For advantages and disadvantages of Section 498-A, main disadvantage is misuse by
wife and her parents, and advantage is the wife will get protection from cruelty and
harassment of her husband and his relatives.

13. DEFINE DOCUMENT (SECTION 29) AND WHAT ARE THE OFFENCES RELATED TO
DOCUMENTS (FORGERY).
Answer: Definition of Document (Section 29): The word “document” denotes any matter
expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by
more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, as evidence of
that matter.
Explanation 1: It is immaterial by what means or upon what substances the letters, figures
or marks are formed, or whether the evidence is intended for, or may be used in, a Court of
Justice, or not.
Explanation 2: Whatever is expressed by means of letters, figures or marks as explained by
mercantile or other usage, shall be deemed to be expressed by such letters, figures or marks
within the meaning of the section, although the same may not be actually expressed.
 The term ‘document’ includes everything done by the pen, by engraving, by printing,
or otherwise, whereby, on paper, parchment, wood or other substance.

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

15
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

 Writing, words printed, lithographed or photographed a map or plan, an inscription

on a metal plate or stone is a document.
Offences relating to documents and to property marks:
1. Forgery (Section 463): Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or
part of a document or electronic record with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public
or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with
property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or
that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
2. Making a false document (Section 464): A person is said to make a false document or
false electronic record –
First – Who dishonestly or fraudulently –
(a). makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;
(b). makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;
(c). affixes any {electronic signature} or any electronic record;
(d). makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the
{electronic signature}; with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document
or part of document, electronic record.
Secondly - Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly, or fraudulently, by cancellation or
otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it
has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any
other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or
Thirdly – Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter
a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature or any electronic
record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot,
or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the
document of electronic record or the nature of the alteration.
Illustrations:
(a). A, without Z’s authority, affixed Z’s seal to a document purporting to be a conveyance of
an estate from Z to A, with the intention of selling the estate to B and thereby of obtaining
from B the purchase money. A has committed forgery.
(b). A picks up a cheque on a banker signed by B, payable to bearer, but without any sum
having been inserted in the cheque. A fraudulently fills up the cheque by inserting the sum
of ten thousand rupees. A commits forgery.
Ingredients of forgery: the following are the essential ingredients of the offence of forgery
1. The making of a false document or part of it,
2. Such making should be with intent
(A). to cause damage or injury to (i) public, or (ii). Any person;
(B). to support any claim or title; or
(C). to cause any person to part with property; or
(D). to cause any person to enter into express or implied contract; or
(E). to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.

LONG QUESTIONS

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

16
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

1. DEFINE CRIME, DIFFERENT STAGES OF CRIME. EXPLAIN INCHOATE CRIMES.

Answer: Definition of Crime: Crime is defined as “an act punishable by law as forbidden by
statute or injurious to the public welfare”. It is a very wide definition. Anything which is
injurious to public welfare is a crime.
According to Blackstone the crime is “an act committed or omitted in violation of a public
law either forbidding or commanding it.
As per the Oxford English Dictionary, Crime is “an act punishable by law as forbidden by
statute or injurious to the public welfare”.
The word ‘Crime’ is derived from Greek expression ‘Krimos’ which means social order and
it is applied ‘to those acts that go against social order and are worthy of serious
condemnation’. The word ‘Crime’ has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code.
Crime is a Public Wrong, a Moral Wrong, a Conventional Wrong, a Social Wrong, and a
Procedural Wrong.
Commission of a crime involves mainly four stages, namely:
(1). Intention or contemplation is the first stage in the commission of an offence. At this
state the person has made up his mind to actually implement or execute his devious plans.
Without intention, there is no commission of an offence, intention is a term which is very
difficult to define. It can be variously said to mean the object, purpose, the ultimate aim or
design behind doing an act. Intention is the conscious voluntary exercise of the mental
faculties of a person to do an act, for the purpose of accomplishing or satisfying a purpose.
(2). Preparation: The second stage in commission of a crime is ‘preparation’ (Sec 8 of Indian
Evidence Act). Preparation means “to arrange the means or measures necessary for
commission of the intended criminal act.
Preparation is the action of preparing or getting ready (Sec. 8, Indian Evidence Act);
something that is prepared; something made for a specific purpose; to make ready
beforehand. It is very difficult for the prosecution to prove that necessary preparation has
been made for the commission of the offence.
It is very difficult for the prosecution to prove that necessary preparation has been made
for the commission of the offence. For example,
Purchasing knife with the intention to kill someone is not a crime because it cannot be
determined whether the knife was bought to kill someone or to cut vegetables.
Mere preparation is punishable under the Indian Penal Code in respect of the following
offences.
1. Waging War (Section 122),
2. Preparation to commit dacoity (Section 399),
3. Preparation for counterfeiting coins and Government stamps (Sections 233 to 235,
255 and 257), and
4. Possessing counterfeit coins, false coins, false weights or measurement and forged
documents (Sections 242, 243, 259, 266 and 474).
Preparation itself constitutes the actus reus.
(3). Attempt: The third stage in commission of a crime is ‘attempt’. It is also known as
‘Preliminary Crime’ and ‘Inchoate Crime’ (inchoate means incomplete). Attempt is an effort
or endeavour to do something; to try to accomplish or attain any action or object.
An intentional act which a person does towards the commission of an offence but which
fails in its object through circumstances independent of the volition of the person is
attempt.

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

17
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

An attempt to commit a crime is an act done with intent to commit that crime, and
forming part of a series of acts which would constitute its actual commission if it were not
interrupted.
The stage of attempt is attained by performing physical action that, if left unstopped,
cause or are bound to cause injury to someone.
In R. v King, 1892 the accused was convicted for attempting to steal from the handbag of
a woman although there was nothing in the bag.
(4). Commission of Crime or Accomplishment: Actual commission of the offence is the final
stage where the crime is actually done. The attack is the crime when the criminal violent
person commits himself to using force or the threat of force to get what he wants.
(5). Reaction: The new fifth stage of violent crime is reaction. Reaction is how the criminal
feels about what he had done.
*****
2. DEFINE CRIME, WHAT ARE THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CRIME.
Answer: Definition of Crime:
A crime is a public, moral, conventional, social and procedural wrong.
Criminal guilt or act would attach to a man for violations of Criminal Law. However, the
Latin Maxim ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’ i.e. no crime without a guilty mind. The
act should be a wrongful act – ‘actus reus’. A mere criminal intention not followed by a
prohibited act cannot constitute a crime. Similarly mere ‘actus reus’ ceases to be a crime as
it lacks ‘mens rea’. In juristic concept actus reus represents the physical aspect of crime,
and mens rea, its mental aspect, which must be criminal. The criminal act causes harm to
others.
The chief elements necessary to constitute a crime are:
(1). Human being: A human being under a legal obligation has to act in a particular way and
he is a fit subject for appropriate punishment for his wrongful acts. The act must have been
done by a human being before it can constitute a crime punishable at law. It is interesting
to observe that there are enough examples in ancient legal institutions of punishment being
inflicted on animals or inanimate objects for injury caused by them.
It is a matter of pride that the ancient Hindu criminal jurisprudence did not provide for
the trial and punishment of animals and inanimate objects. Hindu jurists seem to be fully
aware of the requirement of an evil intent as a constituent of crime which is a modern
development of western criminal jurisprudence.
(2). Mens Rea: ‘Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’ is a well-known maxim of criminal
law. It means ‘the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intentions were so’. From
this maxim follows another proposition ‘actus me invite factus non est mens actus’ which
means ‘an act done by me against my will is not my act at all’. This means an act in order to
be punishable at law must be a willed act or a voluntary act and at the same time must have
been done with a criminal intent. The intent and the act both must concur to constitute the
crime.
(3). Actus Reus (physical act or omission): A human being and an evil intent are not enough
to constitute a crime for you cannot know the intentions of a man. The thought of a man is
not triable. The criminal intent in order to be punishable must become manifest in some
voluntary act or omission.
Ressel calls actus reus as physical result of human conduct. According to Kenny, ‘actus
reus’ is such a result of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent. The actus reus is made
up of three constituent parts, namely

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

18
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

A. Human action which is usually termed as ‘conduct’;

B. The result of such act in the specific circumstances, which is designated as ‘injury’’
and
C. Such act as is ‘prohibited by law’.
(4). Injury, an injury to another human being or to society at large by such act. Injury means
to cause harm to any person in body, mind, reputation or property. The act by which injury
is caused must be an illegal act. Section 44 of the IPC states: “the word ‘injury’ denotes any
harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property.
Thus we have seen that there are four elements that constitute a crime. However, there
are a few exceptions to this rule. Sometimes a crime is constituted even though the act is
not accompanied with guilty mind. These are the cases of strict liability, for example, the
offence of ‘bigamy’ under Section 494, IPC. A crime is also constituted even though the
actus reus has not consummated. That means cases where no injury has been caused to
any person. These are the cases of inchoate crimes, for example, attempt, abetment and
conspiracy. Furthermore, there may be a crime where there is neither actus reus nor injury
to a human being. These are cases of serious offences which are taken notice of by the
State prior to the actual commission in the larger interest of maintaining peace in the
society. These acts are branded as crimes as a preventive measure, for example, making
preparation to commit dacoity under Section 399 and assembling for purpose of committing
dacoity under Section 402 of the IPC and waging war etc,.

3. DEFINE CRIME AND DISTINGUISH BETWEEN CRIME AND TORT.

Answer: Definition of Crime: Crime is defined as “an act punishable by law as forbidden by
statute or injurious to the public welfare.” It is a very wide definition. Anything which is
injurious to public welfare is a crime. In modern complex society many things may be
against the public welfare. Selling contaminated food, molestation of young children or
women in railway trains and misleading advertisements may all be said to be injurious to
public welfare.
Blackstone in his “Commentaries on The Laws of England” has defined crime as “an act
committed or omitted in violation of a Public law either forbidding or commanding it”.
To Keeton, “a crime would seem to be any undesirable act which the State finds it most
convenient to correct by the institution of proceedings for the infliction of a penalty, instead
of leaving the remedy to the discretion of some injured person.”
According to Paton, “the normal marks of a crime are that the State has power to control
the procedure, to remit the penalty or to inflict the punishment.” Thus we find that it is
very difficult to suggest a definition of crime suitable to all countries for all the time.
Therefore, it would be easier to know a crime through its attributes. The three attributes of
crime are: first, it is a harm brought about by some anti-social act of a human being which
the sovereign desires to prevent; secondly, the preventive measures taken by the sovereign
are in the form of a threat of sanction or punishment; and thirdly, the legal proceedings
wherein the guilt or otherwise of the accused is determined, are a special kind or
proceedings governed by special rules of evidence.
It may be stated that the perception of crime has undergone a radical change over the
years. Generally speaking, crime is a human conduct which the society generally abhors or
disapproves. But in the modern sense of the term, whatever is prohibited by the penal law
in force is deemed as a crime, the consequence of which is punishment (Section 40).

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

19
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

Distinction between Crime and Tort:

Crime Tort

1. A crime is a breach of the public rights 1. A tort is a violation of the private

and duties which affect the whole rights of an individual, affects that
community. individual only.

2. A crime is a public wrong which results in 2. A tort is a civil wrong. It gives rise to
punishment. civil proceedings.

3. A crime is an offence against the public 3. A tort causes injury or damage to an

at large or society as a whole. individual or group of individuals.

4.A crime is tried in Criminal Court 4. A tort is tried in Civil Court.

5. The criminal proceedings against the 5. Instituted by the plaintiff.

wrongdoer are instituted by the state.

6. The object of the Criminal Law is to 6. The purpose of awarding

protect the community or society by compensation to the injured party in a
preventing and deterring the offenders tortuous wrong is to make good the loss
from committing further offences. suffered by him.

7. In crime intention plays important 7. Intention and mens rea is not an

factor. important factor.

8. Generally an act shall not be punished as 8. Mens rea (motive) has no place in
a crime, unless there is mens rea i.e. tort.
motive actually present in the wrong-doer.

9. In criminal cases, burden of proof lies on 9. Burden of proof lies on the

the State. injured/complainant.

10. Strict rules of procedure and principles 10. Natural principles of justice, good
are followed in fixing the liability of the conscience, equity, etc. are followed.
criminal.
11. Criminal law generally does not permit 11. Law permits the parties to settle the
settlement of a case by compromise dispute.
between parties.
12. The person who commits a crime is 12. The person who commits tort is
called accused (before guilt is proved) and called ‘the feasor’ or ‘wrong doer’.
convict (after guilt is proved).

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

20
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

13. All the crimes are defined and 13. Most of the Law of the Torts is
punishments are prescribed and criminal judge-made law. It is not codified.
law is codified.
14. The amount collected by way of 14. The payment made by the wrong-
penalty and fine is not paid to the victim, doer as compensation goes to the
but credited to the state account. injured party.
15. Criminal Law is the oldest law. 15. Civil law is the latest subject.

4. GENERAL EXCEPTIONS, WITH SUITABLE EXAMPLES (SECTIONS 76 – 106).

Answer: Introduction: Chapter IV (Sections 76 to 106) deals with the various defences
which a person, accused of an offence under the Code or any special or local law can plead.
Applicability of the chapter IV: General exceptions are available to accused of all offences.
Burden of proof (Sec 105 of Indian Evidence Act): The general rule is that it is the duty of the
prosecution to prove the case. But the burden of proving the existence of circumstances
bringing the case of the accused within any of the general exception in the Penal Code, or
within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the Code, or in any
law defining the offence is upon him, and the court shall presume the absence of such
circumstances. It means if an accused pleads an exception within the meaning of this
Chapter there is a presumption against him and the burden to rebut that presumption is on
him.
A person is presumed to know the nature and consequences of his act, and is therefore,
responsible for it in law. However there are some exceptions to this. A man may be
excused from punishment, either on the ground of the absence of the requisite mens rea for
the commission of crime or on some other ground recognised by law.
An analysis of thirty-one Sections i.e., Sections 76 to 106 of this chapter on General
Exceptions reveals that broadly speaking they deal with exceptions or defences which
absolve the accused from criminal liability. They may be split up into seven major categories
as follows:
1. Mistake of fact (Sections 76 and 79),
(a). act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by
law (Section 76)
(b). act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself justified, by
law (Section 79)
2. Judicial acts (Sections 77 & 78),
3. Accident (Section 80),
4. Absence of criminal intent (Sections 81 and 92-94),
5. Incapacity to commit crime: (Sections 82 – 85).
(a). Act of a child under seven years of age (Section 82),
(b). Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding (Sec.83)
(c). Act of a person of unsound mind (Section 84),
(d). Act of a person incapable of judgement by reason of intoxication caused against
his will (Sec 85).
6. Offences by a person under voluntary intoxication.
7. Consent (Sections 87 – 90)

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

21
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

8. Communication made in good faith (Section 93).

9. Trifling acts (Section 95),
10. Private defence of person or property (Sections 96-106).

5. DEFINE MURDER AND DISCUSS WHEN CULPABLE HOMICIDE AMONTS TO MURDER AND
WHEN NOT AMOUNTS TO MURDER, DIFFERENCES, EXCEPTIONS OF MURDER.
Answer: Definition of murder: ‘Murder’ is unlawful homicide with malice aforethought.
Murder is a more serious offence than the culpable homicide. Culpable homicide is a genus,
whereas murder is a species. An offence cannot amount to murder unless it falls within the
definition of the culpable homicide.
Section 300 of the IPC defines the ‘murder’ thus:
Firstly:- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act
by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or
Secondly:- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender
knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or
Thirdly:- It is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily
injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death,
Fourthly:- If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it
must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid.
When the Culpable Homicide is not murder (Section 300, Exceptions 1 - 5): Culpable
homicide is not murder, if it is:
Exception 1. Grave and sudden provocation (K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra),
Exception 2. Exceeding right of private defence,
Exception 3. Exercise of legal powers,
Exception 4. Death caused in sudden fight,
Exception 5. Death caused of the person consenting to it.
Distinction between Culpable homicide (Sec 299) and Murder (Sec 300):

CULPABLE HOMICIDE MURDER

1. It is defined under Section 299 of IPC. 1. Murder is defined by Section 300 of IPC.
2.A person commits culpable homicide if the [Link] to certain exceptions culpable
act by which the death is caused is done: homicide is murder if the act by which the
death is caused is done:
Intention
a. With the intention of causing death; or a. With the intention of causing death; or
[Link] the intention of causing such bodily [Link] the intention of causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death; or injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause the death of the person to whom the
harm is caused, or
[Link] the intention of causing such bodily
injury to any person and the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death, or
Knowledge

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

22
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

[Link] the knowledge that the act is likely to [Link] the knowledge that the act is so
cause death. imminently dangerous that it must in all
probability, cause death, or such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for
incurring the risk of causing death or such
bodily injury as is mentioned above.
[Link] homicide is the genus. [Link] is species.
[Link] culpable homicide is not murder. [Link] murders are culpable homicides.
[Link] is intention, but the intention may [Link] is strong intention to kill this person.
or may not exist. Even if exists it is not so Generally there shall be a plan to kill.
much stronger as is evident in murder.
[Link] serious when compared to murder. [Link] serious than culpable homicide. It is
an aggravated form of culpable homicide.
[Link] is lesser than murder [Link] is heavier than culpable
homicide.
[Link] Section 304, the maximum [Link] under Section 302, death or
punishment is imprisonment for life or imprisonment for life and shall also be liable
imprisonment of either description for term to fine.
which may extended to ten years and shall
also be liable to fine.

6. DEFINE THEFT (SEC. 378) AND ESSENTIALS OF THEFT AND DISTINGUISH IT FROM
EXTORTION, ROBBERY AND DACOITY.
Answer: Definition of Theft (Section 378): “Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any
movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves
that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft”.
Explanation 1: A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is
not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is
severed from the earth.
Explanation 2: A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be a
theft.
Explanation 3: A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which
prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually
moving it.
Explanation 4: A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that
animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved
by that animal.
Explanation 5: The consent mentioned in the definition may be expressed or implied, and
may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose
authority either express or implied.
Illustrations:

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

23
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

(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 severed the tree in order to
such taking, he has committed theft.
The following are the essential requirements of theft:
1. Intending to take dishonestly,
2. The property must be movable, Section 22, IPC as defined movable property.
3. The property should be taken out of the possession of another person,
4. The property should be taken without the consent of that person, and
5. There must be some moving of the property in order to accomplish the taking of it.
Punishment for Theft (Section 379): “Whoever commits theft shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine,
or with both”.
Distinction between theft, extortion, robbery and dacoity:

Theft Extortion Robbery Dacoity

1. Without consent. Consent of the The offender takes There is no consent
person is obtained property without or it is obtained
wrongfully by consent, robbery wrongly.
coercion. being the aggravated
form of theft or
extortion
[Link] is of movable It may be movable or Robbery may be Dacoity may be
property only immovable property committed in respect committed in respect
of immovable of immovable
property where it is property where it is
in the form of in the form of
extortion, but not extortion but not
otherwise. otherwise.
[Link] can be It can be committed It can be committed To commit the
committed by one by one or more by one or more offence of dacoity,
person persons there must be at
least five persons or
more
[Link] is no Force or compulsion Force may or may Force may or may
element of force or exists in extortion, not be used. not be used.
compulsion the person being put
in fear of injury to
him or to any other
persons.
[Link] of fear is Element of fear is Element of fear Element of force
absent present exists if robbery is a exists in dacoity
form of extortion,
otherwise not
[Link] is no delivery There is delivery of There is no delivery There is no delivery
of property by the property of property in of property in

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

24
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

victim robbery if theft is dacoity if theft is

committed in the committed in the
course of robbery. course of dacoity.
[Link] with Punished with Punished with Punished with
imprisonment of imprisonment of rigorous imprisonment for
either description for either description for imprisonment for a life, or with rigorous
a term which may a term which may term which may imprisonment for a
extend to three extend to three extend to ten years, term which may
years, or with fine or years, or with fine, or and shall also be extend to ten years,
with both(Section with both(Section liable to fine; and if and shall also be
379) 384) the robbery be liable to fine (Section
committed on the 395).
highway between
sunset and sunrise it
may be extended to
14 years(Sec 392)
[Link] 378 defines Section 383 defines Section 390 defines Section 391 defines
theft extortion robbery dacoity.

7. DEFINE DEFAMATION (SECTION 499), ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS AND EXCEPTIONS OF

DEFAMATION.
Answer: Defamation is an injury to the reputation of a person. Rightly, law gives protection
to man’s reputation as it gives protection to his life and property. ‘Defamation” has been
recognised as a civil wrong in the Law of Torts. In the Law of Torts, the aggrieved person is
given compensation. “Defamation’ has been recognised as a criminal wrong in the Law of
Crimes and the wrongdoer is punished with imprisonment or with fine or with both.
Meaning of Defamation (Section 499): Whoever, by words, either spoken or intended to be
read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation
concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such
imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter
excepted, to defame that person.
Explanation 1: It may amount to defamation to impute anything to a deceased person.
Explanation 2: It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company
or an association or collection of persons as such.
Explanation 3: An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may
amount to defamation.
Explanation 4: No imputation is said to harm a person’s reputation, unless that imputation
directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character
of that person.
Essential ingredients of Defamation:
1. Making or publishing any imputation concerning any person,
2. That imputation must have been made by:
a). words, either spoken or intended to be read; or
b). signs; or

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

25
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

c). Visible representation;

3. Such imputation must be with the intention of harming or with knowledge that it
will harm the reputation of the person concerning whom it is made.
Exceptions to the offence of Defamation (Section 499):
1. Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published.
2. Public conduct of public servants: If a public servant, in discharge of his duty,
communicates to the higher authority, about the conduct of his subordinate, he is
not subject to defamatory suit or proceedings.
3. Conduct of any person touching any public question: It is no defamation to express
in good faith, any opinion respecting the conduct of any person or touching any
public question.
4. Publication of reports of proceedings of courts.
5. Merits of a case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned.
6. Merits of public performance: It is no defamation to express in good faith, opinion
respecting the merits of any performance.
7. Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another.
8. Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person.
9. Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s interests.
10. Caution intended for good of person to whom, conveyed or for public good.
Punishment for Defamation (Section 500): “Whoever defames another shall be punished
with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both”.
Repetition: Under the Act no distinction has been recognised in the defamation whether
published for the first time or repeated subsequently. A publisher shall be strictly
responsible for publishing a defamatory matter irrespective of the fact whether he is the
originator of the libel or is merely repeating it (Harbhan Singh v The State of Punjab).

 State of Maharashtra v Anna Hazare, the complainant lodged a complaint alleging

that the accused committed offence under Sections 499, 500, 501 and 502 by
maligning his reputation when Anna Hazare, a reputed social worker alleged that the
complainant Minister of Maharashtra state was involved in bribery. The Court
sentenced the accused for two months imprisonment as there was no evidence
against the minister.

PART-C CASES

1. MURDER, SECTION 300 and 302 of INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860.

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

26
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

A. A killed B by pumping 10 bullets into his body? What is the offence committed and
the punishment that can be awarded to A? (Sep 2014).
B. There were twenty-one injuries on the body of Mr Sham, the deceased. Under
which category the offence is committed and what is the punishment for the
accused and which court is having the power to punish such offender? (May 2014).
C. A killed brutally Mr B with a knife and inflicted 30 injuries upon the body. As a
result, the person died. What punishment has to be awarded to Mr A? (May
2011).
D. A shoots at Z with an intention to kill, presuming that Z died he burnt the body of Z
when he was alive. What offence did ‘A’ commit? (July 2012).
E. A appears as a witness before Z, a magistrate Z says that he does now believe a
word of A’s deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A by hearing this is
moved to sudden passion and kills Z. Discuss the offence committed by A. (Aug
2018).
Sec. 300, Exception 1, Illustration (d).
F. X with his 4 friends entered a hotel with 2 knives and 2 pistols and threatened the
hotel manager to deliver drinks. When he refused they attacked the manager.
Manager was seriously injured and after 10 days he died. File a criminal case and
state whether the culprits will be punished or not. If so what will be the
punishment for the culprits? (May 2016).

Issue:
 Whether it is murder? Yes.
 Whether the accused is punishable under Section 302 of IPC? Yes.

Rule:
Section 300 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, states that: Murder -
Firstly.- Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by
which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or-
Secondly.- If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender
knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or-
Thirdly.- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily
injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death,
or
Fourthly. - If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that
it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid.
Section 302: Punishment for murder: Whoever commits murder shall be punished with
death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.
Classification of offence: Punishment – death, or imprisonment for life, and fine; cognizable;
non-bailable; Triable by Court of Session; Non-compoundable.

Application:
In the given case the provision of Section 300 is applicable, and punishment is given
under Section 302. In order to ensure justice in a murder trial, the court should go by
evidence produced before it. And analysing the following points:

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

27
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

1. Act by which the death caused is done with the intention of causing death.
2. With the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
cause death.
3. Injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
4. Knowledge of imminently dangerous act.

Conclusion:
The accused are tried under Indian Penal Code Section 300 for murder, and the
punishment will be given under Section 302.

2. Decoity, Sections 391, 397 and 398.

Eight persons armed with deadly weapons rob a bank by threatening the bank employees.
Discuss the offence committed. (Aug 2018).
Important points:
 8 persons.
 With deadly weapons.
 Robbed the bank by threatening the staff.

Issue:
Whether it is a dacoity? Yes.

Rule:
Section 391, Dacoity.- When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to
commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or
attempting o commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or
attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said
to commit “dacoity”.
Section 395, Punishment for dacoity - Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Application:
Essential ingredients of Section 391 are:
1. Five or more persons must act in association.
2. Such an act must be robbery or attempt to commit robbery.
3. The five persons must consist of those who themselves commit or attempt to
commit robbery or those who are present and aid the principal actors in the
commission or attempt of such robbery.
In the given case all the essential ingredients are there, hence the case comes under
dacoity.
Section 34 is applicable in this case, which says that Acts done by several persons in
furtherance of common intention- When a criminal act is done by several persons in
furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons in furtherance of the
common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if
it were done by him alone.

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

28
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

Conclusion:
The commission of dacoity in association by five or more persons is an essential
ingredient of the offence under Section 391. The gravity of the offence consists in the terror
it causes by the presence of a number of offenders.
All the eight accused in the given case are participated in the offence of dacoity, and they
will be punished under Section 395.

3. Communication made in good faith, Section 93.

A, a surgeon in good faith. Communicates to a patient his opinion that the patient cannot
live. The patient dies in consequence of a shock. Did A commit any offence? (Aug 2018).

Issue:
 Whether the surgeon’s communication to the patient is unlawful? No.
 Whether the Surgeon has committed any offence? No.

Rule:
Section 93, Communication made in good faith. - No communication made in good faith
is an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is made, if it is made for the
benefit of that person.

Application:
The given case is the same as the illustration given to Section 93. Communication made
in good faith is not an offence, in this case, the surgeon has informed his opinion in good
faith. He bound to inform the patient about his health condition.
This section is intended to protect the innocent without unduly cloaking the guilty. In
order that protection may be claimed under this section, the communication should have
been made
1. In good faith, and
2. For the benefit of the person to whom it is made.
Very often it may be necessary to warn the patient that his end was near so that he might
make his will or may arrange his affairs to his own satisfaction. In such cases, the doctor will
be protected under this section if the patient dies of the shock resulting from the
communication.

Conclusion:
The doctor is not liable under the general exception Section 93, and the burden of proof
under Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lies on the doctor.

4. ‘A’ knowing that B murdered ‘Z’ assists B to hide the body with the intention of saving B
from punishment. Is ‘A’ liable for any offence? (Aug 2018).
Issue:
 Whether A has committed offence? Yes.
 What kind of offence A has committed? In helping ‘B’ to hide the dead body to
screen the accused from prosecution.

Rule:

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

29
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to

screen offender. - Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been
committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the
intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any
information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false.

Application:
The illustration given to Section 201 is the same that of the case.
In Mahantappa v. the State of Karnataka, the accused persons who committed murder
were held liable under Section 201 when they threw the dead body into a hut and set the
hut on fire.
The essential ingredients to prove the charge under Section 201 are:
1. There must be an offence which has been committed.
2. The accused knew or had reason to believe the commission of such an offence.
3. A person should cause the disappearance of any evidence of the crime committed.
4. It should be done with the intention of screening or saving the culprit from
punishment.
5. A person must give false information about the offence.
6. He must be aware of or have knowledge that the information given by him is false.
7. If the charge be of an aggravated form, it must be further proved that the offence in
respect of which the accused did was punishable with death or imprisonment for life
or imprisonment extending to ten years.
In the given case all the essential ingredients are there. They are:
1. Offence of murder.
2. Hiding the dead body.
3. To screen the accused from prosecution.

Conclusion:
A is prosecuted under Section 201, for assisting B in hiding the dead body. And A is liable.

5. Forgery of valuable security, Section 467.

Due to some differences between wife and husband they lived separately since 3 months.
One day husband forged the signature of the wife and withdrew Rs. 10 lakhs from his
wife’s account. State whether husband committed any offence, if so what will be the
punishment. (Sep 2017)

Issue:
 Is the husband committed offence? Yes.
 Is the husband committed offence of forgery? Yes.

Rule:
Section 467. Forgery of valuable security, will, etc. – Whoever forges a document which
purports to be a valuable security, or a will, or an authority to adopt a son or, which
purports to give authority to any person to make or transfer any valuable security, or to
receive the principal, interest or dividends thereon, or to receive or deliver any money,
movable property, or valuable security, or any document purporting to be an acquittance or
receipt acknowledging the payment of money, or an acquittance or receipt for the delivery

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

30
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

of any movable property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment for life,
or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine.

Application:
In the given case the husband has forged the signature of his wife and withdrew to the
tune of 10 lakhs, the essentials of the Sec. 463 are there in the given case, they are:
1. The wife has suffered a loss of 10 lakhs,
2. The husband has forged the signature,
Bank of India v. Yechuri Shankar Rao

Conclusion:
In the given case the husband is liable for forgery.

6. Section 84, Act of a person of unsound mind.

X, a frustrated lover, stabbed a young girl causing her death. When charged for the
offence of murder, he pleaded insanity as defence and produced some medical evidence.
Decide. (Nov 2012).

Issue:
 Whether X’s act of stabbing a young girl to death is an offence? Yes.
 Whether X can claim the exception available to an insane person under Sec 84? Yes.

Rule:
Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Act of a person of unsound mind – Nothing is
an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness
of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either
wrong or contrary to law.
Section 105 of the Evidence Act, 1872, Burden of proving that case of accused comes
within exceptions - When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the
existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the General Exceptions in the
Indian Penal Code, or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of
the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him, and the Court shall presume
the absence of such circumstances.

Application:
In the given case the burden of proving the insanity lies on the accused, he has to satisfy
the Court beyond any doubt to prove his case.

Conclusion:
General Exceptions available from Sections 76 to 106 are applicable to all, those who are
claiming them have to prove their case, and the burden of proof is on the person who is
claiming the exception. The accused can claim the general exception under Section 84, and
he has to prove his insanity.

7. Section 80, Accident in doing a lawful act (it includes unlawful acts also).

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

31
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

A. An experienced driver was driving a bus consisting of 200 people going to a

marriage. During the night all the passengers in the bus were sleeping and all of a
sudden the bus hit a big tree on the roadside. 20 people died among whom 4 were
children and two aged persons. Whether driver is liable? Discuss (Sep 2017).
B. A person M was hunting deer in a forest when he saw a deer he fired his gun. The
bullet hit a rock, changed direction and injured seriously a person who was going
that way. Examine the liability of M. (May 2016).

Issue:
 Whether the driver is responsible for the accident? No
 Whether the driver is careless in his duty? No
 Whether mens rea is there? No

Rule:
Section 80: Accident in doing a lawful act - Nothing is an offence which is done by
accident or misfortune and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a
lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.
Ingredients of Section 80:
1. The act must be an accident or misfortune;
2. The act must not be done with any criminal intention or knowledge;
3. The accident must be the outcome of a lawful act done in lawful manner by lawful
means;
4. The act must have been done with proper care and caution.

Application:
Section 80 of the Indian Penal Code is based on the principle that no act is per se criminal
unless the actor did it with criminal intent. To constitute a crime, intent and the act of the
wrong-doer must be concur. As the object of criminal law is to punish only serious
infractions of the rules of society, it follows that criminal law cannot punish a man for his
mistake or misfortune.

Conclusion:
In the given case the accident is not by chance and unintentional and unexpected. The
driver is experienced and driving the bus in the ordinary course, hence he is not liable for
the death of passengers.

8. Robbery Section 390; Section 392 Punishment for Robbery.

A. Two blind persons entered a bank and robbed the bank, while going out one of
them fired and a person died. Advice the bank on what it should do? (Sep 2017).
B. Four members with criminal intention entered a house during night time and
looted the house. While going out they injured one person. State what offence it
amounts to? (Aug 2015).
C. Four members armed with deadly weapons, entered a bank and robbed the bank.
What crime they did? (Sep 2012).

Issue:

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

32
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

 Whether this act comes under robbery? Yes.

Rule:
Section 390, IPC, 1860, says that when theft or extortion creates fears or causes death or
hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of death or instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint, is
called robbery.
In order that theft may constitute robbery, the prosecution has to establish –
1. If in order to committing of theft; or
2. In committing the theft; or
3. In carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft;
4. The offender for that end i.e. any of the ends contemplated by (a) to (c);
5. Voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful
restraint or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint.
Common Intention (Section 34): Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common
intention - When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common
intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were
done by him alone.
Section 392, Punishment for robbery: Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the
imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
Section 394, Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery: If any person, in committing
or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt, such person, and any other
person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be
punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Application:
There should be the use of force or attempt to use force for the purpose of committing
theft or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft.

Conclusion:
In the given case, the offenders used deadly weapons and created fear, therefore its
robbery and they are punishable under Section 392.
In the course of committing robbery, if they kill a person, in that case, they will be
punished under Section 394.

9. Cheating Section 415, Punishment 417.

A. Mr. Ramu received a message from an unknown number that he won one crore
bumper lottery and to transfer the amount they asked him to send his bank
account along with ten thousand rupees for service charges. Believing it was true,
he sent his bank account number and a cheque of ten thousand. Within few hours
the whole amount in the account was withdrawn. Advice him. (May 2017).
B. Ramesh sold a piece of land to Mr. Raju for 3 lakhs, which was already sold to Mr.
X. Whether Ramesh is liable? If so under which Section? (May 2011).

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

33
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

Issue:
 Whether this acts amounts to cheating? Yes
 Whether Mr. Ramu can approach Police to file a complaint? Yes.

Rule:
Section 415 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently
or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to
consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so
deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so
deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that
person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.
Explanation – A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this
Section.
Illustration: A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in consequence of such sale
he has no right to the property, sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact
of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money
from Z. ‘A’ cheats.
Section 417, punishment for cheating – Whoever cheats shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or
with both.

Application:
In Chinthamani v Dyaneshwar, the accused sold the property to the complainant. In
fact, the said property was already mortgaged to some other person. The accused
concealed the mortgage and registered it in favour of the complainant and received full
consideration. It was held that it was a cheating offence.

Conclusion:
The given case falls under cheating, and the accused is punishable.

10. Culpable homicide Section 299, Punishment Section 304 of IPC.

A. There was a heated argument between two friends while the argument was going
on one of the friends hit with his fist on the left side of the chest of another. The
result was sudden death. State what offence the friend committed. What will be
the punishment? (Sep 2017)

Issue:
 Whether the accused is liable for culpable homicide? Yes.
Rule:
Section 299, Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Whoever causes death by doing an act with the
intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the
offence of culpable homicide.
Section 304, Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder – whoever
commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment
for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years,

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

34
Law of Crimes –2nd Semester

and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the
intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death,
Or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or
with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death,
but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death.

Application:
In Shanmugam v State of Tamil Nadu, the accused stabbed the deceased, over a petty
quarrel, with a spear in the abdomen and chest. The victim died after a week of
septicaemia. The court imputed to the accused the intention of causing severe injury. He
was punished under Part-I of Section 304.

Conclusion:
In the given case the accused committed culpable homicide under Section 299 and
punishable under Part-I of Section 304, imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

*****

Harinath Janumpally – 94406 29864

35