Lectures of IPC

Lectures of IPC

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

MAINS QUESTIONS

  1. Explain the dictum “Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”.
  1. What is meant by mens rea? What are its exceptions?
  1. Distinction between Intention & motive?
  1. How far is motive necessary for determining a crime? Explain with reference to cases.

 

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

  • It came into force on 1st Jan, 1862
  • Drafted under the chairmanship of Lord Macaulay
  • Nature and purpose of IPC
  • It is a substantive law
  • Branch of public law
  • It provides the individual right in rem against offences punishable by this Act
  • It balances the individual of societal interest.
  • IPC finds its constitutionality from Article 13(1) r/w Article 372 of the Constitution.
  • Difference between word offence & crime
  • Crime is a genus offence in its species
  • Definition of offence (S. 40)
  • Connection between morality & Crime
  • Elements of crime
  • Actus Reus & Mens Rea
  • Maxim “Actus Non fascit reum nisi mens sit rea”
  • Actus Reus
  • What is Actus Reus

It is a consequences of human conduct which law seeks to prevent

  • Difference between Actus Reus & in Act
  • Series of Act (3/32 & 33) r/w 5/43, 44 & 11)
  • Subjectivity of Actus Reus
  • Mens Rea
  • Meaning

Guilty mind present at the time of the offence

 

  • It is also subjective
Reason to believe etc.
Intention
Knowledge
  • Types of mens rea

 

  • Rate of mens rea – It creates criminal liability
  • Cases in which mens rea is not essential
  • Statutory offences
  • Public nuisance
  • In cases of strict an absolutely liability
  • Rule of presumption regarding Mens Rea in India and England
  • Test of Mens Rea
  • Difference between Intention & motive
  • Leading case of State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George
  • Suggested Reading
  • State of Mah. V. Narayan Singh [1989] SC
  • State of Orissa v. K. Rajeshwar Rao [1992] SC

 

 

Defamation
Offences against body

(S. 498-A)

Offences against property
Abetment
Criminal Conspiracy
Attempt
General Exception
Basic Principles

-Joint Liability/ Constructive Liability

Application of the Act

(S. 1-5)

Mens Rea
Actus Reus
Elements of offence
Incohate
Cohate
Specific offences
Basis

-Mala Prohibitia

Def of offence

-difference b/w crime & offence

Purpose
Nature

-Public law

-Substance

-Constitutional aspects

-Jurisprudential aspect

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

 

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

PRELIMINARY QUESTIONS

 

  1. Indian penal Code, 1860 protects the individual:-
  • Right in rem
  • Right in personam
  • Right in repropria
  • Right in re aliena
  1. Indian penal Code is:-
  • Substantial in name
  • Procedural in nature
  • Substantive but have overtones of procedural law
  • Basically procedural but have overtones of substantive law
  1. The Governor general gave assert to the penal Code of India on:-
  • October 6, 1862
  • October 6, 1860
  • Jan 1, 1862
  • Jan 1, 1860
  1. The State of Jammu & Kashmir has been excluded from the operation of IPC because of which Article of the Constitution
  • Article 371
  • Article 373
  • Article 370
  • Article 374
  1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 give procedure to any special or local law under which section;-
  • Section 2
  • Section 3
  • Section 4
  • Section 5
  1. Criminal liability arises in:-
  • Voluntary acts only
  • Involuntary acts only
  • Both voluntary or involuntary acts
  • None of the above
  1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 is a branch of:-
  • Private law
  • Administrative law
  • Public law
  • None of the above
  1. Indian Penal Code, 1860 was drafted under the Chairmanship of:-
  • Sir James Stephen
  • Lord Macaulay
  • Lord Millet
  • Lord Anderson
  1. Mark the incorrect statement:-
  • Offences is not only a wrong against the individual but against the whole society
  • IPC protects the individual right against all acts which are against the moral values of the society
  • IPC balances the individual & Societal interest
  • None of the above statement is correct
  1. The principle of criminal liability- ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’ was developed by:-
  • The equity courts
  • Indian courts
  • Common law courts
  • None of these
  1. What are the two pre-conditions of penal liability:-
  • Actus Reus & Mens Rea
  • Actus Reus & Motive
  • Motive & Mens Rea
  • None of the above is correct
  1. Actus reus is
  • An act which law seeks to prevent
  • Consequence of human conduct which law prohibits
  • The guilty mind which is prohibited
  • Either (a) or (b)
  1. Act includes:-
  • Series of Acts
  • Single Act
  • Illegal omissions
  • All of the above
  1. Actus reus is a :-
  • Subjective concept
  • Objective concept
  • Either (a) or (b)
  • Both (a) or (b)
  1. For the purpose of IPC, the word person includes:-
  • Only natural
  • Only artificial
  • Only juristic
  • Both natural of artificial
  1. The difference kinds of Mens rea are:-
  • Intention
  • Negligence
  • Ill-well
  • All of these
  1. Mark the incorrect statement:-
  • Mens rea is a guilty state of mind
  • It is subjective concept
  • Mens rea per se is sufficient for criminal liability
  • None of the above is incorrect
  1. Mens rea is exempted in case of:-
  • In offences where it is not essential
  • In cases of strict or absolute liability
  • In cases of public nuiscance
  • All of the above
  1. In India, in cases of statutory offences the general presumption regarding Mens Rea is:-
  • It is required to be proved
  • It is not required to be proved
  • It is not required unless it is required expressing or impliedly
  • None of the above
  1. State of Maharashtra v. M.H George [1965], Supreme Court is a leading case on:-
  • Actus reus
  • Mens rea
  • Both actus & mens rea
  • Criminal conspiracy
  1. Mark the correct statement:-
  • Intention is reason or ground of an action
  • Intention & motive, both are inter-changeable terms
  • Motive is not a sine qua non for fixing criminal liability
  • Motive per se is sufficient for fixing criminal liability.
  1. Which of the following is the highest degree of mens rea:-
  • Intention
  • Knowledge
  • Reason to believe
  • Negligence
  1. The Penal Code in force in the territory of Jammu & Kashmir is known as the:-
  • Indian Penal Code
  • Macaulay penal Code
  • Ranbir penal Code
  • Jammu & Kashmir penal Code
  1. Which of the following is not a feature of the criminal justice system in India?
  • Innocent until prover guilty
  • Right against self incrimination
  • Preponderance of probability
  • Proof beyond reasonable doubt.
  1. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, came into force on:-
  • 1st Jan, 1860
  • 1st Jan, 1862
  • 6th Oct, 1860
  • 6th Oct, 1862.

INDIAN PENAL CODE

MAINS QUESTIONS

  1. If a person committed any offence outside India whether he will be charged outside or in Indian Territory. Discuss briefly with case law.
  1. ‘A’, a foreigner initiates the commission of an offence from his country, which is committed in India by electronic device. Is ‘A’ liable in India for the offence? Give reasons in support of your answer.

 

  1. A citizen of India commits an Act in England, which is not a criminal offence there but is one under the IPC. Can he be held liable in India. If yes under what provisions of IPC.

 

  1. A foreigner commits offence against another foreigner in a foreign vessel on the high sea. He then steps into India. Can he be sued by courts in India? Give reasons.

 

  1. Under what circumstances can an offence be committed outside India be tried as an offence committed within India. Illustrate your answer with suitable examples.

 

INDIAN PENAL CODE

APPLICATION OF THE ACT (SEC 1-5)

 

  • Section 1 provides for territorial application of the IPC
  • Excludes state of Jammu & Kashmir
  • Territorial not only includes land but also interest water like rivers, canals etc. also portion of sea using along its coast.
  • The territorial waters of India extends into the sea to a distance of 12 Nautical Miles from the base line.

 

Section 2 Talks about intra territorial application of IPC is offences committed within India by any person

  • Leading case

 

Mobarak Ali Ahmed v. State of Bom [1957] SC

 

  • Who are exempted from criminal prosecution

 

Section 3 & 4 talks about extra territorial operation is offences committed beyond the territory of India.

 

  • Section 35 has to be read along with section 188 Cr.PC

 

Section 5 Talks about the saving clause

  • This code will not affect the provisions

                                    Marital law

Of                                Special Law                     5/41& 42

                                    Local Law

 

INDIAN PENAL CODE

 

  1. Which section gives the territorial application of the Indian Penal Code
  • Section 1
  • Section 2
  • Section 3
  • Section 4
  1. As per section 18 of IPC, India means the territory of India:-
  • Including the State of Jammu & Kashmir
  • Excluding the State of Jammu & Kashmir
  • Can be both depending upon the nature of the offence
  • None of the above is correct
  1. Which section of the IPC, reiterates the well known principle of intentional law that a ship on the high sea is a floating territory of the country whose flag ship is following:-
  • Section 3(1)
  • Section 3(2)
  • Section 4(1)
  • Section 4(2)
  1. Who of the following are exempted from the application of Indian Penal Code?
  • The President of India
  • Diplomatic
  • Alter enemy
  • All of the above
  1. Section 2 talks about:-
  • Territorial operation of IPC
  • Intra territorial operation
  • Extra territorial operation
  • Internal territorial operation
  1. Who are not exempted from Intra Territorial Jurisdiction of the IPC?
  • The President of India
  • The Governors of State
  • Public
  • Alien Enemies
  1. The territory of India includes:-
  • Land only
  • Rivers, canals & lakhs
  • Portion of sea
  • All of the above
  1. The territorial waters extends into the sea to a distance of:-
  • Ten nautical miles
  • Twelve nautical miles
  • Fourteen nautical miles
  • None of the above is correct
  1. Word “person” for the purpose of section 2 includes:
  • Citizens only
  • Non citizens also
  • Foreigners visiting the country
  • All of the above
  1. Which sections of IPC deals with extra-territorial operation.
  • Section 2
  • Section 3
  • Section 4
  • Both section 3 & 4
  1. Which section provides for the trial of offences committed outside India
  • Section 184 of Cr.PC
  • Section 185 of Cr.PC
  • Section 186 of Cr.PC
  • Section 188 of Cr.PC
  1. ‘A’ an Indian Soldier, commits murder outside India. While in service can he be prosecuted for murder in India?
  • Yes
  • No
  • Depends upon the circumstances of the case
  • Only with the permission of foreign country
  1. In cases of offences committed partly in India and partly outside India. It shall be deemed to be an offence committed within:-
  • India
  • Outside India
  • Either of the above
  • None of the above
  1. The Indian penal Code will not apply to:-
  • Martial laws
  • Special laws
  • Local laws
  • All of the above

INDIAN PENAL CODE

MAINS QUESTIONS

 

  1. What are the ingredients of section 34 of the IPC, which lays down joint responsibility in doing of criminal act?

 

  1. A, b & C with an intention to assault & beats him; during the cause of which ‘A’ who has a provisions enmity with ‘D’ stabs him, resulting in D’s death. Can B & C be liable for 302 r/w 34?

 

  1. Difference between common intention and similar intention.

 

  1. Difference between common intention and knowledge?

 

INDIAN PENAL CODE

JOINT LIABILITY/CONSTURCTIVE LIABILITY OR VICARIOUS LIABILITY

 

  • Meaning of joint/constructive liability
  • Section 34-38, 121-A, 396, 460, 141-149 are concerned with Joint/Constructive liability.
  • S/34 creates no specific offence
  • Meaning of common intention
  • Prior meeting of minds

 

  • Pandrang tukia & Bhillia v. State of Hyderabad [1955] SC

 

  • Birendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor [1925] PC

 

  • Difference between common & similar Intention

 

Intention is shared by all                               No such sharing though result is same

Landmark Case:-  Mehboob Shah v. Emperor [1943] PC

  • Common intention can be found on the spot on at the spur of the moment also.

Leading case- Kirpal Singh v. State of U.P [1954] SC

  • Difference between “in furtherance of” & “during the furtherance of”
  • Difference between common intention & Knowledge.
  • Can a single person be held liable u/s 34?
  • S/35

 

  • Complementary to S/34. But scope of both section are difference
  • Under S/34- Liability in joint on the basis of common intention whereas u/s 34 it is based upon similar intention

 

  • S 38 person guilty of different offence.

 

 

INDIAN PENAL CODE

  1. Which of the following is correct with respect to section-34?
  • Some criminal Act must be done by several persons
  • There must be a common Intention of all to commit that criminal Act.
  • Participation of all in furtherance of that common intention
  • All of the above are correct
  1. Pandurang Tukia & Bhillia v. State of Hyderabad, [1995] SC, is a leading case on the point of:-
  • Similar intention
  • Common intention
  • Common object
  • Similar object
  1. Birendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor [1925] PC is a landmark Judgment on which of the following sections?
  • Section 32
  • Section 33
  • Section 34
  • None of the above
  1. Mehboob Shah v. Emperor [1943] SC. is a landmark on the point of:
  • Common object
  • Common intention
  • Similar object
  • Similar intention
  1. Which of the following is not correct with respect to section 34:
  • Mere presence of accused is sufficient for imposing common intention
  • Participation is a condition precedent for fixing liability under this section
  • Common intention can be formed on the spot also
  • None of the above is correct
  1. ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘C’ killed ‘D’, ‘C’, the main offence acquitted on technical grounds. ‘A’ is also acquitted because of minority. Can ‘B’ alone be tried for section 302 r/w Section 34?
  • Yes
  • No
  • Depends upon the circumstances of the case
  • None of the above
  1. Which one of the following case is related to section 34 of IPC?
  • M Nanavati v. State of Man.
  • Kedar Nath v. State of Bengal
  • V. prince
  • Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor
  1. In which case the court made a clear distinction between common intention?
  • Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor
  • Mehboob Shah v. King Emperor
  • Kirpal Singh v. State of U.P
  • R v. Tolsen
  1. Common intention implies:
  • Common object
  • Similar intention
  • Pre arranged planning
  • Common knowledge
  1. Which is of the following is not correct:
  • Section 34 IPC credits specific offence
  • It only lays down the rule of evidence
  • Section 34 is the manifestation of Joint liability
  • None of the above is incorrect.

INDIAN PENAL CODE

MAINS

  1. Define Unlawful Assembly and Discuss the more aggravated forms of offence related to unlawful assembly.

 

  1. Difference between sec. 34 and sec.149?

 

INDIAN PENAL CODE

Sec 141-149

  • S/149 is also a manifestation of group liability
  • S/ 149 has to be read with S/141,142,143
  • Section 141
  • It only defines what is an unlawful assembly
  • Requirements of S/141
  • Assembly of 5 or more
  • Assembly must have a common object
  • Common object must be to commit one of the 5 objects specified in Sec 141
  • Section 142
  • Whoever intentially

Joins                                                 or                                                     Continues
Unlawful assembly

Said to be a member

  • Thus, if he is not aware of the facts, which render an assembly unlawful—-no liability
  • Member can withdraw from that assembly

 

Voluntarily                                                       Involuntarily

  • Section 143
  • This section provides punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly
  • For this section it is not necessary that offence is committed by that unlawful assembly
  • Mere membership is punishable
  • Meaning of common object
  • Mere presence in assembly is not sufficient
  • Section 149
  • As per this section every member of an unlawful assembly having a common object is responsible for the acts committed by any other member of that assembly & hence punishable for that
  • Difference b/w S/34 & 149
  • Pandurang vs State of Hyderabad (1955 SC)

 

INDIAN PENAL CODE

Pre-Questions

  1. For an unlawful assembly under section 141 of IPC, the minimum number of persons required is

(a) five

(b) seven

(c) ten

(d) twenty.

  1. For an assembly to be unlawful, must have a common abject of the kind specified in

(a) section 141 of IPC

(b) section 140 of IPC

(d) section 142 of IPC

(d) section   144 of IPC.

  1. Which of the following is not specified to be the common object of an assembly to make it unlawful, under section 141 of IPC

(a) overawing the Government of its officers

(b) resistance to legal process

(c) forcible possession or dispossession of property

(d) none of the above.

  1. Which of the following shall not be an unlawful assembly within the meaning of section 141 of IPC
  • an assembly of five or more person with the common object of only maintaining possession
  • an assembly of five or more persons to vindicate a supposed right of one or all, by show of force
  • An assembly of five or more persons to prevent arrest of a person, by the court amin under the orders of the court
  • an assembly of five or more persons with common object of taking possession of property.
  1. Rioting means use of force or violence by an unlawful assembly, or by a member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly , as per
  • section 144 of IPC
  • Section 145 of IPC
  • Section 146 of IPC
  • Section 148 of IPC
  1. For rioting, which if the following is correct
  • actual force or violence must be used
  • mere show of force is sufficient
  • mere possession of deadly weapon is deficient
  • all the above.
  1. Section 149 of IPC is
  • declaratory provision
  • creates a distinct offence
  • a rule of evidence
  • all the above.
  1. For application of section 149 of IPC
  • a person should be a member of the unlawful assembly and should actively participate in the commission of offence
  • a person should be a member of unlawful assembly but need not necessarily participate himself in the commission of the offence
  • need not be a member of unlawful assembly but must share a common intention to commit the offence
  • need not be a member of unlawful assembly but must participate in the commission of offence.
  1. Under section 149 of IPC if an offence is committed by a member of that unlawful assembly in furtherance of their common object

(a) every person who at that time was a member of that assembly shall be guilty of that offence

(b) only the person committing the offence shall be guilty of that offence and all shall be guilty of unlawful assembly only

(c) only that of any offence person committing the offence shall be guilty and others shall not be guilty of any offence

(d)  either (b) or (b).

  1. For application of section 149 of IPC
  • The offender must be a member of unlawful assembly
  • The offence must have been committed in prosecution of the common object
  • Both (a) & (b)
  • Either (a) or (b).

 

INDIAN PENAL CODE

GENERAL EXCEPTIONS

MAINS QUESTIONS

 

  1. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it. Discuss.

 

  1. Referring to relevant legal provisions and decided cases, point out what offence, if any, has been committed in the following case:- ‘A’ sees ‘B’ comment what A appears to be a murder. ‘A’ in good faith seizes ‘B’ in order to bring ‘B’ before proper authorities. Later on it turns out that ‘B’ was acting in self defence.

 

  1. Referring to relevant legal provisions and decided cases, point out what offence, if any, has been committed in the following case:- ‘A’ a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer in conformity with the commandments of law.
  1. Point out the difference between mistake of fact and mistake of law with the help of suitable examples.

 

General Exceptions

  • General exceptions has to be always read along with section 6 of IPC and S/105 of Indian Evidence Act
  • As per S/6 of IPC, every definition of an offence, every penal provision and every illustration should be read subject to general exception.
  • S/105 of Indian Evidence Act puts a burden of proof upon accused to prove this his case comes within any of the exception.
  • This section also talks about the presumption.
  • 2 types of general exception

 

 

Excusable                                                                                          Justifiable

No mens rea                                                                   mind is present but not guilty

(Eg. Unsoundness of mind)                                                                          (eg. Necessity)

  • Section 76- exempt the liability of a person who is perse bound or by mistake of fact in good faith believe himself to be bound by law.
  • Meaning of good faith- anything which is done with due case and attention (s. 52)
  • Leading cases- 1. R. V. Tolson (1889) QBD
  1. 2. W.B.V. Shew Mangal Singh (1981) SC
  • Difference between mistake of fact/law
  • Section 79- Exempt the liability of a person who is perse justified or by mistake of fact, in good faith believes himself to be justified by law.
  • Both S/76 & 79 deals with mistake of fact & not mistake of law.
  • Leading cases- 1. Chirangi vs state
  1. Bonda kui vs Emperor (1943)
  2. 3. Waryam Singh v Emperor (1926) Lah HC
  • Both sec 76 & 79 are based upon the maxim “ignorantia facit doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat” means ignorance of fact excuses and ignorance of law is no excuse.

 

Preliminary Questions

  1. Which of the sections of the IPC 1860 is a key to the chapter of General Exceptions?

(a) Section 6

(b) Section 5

(c) Section 4

(d) Section 7

  1. Which of the following sections of the IPC 1860, mandates that definitions in the code are to be understood subject to exceptions?

(a) Section 6

(b) Section 5

(c) Section 4

(d) Section 7

  1. A, a police officer, without warrant, apprehends Z, who has committed a murder

(a) Here, A is guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement because the arrest was without warrant or any authorization

(b)  Here, A is not guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement for he was bound by law to apprehend Z and therefore, the case falls within the general exception which provides that ‘nothing is an offence which is done by a person which is bound by law to do it’

(c) Either (a) or (b)

(d) None of the above

  1. Which of the following is a part of the definition of every offence contained in the Indian Penal Code?

(a) Mens rea

(b) Actus reus

(c) General Exceptions

(d) None of the above

 

  1. One who is empowered by law to act judicially alone, or a body of judges, which is empowered by law to act judicially as a body, when such judges or body of judges is acting judicially is called as …….

(a) Judge

(b) Court of justice

(c) Judicial officer

(d) None of the above

  1. Is the immunity under section 77 of the Indian Penal Code available to a Collector/Land Acquisition Officer/Special Officer who makes an award, by way of settlement or otherwise, under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894?

(a) Yes 16

(b) No

(c) Depends

(d) None of the above

  1. Which of the following chapters of the Indian Penal Code deals with ‘General Exceptions’?

(a) Chapter II

(b) Chapter III

(c) Chapter IV

(d) Chapter V

  1. Which of the following is a valid defence under the Indian Penal Code?

(a) Mistake of fact

(b) Insanity

(c) Good faith

(d) All of the above

  1. The punishment for offences which come under genera exception is

(a) Generally small

(b) No punishment

(c) Entitled for probation under Probation of Offenders Act

(d) None of the above

  1. General exceptions are available to

(a) All the offences

(b) First offenders only

(c) Except the offences against the country

(d) Offenders under 21yearsof age

  1. General exceptions are

(a) Acts done by persons justified in law

(b) Acts done under justifiable conditions

(c) Both (a) and (b)

(d) None of the above

 

  1. General exceptions are available to

(a) The offences under the Indian Penal code only

(b) The offences under special and local acts also

(c) Except the offences against the country

(d) None of the above

  1. Which of the following is not a defence under the Indian Penal Code?

(a) Mistake of law

(b) Ignorance of law

(c) Both (a) and (b)

(d) None of the above

  1. Which of the following sections places the burden on the accused to prove that the case falls within one of the general exceptions?
  • Section 105 of the Indian Penal Code
  • Section 105 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
  • Section 105 of the Evidence Act
  • None of the above

 

  1. A, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity with the commands of the law. A has committed.
  • Culpable homicide
  • Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
  • No offence
  • Murder
  1. A, an officer of a court of justice, being ordered by that court to arrest Y and, after due enquiry

        Believing Z to be Y, arrests Z. A has committed

  • Wrongful confinement
  • Wrongful restraint
  • No offence
  • None of the above
  1. In the case of State of West Bengal v Shew Mangal Singh AIR 1981 SC 1917, the Deputy Commissioner of police ordered to open fire to violent mob. A sub-ordinate police officer opened fire and it caused the death of two people. The accused took the defence that the act is excusable under section 76 of the Indian Penal Code. A question was raised as to whether the command of a superior officer to open fire affords a complete defence to a subordinate officer if, while acting in the execution of that command he causes injury or death. In this case the Supreme Court held that

(a) Accused is liable, since they are not supposed to obey the illegal orders of superior officers.

(b) Accused is entitled to the protection under section 76 of the Indian Penal Code

(c) Accused is not entitled to the protection under section 76 of the Indian Penal Code

(d) None of the above

  1. In a case of ‘mistake of fact’ the court has to determine the guilt on ……..

(a) Real facts

(b) Believed facts

(c) Either (a) or (b) is correct

(d) None of the above

  1. In a prosecution, the burglar, who breaks into House No. 5 took the defence that he mistook the house for House No. 6. Here:

(a) Burglar cannot be punished

(b) Burglar can be punished

(c) Depends

(d) None of the above

  1. On a charges of assaulting a constable in the discharge of his duty, the fact that the assailant did not know of his official character is

(a) A valid defence of mistake of fact

(b) Not a valid defence

(c) Either (a) or (b)

(d) None of the above

  1. Section 76 to 79 of the Indian Penal Code are based on the Common Law Maxim

(a) ‘Ignorantia facit doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat’

(b) Volunti non fit injuria

(c) Res judicata pro varitate accipitur

(d) None of the above

  1. The maxim ‘Ignorantia facit doth excusat’ means

(a) Ignorance of fact is an excuse

(b) Ignorance of law is an excuse

(c) Ignorance of fact is no excuse

(d) Ignorance of law is no excuse

 

  1. A man before going in to church, fired his gun, and left it empty. During his absence someone went out shooting with the gun, and left it loaded. Later the man took up the gun again and, in doing so, touched the trigger. The gun went off, and killed his wife. Here:

(a) He is excused as mistake of fact

(b) No defence is available, he should have taken reasonable precautions

(c) Either (a) or (b) is correct

(d) None of the above

  1. In which of the following cases the act is excused as mistake of fact:

(a) An accused, at night in the jungle, mistook a human being as a wild animal and killed that person

(b) A fires a bullet in to a bush where, unknown to him, B is hiding and the bullet kills B

(c) N, a nurse in a hospital gives P, a patient, poison thinking it to be a medicine which killed the patient

(d) All of the above

  1. ‘Act done by a person judgment or order of court, is excused under the provisions of ……………… of the Indian Penal Code 1860.

(a) Section 76

(b) Section 77

(c) Section 78

(d) Section 79

  1. A judge, believing that he had jurisdiction, sentenced an accused person to death. He had no jurisdiction to do so. In this case:

(a) He is excused under section 78

(b) He is not excused under section 78

(c) Either (a) or (b)

(d) None of the above

  1. A magistrate having no jurisdiction, believing that he had jurisdiction, issued a warrant to search A’s house. B, a police officer, searched the house. Here:

(a) Magistrate is excused but not the police officer

(b) Police officer is excused but not the magistrate

(c) Both are excused

(d) None of them is excused

  1. ‘Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing himself justified, by law’ is excused by virtue of …………… of the Indian Penal Code.

(a) Section 76

(b) Section 77

(c) Section 78

(d) Section 79

  1. 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 person of apprehending murderers in the act, seizes Z, in order to bring Z before the proper authorities. Here A commits:

(a) Culpable homicide

(b) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder

(c) No offence

(d) Murder

  1. The accused was the producer of the film ‘Satyam Sivam Sundaiam’. He was charged for an offence punishable under section 292 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that the film was obscene and indecent. Petitioner argued that he got the certificate from the Censor Board and therefore he had bona fide belief that certification justified the public exhibition. In this case:

(a) The accused is entitled to protection under section 79 of the Indian Penal Code

(b) The accused is not entitled to protection under section 79 of the Indian Penal Code

(c) Cannot be determined

(d) None of the above

  1. The maxim ‘ignorantia juris non excusat’ means

(a) Ignorance of fact is an excuse

(b) Ignorance of law is an excuse

(c) Ignorance of fact is no excuse

(d) Ignorance of law is no excuse

  1. A judicial officer was found copying while writing his first semester LLM examination. Here A is:

(a) Entitled to the protection under section 77 of the Indian Penal Code

(b) Not entitled to the protection under section 77 of the Indian Penal Code

(c) Cannot be determined

(d) None of the above.

Indian Penal Code

General Exceptions (S. 84, 85, s86)

Mains Questions

  1. “Mere medical insanity is not a valid defence under the IPC but legal insanity us”. Discuss.
  1. Under what conditions the defence of insanity may be pleased on behalf of an accused?
  1. “Voluntary intoxication is no defence”. Discuss the statement in the light of relevant provision.

 

Indian Penal Code

General Exceptions (S./ 84,85,86)

  • Section-84:- Nothing is an offence which is done by a person of unsound mind.
  • Rational:- He cannot form necessary mens rea

Person [Accused]

At the time of doing it

By reason of unsoundness of mind

Incapable of knowing

Nature of the act                                                                  What he is doing is either

(Or)

 

Wrong                     or                        contrary to law

[Use of the words ‘either’ & ‘or’ in a negative language takes

(Between these two one has to prove)                                      the effect of ‘And’]

  • Both have to be proved

Meaning of unsoundness

Legal unsoundness                                                     Medical unsoundness

  • S/84 has been drafted in the light of M’ Naughten Rules [Landmark Judgment]
  • S/85:- Nothing is an offence which is done by a person under intoxication

Provided:- Intoxication must be without his knowledge & will.

 

  • S/86:- Talks about the rule of presumption in cases of voluntary intoxication.
  • This section raises the presumption of knowledge
  • No presumption as to intention
  • Landmark cases-
  • Basdev v Pepsu [1956] SC
  • Director of public prosecution v Beard [1920]

 

Pre Questions

  1. For unsoundness of mind, the impairment of the cognitive faculty of mind to escape criminal liability

(a) must be total

(b) must be partial

(c) both (a) &(b)

(d) none of the above.

 

  1. Intoxication as defence is contained in

(a) Section 85 of IPC

(b) Section 86 of IPC

(c) Section 87 of IPC

(d) Both (a) & (b).

 

  1. For a defence of intoxication, to escape criminal liability, the degeneration of escape criminal liability, the degeneration of mental faculties

(a) must be total

(b) must be partial

(c) both (a) & (b)

(d) only (b) above is correct & (a) is incorrect.

 

  1. For a defence of intoxication, to escape criminal liability, the intoxication

(a) can be self administered

(b) administered against his will or knowledge

(c) should not be self administered

(d) all the above.

 

  1. In case where the act involves a specific mens rea, in case of intoxication under section 86 of IPC

(a) the existence of mens rea is presumed

(b) the specific mens rea is not presumed

(c) the specific mens rea depends upon the attending circumstances & the degree of intoxication

(d) none of the above.

 

  1. An act of a person of unsound mind is excused by virtue of ………………… of the Indian Penal Code.

(a) Section 84

(b) Section 85

(c)  Section 86

(d) Section 87

 

  1. Mc Naughten rule is related to

(a) Doctrine of necessity

(b) Doctrine of insanity

(c) Doctrine of infancy

(d) None of the above

 

  1. Which of the following is protected under section 84 of the Indian Penal Code?

(a) Medical insanity

(b) Legal insanity

(c) Both (a) and (b) are correct

(d) None of the above

 

  1. Which of the following is protected under section 85 of the Indian Penal Code?

(a) Voluntary Drunkenness

(b) Involuntary Drunkenness

(c) Both (a) and (b) are correct

(d) None of the above

 

  1. Which of the following is a leading case on intoxication (Sections 85 to 86 of Indian Penal Code)?

(a) Basudev v State of Pepsu

(b) Nanvati v State

(c) Kehar Singh v Delhi Administration

(d) None of the above

Indian Penal Code

General Exceptions (S. 80,81,93,94 & 95)

Mains Questions

  1. ‘A’ with the intention in good faith of saving human life and property in a great fire, pulls down houses in order to prevent the conflagration from spreading it. ‘A’ pleads that the harm to be prevented was of such a nature and so imminent as to justify on excuse his act. Decide whether ‘A’ has committed any offence.
  1. ‘A’ with the intention to kill ‘B’, shoots ‘B’ but accidently ‘C’ comes in between that shot hits ‘C’. Decide, whether ‘A’ has committed any offence.
  1. Law will not take action of truffles. Discuss.

 

Indian Penal Code

General Exceptions (S. 80,81,93,94 & 95)

 

  • Section 80- Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune & without any criminal intention or knowledge in doing a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means & with proper care and caution.
  • Meaning of accident & misfortune
  • Section 81- This section protects acts which are likely to cause harm but done without criminal intent and to prevent other harm.
  • Based on maxim “Quad Necessitas non habet legam” which means necessity knows no law.
  • Types of necessity

 

Private                                                        Public

Queen vs Dudley & Stephens [Landmark]

 

  • Section 94:- Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled by threats.
  • Based on maxim “actus ne invite factus est nisi actus” which means an act which is done by me against my will is not my act and hence I am not responsible for it.
  • Section 95:- Act causing slight harm
  • Law will not take action on trifling acts.
  • This is based upon the maxim “de mimis non cusat las” which means the law will not take notice of trifles.

 

     General Exceptions (S. 80,81,93,94 & 95)

Pre questions

 

  1. Accident as an exception has been dealt with in
  • Section 77
  • Section 78
  • Section 80
  • Section 82.

 

  1. Under section 80, the exception of accident is available when an offence is committed while
  • Doing a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means
  • Doing a lawful act in any manner by any means
  • Doing a lawful act in a lawful manner by any means
  • All the above.

 

  1. The principal as to the way in which a man should behave when he has to make a choice between two evils illustrated in
  • Section 80 of IPC
  • Section 81 of IPC
  • Section 82 of IPC
  • Section 78 of IPC

 

  1. The motive under section 81 of IPC should be
  • Prevention of harm to person
  • Prevention of harm to property
  • Both (a) and (b)
  • Either (a)or (b).

 

  1. An act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm (act by necessity) is excused by virtue of ……….. ..of the Indian Penal Code.

(a) Section 80

(b) Section 81

(c) Section 82

(d) Section 83

 

 

  1. A, the captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without any fault or negligence on his part, finds himself in such a position that, before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably down a boat B, with twenty or thirty passengers on board, unless he changes the course of his vessel, and that, by changing his course, he must incur risk of running down a boat C with only two passengers on board, which he may possibly clear. Here, if A alters his course without any intention to run down the boat C and in good faith for the purpose of avoiding the danger to the passengers in the boat B, he is ……………… .. of an offence, though he may run down the boat C by doing an act which he knew was likely to cause that effect.

(a) Guilty of offence

(b) Not guilty of offence

(c) Cannot be determined

(d) None of the above

 

  1. A, a surgeon in good faith, communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The patient dies in consequence of the shock.

(a) A has committed no offence, though he knew it to be likely that the communication might cause the patient’s death

(b) A has committed the offence, if he knew it to be likely that the communication might cause the patient’s death

(c) Cannot be determined

(d) None of the above

 

  1. X, a smith is threatened for his life and compelled to take his tools to force the door of a house for the dacoits to enter and plunder it.

Here:

(a) X commits offence

(b) X commits no offence

(c) Cannot be determined

(d) None of the above

 

  1. Act causing slight harm is excused by virtue of ……….. .. of the Indian Penal Code.

(a) Section 95

(b) Section 96

(c) Section 97

(d) Section 94

 

  1. Which of the following section of the Indian Penal Code is based on the maxim ‘de minimus non curat lex’?

(a) Section 95

(b) Section 94

(c) Section 93

(d) Section 92

General Exceptions (S. 96-100)

Mains Questions

 

  1. “Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of right of private defence”. Discuss.
  1. “Right of private defence is available only against offence”. Discuss.
  1. Can a stranger protect the body and property of another person in right of private defence? Comment.
  1. When does the right of private defence of body extents to causing death?

 

General Exceptions

[Sec 96-100]

  • Private Defence [s.96-100]
  • This is an inherent right
  • These section merely acknowledges the right
  • Right of private defence is available against own body and property and also against another’s body and property.
  • Preventive right and not a right of retribution.
  • Only necessary force is allowed but slight excess of use of force may be permissible in certain circumstances.
  • Section 96
  • This section only declares that nothing is an offence which is done in the right of private defence.
  • However, this right is not absolute and is subject to restriction.
  • Section s.97 to s.106 state the limit within which the right can be exercised. The extent of injury that can be inflicted and against whom this right can be exercised.
  • 97 Right of private defence of body and property.
Offences affecting human body

Subject to restriction contained in S.99, this right is available against

Immovable
Movable
Body of any                                   other person
His own body

Or

Against

Theft                                              Robbery                             Mischief                   Criminal Trespass

 

  • Section 98- This section extends the right of private defence even against person of unsound mind, intoxicated etc.
  • Section 99- Provides for the cases in which there is no right of private defence.

There is no right of private defence:-

  1. Against an act of public servant in good faith
  1. Against an act of those who are acting under the authority of public servants.

However the protection of public servants is not absolute i.e. there are cases where private defence is available against public servants also, following are-

  • Where their acts causes reasonable apprehension of death
  • Where their acts causes reasonable apprehension of grevious hurt
  • That the person acting under private defence does not know that the act is being done by a public servant or under his authority
  1. No right of private defence if time to have recourse to public authorities
  1. Right of private defence should not exceed to the inflicting of more harm then it is necessary.
  • Section 100- provides for the cases in when private defence of the body extends to causing death
  • Leading case:- Vishwanath v State of UP [1960] SC
  • Section 103- provides for cases in which right of private defence of the property extends to causing death.

 

General Exceptions (S. 96-100)

Pre-Questions

  1. A citizen is not expected to run away for safety when he is faced with grave and imminent danger. The law gives him a valuable right to defend which is covered under …………….. .. .

(a) General exception

(b) Private defence

(c) Res ipsa loquitur

(d) None of the above

 

  1. The law relating private defence is codified in …………… .. of the Indian Penal Code.

(a) Sections 100-106

(b) Sections 96-100

(c) Sections 96-106

(d) Sections 100-116

 

  1. Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence by virtue of Section ……….. .. of the Indian Penal Code.

(a) Section 95

(b) Section 96

(c) Section 97

(d) Section 94

 

  1. Which of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code deals with right of private defence of the body and of property?

(a) Section 98

(b) Section 96

(c) Section 97

(d) Section 99

 

  1. Right of private defence is available to

(a) One’s own body

(b) The body of any other person

(c) Against any offence affecting the human body

(d) All of the above

 

  1. Right of private defence of property available in case of

(a) Immovable property only

(b) Movable property only

(c) Both movable and immovable

(d) None of the above

 

  1. Right of private defence of property is available to defend the property ………………

(a) Of himself

(b) Of any other person

(c) Both (a) and (b)

(d) None of the above

 

  1. Z, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill A; Z is guilty of no offence. Here:

(a) A has no right of private defence because it is available against an offence only

(b) A has the same right of private defence which he would have if Z were sane

(c) Cannot be determined

(d) None of the above

 

  1. Z, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill A. A in attempting to defend himself caused grievous hurt to Z.

Here:

(a) Z is liable for attempt to murder and A is liable for causing grievous hurt

(b) Z commits no offence and A is liable for causing grievous hurt

(c) A commits no offence and Z is liable for attempt to murder

(d) Both ‘A’ and ‘Z’ are excused

 

  1. A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled to enter. Z, in good faith, taking ‘A’ as a house-breaker and under this misconception attacks ‘A’. Here: .

(a) A has no right of private defence because it is available against an offender only

(b) A has the same right of private defence against Z, which he would have if Z were not acting under that misconception

(c) Cannot be determined

(d) None of the above

GENERAL EXCEPTIONS (Sec. 87-92)

Mains Questions

 

  1. “Consent excuses the act”. Explain. Are there any exceptions to this general rule?
  1. What offence, if any, has been committed in the following case- “ ‘Z’ is thrown from his horse, and is insensible. ‘A’ a surgeon, finds that ‘Z’ requires to be treated. ‘A’, not intending ‘Z’’s death, but in good faith, for ‘Z’’s benefit, perform trepan. Will he be liable?

General Exceptions (Sec. 87-92)

  • Section 87-91 deals with defences in cases of consent
  • Section 92 deals with defence in cases where act is without consent
  • Section 87- Act not intended & known to be likely to causes death or grievous hint done by consent
  • Rationale of this section is that the man in the best judge of his own interest
  • This section is based upon the maxim volenti non fit injuria which means he who consent cannot complain of it.
  • Leading case- Poonai Fatterah case [1869]
  • Section 88- Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for that person’s benefit

                                           Requirement

 

Good faith                                      Benefit                                 Consent (Person giving consent under

This section should be above or equal

To 12 years as per section 90)

         Exception:- Intentional causation of death

  • Section 89- Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane person, by or by consent of guardian

Child below 12 years                                                    Guardian

+                              = Benefit= Consent          Person having lawful charge

Unsoundment

Express                    Implied

 

Exceptions

 

Intentional                     Attempt to cause                     to be likely                          Grievous hurt/

Causation of                  death or grievous                     to cause                               attempt to cause

Death                                hurt                                           death                                    grievous hurt

 

But if these two are for the purpose of prevention

Grievous hurt                    death               Grievous disease              infirmity

 

Will get the defence of this section

 

  • Section 90- defines consent in a negative sense ie it provides the cases, which will not deemed to be a proper consent.

As per this section, consent is not a free consent for the purposes of this code if-

  1. Given under the fear of an injury or under a misconception of fact and the person doing the act knew or had a reason to believe that consent was given consequence of such fear or misconception
  1. Given by insane person

 

Unsoundness of mind                  Intoxication             [can be voluntarily even because here

The person is Victim which under

sec. 84 & 85, the person is accused]

Unable to understand

Nature of the act for                            Consequence

Which he gives consent

 

  1. Given by child below 12 years of immature understanding

Section 92- Act done in good faith for benefit of person without his consent

  • This section covers cares of emergency

PRE-QUESTIONS

  1. A child met with an accident. Someone took him to a hospital. The doctor found the injuries so serious that there was an urgent need of an operation. There was no one related to the child to give consent. The doctor performed the surgery, but the child died.

Here:

(a) Doctor is not entitled to protection

(b) Doctor is entitled to protection since he acted for the benefit of the child in good faith

(c) Cannot be determined

(d) None of the above

 

  1. Under section 89 of the Indian Penal Code, nothing which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under ……………………….. ..years of age, or of unsound mind, by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause or be known by the doer to be likely to cause to that person.

(a) 10 years

(b) 12 years

(c) 7 years

(d) 14 years

 

  1. Which of the following statements is true regarding section 89 of the Indian Penal Code?

(a) That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death.

(b) That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity.

(c) That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of grievous hurt, or to the attempting to cause grievous hurt, unless it be for the purpose of preventing death of grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease of infirmity.

(d) All of the above

 

  1. In which of the following cases, consent is not such consent as intended by any section of the Penal Code, as mentioned in 90 of the Code?

(a) If the consent is given by person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception.

(b) If the consent is given by person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent.

(c) If the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age.

(d) All of the above.

  1. A consent is not such a consent as intended by any section of the Indian Penal Code, as mentioned in section 90 of the Indian Penal Code the consent is given by a person who is under the age of …………. .

(a) 10 years

(b) 12 years

(c) 7 years

(d) 14 years

Criminal Conspiracy (S 120A & 120B)

Mains Questions

  1. “For criminal conspiracy to commit an offence mere agreement is sufficient”. Discuss.
  1. Difference between criminal conspiracy & abetment by conspiracy.
  1. “Agreement is the gist of the offence of criminal conspiracy”. Explain.

 

 

Criminal Conspiracy  (sec 120A & 120B)

 

Specific Offence

 

 

Cohate offence                                                                  Incohate offence (Those offences which are

Not incomplete ie which has not achieved

Its final objective)     1. Criminal conspiracy

  1. Abetment 3. Attempt

 

  • Requirement of Sec. 120 A

 

2 or more persons                          Agree                                                       Legal act – by illegal means

 

To do          to cause to be done

 

An illegal act

 

Offence               Prohibited by law         Civil action

Mere agreement is sufficient

Agreement + overt act

 

  • Difference between criminal conspiracy & abetment by conspiracy
  • Can a single person be convicted for criminal conspiracy?
  • If all the other accused are acquitted on technical grounds – then single person be convicted
  • Bhimdhar Pradhan v. st of Orissa [1956] SC
  • Difference between general conspiracy & special conspiracy
  • Difference between S/ 34 & 120A
  • Section 120B – Provides for punishments of criminal conspiracy

 

Offence                                            Prohibited by law                  Civil wrong

More than or equal to                   Less than 2 yrs

2 yrs/Death/Life imprisonment

[Perse magistrate can take cognizance]

 

6 months/fine/both

[In these cases written consent of state government/ District

Magistrate is required so that magistrate can take cognizance

In these cases (S/ 196 Cr. PC)

 

Pre Questions

  1. ‘Abetment and conspiracy are inchoate offences’. The statement is

(a) Correct

(b) Incorrect

(c) Partly correct

(d) None of the above

  1. Criminal conspiracy is a

(a) Rule of evidence

(b) Substantive offence

(c) Defining clause

(d) None of the above

  1. ‘It is necessary for all the conspirators to know each other.’ The statement is

(a) True

(b) False

(c) Partly correct

(d) None of the above

  1. Which is the following sections of the Indian Penal Code provides the punishment for ‘Criminal conspiracy?

(a) Section 120

(b) Section 120A

(c) Section 120B

(d) Section 121

  1. When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done …………………., such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.

(a) An illegal act

(b) An act which is not illegal by illegal means

(c) Either (a) or (b)

(d) None of the above

  1. In criminal conspiracy

(a) There is no actus reus

(b) The agreement is the actus reus

(c) Mental element is sufficient

(d) None of the above

 

  1. Which of the following is the gist of offence of criminal conspiracy?

(a) Common intention

(b) An agreement to commit an illegal act or by illegal means

(c) Common object

(d) None of the above

 

  1. The appellant along with other three named accused were charged for offences under sections 471, 420 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. All the other three accused were acquitted for all the offences. The appellant was convicted for criminal conspiracy. The conviction is

(a) Legal

(b) Illegal

(c) Proper

(d) Irregular

  1. The appellant, government servant was prosecuted along with four others, for offences under section 409 read with section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. One of the accused turned approver. All other accused except appellant were acquitted for all the offences. Appellant was convicted under section 120B for entering in to a criminal conspiracy with the approver. The conviction is

(a) Legal

(b) Illegal

(c) Irregular

(d) Improper

 

  1. Which of the following cases is/ are related to criminal conspiracy?

(a) Major Bassey v State, AIR 1961 SC 1762

(b) State v Nalini, 1999 (5) SCC 253

(c) Ram Narayan, v CBI 2003 (3) SCC 641

(d) All the above

Abetment

Mains Questions

  1. Certain person followed a woman preparing herself to be a sati on the pyre on her husband and chanted “Rama Rama” and led that woman to commit suicide. Were they being liable for abetment to commit suicide?
  1. What are the modes of abetment provided Indian Penal Code for fixing criminal liability?

 

Abetment [107-116]

  • 107 does not create offence of abetment rather it only defines act of abetment. Whereas,
  • It is Sec.108 which creates offence of abetment.
  • 109, 115 and 116 provides punishment for the offence of abetment.
Instigates
  • 107 provides the 3 method of abetment

 

Intentional aid
Conspires

 

Therefore, To make a person liable for the abetment of an offence, It  has to be  proved that

  • He abetted that offences by opting any of the manner provided u/s 107.
  • What was abetted , is an offence .It is clear from the language of sec.108 that it is not important in whose respect it is an offence i.e w.r.t abettor or person abetted.

 

  • Meaning of instigation

Leading Case:-Queen v. Mohit[1871]

  • Meaning of intentional aiding

Leading Case:- Urmi v. Emperor

 

Section-109

Prescribe punishment of abetment, if the act abetted is committed in consequence. In such cases abettor will be liable for the same punishment as provided for the main offence.

E.g       A ( Abet  & murder)                                     B(to kill)                          C

 

Will be liable

u/s 109 r/w s.302                                              Committed the offence

  • Liability under s/109 but punishment has been drawn from s/302.
  • This section is not declaring that it will be deemed as the abettor had done the offence himself rather. It is saying that he will be liable as abettor.

 

  • Section 115 and 116

Sec.109 provides punishment where act abetted is committed.

Whereas,

Sec.115 and 116 provides punishment, where act abetted is not committed in consequence

Offence Abetted

 

If committed[s.109]                                                                                                       Not committed

 

 

S.115 and that offence                                                                                                  Punishable with death/life imprisonment

 

Other offences

 

  • Section 114

 

A(abets)                         B( to kill)                          C

And ‘B’ actually kills ‘C’

Here ‘A’ will be liable under s.109 as he has committed the offence of abetment of murder. If it is proved that ‘A’ was present on the spot, then this section creates legal fiction that he himself has done that offence. Then the charge will be of main offence r/w s.114.

For this section, It is important that there must be a time gap between abetment and actual commission of offence.

And if prosecutive proves active participation then charge can be connected to main section r/w s.34

  • Abetment to suicide u/s 305 & 306

This section applies only when the person abetted commits suicide as a result of  such abetment.

Actus Reus of this section- Commission of suicide

Abetment of suicide is not covered under section 108 because under 108 abetment is always of offence and suicide as such is not an offence because one a person successfully commits suicide, that person is no longer alone to be prosecuted.

  • Aruna Shanbang v.U.O.I [2011] SC

The court held that the physician assisted suicide is an offence u/s 306 IPC. The assistance of the doctor may be active or passive. In either case, active or passive euthanasia , he become liable as an abettor of suicide. If a person becomes unsuccessful in terminating his life, he becomes liable u/s 309 IPC. If he is not in a position to end his life and someone else helps him to do so, he become abettor.

 

Abetment

Pre-Questions

 

  1. Abetment under section 107 of IPC can be constituted by

(a) instigation

(b) conspiracy

(c) intentional

(d) all the above.

  1. Abettor is a person

(a) who commits the offence

(b) who instigates the commission of offence

(c) against whom the offence is committed

(d) who is innocent.

  1. For abetment

(a) it is necessary that the act abetted should be committed successfully

(b) it is necessary that the act abetted should be committed though unsuccessfully

(c) it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed

(d) both (a) or (b).

  1. For abetment

(a) it is necessary that the person abetted should be capable of committing on offence under the law

(b) ) it is necessary that the person abetted should have the same guilty intention

(c) it is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable of committing an offence under the law or should have the same guilty intention

(d) both (a) & (b).

  1. Under Indian Penal Code, there can be abetment to

(a) a person of unsound mind

(b) an infant

(c) both (a) & (b

(d) neither (a) nor (b).

  1. Abetment of an offence is

(a) always an offence

(b) never an offence

(c) may be an offence depending on the circumstances but not always

(d) may not be an offence depending on the circumstances.

  1. If the act abetted is committed in consequence, the abettor is punishable with punishment provided for the offence

(a)if the offence committed is the same as abetted

(b) if the offence committed is different from the one abetted, for the offence committed

(c) if the doer commits the offence with different intention than the abettor

(d) all  the above.

  1. Abetment by instigation may be

(a) by works spoken

(b) by letters

(c) by conduct

(d) all the above.

  1. Abetment is complete as soon as

(a) the abettor has incited another to commit an offence

(b) the person instigated has done some overt act towards the commission of the offence

(c) the offence abetted has been committed

(d) both (b) & (c) above.

  1. X ordered his employee Y to beat Z. Y refuses. Now

(a) X has committed abetment & Y has committed assault

(b) X has committed abetment & Y has committed no offence

(c) X & Y both have committed no offence

(d) X has committed no offence but Y has committed offence of subordination.

ATTEMPT

Mains Questions

 

Q1. “Attempt is a direct movement towards completion of an offence but it need not to be the penultimate Act”. Discuss

Q2. Discuss in detail the four stages of crime?

Q3. Difference between preparation and attempt.

 

Attempt

  • There are four stages of crime vis a vis intention, preparation, Attempt, actual commission of crime.
  • 1st two stages are punishable as there is always a possibility that accused may give up the act
  • But there few exception i.e cases where preparation is punishable e.g S.399(preparation from dacoity), S.122(preparation for waging war against government of India.
  • Attempt as such has not been defined in the IPC.

It means any act towards the commission of the offence which failed due to some circumstances which are beyond the control of the doer.

 

  • Distinction between Attempt and Preparation[ No where provides in IPC]

Courts have laid down various test to determine whether an act falls within the stage of preparation or attempt.

  • Following are:-
  1. Proximity Rule
  • Leading Cases:-
  1. State of Maharashtra V. Mhd. Yakud[1980]SC
  2. Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar
  3. Locus Poenitentiae Test
  • Leading Case:- Malkiat Singh v. St of Punjab [1970] SC
  1. Equivocality Test

 

  • Law related to Attempt to do an Impossible Act

Not conclusively provided u/s 511 but the Illustration appended to the section throws light upon it.

 

Attempt

Pre-Questions

  1. Chapter XXII of the Indian Penal Code deals with ………………….

(a) Attempt to commit offences

(b) Offences relating to defamation

(c) Offences relating to marriages

(d) Offences relating to criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance

 

  1. A makes an attempt to steal some jewels by breaking) open a box, and finds after so opening the box, that there is no jewel in it,

(a) A is guilty of offence under section 511 of the Indian Penal Code

(b) A is not guilty of offence under section 511 of the Indian Penal Code

(c) A is guilty of no offence

(d) None of the above

 

  1. A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by thrusting his hand into Z’s pocket. A fails in the attempt in consequence of Z’s having nothing in his pocket.

(a) A is guilty under section 511 of the Indian Penal Code

(b) A is guilty not guilty under section 511 of the Indian Penal Code

(c)  is guilty of no offence

(d) None of the ‘above

  1. Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with

(a) Same sentence of the offence

(b) One-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence

(c) Minimum sentence of the offence

(d) None of the above

Offences relating to marriage

Mains Questions

 

  1. 1. Discuss the constitutional validity of S/ 497. [10 marks]

 

  1. 2. ‘A’ (husband) already married to ‘W’ converts to Islam, in order to get married to ‘Z’ during the lifetime of W. Discuss the legality of such marriage in the light of judicial pronouncement.

[20 marks]

 

Topic- Offences relating to marriage

Following are the offences relating to marriage

  1. Invalid Marriage (s. 493 & 496)
  2. Bigamy (s. 494 & 495)
  3. Adultery (s. 497)
  4. Criminal elopement (s. 498)
  5. Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband (s. 498A)
  6. 493– As per S.493, cohabitation is caused by practicing deception on a woman under a belief of a lawful marriage.
  7. 494- Under this section also, woman is cheated by a man into believing that she is legally wedded to him.

Cohabitation is not required for this section.

  1. 494- It means marrying again during the lifetime of a 1st spouse.

Requirements-

  1. Existence of 1st marriage- 1st marriage must be a valid one and 1st spouse should be alive at the time of 2nd marriage.
  2. 2nd marriage to be valid- Otherwise it will not be a case of bigamy.

There are 2 exceptions to this section-

  1. 1. 1st marriage has been declared to be void.
  2. 2. Where 1st spouse has been missing for over a period of seven years & this fact is known to the spouse of 2nd

This has to be read along with S. 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Effect of conversion in order to get 2nd marriage valid.

Landmark case- Sarla Mudgal v UOI (1995) SC

Also Lily Thomas v UOI (2000) SC

Sec 497           (Adultery)

Requirement

  • Sexual intercourse with a married woman.
  • Knowledge that such woman is the wife of another man.
  • Such intercourse should be without the consent or connivance of the husband.

This section only prosecutes men from committing adultery and the woman is not even charged as an abettor.

Constitutional Validity of S/ 497

Sec 498

Whosoever takes or entices any married woman (with the knowledge of same) from the control of Husband or person having case of her on behalf of her husband with intention to have illicit intercourse or conceals or detain with such intention shall be punished.

 

Pre. Questions

 

  1. Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code deals with the offences relating to

(a) Breach of contract

(b) Defamation

(c) Marriages

(d) None of the above

 

  1. Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage is an offence punishable under ……………. of Indian Penal Code?

(a) Section 492

(b) Section 493

(c) Section 495

(d) Section 496

 

  1. Which of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code I deals with mock or invalid marriages?

(a) Section 492 & 493

(b) Section 493 & 496

(c) Section 495 & 497

(d) Section 497 & 498

 

  1. A and B go through the marriage ceremonies under bona fide impression that it constituted a valid marriage, although the marriage in reality was invalid and they cohabited thereafter. A has committed an offence under which of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code?

(a) Section 492

(b) Section 493

(c) Section 496

(d) No offence

  1. Bigamy under the Indian Penal Code means

(a) Husband marrying again during the life time of wife

(b) Wife marrying again during the life time of husband

(c) Marrying again during life time of husband or wife

(d) None of the above

  1. Section 494 is not extend to any person who H contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife if such husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of …….. years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive within that time.

(a) Five

(b) Seven

(c) Ten

(d) Fourteen

  1. In order to attract the provisions of section 494 of the Indian Penal Code

(a) First marriage should be a valid one

(b) Second marriage should be a valid one

(c) Both marriages should be valid

(d) None of the above

  1. Whether a Hindu husband, married under Hindu Law, by embracing Islam, can solemnize second marriage?

(a) Yes

(b) No

(c) Depends

(d) None of the above

  1. Adultery is sexual intercourse of a man with

(a) Any woman other than the wife of the accused

(b) Wife of another man

(c) Any unmarried woman

(d) None of the above

  1. In a prosecution under section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, the consent of

(a) Adulteress is material

(b) Husband of adulteress is material

(c) Adulterer is material

(d) None of the above

Sec. 498 A

Mains Questions

  1. Section 498 & 304 B are not mutually exclusive. Comment.
  1. Discuss the constitutional validity of section 498 A in the light of judicial pronouncements.

 

Topic – Sec 498 A

 

  • Chapter was inserted with a view to prevent torture of married woman
  • Similar section 304 B r/w 113 B was also added along with this section.
  • Chapter was added in 1983
  • Offence under this section is restricted to husband & his relatives
  • This section provides punishments for cruelty upon married woman by her husband or his relatives.
  • Who are relatives?
  • Anil Kumar v. St. of Punjab (1997) P & H HC
  • Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam (2004) SC
  • Concept of cruelty
  • Explanation to the section clarifies what amounts to cruelty for the purposes of this section.
  • It is a continuing offence
  • Specific limitations in case of offence under this chapter

This has be read under S. 198A Cr. PC

  • Constitutional validity of S. 498A
  • Sushil Kumar Sharma v. UOI (2005) SC
  • Difference between 498A & 304B IPC

 

SEC – 498A

PRE QUESTIONS

  1. Cruelty under section 498A means

(a) 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 the woman

(b) Any wilful conduct to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman

(c) 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 security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand

(d) All of the above

  1. Complainant alleged cruelty against her husband and his relatives. He admitted that she married him during the subsistence of his first marriage. It is argued that section 498A pre-supposes a valid marriage of the complainant with the accused. Here

(a) Section 498A is attracted

(b) Section 498A is not attracted since the wife in the section means the legally wedded wife.

(c) Depends

(d) None of the above

  1. In which of the following cases, the Supreme Court held that legal and valid marriage is not a necessary ingredient to attract section 498A of the Indian Penal Code?

(a) Reema Aggarwal v Anupam and others

(b) Sushil Kumar Sharma v Union of India and others

(c) Arun Vyas v Anita Vyas

(d) None ‘of the above

  1. Complainant the legally wedded wife of the accused alleged cruel against her husband and his second wife. It was contended that second wife is not a relative of husband. Here

(a) Section 498A is attracted

(b) Section 498A is not attracted against the second wife

(c) The second wife is an accomplice

(d) None of the above

  1. In which of the following eases, the Supreme Court held that the High Court can quash/compound the offence under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code invoking its inherent powers under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure?

(a) B S Joshi v State of Haryana

(b) Sushil Kumar Sharma v Union of India and others

(c) Arun Vyas v Anita Vyas

(d) None of the above

  1. Section 498A came into force from

(a) 25 December 1983

(b) 26 December 1986

(c) 25. December 1987

(d) 25 December 1988

Attempt to Suicide

Mains Questions

 

  1. Discuss, “attempt to commit suicide”, referring to the decision of the Supreme Court on the constitutional validity of S.309 of the IPC.

Attempt to Suicide (Sec. 309)

  • Suicide as such is no crime but attempt of such suicide is punishable.
  • Intention is very important for this section
  • Constitutional validity of this section
  • Rathinam v. Nagbhushan Patnaik [1994] SC
  • C struck down this provision in this case and upheld that right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes ‘Right to Die’.

But this judgment was over-ruled by 5 judge bench of the S.C in the case of

Gyan Kaur v. State of Punjab[1996]

Where it upheld the validity of S.309 as well as S.306

  • It was argued many time to remove this S. 309 from the code as it Cruel and barbaric in nature.
  • Recently, Mental healthcare bill was passed in Rajya Sabha on Aug 8, 2016 In the wake of arguments.
  • Asper4 this S.124 of this bill, Person attempting suicide shall not be liable to punishment.

 

Attempt to Suicide (Sec. 309)

Pre-Questions

 

  1. Constitutional validity of section 309 is upheld by the Supreme Court in which of the following cases?

(a) Rathinam v Union of India

(b) Gian Kaur v Union of India

(c) Thomas Master v Union of India

(d) None of the above

 

 

  1. Attempt to commit suicide is

(a) Not an offence

(b) Punishable under section 309 of Indian Penal Code

(c) Punishable under section 306 of Indian Penal Code

(d) None of the above

  1. Which of the following reports of the Law Commission of India recommended to delete section 309 of the Indian Penal Code from the statute book?

(a) 41st report

(b) 42nd report

(c) 43rd report

(d) 45th report

 

Kidnapping & Abduction

Mains Questions

 

  1. “Offence of kidnapping from lawful guardian is complete, the moment a minor or person of unsound mind is taken outside the custody of lawful guardian”. Discuss the law relating to kidnapping in the light of this statement.
  1. Difference between kidnapping and abduction.

Kidnapping & Abduction

 

Sec.–359 – It only classify types of Kidnapping.

Sec. 360 – Kidnapping from India.

  • Actus reus is conveying of any person beyond the territory of India
  • No mens ria is required
  • The offence under this section is complete, the moment a person is taken outside the territory of India

Sec. 361 –  Kidnapping from lawful guardians

Essentials– 1. Takes or entices

  1. Minor or person of unsound mind
  2. Outside the keeping
  3. lawful guardian
  4. Without the consent of such guardians

Leading case-

  • Varadrajan v. State of Madras (1965) SC
  • State of Haryana v. Raja Ram (1973) SC
  • R v. Prince (1875)

Sec. 362 –  Abduction

  • It only defines the term abduction
  • Abduction perse is not an offence
  • It is an offence only when it is done for some purpose

Leading case-

Vishwanath v. State of UP

 

Pre Questions

  1. The accused made a promise of marriage to a minor girl pursuant to which the girl had left the house of her lawful guardian and went to the accused. Whether the accused is guilty of section 361 of the Indian Penal Code?

(a) Yes. A promise of marriage made to the girl which amounts to enticement of a minor because of which she had left the house of her lawful guardian

(b) No, accused did not take her out of lawful guardianship

(c) Depends

(d) None of the above

  1. If the minor voluntarily left the guardian and joined the accused and he only helped her in her design not to return to her guardian’s house by taking her along with him he cannot be said to have taken or enticed her even though the part played by him could be regarded as helping fulfilment of her intention. But that falls short of inducement and cannot amount to taking. The statement is

(a) True

(b) False

(c) Partly correct

(d) None of the above

  1. By virtue of Amending Act of 1949, the age of minors in section 16 has been fixed at 16 years for a male child and 18 years for a female child. Prior to the amendment the age was

(a) 14 years (male) and 16 years (female)

(b) 14 years (male) and 15 years (female)

(c) 15 years (male) and 18 years (female)

(d) 15 years (male) and 16 years (female)

  1. To attract the provisions of section 361 of the Indian Penal Code, immediate act of inducement is necessary. The statement is

(a) True

(b) False

(c) Partly Correct

(d) None of the above

 

  1. Consent of the kidnapped a minor is no defence to a charge under section 361 of the Indian Penal Code. The statement is

(a) True

(b) False

(c) Partly correct

(d) None of the above

Offences against body

Mains Questions

 

  1. Examine as to whether a person who causes death of a pregnant woman is guilty of committing one homicide or two?
  1. “Every murder is a culpable homicide but every culpable homicide is not murder”. Explain.
  1. ‘A’ intentionally attacks ‘B’. while doing so ‘A’ does not know that ‘B’ is suffering from enlarged appendix. The blow falls on the appendix as a result of which the appendix burst & ‘B’ dies. Discuss A’s liability.

 

Offences against body

Culpable homicide and murder

  • Homicide means the killing of a human being by a human being. However, every case of killing is not culpable. Eg. Killing by reason of mistake of fact or in private defence etc. In these cases, homicide is justified or lawful.

 

  • An unlawful homicide may be classified into different categories according to the nature and gravity following are:-
  1. Culpable homicide
  2. Murder
  3. Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
  4. Death by negligence
  5. Dowry death

The difference between these categories is of the degree of intention, knowledge or recklessness with which or particular homicide is committed.

 

  • Culpable homicide is a genus, of which murder is a species.
  • Culpable homicide is termed as manslaughter under English law.
  • 299:- causes death by an act

With the intention of                intention of causing such bodily                with the knowledge that he is

Causing death                            injury as is likely to cause death                 likely by such act to cause death

 

Explanation-1:- As per this explanation, a person who caused the injury cannot escape criminal liability by stating that if the person injured did not suffer from the said disease, or disorder, he would not have died.

Explanation-2:- As per this explanation, even if death is caused by interference of some independent act, then also the person initially killing is liable independently, if his act is sufficient to make him liable for culpable homicide.

Explanation-3:- Killing of child in mother’s womb is not homicide but miscarriage.

  • Vineet Chauhan v. state of UP [2008] SC
  • Rewa Ram v. state of MP [1978] MP HC

 

Section 300 (Murder)

This section defines murder, which is also a culpable homicide with some special characteristics, which are set out in clause (1-4) of the section. Ie. if any culpable homicide falls within any of the four clauses in S. 300, then it will amount to murder.

  • Distinction between S. 299 & 300.
  • v. Govinda (Leading)
  • Leading case:- Virsa Singh v. state of Punjab [1958] SC

 

Offences against body

PRE-QUESTIONS

  1. Culpable homicide has been defined

(a) under section 299 of IPC

(b) under sectio0n 300 of IPC

(c) under section 302 of IPC

(d) under section 304 of IPC

  1. Murder has been defined

(a) under section 299 of IPC

(b) under section 300 of IPC

(c) under section 302 of IPC

(d) under section 301 of IPC

  1. Culpable homicide is not murder, if it is committed under

(a) grave & sudden provocation

(b) self-intoxication

(c) irresistible impulse

(d) all the above.

  1. Culpable homicide is not murder, if it is committed under

(a) exercise of right of private being in good faith

(b) without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel

(c)  grave & sudden provocation

(d) all the above.

  1. Murder is defined as

(a) an act by which the death is caused, must have been done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death

(b) an act by which the death is caused, is done with the knowledge that he is likely to cause death by his act

(c)an act by which the death is caused, with the intention of causing of such bodily injury as the offender knows which is likely to cause death of the person to whom the injury is caused

(d) all the above.

  1. Grave & sudden provocation is

(a) question of fact

(b) question of law

(c) mixed question of fact & law

(d) a presumption under the law.

  1. ‘A’ knows that ‘B’ is suffering from a disease in his head and also knows that if a fist blow is given to ‘B’ on his head, it is likely to cause his death. Knowing it ‘A’ gives a fist blow to B on his head and caused death of ‘B’. ‘A’ is

(a) guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder sine he does not think that his act isd likely to cause death

(b) guilty of murder since he had knowledge that in all probability it is likely to cause death of ‘B’

(c) guilty of no offence since the blow is not sufficient to cause the death of a person of normal health

(d) guilty of causing hurt only.

  1. A person who causes bodily injury to another who is infirmity and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death, by virtue of

(a) explanation 1 to section 299

(b)  explanation 1 to section 230

(c) explanation 2 to section  299

(d) explanation 3 to section 299.

  1. Causing of the death of child in the mother’s womb is not homicide as provided under

(a)  explanation 1  to section 299

(b)  explanation 2 to section 299

(c) ) explanation 3 to section 299

(d) explanation 5 to section 300.

  1. In the context of the exception of grave & sudden provocation, which of the following is correct

(a)  provocation should not be voluntarily provoked by the offender

(b) lawful exercise of the right to private defence does not give provocation

(c) lawful exercise of powers by a public servant to obedience to the law does not amount to provocation

(d) all the above.

Mains Question

 

Q.1 “culpable homicide is not murder, if it done under grave & sudden provocation.” Explain in the light of leading case laws

 

Q.2 “culpable homicide is not murder. If it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion” discuss

 

Q.3 explain the principle of transfer of malice

 

Exception to section 300 and Section 301

  • Exception to s/300 are in addition to general exception
  • Burden of proof upon accused to prove that his case falls under any of the exception
  • If case falls u/ any of the exception to s.300, then it is a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder
  • These exception does not offer complete defence but only reduce the gravity of the officer.
  • Exception no.1 grave & sudden provocation

 

                                             Grave & sudden provocation

 

 Deceased                must be grave       due to that             while so               cause death Given provoc-           and sudden           accused                    deprive

ation                                                           lost say control

 

                    Cause death

 

                          Who provoked                                                        Any o then person

                                                                                                  Mistake                   accidental               

  • Leading case :- KM Nanavati v. st of mah. (1962) sc

also aktar v. state

This exception also has 3 exception

  1. Accused himself  gives provocation
  2. Act done by public servant in the exercise of public rights
  3. Act done in the exercise  of right of private defence

 

Exception no. 2     exceeding the right of private defense this exception covers those cases where accused exceeds his private defense & causes the death of person & that death is not covered u/s 100 & 103 of IPC provided he caused such death-

  1. Without premeditation
  2. No intention to use more harm
  3. In good faith.

 

Exception no.3 public servant exceeding his powers

Public servant has to prove           


Public duty              good faith                believes his              without any            exceeds   

                                                                    Act to be lawful        if will toward          the

                                                                                                             Victim             powers

Exception no -4.sudden fight

Death is caused

 

 

Sudden fight       in the            without                   arising out        accused           fight

                              Heal of          premeditation        of sudden        -no. undue     must

                              passion                                            quarrel             advantage      have

                                                                                                                  -not acted        been

                                                                                                                   In unusual      with

                                                                                                                   Or cruel           the

                                                                                                                    manner          person

                                                                                                                                            killed

 

Exception no. 5  death by consent

Section- 301   transfer of malice

  • Also known as transmigrate on of motive
  • Whenever accused intentionally does an act towards another person an in the same transaction without any external interference cause death of another person – he will be liable to the same extent
  • His malice towards intended victim gets transferred to unintended victim.

 

Pre-Question

  1. Which of the following section of the Indian Penal Code defines ‘Culpable homicide’?

(a) Section 299

(b) Section 300

(c) Section 301

(d) Section 302

 

  1. Which of the following word/s/is/are used in section 300 of the Indian Penal Code to denote the mental element?

(a) Intention

(b) Knowledge

(c) Both (a) and (b)

(d) None of the above

 

  1. Which of the following is murder as per Section 300 secondly of Penal Code?

(a) If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death.

(b) 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.

(c) 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.

(d) 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.

 

  1. A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits

(a) Murder

(b) Homicide by rash and negligent act

(c) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder

(d) None of the above

 

  1. A, knowing that Z is laboring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is guilty of …………… although the blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health.

(a) Murder

(b) Homicide by rash and negligent act

(c) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder

(d) None of the above

 

                                                 Mains question

Q.1 In orders to the plucking of fruits by neighbours children’s ‘a’  guarded his orchard with a live wire and put up a warning about it at the front gate.  ‘b’ a child  (5 years), unaware of electric wise or the warming, was killed by shock while trying to scale the wall of the orchards. Discuss the liability of ‘A’.

 

Topic: – S. 304 A

DEATH BY NEGLIGENCE 

  • this section punished where death is caused due to rash & negligent act of accused , which is not culpable homicide.
  • Meaning of rash & negligent act
  • To improve the liability under this clause, act must be the immediate or operating cause of death
  • Leading case :- 1. Cherubin Gregory v. st of Bihar (1965) sc
  1. S.N. Hussain v. st of A.P. (1972) SC
  • medical negligence

professional negligence by act or omission by a health case provider

 

landmark case :- Jacob Mathew v st of punj (2005) sc

also Suresh gupta  v. nct delhi (2004) sc

 

                                                      Pre-Question

  1. Causing death by negligence is punishable under section ………………….. of the Indian Penal Code?

(a) 304

(b) 304A

(c) 304B

(d) 304 Part-II

 

  1. An offence under which of the following sections is a bailable?

(a) Section 302

(b) Section 304A

(c) Section 304B

(d) Section 307

 

  1. A, without indicating any warning, sets a live electric naked wire in the passage of the latrine, so that no trespasser should come and use the latrine. B, a trespasser tried to enter the latrine without touching the wire, but her hand touched the wire and she died as a result of the shock. A is liable under

(a) Section 302

(b) Section 304A

(c) Section 304B

(d) Section 307

 

  1. Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code requires

(a) Intention

(b) Knowledge

(c) either (a) or (b)

(d) None of the above

 

  1. An assistant station master gave a ‘clear line signal to a passenger train with the knowledge that a goods train was standing at a particular point where the train might collide, hoping to remove the goods train before the arrival of the passenger train. The goods train was not removed in time and a collision occurred which was attended with loss of life. The station master is guilty of ……………… .

(a) Death by rash and negligent act

(b) Murder

(c) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder

(d) None of the above

 

Topic – S. 304 B

  1. 339 & 340

Mains Questions

Q.1. Bring out the essential ingredients of offence under section 304 B. IPC

[10 Marks]

Q.2. Offence s./304 B s./498A are not mutually exclussive. Comment.

[10 Marks]

Q.3. ‘A’ Lock ‘B’ in a room so as to prevent him from proceeding anywhere with Discuss what offence, if any has been committed by ‘A’. against ‘B’.

[10 Marks]

 

Topic- 304 B & 339, 340

Sec. 304 B

  • Requirment
  1. unatural death
  2. within 7 years of mariagge
  3. soon before her death
  4. subjected to crcelly or harrasment
  5. by husband or relative
  6. in connection with dowry
  • This section has to be read along with s/113B of the Indian evidence Act, 1872.

As per 113B if prosecuction is able to prove certain facts, the shall prssume that husband or his relative, has caused her dowry death

  • It is necessary that death should be under circumstances mentioned s/304 B, also it should be a consequence of demand for dowry.
  • meaning of
  • Cruelty under this section must relate to dowry.
  • meaning of “soon before her death”

There should be a reasonable if not direct, nexus between her death and the dowry related cruelty or harassment.

  • Leading case

State (Delhi Admistration v. Laxman Kumar [1986] s.

  • In case of dowry death, charge can also be framed under section 302
  • If she commits suicide, change can also be framed s/306.
  • Diffence between 498A and 304B.

Section 339 / 340

  • The constitution of India guarantees the right of freedom of movement to every citizen under article 19 s. also personal liberty under article 21. But these guarantees are available against states action and inaction.

The remedy against individual s act of abridgement of another’s right to movement lies s/339 and 340.

Wrongful Restraint

Acts Reus                                             voluntary

 

obstruction in moving in                          Intertion           Reason to

a direction (any direction and                          knowledge     believe

not all direction)

 

Wherein a victim

has a right to go there is one execption to this section:-

obstruction in good faith is not an offence.

  • For wrongful confinement , a person is wrongfully restrained and prevented from proceeding beyond certain cirmscribed limit.
  • It impues total Restraint

 

Topic – S. 304 B

  1. 339 & 340

 

  1. Wrongful restraint has been defined under
  • Section 339 of IPC
  • section 340 of IPC
  • Section 341 of IPC
  • Section 342 of IPC
  1. Wrongful confinement has been defined under
  • Section 342 of IPC
  • Section 341 of IPC
  • Section 340 of IPC
  • Section 339 of IPC
  1. A, an officer of a court of justice, being ordered by that court to arrest Y and, after due enquiry believing Z to be Y, arrests Z. A has committed
  • Wrongful confinement
  • Wrongful restraint
  • No offence
  • None of the above
  1. A person charged and acquitted under section 304B cannot be convicted under section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The statement is
  • True
  • False
  • Partly correct
  • None of the above

SEDITION

Mains Questions

 

Q.1 Discuss the Constitutional validity of section 124 A of IPC.

Q.2 Discuss the Constitutional validity of section 377 in the light of recent judgments.

Q.3 What do you understand by defamation? Is publication of defamation is necessary. Explain with the help of cases.

 

 

SEDITION [S/124 A]
Words                               Signs                                      visual representation                     otherwise

Spoken         written

Brings or attempts to brings ill-will low opinion excite or attempt to excite disaffection towards government.

 

  • “Brings or attempt to bring” suggest both successful and unsuccessful acts are on same footing.
  • The Rational of this provision is that every state whatever its form of government, has to armed with the power to punish those who by their conduct jeopardize the safety and stability of state.
  • It includes all those activities, whether by words, or deeds or writings, which are calculated to disturb the tranquility of the state and lead people to subvert the Government establish by law.

 

Explanation:  disaffection includes disloyality and all feeling of enimity. Section 124 A is based on the common Law of sedition but is much narrower that English Law.

Merely exciting or attempting to excite feeling of disaffection, hatred or contempt, irrespective of whether or not disorder follows or is likely to follow therefore, towards the government established by law is made punishable in India.

Bilal Ahmed kaloo v. st of A.P [1997] SC . The S.C also holds the view that merely doing of certain acts that would bring the Govt established by law into hatred or contempt is the decisive ingredient of sedition.

Essentials:

(1) Words, Signs, visible representation or otherwise words can be spoken or written.

Visible representation -means any form of communication which is visible to eyes. It includes pictures on dramatic performance in a mime show where no words are spoken.

Distribution or circulation of seditions material  will also constitute an offence.

(2) Brings  or attempt to bring into hatred or contempt what is contemplated under this section is

not the actual causing of hatred or contempt, but even an attempt to do so. Whether he actually

fails or succeeds is not material.

(3) Excite Disaffection:

As per explanation ‘disaffection’ includes disloyality and all feeling of enmity.

This word Disaffection was 1st explained in the case Queen empress V. Jogendra chander Bose

[1891] cal H.C. Disaffection means a feeling contrary to affection. If a person uses either spoken

or written words calculated to create in the minds of the persons to whom they are addressed,

a disposition not to obey the lawful authority of the government, or the subvert or resist

that  authority, if and when occasion should arise and if he does so  with the intention of creating

such a disposition, he will be guilty, though no disturbance is brought about by his words or

any feeling of disaffection, in fact product by them.

However, the federal court of India, in Niharender Dutt Majumdar V. king emperor [1942] FC took a different view and held that the gist of the offence of sedition is  incitement to violence, more abusive words are not enough. The act or words complained of must incite public disorder or must cause reasonable anticipation or likelihood of public disorder in order to constitute ‘disaffection’ i.e. the words or acts complained of must either incite to disorder or must be such as to satisfy reasonable men that is their intention or tendency.

The S.C of India in kedar Nath v.st of Bihar [1962] opened that the interpretation given by the Federal court is what would be in harmony with Art 19 of the constitution.

(4) Government established by Law.

Explanation (2) and (3)

Disapprobation means disapproval. Disapproval of the acts of the govt. in order to bring about

change by lawful means or disapproving the administration does not constitute an offence.

The purpose of the explanations is to give adequate protection from penal action to freedom

of speech and expression.

 

Constitutional validity of Section 124 A

Constitutional validity of section 124 A was for the 1st time put to judicial scrutiny in case of Tara Singh Gopichand V. state (East Punjab) 1951, on the ground that it goes against the freedom of Speech and expression v / 19(1) (a).

The East Punjab High Court declared the section ultra virus as it curtailed the freedom of speech and expression.

Subsequently, the constitution first (Amendment) Act, 1951 added two words, namely ‘in the interest of’ and ‘public order’ in art 19(2) dealing with restriction that can be put through law on the freedom of speech and expression.

Despite the above amendment in Art 19(2), the Act, High Court in case of Ram Nandan V. St. of U.P. [1959] held the S/124 A is ultra-virus as it cannot be saved by the expression in the interest of public order.

However, this controversy was set at rest by the S.C. in the case of kedar Nath V.St. of Bihar 1962

The S.C. quoted with approval that judgment of the federal court and said that if the interpretation of the offence of sedition is held in consonance with the view expressed in Niharender Duttt case then the law of sedition U/124 A will be within permissible limits laid down U/Art 19(2).

But if, on the other hand , we were to hold that ever without any tendency to disorder or intention to create disturbance of law and order, by use of the words written or spoken, which merely creates disaffection or feeling of enmity against the Govt., the offence of sedition is complete, then such an interpretation of the section would make it unconstitutional in view of Art 19(1) (a) read with 19(2).

It certain provision of law constructed in one way would make then consistent with the constitution, and another interpretation would render then unconstitutional, the court has to lean in favour of former construction. Referring to above, the court ruled.

The provision of the sections read as a whole, along with explanations, make it reasonable clear that the section aims at rendering penal only such activities as would be intended, or have a tendency, to create disorder or disturbance of public peace by resort to violence.

 

Pre. Questions

 

  1. In answer to the charge of defamation, which of the following is/ are good defence(s)?

(1) lmputation which is true and published for the public good.

(2) Opinion respecting the conduct of a public servant concerning discharge of duties of office expressed  in good faith.

(3) Both (1) and (2)

(4) None of these

 

  1. 2. The essence of sedition is

(a) Intention

(b) Benefits or gains of the accused

(c) Result

(d) Both intention and result.

 

  1. 3. Which of the following is defamation:

(a) X says. “Y is an honest man, he never stole Z‘s watch.” intending to cause it to be believed that Y did steal Z‘s watch.

(b) X is asked. who stole Z’s watch? X points to Y,

(c) X draws a picture of Y running away with Z’s watch.

(d) All of the above.

 

  1. 4. Anal Sex

(a) Sodomy                         (b) Blasphenny

(c) Beastiality                     (d) None

 

  1. 5. Defamation by writting is called

(a) Libel                (b) Slander

(c) Both                (d) All

(d) Both intention and result.

 

  1. 6. An imputation in the form of alternative or expressed ironically, may:

(A) amount to defamation

(B) not amount to defamation

(C), amount to outrage the modesty if intended to woman

(D) neither defamation nor outrage the modesty

 

  1. Which of the following is not an offence against the State, under the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

(A) Spreading infection of disease dangerous to life

(B) Waging war against the Government of India

(C) Sedition

(D) Assaulting Governor of a State with intent to compel to exercise of any lawful power

 

  1. 8. ‘A’ in good faith says of a book published by ‘Z’. 2’s books is indecent, ‘Z‘ must be a man of impure mind, ls this defamation punishable under section 500 of P.C.

(A) Yes, because the opinion respects Z’s character

(B) No, because it falls within one of the exceptions of Section 499

(C) No, Because it is slander

(D) No. Because it has not been repeated

 

  1. 9. A is magistrate is making report to superior officer about B’s character imputation made in good faith and for public good. A commits:

(A) Offence under section 500 IPC

(B) Offence under section 501 IPC

(C) No offence as it is within exception under section 499

(D) Under section 504 IPC

 

  1. 10. Which of the following is sufficient to prove the offence of sedition?

(A) Comments expressing disapproval of the government with a view to obtain a change in policies by lawful means

(B) proof of disloyalty or ill feelings

(C) comments expressing disapproval of the administrative action even though these do not excite hatred or disloyalty

(D) Exciting disaffection towards the government

 

  1. In which of the following judgments did the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court of Delhi which decriminalized Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:

(1) Sakshi v.Union oflndia, AIR 2004 SC 3566

(2) Naz Foundation (India) Trust v. Suresh Kumar Koushal(2014) 3 SCC 220

(3) PUCL v. Union of India (2010) I4 SCC 245

(4) Suresh Kumar Kaushal v. Naz Foundation (India) trust (2014)

 

12.which one of the following statements is not defamatory?

(a) “A‘ says about a woman ‘B’ that she has paramour wherever she goes.

(b) ‘A’ publishes a photograph with a false caption ‘Goonda’.

(c) ‘A‘ says’ “l am not surprised that ‘B is book is foolish for he is a libertine”.

(d) none of the above

  1. Which section deals with sedition?

(a) 123

(b)124

(c) 125

(d) 124-A

14.An offence under/section 377 can committed against .

(a) man

(b) woman

(c) animal

(d) all of  the above

  1. How many explanations have been given under section 499.

(a) 7

(b) 8

(c) 9

(d)10

UNNATURAL OFFENCES [S/377]

S/377 Punishes unnatural carnal intercourse [sodomy and bestiality under English Law]

  • Under this section consent is wholly irrelevant. Party consenting would be equally liable as an abettor.
  • Penetration, how so ever minimal is sufficient.
  • Penile and, Penile and or Penile animal penetration, howsoever slight it be, constitutes the carnal intercourse
  1. Where male organ of the accused is held tightly by the hands of the victim- held to be an unnatural carnal intercourse.
  • Sudesh Jhaku Case [1948] Delhi high court held that penile mouth penetration amounts to an unnatural act

Constitutional validity of S/377

In NAZ Foundation VS  NCT of Delhi [2010], the constitutional validity of S/377 was challenged in the Delhi High Court by NAZ foundation, a NGO. It contended that S/377, on account of covering consensual sexual intercourse between two adults in private is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 14, 15, 19 and 21 of  the constitution.

It stressed that S/377, in essence, goes against the spirit of the right of personal liberty [right to privacy, right to dignity] and to equality before law [irrational classification] guaranted under 21 and 14 of the constitution. It also argued that, it is violative of article 15 as it criminalize homosexual activity on the basis of mere social orientation.

S/377 by prohibiting homosexuality, infringes  the basic freedom article 19 (1) (a) (b) and (c) as individual’s ability to make personal statemnents about his sexual preferences,right to associate or assemble and right to move freely (with gays or lesbians), is restricted.

It urged, the High court to, through Judicial interpretation, decriminalize ‘unnatural’ sexual intercourse between two consentin adults in private and to limit it only to non consensual penile non vaginal sexual intercourse and penile non vaginal sexual intercourse involving minors.

After extensive examination, the Delhi High Court declared S/377 partly ultravirus to the constitution.

Against this decision of Delhi High Court, some public Spirited individuals and organization, have approached the Supreme Court.

In Suresh  kumar kaushal Vs NAZ Foundation[2014] SC the supreme court, over-ruled the NAZ Foundation  dictum and thereby upheld the constitutional validity of S/377. It ruled that S/377, does not offend either of article 14, 15 and 21 of the constitution.

It held that S/377 would apply irrespective of age and consent. It does not criminalize a particular people or identify or orientation. It merely identifies certain acts which if committed would constitutes an offence such a prohibition regulates sexual conduct regardless of gender identify and orientation.

Notwithstanding this verdict, the legislature shall be free to consider the desirability and propriety of deleting S/377 or amend the same.

Those who indulge in carnal intercourse in the ordinary course and those who indulge in car5nal intercourse and those who indulge in carnal intercourse against the order of the nature constitute different classes and the people falling in latter category cannot claim that this section suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and irrational classification not violative of article 14 and 15 of the constitution.

Just because it has been used to perpetrate harassment, torture on certain persons especially those belonging to Gay and Lesbian community by police authorities and others is not a reflection of the virus of the section, because this treatment is neither mandated nor condoned by the section. This might be a relevant factor for amendment of the section

The High Court a fact that a minisule fraction of the country’s population constitutes lesbians, Gays, bisexual or transgender and less than 200 persons have been prosecuted in last more than 150 years and this cannot be made sound basis for declaring it ultra virus.

I.P.C

Mains 

Q.1. How far the amendments made in the law relating to rape, helps in curbing this growing offence? Discuss.

[15 marks]

 

 Rape

  • Sec- 375 defines rape as an unlawful sexual intercourse between a man and a woman with her consent
  • Two major amendments made in s/375, is in year 1983 and 2013
  • S- 375
  • The essence of the guilt lies in the penetration nowsoever slight, of peris, any object a part of body, or manipulation of any part of the body of the women for panetration.
  • Essentials-
  • Sexual Intercourse
  • Under the circumstances mentioned in the section.
  • S-376 provides panishments for rape.

Clause (1):- punishment

not less than 7 years but which may extend to life Inprisonment

Clause (2):- This clause provides14 situation in which if rape is commeted, then

it shall be punished – not less than 10 years may be extend to life inpisonment and shall also be liable to fine.

  • S- 376B Maiital Rape

As per this section whoever as sexual intercourse with his own wife, who is uving separatly, whether under decree of seperation or otherwise. without her consent shall be punished.

  • This has to be read along with exeption 2 to s/375.
  • No court shall take cognizane this section unless to complaint has been made by a wife against her husband (198 B of CRPC).
  • Section 376 A

Provides punishment for causing death or resulting in persistent vegetative state of victim.

min. punishment = 20 years

extend = Life Imprisonment

  • Section 376 C Sexual Intercourse by person is authority.
  • Section 376 D Gang Rape

Where a woman is raped by one or more persons constituting a group acting in furtherance of a common intention, each of these persons shall be deemed to have commited the offence of Rape.

min. punishment:- 20 years.

max. Life Imprisonment or death

  • 376 E Punishment for repeat offenders life imprisonment or death.

 

I.P.C

Preliminary Questions

 

  1. Sexual Harrasment case was

(a) Vishakha v. State of Rajasthan

(b) Keshvananda Bharti v. State of Kerala

(c) Apperal Promotian Council

(d) Pull v. UOl

  1. Sexual intercourse with the consent of a girl amounts to rape if she is under

(a) 15 years                         (b) 16 years

(c) 17 years                         (d) 18 years

  1. Under section 376 of the IPCA public servant committing rape on a woman in his custody shall be punishable with

(a) Rigorous imprisonment up to 7 years

(b) Rigorous imprisonment of at least 8 years

(c) Rigorous imprisonment up to 10 years

(d) None of the above

  1. Sexual intercourse with the consent of a girl amounts to rape if she is under

(a) 15 years                         (b) 16 years

(c) 17 years                         (d) 18 years

 

  1. Assertion (A): Rape is a stigma on a woman, hence it is a punishable offence.

      Reason (R): Sexual intercourse by a man with his wife is not rape.

(A) Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is the correct explanation of (A)

(B) Both (A) and (R) are true and (R) is not the correct explanation of (A)

(C) (A) is correct, (R) is false

(D) (A) is false, (R) is correct

 

  1. Under Section 375, a man is said to commit ‘rape’ who has sexual intercourse with a woman
  2. Against her will.
  3. Without her consent.

III. With her consent by putting her in fear of death or of hurt.

  1. With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is lawfully married.
  2. With her consent, when, at the time of such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.
  3. With or without her consent when she is under 16 years of age.

In which of the following cases, the offence of ‘statutory rape’ is said to be committed?

(a) All of the above.

(b) I and II only.

(c) V only.

(d) VI only.

  1. Rape is an offence against –

(a) Property

(b)Human body

(c) Political body

(d) Social body

  1. Sex with a girl with fraudulent consent amounts to

(a) Simply physical assault

(b) Molestation

(c) Attempt to rape

(d) Or Rape

  1. Sexual intercourse with a Widow is an offence of

(a) Adultery

(b) Rape

(c) Molestation

(d) None of the above

  1. To constitute an offence of gang rape. How many persons are required

(a) 1

(b) 2

(c) 3

(d) 4

Topic: – Criminal Misappropriation

Stolen Property

Mischief, Criminal Trespass

 

Criminal Mis appropriation [S/403, 404]

 

Mens Rea -> Dishonestly                              Actus Reus

 

                                                                                Mis-appropriation                           Converts to his own use

 

Means to set apart or assign          Started using the property

                                                                                The property to oneself for

Causing wrongful gain or loss

  • Criminal mis-appropriation is an offence which is carved out from theft. In theft- property is removed from the possession of the person whereas in criminal mis-appropriation, the taking is upon finding or other coming across of the property.
  • mis- appropriation means to take possession of property and putting it to unauthorized or wrongful use.
  • The culpability under this section does not lie in the wrongful transfer of property rather it lies in wrongful retainment/ wrongful conversion.
  • Criminal mis- appropriation takes place in those cases also where possession has come innocently, but is continued due to a subsequent change of intention.

3 essentials:-

  • Property must be of the complainant
  • The accused misappropriated the same or converted to his own use.
  • He did so dishonestly.
  • Explanation- 1

Mis- appropriation or conversion need not to be permanent, it may even be for a time.

  • Explanation- 2

Makes it clear that the property must be owned/ possessed by somebody.

 

Section (410 – 411)

S/ 410 Defines:- Stolen property – A property will be designated a stolen for the purposes of this section, if possession of such property has been transfered by

  • Theft
  • Extortion
  • Robbery
  • Criminal misappropriation
  • Criminal Breach of Trust

If this property goes back to the original owner, then it will not be termed as stolen property.

S/ 411 : The essence of the offence consists in or Reason to believe the receipts or retention with a knowledge that at the time of receipt the property was obtained in any of the ways above.

S/ 425 Mischief

 

M.R.                                                             A.R.

Intention/ knowledge of                              destruction                         changes in any property or

Of wrongfull loss or damages to                                of prop.                                                Change in sit’s in the property

Public                             Any person                                             due to this

 

Value / Utility

 

Destroy                                  Diminished

 

Or affect it injuriously

 

  • The destruction of the property or change should be contrary to the natural or normal use or employment.
  • To constitute the offence of mischief there must be destruction of property.

In cases where no one has any proprietaril right to the property such as in case of wild animals or bird, the killing of that animal does not come within the purview of this section.

A had certain rights of fishing in a particular stretch of river, and B diverted river’s water from A’s stretch of which large quantity of fish was destroyed. – held liable under this section.

CRIMINAL TRESPASS – S/ 441

 

 

A.R.                                                                        M.R.

(1)    Enters  into   /   upon                             intent to              intimidate           insult             annoy cirritate

Cause/ commit    (डराने)

Inside house     land etc.                   an offence

Building

  • Property should be in possession of another.
  • This section does not req. ownership.

(2) Lawful entered- but remaining there unlawfully.

  • Trespass ordinarily is a civil wrong. But if it is committed with a criminal intentional – there is an offence under IPC.
  • Property under this section can movable/ immovable. There can be a criminal trespass into a motor boat.
  • Property does not include incorporeal property such as act to fishery it.

Where enters B’s house to have illicit inter course with B’s wife – liable as intention was to commit offence.

  • The offence of criminal trespass is committed only when the intention in effecting the entry is to Cutting of fully grown crops – not a mischief.

Cutting of unripe crop – mischief.

  • Property under this section means some tangible property which can be destroyed but does not include easement.

Is to cause annoyance/offence/insult/intimidation to the person in possession. For this offence it is not merely sufficient that the person trespassing had knowledge that his act would cause annoyance etc. Thus, annoyance/ insult etc was the aim of the entry.

 

A           enter               B’s land

No intention

Though his act cause annoyance to B. But A’ is not liable under this section.

But A’ enters with an intention to cause annoyance than he will be liable under this section.

442 House trespass:

Criminal trespass elements  +  entering into or remaining in any

Building                tent                       vessel

 

Entering of any part of the body us sufficient for house trespass

S/ 443 Lurking house trespass

House trespass # hiding yourself

In the process of house trespass

S/ 445 House Breaking.

It is a case of House trespass + additional six ways – in going inside or coming out of the house is house – breaking.

  • Enter/ quits -> passage made by himself or by abettor -which is not lawful
  • Enters/ quit -> passage not intended by any person i.e. not for any human person to come from

Other than himself or abettor

By scaling or climbing

  • Enters/ quit -> Abettor/ trespasser has opened the back door in such a way as it was not intended for human entrance by the owner of the house.
  • Enters/ quits -> by pending any Lock
  • Enters/quits -> by using criminal force or committing an assault or threatening any person with

assault.

  • Enters/ quits -> by any passage which he knows to have been fastened against such entrance or

Departure.

  • Climbing upon a tree and entering into house – house breaking.

 

PRE-QUESTIONS

  1. An employer deducting the employees’ contribution under Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provision Act, from the wages payable for credit to the fund, but does not deposit the same with the Fund, is guilty of committing

(a) criminal misappropriation under section 403 of IPC

(b) criminal breach of trust under section 405 of IPC

(c) theft under section 378 of IPC

(d) no offence.

 

  1. A property is called stolen property under section 410 of IPC if its possession has been transferred by

(a) theft

(b) robbery

(c) criminal misappropriation

(d) all the above.

 

  1. In cases of dishonest misappropriation the initial possession of the property

(a) is dishonest

(b) is fraudulent

(c) is innocent

(d) both (a)&b (b).

 

  1. Z going on a journey, entrusts his plate to A, the keeper of a ware house, till Z shall return. A carries the plate to a goldsmith and sells it. Which of the following offences, if any, had A committed?

(a) Theft

(b) Criminal breach of trust

(c) Criminal misappropriation of property

(d) None of the above

 

  1. While carrying away the stolen property the accused persons six in number exploded cracker to frighten the inmates of the house who wanted to pursue them. The accused were convicted for dacoity. The conviction is

(a) Legal

(b) Illegal

(c) Improper

(d) Irregular

 

  1. Which of the following statements is true and correct regarding ‘mischief’?

(a) It is not essential to the offence of mischief that the offender should intend to cause loss or damage to the owner of the property injured or destroyed

(b) It is sufficient if he intends to cause, or knows that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to  any person by injuring any property, whether it belongs to that person or not

(c) Both (a) and (b)

(d) None of the above

 

  1. A introduces water into an ice-house belonging to Z and thus causes the ice to meet, intending wrongful loss to Z. A has committed

(a) Nuisance

(b) Mischief

(c) Cheating

(d) None of the above

I.P.C

Offence against Property

MAINS

  1. What Offence, if any, has been committed by A in the given case? “A and B a joint owner of a joint property and A dishonestly takes exclusive possession of that property without the consent of B.
  1. What Offence, if any, has been committed by A in the given case. “A finds a ring lying on the high road, not in the possession of any person. He takes it and converts his own use.
  1. What Offence, if any, has been committed by A in the given case. “A threatens to publish defamatory statement concerning Z unless Z given him money. He thus induces Z to give him money.

Offences against property

(Theft, Extortion and Robbery)

Theft (s/378)

 

A.R                                                                                                                         M.R

Moving of the property                                                                                                 Dishonest intention

  • Requirements :-
  • Dishonest Intention
  • Movable property
  • Out of the possession
  • Without consent
  • Moves such property
  • Dishonest Intention – It is essential that the Mens Rea should exist at the time of the doing of the Act.
  • Movable property – Means corporeal property of every description except lads and things attached to earth or permanently fined to anything which is attached to earth.
  • Out of the possession – Theft is an offence against possession and not against ownership. Possession can be constructive or active.
  • Without consent – Consent under this section can be express or implied. Implied consent is highly circumstantial.
  • Moves such property –theft is complete the moment thing is moved. Taking need not to be permanent or with the intention to appropriate.

Leading cases:-

  1. pyare Lal Bhargava v. St. of Rajasthan [1963]Sc
  2. K.N mehra V. St. of Rajasthan [1957]Sc
  • When theft is Robbery s/390

Theft will amount to Robbery if:-

(1) Actual theft was committed

(2) Thereafter, if the requirement of s/390 are proved. It will amount to Robbery.

 

 

  • For Robbery    Intention

Whoever voluntary causes                                              Knowledge

                                                                                                             Reason to Believe

 

Death                                 Hurt                  Wrongful Restraint          fear of Instant death/

Hurt/ Wrongful Restraint

To any person in either of these stages

  1. in order to the committing of the theft – ie just before the moving of the property, when the accused was moving towards the commission of theft. In this stage, Death, heart etc was caused for the purpose of enabling himself to commit theft.
  2. In committing the theft ie. While the accused was actually moving the property, death etc. was caused voluntarily for the purpose of moving the property.
  3. In carrying away ie once the property has been moved and now the accused is in the process of taking or carrying away the property and in order to carry away, death etc was caused and finally, the accused was able to carry away the property.
  4. In attempting to carry away death etc was caused while carrying away the property and finally accused could not carry it away.

Extortion [S/383]

 

Intentionally puts            any person in fear of           to that person or         dishonestly induces

Injury                         any other person               the person

So put in fear

to deliver to any person

 

 

any property                      valuable security           anything

movable/                                                                        signed or

immovable                                                                     sealed

may be converted into

valuable security

  • Injury under this section includes physical as well as mental Injury.
  • To constitute the offence of extortion – there must be a fear of injury coupled with delivery of property.
  • Leading case:-

Jadunandan Singh v. Emperor

  • Difference between theft and Extortion
  • When Extortion is Robbery
  1. Elements of extortion
  2. Fear of injury

Instant Death    Instant Hurt          Instant Wrongful

Restraint

  1. Accused must be in the presence of the person so put in fear
  2. Delivery of property must be immediate.

 

PRELIMINARY

  1. ‘B’ and ‘C’ were on the railway platform. ‘B‘ had taken a ticket from Allahabad to Delhi. ‘B’, and illiterate woman handed over the ticket to ‘C’ in order to as certain whether she had a right ticket. ‘C’ under the pretence of returning the ticket to Delhi substituted it for the ticket of shorter journey and returned that as ‘B’s ticket. In this case ‘C’ is liable for

(a) cheating ‘B’

(b) criminal misappropriation

(c) theft

(d) criminal breach of trust.

 

  1. ‘A’ handed over his watch to a watch-smith for repairing. In order not to pay the repairing charges ‘A’ picked up his watch from the shop, when the watch-smith was not looking. In this case

(a) ‘A’ is guilty of criminal breach of trust.

(b) ‘A’ is guilty of cheating.

(c)’ ‘A’ is guilty of theft.

(d) ‘A’ is not guilty of any offence because the watch, he picked up was his own. However, he should pay the repairing charges to watch-smith.

 

  1. Match List-I with List-II and select the correct answer by using the codes given below the lists :

List-I                                                         List II

  1. Delivery of Property                1. Criminal Breach of Trust
  2. Taking of Property  2. Criminal Misappropriation
  3. Entrustment of Progerty3. Theft
  4. Convertibility of Property 4. Extortion

 innocently got to one’s

Codes:

A          B          C      D

(a)          3          4          1       2

(b)          4          3          1       2

(c )         4          2          3       1

(d)          3          1          2       4

 

  1. A police officer has received a sum of Rs. 5000/-against fine from the persons violating traffic rules. lnstead of depositing the fine money with State Treasury, he utilized the same for his personal use. What offence under Indian Penal Code, the police Officer has committed?

(a) Criminal breach of trust

(b) Mischief

(c) Cheating the Government

(d) None of the above

 

  1. Which one of the following correctly distinguishes theft from extortion?

(a) In theft movable property must be dishonestly taken whereas in extortion there is delivery of the thing extorted.

(b) In extortion there must be dishonest intention whereas in theft the same is not necessary.

(c) Theft requires dishonest intention whereas extortion requires fraudulent intention.

(d) Theft is as offence against movable property whereas extortion is an offence against immovable property.

 

  1. A servant collected money from the debtor of his master as authorized by him. The servant retained the money in his hands because it was due to him as wages. He commits:

(a) criminal breach of trust

(b) theft

(c) no offence

(d) criminal misappropriation

 

  1. In the Indian Penal Code, the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust has been dealt with in ___ Section:

(a) 405

(b) 402

(c) 404

(d) 401

 

  1. For which of the following offences, mens rea is not a requisite?

(a) Kidnapping

(b) Robbery

(c) Trespass

(d) None of the above

 

  1. If the offender is armed with deadly weapons at the time of attempting dacoity, he is liable to be punished with

(a) Rigorous imprisonment of at least 7 years

(b) Rigorous imprisonment up to 7 years

(c) Rigorous imprisonment not exceeding 5 years

(d) None of the above.

 

  1. ‘A’ finds a watch on the floor of a State Transport bus while he was leaving it as the last passenger. He picked it up and put it in his pocket instead of returning it to the State Transport authorities. Next day he sold it. ‘A’ is liable for:

(a) theft

(b) extortion

(c) criminal misappropriation

(d) criminal breach of trust

Main Questions

Q.1. what offence, if any, has been committed in the given case: A, by pledging as diamonds articles which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives z, and thereby dishonestly induces ‘z’ to lend money?

Q.2. What are the essentials of criminal breach of trust?

Topic- Criminal Beach of Trust, Cheating

Section 405   Criminal Breach of Trust

                Accused entrusted with a property         with any dominion over                    It trust has been

the property                                       created

 

movable                  immovable

 

Dishonestly                        converts to his                                  dishonestly uses or disposes

Mis- appropriates               own use                                            that property in violation of any

direction prescribing the mode in

which such trust is to be discharged

Or any contract.

  • Essentials :-
  1. Entrusted with the property or with dominion of the property.
  2. Such entrustment must be in trust
  3. The person so entrusted must
  • Dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property.
  • Disposed that property in violation of such trust.

The gist of the offence of this offence is dishonest misappropriation or conversion to his own use. The difference between this section and criminal misappropriation is, in this offence, the accused is entrusted with property or with dominion or control of the property.

  • Entrustment:-

It means handing over of the possession of a thing for some purpose which may not imply the conferring of any proprietory right. It requires that the accused should receive the property and hold it on behalf of another.

Entrustment can be in any manner

No formal trust                                                                                                   formal trust

but the accused was givenPossession                                                 for this formal trust has been created

dominion under an informal Trust                                                        and accused has been made a trustee

relationship.

accused himself was or allows other                                                       accused has violated the mandate or

to use it. e.g. packing the car in car                                                           guidelines

parking. Here the person has been

given possession not under formal

trust.

 

The problem arises in cases where the property is given casually i.e. where there is no formal trust or trust like relationship appearing on the face of it.

 

Eg:- ‘A’ handover her ticket to ‘B’ in order to check whether she has correct ticket or not. (already

discussed)

 

In this e.g. there is only misappropriation and not criminal breach of trust as there was no entrustment because constructive possession was still with ‘A’

 

Dominion over property

 

It means controls over property.

 

In Velji Raghavji Patel v. State of Maharashtra [1965 SC]

 

Held:- in respect of partnership firms, though every partner has dominion over the property by virtue of being a partner, it is not a dominion which satisfies the requirement of section 405, as there is no entrustment of dominion unless it is proved that the dominion was by a special agreement between the partners.

 

As per Explanation 1 & 2 when an employer of an establishment deducts employee’s contribution from the wages payable towards his provident fund or family pension fund or employees state insurance fund, shall be deemed to be entrusted with the amount of the contribution deducted.

  • Misappropriation of the property entrusted even for a time is sufficient.

In R. Venkat Krishanan v. CBI [(2009) SC] Bank Official, who contrary to statutory provisions and directives, made public money available to a proviate party, was held guilty under this section even though the money was quickly recovered.

  • This offence consists in any of the four Acts:-
  • Misappropriation
  • Conversion
  • User
  • Disposal of property in violation of direction of law.
  • Mere Retention of goods or mere Refusal to Return does not amount to Criminal Breach of trust.

 

CHEATING [SECTION 415]

 

express

Deceiving

Implied

 

Fraudulently (Section 25)             Dishonestly (Section 24)                               Intentionally induces

 

 

Inducing the person so deceived to                                    to do                     omit to do

 

Deliver                                           Consent                                      Which causes or likely to

Any property to any                       to retention of any                          cause any harm

person                                       property

 

Body          Mind         Property      Reputation

  • A man is deceived or cheated in two ways mentioned above.

In (1st), the victim was induced to deliver property. It can be by fraudulent or dishonest means used by the accused.

In (2nd), there is no delivery of property, but the victim is intentionally induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do. Here, the inducement need not to be fraudulent or dishonest.

  • Deception means causing a person to believe what is false or to disbelieve what is true.
  • Misrepresentation from the very beginning is a sin qua non of the offence of cheating.
  • Does false promise of marriage amounts to cheating?

Yes, but it is necessary to prove that the promise to marry by the accused for inducing the complainant to have sexual connection with him was false when he made it. The promise must be made with a fraudulent intention of not honoring it.

 

  • Mere deception is not sufficient for both the parts, the element of inducement leads either to

delivery of property or doing of an act or omission to do anything.

  • Dishonest intention should be present at the time of making the promise.
  • For (2nd) part, the word “cause” suggest a direct and proximate connection between the act or

omission and the harm and damage to the victim.

  • Section 415, defines offence of cheating, which is made punishable under section 417 & 420.
    • Section 417, provides punishment for a simple case of cheating (covering IInd part of section

415).

Whereas section 420 covers cases where property is actually delivered .

 

Criminal Beach of Trust, Cheating

PRE-QUESTIONS

  1. Criminal Breach of trust is defined under ……………… of the Indian Penal Code.

(a) Section 403

(b) Section 404

(c) Section 405

(d) Section 406

  1. A, residing in Calcutta, is agent for Z, residing at Delhi. There is an express or implied contract between A and Z, that a l sums remitted by Z to A shall be invested by A, according to Z’s direction. Z remits a lakh of rupees to A, with directions to A to invest the same in company’s paper. A dishonestly disobeys the directions and employs the money in his own business. A has committed

(a) Criminal breach of trust

(b) Criminal misappropriation

(c) Cheating

(d) None of the above

  1. Which of the following offences under the Indian Penal Code is similar to ‘embezzlement’ under English law?

(a) Criminal breach of trust

(b) Criminal misappropriation

(c) Cheating

(d) None of the above

  1. A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article.

(a) A had committed cheating

(b) A had not committed cheating

(c) A has committed forgery

(d) None of the above

  1. Moorga Chetty ’s case is related to

(a) Cheating

(b) Receiving stolen property

(c) Criminal breach of trust

(d) None of the above

 

  1. A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article, intentionally deceives Z into believing that the article corresponds with the sample, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. Which of the following offence, if any had A committed?

(a) Cheating

(b) Breach of contract

(c) Criminal breach of trust

(d) None of the above

  1. A, by tendering in payment for an article, a bill on a house with which A keeps no money, and by which A expects that the bill will be dishonoured, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay for it.

(a) A had committed cheating

(b) A had not committed cheating

(c) A had committed misappropriation

(d) None of the above

  1. In every cheating there must be

(a) Deception

(b) Delivery of property

(c) Both (a) and (b)

(d) None of the above

 

ABOUT PLA

PLA offers extensive Training Programmes to help you succeed in fiercely competitive examinations like CLAT and other Law entrance exams in India. Our passion is to help you create a successful career in Law.

Who’s Online

Profile picture of Mrundenieviz
Profile picture of inencielmAY
Profile picture of DrumnPernNZ
top
Copyright © 2017. Pahuja Law Academy
Designed & Developed By : Asap Comm Ind
Registration Opens For Judiciary Coaching


X
Free Demo Class Every Sunday - 10 AM & Every Wednesday - 04 PM                                    Free Demo Class Every Sunday - 10 AM & Every Wednesday - 04 PM