CRIME

MEANING
Crime" is a public wrong. It is an offense against the community or society as a whole; it causes
threat to social security and creates social disorder. E.g. Murder, Rape, Theft, Robbery. Forgery
etc.

DEFENITION
Blackstone's Definition: Sir William Blackstone, in his "Commentaries on Law of England',
defined "Crime" as "an act committed or omitted in violation of Public Law either forbidding or
commanding it".

ELEMENTS OF CRIME
1. Human Being
2. Mens Rea
3. Actus Reus
4. Injury

1. Human Being
● The first element of crime is the human being.
● Only human beings are liable for their criminal acts.
● Animals or plants are not liable under the Indian Penal Code for causing harm to
humans or each other.
● He/She must be under a legal obligation to act in a particular way and a fit subject for the
infliction of appropriate punishment.
● Generally both the wrong doer and aggrieved/injured/deceased are human beings.

2. Mens Rea
● Mens Rea means "mental element or civil intent or guilty mind".
● One of the fundamental principles of our legal system is to determine punishment
depending upon the mental condition of the accused.
● Almost all crimes have some mental element.
● It means an intention to do a forbidden act.
● It is expressed in the Latin maxim "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" as a
fundamental principle.
● In Sweat vs. Parsley (1970) AC 132, 162: Lord Diplok said, "An act does not make a
man guilty of a crime, unless his mind is also guilty.
● E.g.: If 'A', intentionally kills 'B' with a knife or by administering the poison, 'A' is guilty of
murder and is awarded serious punishment viz., life imprisonment or death sentence
under Sec. 302 I.P.C. If 'A' commits an accident causing the death of 20 persons, he is
punishable upto 2 years imprisonment under Sec. 304 A, I.P.C. In case, the accident is
inevitable, i.e., there is no negligence on the part of the accused (i.e., driver of the
vehicle) he is exempted from the criminal liability. In this example, even though 'A' killed
20 persons, he was awarded small punishment i.e., upto two years imprisonment, if
there is negligence on his part. In the absence of negligence, the accident is of
 misfortune and hence, he is completely exempted from the criminal liability. But he was
awarded serious punishment i.e., life imprisonment or death sentence for killing only one
person. The reason is, in the case of intentional killing, 'mens rea' is present. But in the
case of the latter (accident), 'mens rea' is absent. Thus, mens rea plays an important
role in imposition/determination of criminal liability.

3. Actus Reus
● Actus reus means guilty act.
● It consists of physical acts or omissions which are prohibited by law.
● When the intention is to do a prohibited act, it is known as 'actus reus'.
● The word 'actus' connotes a 'deed', a physical result of human conduct. The word 'reus'
means 'forbidden by law'.
● Omprakash vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 All. 241:
In this case the accused omitted to provide food to his wife and locked her in a room.
She had escaped and charged him. The Supreme Court convicted the accused for
attempting to commit murder.

4. Injury
● The last ingredient to constitute Crime is 'Injury'.
● Injury means to cause harm to any person in body, mind, reputation or property.
● According to Section 44 of the Code, the word "injury" denotes any harm, whatever
illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property.
● Cruelty is an example of injury to mind; simple hurt is an example of injury to body,
defamation is an example of injury to reputation; and mischief is an example of injury to
property.

MENS REA

Mens Rea means "mental element or civil intent or guilty mind". Mens rea is concerned with
what the defendant was thinking at the time he committed the actus reus. Different crimes have
different mens rea requirements.

The purpose of this presentation is to provide an overview of mens rea.

First, the presentation will introduce the different categories of mens rea.
Next, the presentation will analyze each of these categories, provide the key components to
each, and will provide examples of crimes that are classified under these mental states.
1. Overview of Mental States
2. General Intent
3. Specific Intent
4. Criminal Negligence
5. Strict Liability
 KINDS OF PUNISHMENT
Sec. 53

MEANING
Punishment is a process, by which the State inflicts some pain to the person or property of a
person, who is found guilty of a Crime.

Theories of Punishment
1. Deterrent Theory
2. Retributive Theory
3. Preventive Theory
4. Reformative Theory
5. Expiatory Theory

Kinds Of Punishment
Sec. 53 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes five kinds of punishment;
1. Death penalty
2. Life imprisonment
3. Imprisonment
a. Rigorous
b. Simple
4. Forfeiture of property
5. Fine.

Death Penalty
● It is the most serious nature of punishment.
● Some countries abolished it.
● It is awarded in India in certain exceptional cases.
● The offenses which are punishable with death sentence under the Indian Penal Code
include:
a. Waging War against the Government of India (Sec. 121).
b. Abetting mutiny actually committed (Sec. 132).
c. Giving or fabricating false evidence upon which an innocent person suffers death
(Sec. 194).
d. Murder (Sec. 302)
e. Abetment of suicide of a minor or an insane or an intoxicated person (Sec. 305).
f. Attempt to murder by a person under sentence of imprisonment for life, if hurt is
caused (Sec. 307).
g. Punishment for causing death or resulting in persistent vegetative state of victim
(Sec. 376A)
h. Punishment for repeat offenders (previously convicted of an offense punishable
under Section 376 or Section 376A or Section 376D (Sec. 376E) and
 i. Dacoity accompanied with murder (Sec. 396).

Case Law
Bachan Singh Vs the State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC 898,1980)
Upheld the validity of the death penalty, but the court restricted the provision of the death
penalty in the rarest of rare cases only. If the case falls under this theory, then capital
punishment may be given.

Life Imprisonment
● The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1955 (No.26 of 1955) substituted the
words "imprisonment for life" for the words "transportation for life". It denotes 'rigorous
imprisonment for life. It means imprisonment for the remaining period of life (i.e., till
death).
● But in practice, it is not so. In India, it is 14 years and 20 years under Section 57 IPC
● However, the life convict is not entitled to automatic release on completion of fourteen
years imprisonment.
● Section 55 of the Penal Code empowers the appropriate Government to commute the
period of life imprisonment.
● The sentence of imprisonment for life is provided in about fifty offenses under the IPC.

Imprisonment
● It means confinement or total deprivation of personal liberty. It is of two kinds namely,
a. Rigorous Imprisonment
b. Simple Imprisonment.

Rigorous Imprisonment
● In the case of rigorous imprisonment the offender is put to hard labor such as grinding
corn, digging earth, drawing water, cutting fire-wood, mowing grass etc.
● Maximum imprisonment that can be awarded for an offense is fourteen years (Section
57 of the IPC).
● The lowest term actually named for a given offense is twenty-four hours (Sec. 510 of the
IPC), but the minimum is unlimited.
● The following offenses mentioned in the IPC are punishable also by rigorous
imprisonment:
a. Personating a public servant (Sec. 170)
b. Punishment for bribery (Sec. 171E)
c. Punishment for false evidence (Sec. 193)
d. Giving false information respecting an offense committed (Sec. 203)
e. Etc

Simple Imprisonment.
● In case of simple imprisonment, the offender is confined to jail and is not put to any kind
of work. The following offenses are punishable with simple imprisonment only:
 a. Public servant unlawfully engaging in trade; or unlawfully buying or bidding for
property (Sections 168, 169)
b. Intentional insult or interruption to a public servant sitting in any stage of a judicial
proceeding (Sec. 228).
c. Continuance of nuisance after injunction to discontinue (Sec. 291)
d. Wrongful restraint (Sec. 341).
e. Etc

Forfeiture of property and

● Forfeiture of property means taking away the property of the criminal by the State as
punishment. The punishment of absolute forfeiture of all property of the offenders is now
abolished. Sections 61 and 62 of the Penal Code dealing with such forfeiture are
repealed by Act XVI of 1921.
● There are the following offenses in which the offenders are liable to forfeiture of specific
property:
a. Committing depredation on territories of power at peace with the Government of
India (Sec. 126);
b. Receiving property taken by war or depredation (Sec. 127); and
c. The property purchased or bid by a public servant unlawfully (Sec. 169).

Fine
● It is a monetary punishment
● Almost all sections related with awarding punishment includes fine
● Fine is a sum of money ordered by the Court in exercise of criminal jurisdiction to pay as
a punishment for an offense.
● Fine may be the sole punishment or alternative or it may be in addition to the
imprisonment.

Case Law
Palaniappa Gounder Vs. State of Tamilnadu (1977 AIR 1323)
The apex court stated that the sentence given by the court shall be proportionate to the
nature of the offense which includes the sentence of fine. And the punishment shall not
be unduly excessive.

PRIVATE DEFENSE

MEANING
Law confers the right on every individual to defend his life, liberty and property, when he is
confronted with an imminent danger or unlawful aggression.
Right of Private Defence means "committing an offense in exercise of one's own right to
defend/protect his life, liberty or property.”
E.g.: 'A' attacks 'B' to kill him. B, in order to save himself, kills A. Here B is said to have
exercised his right to private defense.

Section 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for various provisions relating to
the Right of Private Defence.

● Section 96 : Things Done In Private Defense

● Section 97 : Right of Private Defence of The Body and Property
● Section 98 : Right of Private Defense Against the Act of A Person of Unsound
Mind, Etc
● Section 99 : Act Against Which There is No Right of Private Defense
● Section 100 : When the Right of Private Defence of the Body Extends to Causing
Death
● Section 101 : When Such Right Extends to Causing Any Harm Other Than Death
● Section102 : Commencement and Continuance of the Right of Private Defence of
the Body
● Section 103 : When the Right of Private Defence of Property Extends to Causing
Death
● Section 104 IPC : When Such Right Extends to Causing Any Harm Other Than
Death
● Section 105 : Commencement and Continuance of the Right of Private Defence of
Property
● Section 106: Right of Private Defence against Deadly Assault When There is Risk
of Harm to an Innocent Person

● Sections 97 to 102 and 106 deal with the former the right of private defense of the
body.
● Sections 97 to 99, 103 to 105 deal with the right of private defense of property.

1. Section 96 : Things Done In Private Defense

● Sec. 96 declares “Nothing is an offense which is done in the exercise of the right of
private defense”.
● The right under Section 96 is available against the person or persons from whom
imminent danger to life or property is apprehended.
● An aggressor cannot claim the right of self defense.
● The defense is not available, when there is a free fight between the parties.

2. Section 97 : Right of Private Defence of The Body and Property

● According to Section 97 I.P.C, every person has a right to defend his own body or
property or another against any offense affecting the human body.
● In Indian law, even a stranger may defend the person or property of another.
● Section 97 defines what the right of private defense is. The right of private defense is of
two kinds:
○ Private defense of person or body against offenses affecting the human body
 ○ Private defense of property against theft, mischief, robbery or criminal trespass or
attempt to commit any of these offenses.

Case Law
● Ishwar Singh v. State of Rajasthan: In this case, the apex court held that in order to
invoke the right of defense to person or property, the accused must prove that he was
placed in such a dangerous situation that to protect himself he had to use reasonable
force. In the impugned case the field was in possession of the accused and the other
party went there to take possession of it. There was a fight between the two parties
which resulted in the death of one and caused injuries to several members of both the
parties.
The question was as to whether the accused had used reasonable force as necessary to
protect their possession over the field and also to protect their persons.
The High Court presumed that since the accused were in possession of the field and the
complainants' party had come to take possession of the same, the initiative of beating
must have been taken by them, and they were justified in using reasonable force as
necessary to protect their possession over the field and also to protect their persons.

3. Section 98: Right of Private Defense Against the Act of A Person of Unsound
Mind, Etc
● Section 98 speaks about the right of private defense against the act of a person of
unsound mind etc.
● Section 98 provides that what may not be offenses because of the age, physical or
mental incapacity of the aggressor is no bar to the exercise of private defense.
● Hence, the right can be exercised even against an infant, insane or intoxicated person
or one suffering under misconception of facts.

Illustrations:
● Z, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill A; Z is guilty of no offense. But A has
the same right of private defense which he would have if Z were sane.

4. Section 99 : Act Against Which There is No Right of Private Defense

● Sec. 99 lays down the limitations on the exercise of the right of private defense.
● There is no right of private defense for
○ Against the acts of a public servant.
○ Against the acts of those acting under the authority or direction of a public
servant.
○ When there is adequate time to seek assistance from public authorities.
○ If the harm caused exceeds what is necessary for defense.

● Dhara Singh vs. Emperor, (1947 Lah):

The police entered the accused's house in the night to arrest him. The accused did not
recognise/identify them as police and fired at them. It was held that the accused had a
right of private defense.
5. Section 100 : When the Right of Private Defence of the Body Extends to Causing
Death
● The right of private defense of the body allows for the voluntary causing of death or harm
to the assailant under certain circumstances. These circumstances include:
○ An assault that reasonably causes the apprehension of death.
○ An assault that reasonably causes the apprehension of grievous hurt.
○ An assault to commit rape.
○ An assault on gratifying unnatural lust.
○ An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting.
○ An assault to wrongfully confine a person, where the circumstances reasonably
cause the person to believe they will be unable to seek help from public
authorities for their release.
● To invoke Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code, four conditions must be met:
○ The person exercising the right of private defense must be free from fault in
initiating the encounter.
○ There must be an imminent threat to life or great bodily harm.
○ There must be no safe or reasonable means of escape or retreat.
○ There must be a necessity for taking the assailant’s life.

6. Section 101 : When Such Right Extends to Causing Any Harm Other Than Death
● If the offence does not fall into any categories listed in the preceding section, the right of
private defence does not extend to causing the assailant’s death. However, it does
permit causing harm to the assailant other than death within the boundaries specified in
Section 99 of the Indian Penal Code.

7. Section102 : Commencement and Continuance of the Right of Private Defence of

the Body
● The right of private defense of the body under IPC is triggered when there is a
reasonable apprehension of danger to the body due to an attempted or threatened
offense,
● Even if the offense has not been committed yet. This right remains in effect as long as
the apprehension of danger persists.
● However, the apprehension of danger must be reasonable and not based on fanciful
beliefs.
● It is important to note that the danger must be present and imminent, and the right of
private defense does not arise if there is no actual attack.

8. Section 103 : When the Right of Private Defence of Property Extends to Causing
Death
● Section 103 justifies killing the aggressor and exercising the right of private defence in
cases of robbery, house-breaking by night, theft, mischief or house trespass, causing
apprehension of death or grievous hurt.
● Section 103 justifies using force
● It is important to note that the right of private defence can only be claimed by the
property’s true owner, and it cannot be exercised against a trespasser who has already
established possession.

● Mithu Pandey v. State,

the accused protested against the illegal collection of fruit from trees on their possessed
property. During an altercation, one of the accused suffered multiple injuries, and the
accused used force that resulted in death. The Patna High Court held that the accused
were entitled to the right of private defense, including causing death, as the fourth clause
of Section 103 was applicable in this situation.

9. Section104 IPC: When Such Right Extends to Causing Any Harm Other Than
Death
● Section 104 says that if the theft, mischief or criminal trespass does not answer the
description given in Section 103, then the right of private defense of property does not
extend to causing death.

10. Section 105 : Commencement and Continuance of the Right of Private Defence of
Property
● Section 105 says that the right of private defense of property commences. It runs as
follows
○ The right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable
apprehension of danger
○ The right of private defence of property against theft continues until the offender
has retreated with the property, until assistance from public authorities is
obtained, or until the property has been recovered.
○ The right of private defence of property against robbery continues as long as the
offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful
restraint.
○ The right of private defence of property against criminal trespass or mischief
continues as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal
trespass or mischief.
○ The right of private defence of property against house-breaking by night
continues as long as the house trespass which has been begun by such
house-breaking continues.

11. Section 106: Right of Private Defence against Deadly Assault When There is Risk
of Harm to an Innocent Person
● Illustration:
'A' is attacked by a mob who attempt to murder him. He cannot effectively exercise his
right of private defense without firing on the mob, and he cannot fire without risk of
harming young children who are mingled with the mob. A commits no offense if by firing
he harms any of the children.
 ● The provision stated in the illustration you mentioned clarifies that in a situation where a
mob is attacking a person and faces a reasonable apprehension of death, they have the
right of private defense, even if exercising that right may pose a risk of harm to innocent
persons. In such a case, the defender is allowed to risk causing harm to those innocent
persons to protect themselves.

ABETEMENT

MEANING
● The act of assisting, encouraging, or instigating someone to commit a crime is a criminal
offence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
● Chapter V of the IPC states that if a person has conspired in a crime, then the person is
not eligible to be set free of charges on any grounds, even if the person has not
committed the crime.
● Abetment lies under Sections 107 – 120 of the Indian Penal Code.

DEFENITION
The meaning of abetment lies under Section 107. It means to abet, instigate, help, and
encourage to execute a criminal intention.

METHODS OF ABETEMENT
1. Abetment by Instigation:
2. Abetment by Conspiracy
3. Abetment by Aid

1. Abetment by Instigation:
Abetment by instigation takes place when a person is intimidated, encouraged,
motivated, or pushed to commit a crime. Instigation can be direct or indirect but actively
encourages the person to commit the act.

2. Abetment by Conspiracy:
Abetment by conspiracy takes place when two or more people are engaged in
conspiring and executing a criminal act. However, even if one or more people, in the
same act, are not a part of the execution of the act, it will still fall under abetment by
conspiracy for engaging in the conspiracy.

3. Abetment by aid:
This last kind of abetment is abetment by aid where a person knowingly aids the crime or
by the omission of a legal act. However, aiding an offender without knowledge, would not
be considered abetment by aid.

ABETTOR (Sec. 108)

Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code states that a person who abets either the commission of
a crime or commission of an act that would be an offence is called an abettor.

PUNISHMENTS OF ABATEMENT
● Sec. 109 - Punishment of Abetement if the act abetted is committed in
consequence and where no express provision is made for its punishment.

● Sec. 110 - Punishment of Abetement if the person abetted does act with different
intention from that of abettor

● Sec. 111 - Liability of abettor when one act abetted and different act done

● Sec. 112 - Abettor when liable to cumulative punishment for act abetted and for act
done

● Sec. 113 - Liability of abettor for an effect caused by the act abetted different from
that intended by the abettor

● Sec. 114 - Abettor present when offence is committed

● Sec. 115 - Abetment of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, if
offence not committed

● Sec. 116 - Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment - if offence be not

committed

● Sec. 117 - Abetting commission of offence by the public or by more than ten
persons

● Sec. 118 - Concealing design to commit offence punishable with death or

imprisonment for life

● Sec. 119 - Public Servant concealing design to commit offense which it is his duty
to prevent

● Sec. 120 - Concealing design to commit offense punishable with imprisonment.

CASE LAW
Tej Singh v. State of Rajasthan [AIR 1958 Raj 169]:
In this case, a widow immolates herself in the funeral pyre of her husband. When members of
the funeral procession of her husband applauded her resolve by shouting Sati Mata ki Jai, they
were held to have instigated her to commit sati as their approval of the woman's act by
participation in the procession give her encouragement to commit suicide..
 CULPABLE HOMICIDE
Sec. 299

● MEANING Of HOMICIDE
‘Homicide’ has been derived from the Latin words ‘homi’ & ‘cido’. Homi means ‘man’ & cido
means ‘I cut’. Thus Homicide means “killing of a human being by another human being”.

KINDS OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE

● Lawful or Justifiable or Simple Homicides
● Excusable Homicides
● Unlawful Homicides
○ Culpable Homicide

DEFENITION Of CULPABLE HOMICIDE

Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, defines Culpable Homicide as "Causing the
death of a human being with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such
bodily injury as is likely to cause death.”

SECTION 299, I.P.C

"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.”

Illustrations:

1. A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the
knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z, believing the ground to be firm,
treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

2. A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it. A, intending to cause, or knowing it
to be likely to cause Z's death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B
may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

3. A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B, who is behind a bush; A not
knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not
guilty of culpable homicide, as he did not intent to kill B, or to cause death by doing an
act that he knew was likely to cause death.

Essentials of Section 299 IPC

1. By doing an act to cause death.
2. Doing an act to cause bodily injury likely to cause death.
3. By doing an act knowing it is likely to cause death.
There are three species of mens rea in culpable homicide as follows:
1. An intention to cause death;
2. An intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death and
3. Knowledge that death is likely to happen.

PUNISHMENT
Section 304 provides for the punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It is
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years and fine, if the offence comes under Clause
(1) or (2), if it comes under Clause (3), then imprisonment for 10 years or fine or both.

Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder

To establish culpable Homicide in IPC not amounting to murder, the Indian Penal Code’s
Section 299 defines three crucial elements that need to be proven:
● The intention of causing death.
● The intention of causing bodily injury that is likely to cause death.
● The knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.

Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder

On the other hand, for culpable Homicide amounting to murder, Section 300 of the Indian Penal
Code outlines four essential elements that need to be established:
● The intention of causing death.
● The intention of causing bodily injury to the person, and the offender knows that such
injury is likely to cause the person’s death.
● The bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to
cause death.

CASE LAW
The Empress v. Ganesh Dooley & Gopi Dooley
In this case, a snake charmer exhibited a venomous snake in public without extracting its fangs.
He placed the snake on the head of a spectator, not intending to harm anyone but to
demonstrate his skill. The spectator, trying to push off the snake, was bitten and died as a result.
The snake charmer was found guilty of culpable Homicide in IPC, not amounting to murder,
because even gross negligence can amount to knowledge.

MURDER
(Sec. 300 - 303)

● The term 'Murder' is derived from the Germanic word 'Morth', which means "secret
killing".
● Murder is a more serious offense than culpable homicide.
● Culpable homicide is a genus, whereas murder is a species.
DEFINITION
Murder is defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. According to this Act, culpable
homicide is considered as murder if:
● The act is committed with an intention to cause death.
● The act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury which the offender has
knowledge that it would result in death.
● The person has the knowledge that his act is dangerous and would cause death or
bodily injury but still commits the act, this would amount to murder.

ELEMENTS
1. Causing death
2. Doing an act
3. The act with the knowledge must be done

Illustration
● A shoots W with an intention of killing him. As a result, W dies in that consequence,
murder is committed by A.
● D intentionally gives a sword-cut to R that was sufficient to cause the death of anyone in
the ordinary course of nature. As a consequence, R dies. Here, D is guilty of murder
though he didn’t intend to cause R’s death.

Exceptions to Section 300 of IPC where culpable homicide is not considered as murder
1. Sudden and grave provocation
2. When the person exceeds his right to private defense
3. In case of Public Servant
4. Sudden Fight
5. Causing Death by negligence
6. Causing the death of the person other than the person whose death was intended
7. Good faith

Punishment for murder (Section 302)

Punishment for murder is provided under Section 302 of IPC. Under this section whoever
commits murder is punished with
● Death
● Life imprisonment
● Fine

Case Law
Rajendra Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1979
In this case, it was discussed about the special situations to be considered before awarding the
death penalty. It was held by the Court that not only the nature of the crime but also the various
factors of criminals before awarding the death penalty.
 CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY
Sec. 403 - 404

● The word ‘misappropriation’ means a dishonest appropriation and use of another

person’s property for one’s own use.
● Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states that “whoever dishonestly
misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine,
or with both”.

Illustration
● A takes property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession, in good faith, believing, at the time
when he takes it, that the property belongs to himself. A is not guilty of theft; but if A,
after discovering his mistake, dishonestly appropriates the property to his own use, he is
guilty of an offense under this section.
● A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z’s library in Z’s absence, and takes away a
book without Z’s express consent. Here, if A was under the impression that he had Z’s
implied consent to take the book for the purpose of reading it, A has not committed theft.
But if A afterwards sells the book for his own benefit, he is guilty of an offence under this
section.

Essential Elements
1. Property must be of another.
● The essence of offence under this section is that some property belonging to another
which comes into the possession of the accused innocently, is misappropriated or
converted by the accused to his own.
● The term misappropriation implies misappropriation of property in the possession of
someone else.
● No criminal misappropriation can take place if that property is in nobody's possession.

2. Finding of the property.

● The law relating to finding property by a stranger and his liability is well indicated in the
illustrations to this Section. For example, if someone finds the goods on the roadside
belonging to someone else, he retains the goods to himself and uses them even after
knowing the actual owner of the property. He commits the offence defined under this
Section.

3. Converts to own use.

● The words ‘convert to own use’ means using the property of another as if it is one's own
property. There must be actual conversion of the thing misappropriated to the accused’s
own use.
 4. Dishonest intention.
● For an offense of criminal misappropriation, it is not necessary that the property should
be taken with dishonest intention, the possession of the property may come innocently
and then by subsequent change of intention, or knowledge of some new facts with which
the party was not previously acquainted, the retaining of that property becomes wrongful
or fraudulent.

Ingredients of Section 404

● The property must be movable in nature or must be a movable property;
● Such property must be in the possession of the deceased person at the time of the
death of such person;
● The offender converted it or misappropriated it for his own use;
● The accused must have dishonest intentions while committing such a crime.

Dishonest Misappropriation of Property Possessed by Deceased Person at the time of

his Death
Section 404 of the Code states that whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his
own use property, knowing that such property was in the possession of a deceased person at
the time of that person’s decease, and has not since been in the possession of any person
legally entitled to such possession, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and if the offender at the
time of such person’s decease was employed by him as a clerk or servant, the imprisonment
may extend to seven years.

CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST

Sec. 405 - 409

● Whoever dishonestly misappropriates trust property is said to have committed the

offense of 'Criminal Breach of Trust'.
● The offense of criminal breach of trust is committed by a person, who is entrusted with
property or dominion over property and he dishonestly misappropriates or converts the
same for his own use.

Section 405 of IPC

Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with
● property, or with any dominion over property,
● dishonestly misappropriates or
● converts to his own use that property, or
● dishonestly uses or
● disposes of that property
● in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be
discharged, or
 ● of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of
such trust, or
● willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits ‘criminal breach of trust.

Illustration:
● A, an officer entrusted with public money dishonestly uses it for personal reasons. A has
committed a criminal breach of trust.
● A entrusts his furniture to B, who owns a furniture shop, for repair while A travels.
However, B dishonestly sells the furniture instead. B has committed a criminal breach of
trust.

INGREDIENTS
1. The property must be movable property
2. The property must be entrusted with property or with dominion over it
3. The person so entrusted must use that property
4. The accused did so dishonestly

Punishment
Section 406 of IPC: The punishment includes imprisonment of either description extendable up
to 3 years or with fine or both.

Case Law
State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal Nathalal (1967):
The SC stated that the owner remains the owner and delivers only a special interest to the other
person in the process of entrustment.

KIDNAPPING
Sec. 359 - 361

● Sec. 359 - 361 deals with kidnapping.

● The term ‘Kidnapping’ literally means “carrying away a person against his/her will or
against the will of the guardian in case of a minor”.

KINDS OF KIDNAPPING
● Sec. 359 classifies kidnapping into two kinds.
a. Sec. 360 deals with kidnapping from India.
b. Sec. 361 deals with kidnapping from lawful guardianship.

a. Kidnapping from India (Section 360):

It means carrying away a person (conveying a person) beyond the territorial limits of
India against its consent. It is an offence under Section 360, if a boy below the age of 16
 years and a girl below the age of 18 years is conveyed beyond the limits of India even
with his/ her consent.

b. Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship (Section 361):

According to Section 361 I.P.C. enticing or taking away of a minor girl below 18 years of
age, or a minor male below 16 years of age or any person of unsound mind from the
lawful custody without the consent of such guardian, is called 'Kidnapping'.

Exceptions
This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself
to be the father of an illegitimate child or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled
to lawful custody of such child unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful
purpose.

Essentials:
To constitute the offense of kidnapping under Section 361, the following ingredients are to be
satisfied:
1. Enticing or taking away of a minor male below 16 years or female below 18 years or a
person of unsound mind.
2. Taking away or enticing must be from the lawful guardianship.
3. Without the consent of the lawful guardian.

PUNISHMENT FOR KIDNAPPING

Sec. 363 punishes 7 years of imprisonment and is also liable for fine.

Case Law
Bhagavan Paanigrahi v. State [1989 Cr.L.J 103]:
In this case, a minor girl aged sixteen years, came from a village for education. Her father used
to visit her monthly once or twice and was looking after her necessities. She stayed in a rented
room. She came into contact with the accused. Both of them went away from that town to
another place with an intention to get married. The consent of the minor girl was not considered
and the court convicted the accused under Section 361 as there was no guardian's consent.

OFFENSES RELATING TO MARRIAGE

Sec. 493 - 498

Sections 493 to 498 of the Indian Penal Code deal with the offenses relating to Marriage as
follows:

1. Mock Marriage (Sections 493)

2. Bigamy (Sections 494 - 495)
3. Fraud Marriage (Sec. 496)
4. Adultery (Section 497)
5. Seduction or Criminal Elopement (Section 498).

1. Mock Marriage (Sec. 493)

● Mock marriage means invalid marriage.
● It is a cohabitation or sexual intercourse by a man, married or unmarried with a woman
of any age, whom he induces to be his wife, but in fact his concubine.
● The form of the marriage ceremony depends on the race or religion to which the parties
to the marriage belong. If the parties to the marriage do not belong to the same race or
religion, then they can change their religion.

Ingredients
To constitute to the offence under section 493 the following conditions are to be satisfied:
● The accused cohabited with the prosecutrix.
● He was not legally married to her.
● She has consented to the cohabitation believing that she had been lawfully married to
him.

2. Bigamy (Sections 494 - 495)

● A person cannot have more than one spouse living.
● So, a person who wants to get married should not have a spouse living at the time of the
marriage.
● He/She should be unmarried or a widower/widow or divorced.
● Bigamy means having two spouses living.
● Spouse means wife or husband.
● If the person having a spouse (living at the time of marriage and not divorced) marries
again
● Then he/she is guilty of Bigamy under Sec. 494.

Ingredients
To constitute bigamy, the following ingredients are to be satisfied:
● That the accused has already been married to some persons.
● That the accused married another person.
● That the second marriage was void by the reason of its taking place during the life of the
first spouse.

Punishment u/s 494 & 495

● Sec. 494 - punishment with imprisonment upto 10 years & also fine
● Sec. 495 - punishment with imprisonment, upto 7 years & shall be liable to fine.

3. Fraud Marriage (Sec. 496)

● This section seeks to punish fraudulent or mock marriages.
● It applies to those situations where a fake ceremony is gone through pretending it to be
a valid marriage.
 Ingredients:
To constitute the offense under Section 496, the following conditions are to be satisfied-
● The accused went through the form of marriage.
● He knew that he was not lawfully married.
● He went through the form of marriage dishonestly or fraudulently.

4. Adultery (Section 497)

● Adultery means "sexual intercourse by a man with a married woman, who is not his wife,
with her consent and without the consent or connivance of her husband, not amounting
to rape.”

Essential Elements:
To constitute adultery, the following ingredients are to be satisfied:
● The accused has sexual intercourse with a woman.
● The woman is married, and the accused had knowledge of the same.
● The sexual intercourse took place without the consent or connivance of her husband;
and
● The sexual intercourse did not amount to rape.

Punishment
● Imprisonment upto five years or fine or both.
● Women is not subject to punishment

5. Seduction or Criminal Elopement (Section 498).

● This section punishes person who takes away or entices or detains the wife of another
with criminal intent. The main locus of the offence is taking the wife of a husband from
his custody. It does not have to be forceful. This section therefore provides protection to
husbands, The subject-matter of this offence is married women only.

B.S. Lokhanda vs. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1965 SC 1564): The Supreme Court in the
instant case, held the accused not guilty of bigamy and acquitted, on the ground that the second
marriage was not valid on the ground that it was not solemnized in accordance with the legal or
religious formalities.

DEFAMATION

Defamation is an offence under Section 499 of the IPC when someone makes or publishes an
incorrect statement, accusation, or false imputation about another person, whether through
words, oral communication, visual cues, or any other means. This section strikes a balance
between safeguarding one’s reputation and respecting the other’s right to speak freely by
preventing misuse of words.
Defamation and its Nature
● Defamation could be both a civil offence as well as a criminal offence.
● In Civil law, defamation is punishable under the Law of Torts by punishing in the form of
damages (monetary compensation) awarded to the aggrieved party.
● In Criminal law, defamation is a bailable, non-cognizable offence that can be
compounded.

Types of Defamation
1. Libel
2. Slander

1. Libel
Libel is a type of defamation that involves the publication of false statements about an
individual or entity in written, printed, or visual forms. These statements are recorded
and have a lasting impact due to their permanence. Libelous statements are typically
communicated through mediums like newspapers, magazines, books, online articles,
photographs, or videos.

Example: Publishing an article on a news website falsely claiming that a celebrity is

involved in a criminal activity, such as drug trafficking, constitutes libel. The false
statement is recorded and disseminated to a wide audience, causing lasting harm to the
celebrity's reputation.

2. Slander
● Slander, on the other hand, is a form of defamation that involves making false spoken
statements about an individual or entity. Unlike libel, slanderous statements are not
permanently recorded and are more transient in nature. They can spread quickly through
word of mouth, conversations, speeches, or broadcasts.

Example: During a live radio broadcast, a host falsely accuses a local business owner of
selling counterfeit products. The spoken statement reaches the listeners in real-time but
isn't permanently recorded. If the false claim damages the business owner's reputation, it
qualifies as slander.

Essentials of Defamation
1. Making false statements and communicating it to a third party
2. This false statement should harm the victim’s reputation
3. This false statement must indeed be false, i.e., if a statement is a mere expression of
opinion or is based on truth, it might not be defamatory.
4. Presence of malicious intent
5. It should be made either verbally, in writing, through rough signs or by visual
representations.
Exceptions of Defamation
1. Imputation of truth, which public good requires to be made or published.
2. Public conduct of public servants.
3. Conduct of any person touching any public question.
4. Publication of reports of proceedings of courts.
5. Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned.
6. Merits of public performance.
7. Censure passed by a person with lawful authority.
8. Accusation preferred to authorized person.
9. Imputation for protection of interests.
10. Caution for the good of a person or public good.

Punishment for Defamation according to Section 500 IPC

Section 500 IPC states the punishment for the crime of defamation. This section outlines the
penalties for defamation, which include simple imprisonment with a maximum sentence of two
years, a fine, or both.

Amitabh Bachchan vs Star India Pvt. Ltd. (2014): In this case, actor Amitabh Bachchan filed
a defamation case against Star India Pvt. Ltd. for showing his name in a negative light during a
quiz show. The Bombay High Court ruled that the use of his name in that context did not
necessarily defame him, as it was in the context of a fictional game show.