IPC -1

3. Note on Capital Punishment. (6)

Introduction
Death sentence or capital punishment as the name suggest is the supreme form
of punishment that can be awarded to an accused by the authorities of a state.
Therefore for a person to be awarded death penalty , he / she must have
committed a crime of that degree so that the judiciary awards death penalty to
the accused. The concept of death penalty comes from the deterrence theory of
law. In India death penalty is prescribed as a punishment u/s 53 of IPC. Further
death penalty is awarded only in “rarest of rare cases”, however the said
expression is not defined completely and has been interpreted through the
circumstances of each case by the courts.
Offences on which death penalty can be awarded
Death penalty can be awarded can be awarded in the following cases under IPC:
 Murder
 Abetting mutiny actually committed
 Abetment of suicide of a minor or insane or intoxicated person
 Waging war against the government of India
 Dacoity accompanied by murder etc.
Law Commission's view
The Law Commission of India favoured retention of death penalty: as one of the
punishments which could be imposed on the offender of serious crimes. The
Law Commission also did not favour any change for awarding only death
penalty under Section 303 IPC. (It may, however, be stated that Section 303 IPC
has been held unconstitutional.)
Constitutional validity
Constitutional validity of death sentence had been challenged in various cases
before the Supreme Court. But it has been held that death penalty is neither
arbitrary nor unreasonable under Article 14, nor is it violative of the right to life
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. So far as Section 303 IPC is
concerned, which imposed an obligation on the court to award only death
sentence on a life-convict, it has been held arbitrary, unreasonable and ultra
vires Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Provisions in Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
The old CrPC, 1898 conferred discretion on the court when the conviction was
for an offence of murder punishable with death or imprisonment for life to
award any punishment. In some cases, it was held that awarding death sentence
was the rule while life imprisonment was an exception. The present CrPC, 1973
enacts that when the conviction is for an offence punishable with death or life
imprisonment, normal rule should be to award imprisonment for life. If the
court intends to award capital punishment (death sentence), reasons should be
recorded.
Case Laws
In the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the hon’ble SC held that death
penalty can only be inflicted in cases of gravest and extreme culpability. Further
the doctrine of rarest of rare was introduced in India in this case. Moreover the
could also held that mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances
should be taken into consideration before awarding death penalty.
4. Discuss concept on mens rea under IPC?
Or
Note on mens rea. (6)
Introduction
Mens Rea means "mental element or guilty mind". One of the fundamental
principles of our legal system is to determine punishment depending upon the
evil intent or guilty mind of the accused, which is known as mens rea. It
basically means an intention to do a forbidden act. The term 'mens rea' is not
defined in the Penal Code. It may be defined as "the mental element necessary
to constitute criminal liability." It is expressed in the Latin maxim "actus non
facit reum nisi mens sit rea" which means an act itself is no crime, unless it is
accompanied with a guilty mind or evil intent.
A person to be held guilty of a crime, it is necessary that he had an intention to
do it. Similarly, a person to be held guilty of theft, it should be established that
he had an intention to steal.
E.g.: If 'A', intentionally kills 'B' with a knife, 'A' is guilty of murder and is
awarded serious punishment viz., life imprisonment or death sentence under
Sec. 302 I.P.C. On the other hand, If 'A' drives a vehicle and commits an
accident which 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 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.
Indian Law
The doctrine of mens rea has been applied by the Indian Courts. It is now settled
that mens rea is an essential ingredient of an offence. But, it is not essential in
respect of certain offences viz., Waging War (Sec. 121), Sedition (Sec. 124A),
Kidnapping (Sec. 359) etc. The framers of the Indian Penal Code, while drafting
the Code used the words viz., Voluntarily (Sec. 39), Fraudulently and
Dishonestly (Sections 24, 25), Wrongful loss and wrongful gain(Section 23)
etc., which are equivalent to the word 'mens rea'.
Wrongful gain: Section 23 of IPC defines the term wrongful gain. Wrongful
gain is the gain of property by unlawful means to which the person gaining is
not legally entitled.
Wrongful loss: Section 23 of IPC defines the term wrongful loss . Wrongful
loss is the loss of property by unlawful needs to which the person losing it is
legally entitled.
Dishonesty: Section 24 of IPC defines the term dishonesty. If a person has done
an act with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful
loss to another, he is said to have done the act of ‘dishonestly’.
Eg: A find a ring belonging to X on a table in the House of X. Here the ring is
in the possession of X, if A takes the ring out of the position of X without X’s
consent with the intention of causing wrongful gain to A and thereby to cause
wrongful loss to X , here A has done the act dishonestly and A is guilty of theft.
Fraudulently: Section 25 of the IPC defines the term fraudulent. A person is
said to have done an act fraudulently if he does an act with the intent to defraud
another but not otherwise.
Voluntarily : Section 39 of IPC defines the term voluntarily .The term
voluntarily covers intention and knowledge. If a person has done an act with the
intention to cause an effect or with the knowledge of the effect resulting from
his act, He is said to have done the act voluntarily.
Eg: A sets fire to a house at night for the purpose of robbing the house which
resulted in causing the death of a person. A has caused the death voluntarily.
Case Law:
Sankaran Sukumaran v. Krishnan Saraswalthi [1984 Cr.LJ 317]: In this
case, the Supreme Court observed that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the
offence under Section 494 (Bigamy), where the second marriage has been
entered in a bona fide belief that the first marriage was not subsisting, no
offence under Section 494 is committed.
Malhan K.A. v. Kora Bibi Kutti [(1996) SCC 281]: In this case, the accused
was a financier. He seized a vehicle for which he financed but did not receive
the instalments. The person from whom the vehicle was seized complained to
police alleging that the accused had stolen his vehicle. The Supreme Court held
that the element of mens rea is totally wanting in this case and the accused was
left without any conviction under Section 379 of the IPC.
5.Explain various types of punishments prescribed under IPC?
Introduction
Punishment is the process by which the state inflicts some pain to the person
or property of a person who is convicted of a crime. The principle objective
of punishment is prevention of offences. Crime is a serious evil and the
prevention/ eradication of the same is the primary responsibility of the state.
Section 53 of the IPC prescribes the kinds of punishments that can be awarded
to an accused for committing an offence.
Types of Punishment
1.Death Penalty/ Capital Punishment: Death sentence or capital punishment
as the name suggest is the supreme form of punishment that can be awarded to
an accused by the authorities of a state. Therefore for a person to be awarded
death penalty , he / she must have committed a crime of that degree so that the
judiciary awards death penalty to the accused. The concept of death penalty
comes from the deterrence theory of law. Further death penalty is awarded only
in “rarest of rare cases”, however the said expression is not defined completely
and has been interpreted through the circumstances of each case by the courts.
Offences on which death penalty can be awarded
Death penalty can be awarded can be awarded in the following cases under IPC:
 Murder
 Abetting mutiny actually committed
 Abetment of suicide of a minor or insane or intoxicated person
 Waging war against the government of India
 Dacoity accompanied by murder etc.
Case Laws
In the case of Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, the hon’ble SC held that death
penalty can only be inflicted in cases of gravest and extreme culpability. Further
the doctrine of rarest of rare was introduced in India in this case. Moreover the
could also held that mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances
should be taken into consideration before awarding death penalty.
2.Life Imprisonment: Originally IPC provided for transportation for life. It
was substituted by Imprisonment for life by Act 26 of 1955. Imprisonment for
life, necessarily means rigorous imprisonment and cannot be simple
imprisonment. Imprisonment for life means imprisonment till the end of normal
life (ie till death).By virtue of Sec 55 of IPC, for the purpose of commutation of
sentence of imprisonment for life shall not exceed a term of 14 years. By virtue
of Sec 57 of IPC, for calculation of fraction of terms of punishment, life
imprisonment shall be equalent to imprisonment for 20 years.
Offences under which Life imprisonment is awarded
Life Imprisonment is generally awarded in the following cases :
 Waging war against the govt
 Murder
 Kidnapping for ransom etc
3.Imprisonment: Section 53 of IPC describes 2 types of punishment:
a) Simple: In case of simple imprisonment, the offender is confined to jail and
is not put to any kind of hard labour. Simple imprisonment is awarded for minor
or small offences. The prisoners may be asked to do light labour in certain
cases.
Offences under which Simple imprisonment is awarded
 Defamation
 Misconduct in a public place by a drunken person
 Wrongful restrain
b) Rigorous: In case of rigorous imprisonment, the offender is put to hard
labour such as digging earth, cutting firewood, mowing grass etc. The
maximum imprisonment awarded for an offence can be 14 years. The lowest
term which can be awarded is 24 hours, however the minimum imprisonment
term which can be awarded is unlimited.
Offences under which Rigorous imprisonment is awarded
  Punishment for bribery
 Punishment for false evidence
 Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt
Solitary Confinement
Solitary confinement refers to keeping the prisoners throughout isolated from
any kind of contract with the outside world. Solitary confinement can only be
inflicted in rigorous imprisonment. Solitary confinement in any sentence can be
awarded not more than 14 days at a time for a maximum of 3 months. It must
be awarded in intervals and periods. If imprisonment exceeds 3 months, then
solitary confinement should not exceed 7 days in a month. If the imprisonment
does not exceed more than 6 months, then solitary confinement should be for
1 month. If the imprisonment exceeds 6 months and does not exceed one
year, then solitary confinement can be imposed for 2 months. If the
imprisonment exceeds one year, then solitary confinement should not exceed 3
months.
4.Forfeiture of Property: Forfeiture of property means taking away of the
property of the criminal by the state as punishment. The punishment of absolute
forfeiture of all property of the offenders is abolished in India since 1921 by
repealing Sec 61 and 62 of the code.
Offences under which Forfeiture of Property is awarded
 Receiving property taken by war
 The property purchased or bid by public servants unlawfully. etc
5.Fine: Fine is a sum of money ordered by the court in exercise of criminal
jurisdiction to pay as punishment for an offence. Payment of fine puts an end to
the offence for which it is imposed. Fine may be sole punishment or alternative
or it may be addition to the imprisonment.
Offences under which Fine is awarded
 False statements in connection with election
 Illegal payments in connection with elections
 Failure to keep election accounts
7.Solitary Confinement. (6)
Introduction
Solitary confinement refers to keeping the prisoners throughout isolated from
any kind of contract with the outside world. Solitary confinement can only be
inflicted in rigorous imprisonment. Section 73 and 74 of IPC deals with solitary
confinement. The term "Solitary Confinement" is not defined in any code or
legislation, but the provisions related to it can be located in the Indian Penal
Code 1860 and the Prisoners Act 1894.
Section 73 of the IPC states that – The Court has the power to impose solitary
Confinement as a part of rigorous punishment but should not exceed three
months as a whole.
Section 74 of the Indian Penal Code limits solitary Confinement by restricting
time intervals between solitary Confinement.
Limitation
1.Solitary confinement in any sentence can be awarded not more than 14 days
at a time for a maximum of 3 months. It must be awarded in intervals and
periods.
2.If imprisonment exceeds 3 months, then solitary confinement should not
exceed 7 days in a month.
3.If the imprisonment does not exceed more than 6 months, then solitary
confinement should be for 1 month.
4.If the imprisonment exceeds 6 months and does not exceed one year, then
solitary confinement can be imposed for 2 months.
5.If the imprisonment exceeds one year, then solitary confinement should not
exceed 3 months.
Case Law
1.In Kishor Singh Ravinder Dev Etc vs. State Of Rajasthan, the apex court
held that confining the prisoners for a more extended period in solitary
Confinement is a clear violation of Article 21 of the constitution. The
applicability of this section should be made only in the “rarest of the rare case”
and not on some feeble grounds.
2.This decision was further upheld and followed in Union of India v. Dharam
Pal, where the prisoner was held for nearly 18 years in solitary confinement out
of the more than 25 years he spent in jail. The Supreme Court, in this case, held
that such Confinement amounts to additional punishment and is not approved
by the law.
3.The Punjab and Haryana High Court took a step further in the State Of
Haryana vs. Arun And Ors by abolishing solitary Confinement for death row
inmates in Punjab and Haryana. The High Court opined that there is no
scientific reason or any logic to segregate the death row inmates from other
prisoners immediately upon the pronouncement of the death sentence. This
causes significant mental trauma to the convict and violates Articles 20(2) and
21 of the Indian Constitution.
8.Define crime. Explain the difference between Crime and Tort?
Introduction
Wrong takes place in two ways viz., by commission of an act (i.e., killing a
person by giving poison) or by omission of an act (i.e., killing a person without
giving food or by omitting to give medical aid in time). The word 'act' denotes
as well a series of acts as a single act, and the word 'omission' denotes as well a
series of omissions as a single omission - Sec. 33, I.P.C. The wrongs may be
broadly categorised under two heads, namely: (1) Private Wrongs and (2) Public
Wrongs. Private wrong causes injury to an individual or a group of individuals
(E.g. Private nuisance) and the injured/aggrieved can approach the Court (Civil
Court) for the relief/redressal. Whereas, the public wrong causes injury to the
society/community or public as a whole. It (public wrong) is dealt by the state
or its subordinate authorities viz., Police, Criminal Courts, Prison etc. 'Crime' is
a public wrong. It is an offence 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.
Crime
The word crime is derived from the Greek word ‘Krimos’, which means “social
order” and it is applied “to those acts that go against social order and are worthy
of serious condemnation”. Further Sec 2(n) of Code of Criminal Procedure
defines the term Offence “as any act or omission made punishable by any law
for the time being in force”.
The word crime has not been defined in the IPC. The word Offence is used in
penal code in the place of crime. According to Sec 40 of IPC, except in the
Chapters and Sections mentioned in Clause 2& 3 of this section, the word
offence denotes a thing punishable by this code. Hence, a crime can be defined
as any act or omission which are described as offences under the Indian Penal
Code and are punishable under the same.
Tort
The term 'Tort' is derived from the Latin word 'Tortum', which means 'Twisted'.
Its equivalent English word is 'Wrong' or 'Wrongful act'. It is one of the private/
civil wrongs. Private wrong causes injury to one or more persons. The person,
who commits tort is called "Tort-Feasor". The other person/persons, who suffer
injury (to his/her person/property/ reputation) is called aggrieved. The aggrieved
can sue the tort- feasor in a civil court for redressal/relief. Hence, it is called a
civil wrong.
 Crime Tort
1.Crime is a Public Wrong 1.Tort is a Civil Wrong
2.The person who commits crime is 2.The person who commits a tort is called a
called accused(before proven guilt) and Tort Feasor or Wrong Doer.
convict (after guilt is proven) or
criminal.
3.It is an offence against the public at 3.It causes injury or damage to an individual
large or society as a whole. or group of individuals.

4.It is tried in a criminal court 4. It is tried in a civil court

5.The object of criminal law is to punish 5.The object of law of tort is to provide
the criminal. remedy / relief to the injury.

6.Generally, the law doesn’t permit 6.Law permits the parties (The injured party
settlement of a criminal case by and the tort feasor) to settle the dispute. In
compromising between the parties. other words, the plaintiff can withdraw the
However, Section 320 of CrPC provides suit filed by him.
an exception to this general rule.

7.Criminal Law is codified. 7.Tort Law is a judge made law. It is not

codified.

8.In Criminal Law, the burden of proof 8. In law of torts, the burden of proof lies on
lies on the state. the aggrieved.

9.The amount collected by way of 9.The amount of compensation by way of

penalty / fine goes to the state. unliquidated damages goes to the aggrieved.

9.Explain elements of crime.

Introduction
The word crime is derived from the Greek word ‘Krimos’, which means “social
order” and it is applied “to those acts that go against social order and are worthy
of serious condemnation”. A crime can be defined as any act or omission which
are described as offences under the Indian Penal Code and are punishable under
the same.
Elements of Crime
To constitute Crime, the following elements are to be satisfied.
1. Human Being.
2. Mens Rea (Mental element or Evil intent).
3. Actus Reus (Act or Omission); and
4. Injury.
Among the above four, mens rea and actus reus are considered to be most
essential to constitute a crime.
1. Human Being (Person): The first essential element of Crime is that it must
have been committed by a human being (or by a person). Here the word person
includes natural and juristic or legal person. He/she must be under a legal
obligation to act in a particular way and also a fit subject for the infliction of
appropriate punishment. In the olden days even animals were punished for
committing crimes. However in the development of society it was realised that
in order to commit a crime mens rea was essential, as no animal can be imputed
to have a guilty mind, it is essential that the wrongful act which is contrary to
law must be committed by a human being.
2. Mens Rea: Mens Rea means "mental element or guilty mind". One of the
fundamental principles of our legal system is to determine punishment
depending upon the evil intent or guilty mind of the accused, which is known as
mens rea. It basically means an intention to do a forbidden act. The term 'mens
rea' is not defined in the Penal Code. It may be defined as "the mental element
necessary to constitute criminal liability." It is expressed in the Latin maxim
"actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea" which means an act itself is no crime,
unless it is accompanied with a guilty mind or evil intent.
A person to be held guilty of a crime, it is necessary that he had an intention to
do it. Similarly, a person to be held guilty of theft, it should be established that
he had an intention to steal.
E.g.: If 'A', intentionally kills 'B' with a knife, 'A' is guilty of murder and is
awarded serious punishment viz., life imprisonment or death sentence under
Sec. 302 I.P.C. On the other hand, If 'A' drives a vehicle and commits an
accident which 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 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.
The doctrine of mens rea has been applied by the Indian Courts. It is now settled
that mens rea is an essential ingredient of an offence. But, it is not essential in
respect of certain offences viz., Waging War (Sec. 121), Sedition (Sec. 124A),
Kidnapping (Sec. 359) etc. The framers of the Indian Penal Code, while drafting
the Code used the words viz., Voluntarily (Sec. 39), Fraudulently and
Dishonestly (Sections 24, 25), Corruptly etc., which are equivalent to the word
'mens rea'.
Case Law:
Sankaran Sukumaran v. Krishnan Saraswalthi [1984 Cr.LJ 317]: In this
case, the Supreme Court observed that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the
offence under Section 494 (Bigamy), where the second marriage has been
entered in a bona fide belief that the first marriage was not subsisting, no
offence under Section 494 is committed.
Malhan K.A. v. Kora Bibi Kutti [(1996) SCC 281]: In this case, the accused
was a financier. He seized a vehicle for which he financed but did not receive
the instalments. The person from whom the vehicle was seized complained to
police alleging that the accused had stolen his vehicle. The Supreme Court held
that the element of mens rea is totally wanting in this case and the accused was
left without any conviction under Section 379 of the IPC.
3. Actus Reus (Physical Act: Act or Omission):The third element of crime is
actus reus or physical or actual act. As it is said: actus non facit nisi mens sit rea
(the act alone does not amount to an offence unless accompanied by a guilty
mind). Actus reus may be said to be a human conduct which the law prevents or
prohibits. If there is no actus reus, i.e. if the act has not been committed, there is
no crime. The law does not punish a person only on the basis of mens rea or
guilty mind unless he does some overt act, ie a human being and an evil intent
(mens rea) would not constitute a crime as the intention to commit a crime is
not punishable.
Thus, if A intends to kill B, he cannot be punished for his intention (mens rea).
Even if in furtherance of that intention, A purchases a pistol (preparation), he
does not commit any offence (if he possesses a licence as required by law). But
once A does an overt act, i.e. fires at B, he commits an offence. If A is
successful in his attempt and kills B (act), he commits an offence of murder
punishable under Section 302, IPC. But even if A is unsuccessful in killing B
(attempt), he can be convicted for an attempt to commit murder punishable
under Section 307 IPC.
In the case of 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
attempt 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. The injury must
cause the harm to another human being or to the society in general or to the
public at large. 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. The act by which injury is caused must be proximate, but not
consequential. For instance, A digs a ditch in front of his house on the public
way leaving it uncovered, causing public nuisance. B, a motor cyclist fell in that
ditch and received injury, it is a proximate injury. In case, he takes diversion
because of the ditch and fell down in the next street, the injury is consequential.
Conclusion
As stated above, to constitute crime, the above four elements viz., human being,
evil intent (mens rea), actus reus and injury are to be present. However, there
are some exceptional cases in which crime is constituted in the absence of one
or more of these elements. For instance, in the offence of bigamy under Section
494, the offence is constituted even though the actus reus has not consummated.
Similarly, in case of inchoate crimes i.e., attempt to commit a crime in which
injury is absent but is punishable under Section 511.
11.Note on common object and common intention.(6)
Common Intention (Section 34)
Section 34 of IPC speaks about 'Common Intention'. According to Section 34 of
the Penal Code, 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 is done by him alone. This liability is called "joint liability
or constructive liability."
Illustration: A, B and C jointly went to D's house to kill him. In fact, B alone
fired at D and killed him. However, A, B and C are equally liable and the same
punishment will be awarded to all of them.
Essential
1. There must be 2 or more persons
2. They must have done a criminal act
3. Such act must be done in furtherance of common intention, and
4. There must be participation by all of them in doing such an act.
Barendra Kumar Ghosh vs. Emperor, 1925 (Popularly known as Post-Master
Murder Case): Barendra Kumar, along with two of his companions went to a
Post Office for committing robbery. One of his companions open fired at the
post master, resulting in the death of the Post Master. The two others ran way
without robbing the money. But, Barendra Kumar was caught with a pistol. He
was tried for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 I.P.C. Barendra
Kumar denied the charge on the ground that he was standing outside the post
office and did not open fire at the deceased, further he also stated that he had no
intention to kill the Post Master even though he joined others for the robbery.
Held: The court held that the post master was killed in the furtherance of
common intention of all the three men and hence the appellant was guilty of
murder irrespective of the fact whether he fired or not.
Common Object (Section 149)
Section 149 of IPC speaks about common object. Section 149 of IPC states that
every member of an unlawful assembly having a common object, is responsible
for the acts committed by any member of that assembly , and is guilty of the
substantive offence and hence shall be punishable for the same. Section 149 of
IPC deals with joint liability of members of an unlawful activity. For the
application of Sec 149, there must be an unlawful assembly as defined under
Sec 141 of IPC.
Essentials under 149
1. An offence should have been committed by members of an unlawful
assembly.
2. The offence committed must be in the prosecution of the common object.
3. The members must know that the offence is likely to be committed.
4. The offence must be committed by five or more persons.
Musa Khan v. State of Maharashtra, 1977: In this case, the supreme court
held that "mere presence/innocent presence in an assembly of persons does not
make the accused a member of an unlawful assembly, unless it is shown by
direct or circumstantial evidence that the accused shared the common object of
the assembly."
12. Crime in state of intoxication. (6)
Introduction
Sections 85 and 86 of the IPC deal with cases wherein an offence has been
committed by a person while he is in a state of intoxication. Intoxication may be
caused by consumption of alcohol, liquor or wine, or by taking narcotic drugs or
by smoking opium, ganja, etc.
Involuntary intoxication (Section 85)
Section 85 states that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at
the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the
nature of the act, or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law,
provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without
his consent or against his will.
Essential
1.the act must have been committed by the accused under intoxication;
2. by reason of such intoxication, the accused must be
(a) incapable of knowing the nature of the act; or
(b) not knowing that what he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law;
and
3. the thing which intoxicated him must have been administered
a. without his knowledge; or
b. against his will.
Voluntary intoxication (Section 86)
Section 86 covers cases of voluntary intoxication. It imputes the same
knowledge to such a man as he would have had, if he had not been intoxicated.
In other words, in case of voluntary intoxication, a person is liable like any
other person who had not been intoxicated. Therefore voluntary intoxication is
not a defence for commission of a crime.
Case law
Director of public prosecution v. Beard (1920):
Beard was a night watchman. He caught a girl of thirteen years old to have
carnal knowledge (to seduce/rape her) The girl cried and tried to escape. He put
a cloth gag in her mouth to prevent cries; and placed his hand over her mouth
and thumb on her throat. The girl died by suffocation. He pleaded the defence of
intoxication, as he was in drunken state at the time of committing the offence.
The Trial Court convicted him for murder. But, the Court of appeal reduced the
sentence to manslaughter. However, the House of Lords restored the conviction
for murder, and laid down the following points on the 'Law of Intoxication'.
1. The insanity produced by drunkenness is the defence to the crime charged.
2. The evidence of drunkenness is taken into consideration, to determine,
whether the accused had an intent to commit the offence.
3. Mere establishment of the fact that a man's mind was so affected by drink,
affords no protection.

13.Note on Public servant. (6)

10.Note on possible parties to a crime.(6)
1.Explain in detail about variations in criminal liability?
6. Concept of Crime. (6)
2.Explain the extent of liability for acts done in furtherance of common
intention with decided cases?
14.Explain the territorial jurisdiction of IPC with exception
Introduction
Section 2 to 4 of IPC lays down the provision related to the jurisdiction of the
criminal courts. Section 2 refers to offenses committed within the territory of
India , while Section 3 and 4 deals with offences committed beyond the
territorial limits of India .
Intra - Territorial Jurisdiction(Sec 2)
Territorial jurisdiction means the power of the state to exercise jurisdiction
throughout its territory. The state can exercise its jurisdiction over its land, air
space, internal waters which comprises of lakes, rivers, sea etc. Further the state
also exercises jurisdiction over all the ships and aircrafts that belong to India ,
irrespective of wherever they are in the world. The state can also exercise
jurisdiction over the ships and aircraft belonging to foreign countries which are
within the territorial limits of India .
According to section 2 of IPC every person irrespective of his nationality, caste,
creed etc shall be liable for punishment of offenses committed in India for
which he is found guilty. It extends to foreign nationals also as the section does
not make any distinction between the citizen of India and a foreigner. Hence it
is no defense on behalf of foreigner that he did not know that what he was doing
is wrong.
For example: Adultery is no offense in America however it is an offense which
is punishable under section 497 of IPC in India . Hence if an American commits
an Offense of adultery in India , he is indeed punishable under section 497 of
IPC.
Exceptions: The following persons are always exempted from the jurisdiction
of the criminal courts as certain rights and privileges are conferred to them.
i) Foreign sovereigns: A foreign sovereign of any country possesses the
ultimate or supreme authority of the country and is exempted from
incrimination under the code.
ii) Ambassadors: The ambassadors of other countries are exempted from the
jurisdiction of the Indian criminal courts. They enjoy the same immunity as the
sovereign or state which they represent. They enjoyed this immunity on mutual
basis.
iii) Alien enemies: The military persons of alien enemies cannot be tried by the
criminal courts of India in respect to their acts of war. However, if an alien
enemy commits a crime unconnected with war such as theft, cheating Etc; then
he will be trailed under the criminal courts. For acts of war, they shall be dealt
under the Martial law.
iv) Foreign army: When the armies of a foreign state are stationed on the
Indian soil with the consent of the Indian government, they are immune from
the jurisdiction of the local criminal courts.
v) Warships: The warships lying in foreign waters are exempted from the
jurisdiction of the state within whose territorial jurisdiction they lie .
vi) President and Governors: The president of India and the governors of the
state are exempted from the jurisdiction of the code. Article 361 of the
constitution provides that “no criminal proceedings shall be instituted or
continued against the President or a Rajpal of a state in any court during the
term of his office.”
Extra- Territorial Jurisdiction (Section 3&4)
Section 3 of the IPC states that an Indian citizen may be prosecuted in India for
any act done in foreign land, if it is an offence under any Indian enactment, even
though such act is not a crime at the place of commission.
Eg: A, who is a citizen of India , commits a murder in Uganda. He can be tried
and prosecutor in any place in India in which he is found.
Case: Remia v. Sub- inspector of police(1993): In this case, an Indian citizen
murdered another Indian citizen in a foreign country. The police refused to
register an fir on the ground that the offence was committed outside India . The
court held that the refusal by the police was illegal and directed the police to
register the crime and proceed with the investigation in accordance with the law
under section 3 of IPC.
Section 4 of the Indian Penal Code expands the ambit of application of Section
3 of the Act. According to Section 4 of Indian Penal Code, when an offender has
committed an offence outside the territory of India but is found within the
territory of India. Then there are two courses of actions which may be resorted
to:
Extradition: He can be sent to the country where the effect of his wrongdoing
took place,
Extraterritorial jurisdiction: he may be tried in accordance with the criminal
laws of India.