UNIT - I

GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIME:

CRIME AND ITS ELEMENTS
“ACTUS NON FACIT REUM NISI MENS SIT REA”
DEFINITION OF CRIME:
The legal meaning of crime is an act or omission punishable by law. Crime is an act
which is forbidden by law and revolting to the moral sentiments of the society.
Sir William Blackstone defines Crime is a violation of the public right and duties due
to the whole community.
ELEMENTS OF CRIME:
To constitute a crime, two elements are necessary and they are
I. Physical element or Actus Reus
II. Mental element or Mens Rea.
The fundamental principles of penal liability are based on the Latin maxim “Actus non
facit reum nisi mens sit rea”. It means that an act does not become a crime unless done with
a guilty mind.
ACTUS REUS: The term Actus means a deed, a physical result of conduct. It is defined
as “result of human conduct as the Law seeks to prevent”
For e.g., In the case of murder the conduct of the murderer is brought out by the
victim’s death. Here the conduct is ‘Actus Reus’
The conduct of the offender is expressed in three ways:
1. A certain willful movement or omission.
2. Certain surrounding circumstances including past acts.
3. Certain consequences.
ACT is a conscious movement. It results from the operation of will. The will may be by
thinking and working out by mind.
ELEMENTS OF ACT: a. Origin b. Circumstances c. Consequences.

Origin: if a person commits an act, he has to think of it, and do some physical activity. For
e.g., if A wants to shoot B, A must think of it and then raise his hand, apply his fingers on the
trigger and pull it.
Circumstances: Circumstances are the facts. The facts may be as follows for the above
example. [Link] riffle must be already loaded.
ii. B must be in the line of trigger point.

1
Consequences: Consequences are the outcome (result) of the origin or circumstances. In
the above example, the fall of the trigger, the explosion of the bullet, the penetration of the
bullet and B’s death constitute the consequences of the act.
CHARACTERISTICS OF ACT:
1. An act is an event subject to the control of will power.
2. An act may include omission also. For e.g., A parent can be held liable for the murder of
his child by starvation.
3. A man is liable only for such acts, the consequences of which are foreseen by him.
4. If there are subsisting and intervening causes, the act is not punishable. For e.g., If a
man shoots a girl but if she dies from fever, then the accused is not guilty of murder,
because the death is not due to the act of shooting.
5. Under certain circumstances, even without physical participation, a man’s act is
punishable. For e.g., A man in Delhi can be held liable for arranging the commission of
crime at Madras.
MEN’S REA:
The second essential ingredient in the crime is Mens Rea – i.e., guilty mind, an evil
intention or knowledge of the wrongful act, intentional omission to do a lawful act, intentional
recklessness in doing an act.
Khandu’s case;
The accused’s friends entered into a house and committed burglary. The accused was
standing and watching from outside. The accused was punishable for house burglary, as he
had mens rea to commit the offence, though he had not participated in the act.
CHARACTERISTIC OF MENS REA:
1. Mens rea includes both intention to do a positive act and reckless by abstaining from
doing an act.
2. Intention is different from knowledge: Intention is the desire to do an act. Knowledge
means personal information of the person doing the act. Intention is punishable, whereas
knowledge is not always.
A doctor performing an operation may have the knowledge of the death of the patient but
he has no intention to cause his death. Here the doctor is not punishable.
3. Intention is different from motive: Intention is the immediate result, whereas motive is
the ulterior result of the act.
DIFFERENT BETWEEN TORTS AND CRIMES:
TORTS CRIMES
1. Civil wrong 1. Criminal offence.
2. Private person takes action 2. State or police takes action
3. Compensation is the remedy
3. Punishment is by way of fine,
imprisonment etc.,

2
4. Civil court hears the case. 4. Criminal court tries the case.
5. No legislation or Act for it. Only a 5. There is an act called the Indian
common law or Judgement law or Penal Code (I.P.C.) and other
Case law governs the determination criminal legislation.
of compensation.
6. In case of death of a tort feasor, his
legal representatives can be sued
6. Death of an offender puts an end to
prosecution.
(except in defamation, assault., etc.,)
7. Limitation is a bar to an action in tort.
7. Generally there is no bar of limitation
to a prosecution for a crime except in
certain cases as per Sec.468 of
Cr.P.C.,

EXCEPTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF MENS REA:

a. VICARIOUS LIABILITY:
Usually a man is held liable for his own acts only. But under the principle of vicarious liability,
he is liable for the acts of others also. For majority of offences under the I.P.C., the principle
of vicarious liability does not apply.
However, in the following cases, the principle of vicarious liability is applied:
1. Sec.154: The landowner is responsible for the offences of rioting.
2. Sec.155: Where rioting is committed for the benefit of the owner.
3. Sec.156: Agent or managers are responsible for rioting in the absence of the masters.
4. Public Nuisance: The master is liable for the offence of nuisance caused by the acts of
the servants.
5. Neglect of duty: The master is liable for the negligence act of the servants.
b. STRICT LIABILITY: Crimes of strict liability are those in which the necessity of Mens rea
is wholly excluded. The person is held responsible for his act even though he has no
intention to do the act and there is no negligence on his part. The following are the
instances:
Public welfare offences and Mens Rea: As under the doctrine of strict liability, mens rea
does not apply to public welfare offences. i.e., under the Food adulteration Act, Essential
commodities Act, Foreign Exchange Act, Customs Act., etc.,
JURISDICTION OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE (Sec. 1 to 4)
JURISDICTION is the extent or limit within which a State can exercise its legal authority.
Generally, a State can exercise jurisdiction over any person within its territory and
sometimes, beyond its territorial limits. There are two types of personal jurisdiction.
Territorial jurisdiction (Sec.2) Extra territorial Jurisdiction (Sec.3)
TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION:

3
 According to Sec.1 of IPC the territorial jurisdiction extends all over India, except the
State of Jammu and Kashmir. The territory of India includes the territories, and other
territories which may be acquired.
The IPC applies to any offence committed:
(a) Within the territory as defined in article 1 (3) of the constitution.
(b) Within the territorial waters of India, and
(c) On any ship or air craft either owned by India or registered in India.
EXEMPTIONS: (persons exempted from operation of IPC)
1. The president of India or the Governor of a State
2. The Chief Justice and other Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts.
3. Foreign sovereign and ambassadors.
4. Warships of foreign states.
5. Alien enemies.
6. Former rulers of the state.
EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION:
Sec. 3 and 4 extend the jurisdiction of Indian Courts beyond the territorial limit of India.
Extra territorial jurisdiction may be exercised by the Indian courts for offences committed
beyond the territories of India either on land or high seas.
1. Citizen of India committing offences outside India:
If a citizen of India commits an offence outside India, then he is punishable under IPC.
Illustration: A, who is a citizen of India, commits a murder in Uganda. He can be tried
and convicted of murder in any place in India in which he may be found.
Non citizen of India committing offences in India: Every person who is within the Indian
Territory is punishable, whether he is an Indian or a foreigner. The citizenship or nationality
of the person is immaterial.
Non citizen of India committing offences outside India:
If a person is not an Indian citizen at the time of committing the offence, he cannot be
tried in India for the offence committed outside and beyond India.
1. Offences committed by Indian citizen partly in India and partly outside India:
If an act constituting an offence is done by an Indian citizen partly in India and partly outside
India, then IPC has jurisdiction to try the offence, if the two acts together constitute an
offence under the code.
2. Extradition:
Extradition is the surrender by one state to another state of a person to be tried or detained
for crimes of which he has been accused or convicted and which are justiciable in the Courts

4
of such other state, In India, the extradition procedure is governed by the extradition act,
1962.
3. Offence is committed in any Indian ship or air craft:
If an offence is committed in any ship or aircraft registered in India, wherever it may be, then
Indian courts have jurisdiction to try such offence.
4. Offences committed on high seas:
The jurisdiction to try offence committed on high seas in known as admiralty jurisdiction.
High seas are considered to be ‘no man’s territory’.
The jurisdiction of a country over its ship on the high seas is based on the principle that the
ship is a floating island belonging to the nation whose flag she is flying.
Offences on Indian ships:
The admiralty jurisdiction extends on Indian ships on the high seas and in rivers below the
bridges, where great ships go and the tide ebbs and flows. Indian ships at a place where the
foreign municipal authorities may have concurrent jurisdiction, are also under the admiralty
jurisdiction of the IPC.
Offences on foreign ships:
Offences committed on a foreign ship within the territorial waters of India are also covered
under the admiralty jurisdiction of the IPC.
In this case, the Indian courts and also the courts of the foreign country whose flag the ship
is flying have concurrent jurisdiction.
Piracy: It means sailing on the seas for private unauthorized use for committing robbery or
actual violence against persons. Pirates attack by sea is without any authority from any
state.
Piracy is of two kinds:
1. Piracy Jure Gentium 2. Piracy by statute of the country.
THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT
Punishment is the suffering in person or property inflicted by the State on the offender under
the established criminal law. The person who violates the rules of the society is inflicted
punishment, in order to maintain peace and order.
The kind and amount of punishment, varies depending on the nature of offence and
personality of the offender. There are five important theories of
Punishments. They are:
1. Deterrent Theory;
2. Retributive Theory;
3. Expiation Theory;
4. Protection or Preventive Theory;

5
5. Reformative Theory.
1. DETERRENTTHEORY:
“Deterrent punishments” means “Severe punishments, intended to prevent the
offender from again committing the crime. The theory of deterrent punishments hopes that
by imposing the severe punishments, the persons will fear and thus abstain from criminal
behaviour. Thus the criminal rate and behaviour are decreased, and the peace shall prevail
in the society.”
This theory says to impose strict and severe punishments depending upon the nature of
offences Capital punishments, forfeiture of the property of the wrong-doer, imprisonment,
etc. are the punishments suggested by this theory. When one criminal is punished seriously
and severely, thee the remaining people of the society will fear to commit such type of
offence.
2. RETRIBUTIVE THEORY:
Retributive Theory says to return the same injury to the wrong-doer which he had committed
against the victim. It says “a tooth for a tooth” and “an eye for an eye”.
Purpose: Retribution is by way of punishment. If A beats B and causes his Left leg-is
broken. This theory says to break A’s left Leg. By this-system, the wrong-doer suffers the
same quantity of injury, suffering and harm which the victim suffered. He realizes in what
criminal act committed against the weak victim, and suffers the same with regret. Such
wrongdoer could not repeat the, same wrongful act, or any other criminal act with the fear of
retribution.
EXPIATION THEORY:
According to Expiation Theory, compensation is awarded to the victim from the wrong doer.
By awarding compensation from the pocket of the wrong doer, he is punished, and is
prevented from doing such offence in his remaining life.
PURPOSE: Generally; in other systems of punishment, the victim is not taken into
consideration. The criminal justice system concentrates only on punishing the criminal. The
Courts are not in a position to point out the aggrievance of the victim or his family members.
They only have the aim to prevent the crimes. They only know to punish the criminals.
Recently by the efforts of the sociologists criminologists, penologists, etc. the criminals are
also not punished severely, and there are certain rehabilitative and reformative steps taken
to reform the criminals. It is a good and welcome measure.
PROTECTION or PREVENTIVE THEORY:
This Theory is based upon he Proverb “Prevention is better than cure.” This Theory says
that to imprison all the criminals and keep them at a long and far distance not connecting
with the society. Thus the society can be prevented from the crimes. Peace will prevail in the
society arid prosperity can be achieved by picking up the criminals, and keeping them within

6
four walls. This theory supports to impose rigorous imprisonment, capital punishment,
banishment, whipping, amputation, stoning, etc.
REFORMATIVE THEORY:
This theory presumes that the adamant and habitual offender can also be changed into a
law-abiding citizen by reformation. According to this theory, crime is a disease. There are
several factors viz, social, economic, physical and psychological, etc. factors creating this
disease. The causing factors are within, the society inherently.
First these causes shall be removed. Then automatically the crimes will be reduced. Criminal
behaviour is also reduced in the society. The modern psycho-analysts, criminologists,
penologists, sociologists, political leaders etc. are behind this modern theory. Gandhiji said:
“Hate the sin, but not sinner.” Entire reformative theory is depended upon this principle.
KINDS OF PUNISHMENTS
Sec.53 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 explains various punishments which can be imposed
on criminals for the various offences described in the code: The following are the kinds of
punishments:
1. Death Penalty. 2. Imprisonment for life
3. Imprisonment (Rigorous, Simple and Solitary) 4. Forfeiture of property
5. Fine
1. DEATH PENALTY: (CAPITAL PUNISHMENT)
It is the extreme penalty under the Indian Penal Code. In the earlier days, it was known
as death sentence and even for offences like theft and forgery, the punishment of death
sentence was awarded. Now, the death sentence is almost abolished and awarded for
offences against the State and in rarest of rare cases, ie., in cases of murder executed in the
cruelest manner.
Death Sentence may be imposed in the following Offences:
1. Waging or attempting to wage war or abetting waging of war against the Government
of India (Sec. 121)
2. Abetting mutiny actually committed (Sec. 132)
3. Giving or fabricating false evidence upon which an innocent person suffers death (Sec.
194)
4. Murder (Sec: 302)
5. Abetment of suicide of a minor, or insane, or intoxicated person (Sec. 305)
6. Attempt to murder by a person if hurt is caused (Sec. 307)
7. Kidnapping for ransom, etc. (Sec. 364-A).
8. Dacoity accompanied with murder (Sec. 369).
2. IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE:

7
 Next to Capital punishment, life imprisonment is a grave punishment. Life imprisonment
can be given for a term not exceeding 14 years. The State can also reduce the period of
punishment due to good conduct, etc. This punishment is given for most of the serious
offences like Murder, Culpable homicide, aggravated forms of grievous hurt, robbery,
dacoity, being a thug, etc.

3. IMPRISONMENT:
Imprisonment is the confinement of a person in a prison by way of punishment. It
need not be in any prescribed place, but in any place. The individual of the person is
curtailed. The punishment varies according to the circumstances, in which the offence is
committed. Imprisonment may be of three types:
a. Simple imprisonment b. Rigorous imprisonment c. Solitary confinement
In simple imprisonment, the punishment is imposed for the lighter offences. Ex., public
servant unlawfully engaging in trade or unlawfully buying or bidding for property (Sec. 168-
169)the offender is subjected only to light work and Secs.172 – 175, defamation (Sec.150)
etc.,
In rigorous imprisonment, there are certain offences described in the I.P.C, for rigorous
imprisonment. Ex., House trespass under sec. 449 of IPC, Fabricating evidence (Sec.194).
The offender is subjected to hard labour like grinding corn, cutting fire wood, etc.
Solitary Confinement: (Limit of solitary confinement)
It is an aggravated form of imprisonment. The convict is imprisoned without any companion
in a separate room. This should not exceed more than three months on the whole and
should not exceed 14 days at a time. It must be imposed at intervals.
The period of solitary confinement is reduced proportionately according to the duration of
imprisonment.
4. Forfeiture of Property:
It is the divestiture of specific property without compensation in consequence of some
default or act of forbidden by law. The Courts may order for forfeiture of property of the
accused in certain occasions. In white collar crimes and where a Government employee or
any other person accumulates black money and black assets, and there is no genuine
answer and proof for such money and properties. The court may award for forfeiture of
property in case of smugglers, goondas, antinational personalities.
4. Fine:

8
It is a financial penalty imposed on the offender, in the case of less serious offences. The
amount of the fine is unlimited but should not be excessive. Fine may be imposed along with
imprisonment for offences like assault, theft, bribery in election, etc.
NEW FORMS OF PUNISHMENT (RELEVANCY OF PUNISHMENTS):
The existing punishments are not wholly relevant to reform the criminal. Such
punishments have more psychological, social and moral impacts on the criminals. The new
forms of punishments are as follows:
1. PUBLIC CENSURE: Censure means warning by the State that in case of recurrence, the
offender will be punished. Censure is often inflicted for offences like white collar crimes,
economic offences, adulteration, etc. The main purpose of censure is that it has more
deterrent effect on the offender due to the social stigma.
2. DISQUALIFICATION TO CONTEST IN ELECTION AND TO HOLD
PUBLIC OFFICE:
The offender is disqualified to hold any public office or/and to contest any public
election for certain period of time. Sec. 8 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951
disqualifies a person convicted of an offence for a period of two years or more to contest an
election for a period, of six years.
3. COMMUNITY SERVICE: Community service is to forced physical labour of the offender
as a punishment for the offence committed by him. The accused is compelled to work in, a
special corrective labour institution in his locality.
4. EXTERNMENT: Here by Court order, the accused is sent out of his place of residence to
a new place for a specified period.
By the change of place, he loses his bad companionship and he is exposed to the
better and crime free environment, which has an impact in changing his criminal character.
This is more applicable to antisocial, hardened and habitual criminals.
5. COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS OF CRIME:
Here, the victim is paid compensation by the offender. In criminal cases, State
through Police takes action and there is no direct remedy to the victim. Section 357 Criminal
Procedure Code, 1973 has empowered the Court to award compensation to the victims of
crimes in very limited cases.
For e.g.: As per Sec. 357 (1) Cr.P.C., the power to award compensation is confined only to
cases where the Court imposes fine and the amount of compensation is also limited to the
fine amount only.
ASSESSMENT OF PUNISHMENT: (Sec. 71)
1. If an offence
I. Is made up of several offences, or
II. If an offence falls under two or more definitions, or

9
 III. If in several acts, one or more of such acts constitute an offence but when combined
constitute a different offence, then the punishment shall be for more than one
offence.
2. If there is more than one punishment, the total punishment should not exceed the
punishment provided for the graver offence.
3. If several offences constitute one offence, the defender cannot, be convicted separately
for two distinct offences.
4. When a single transaction gives rise to several offences, the offender is punishble
separately.
5. If the same facts constitute different offences, an accused cannot be punished at the
same time.
6. When judgment is given that a person is guilty of one of several offences specified in the
judgment, and it is doubtful for which of the offences he is guilty, the offender shall be
punished for the offence for which the lowest punishment is provided, if punishment is
not provided for all the offences.
ENHANCED PUNISHMENT: (Sec.75)
If any person previously convicted for offences relating to Government stamps and
coins or against property punishable with simple or rigorous imprisonment for three years or
more, again commits the same offence punishable as above, he shall be punishable with
imprisonment for life or imprisonment which may extend to ten years.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Capital punishment (death penalty) is the extreme penalty under the Indian Penal
Code. Capital punishment is one of the travesties of the administration of criminal justice in
modern times. There are arguments in favour of the capital punishment, and similarly in the
same level, there are arguments infavour of the abolition of the capital punishment.
India, when two criminals, Chalapathi Rao and Vijayavardhana Rao (in
Chilakalooripeta bus plundering, burning and 32 passengers burning case) were sentenced
to death sentence and it was confirmed by the High Court. On appeal, the Supreme Court
also confirmed the death sentence.
The supporters of capital punishment severely condemned their attitude of basing the
caste or religion basis for the exemption from death sentence is not good for the health of
society. They strongly argue that the punishments should be based upon the serious nature
of offences, but not upon the caste, or religion or birth, etc.
ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT:
The Capital Punishment has been in force from the time immemorial. From the ancient times
to modem times, the majority of the penologists, jurisprudents, justices, politicians: etc.
strongly favoured this punishment. There are several reasons expressed in support of them.

10
1. Deters people and other criminals: By implementing capital punishment on a criminal,
he becomes as a lesson to the remaining people of the society, who shall deter from crimes.
2. Social need: When a person has become dangerous to the society, and is not in a
position to be reformed, and no excuse can be given to his heinous act, it becomes social
need to remove such person.
3. Economic saving: If a criminal is put to capital punishment in stead of keeping him
imprisonment for fife, it saves public money. If a criminal is retained in prison, the State has
to incur huge money on him for his food, accommodation, medicines, and watching.
4. Humanitarian: The painful methods of execution of capital punishments were already
abolished in the majority o the States. The execution of the capital punishment with light
pains and sufferings, viz, hanging, shooting, electric shock, etc. These types are formulated
depending upon humanity. 5. Definite: The capital punishment is definite. The criminal
cannot escape in future and can trouble the society. He is terminated from the world. If he is
kept in prison for life, causing pollution to other soft minded criminals, even his release after
14 years or some years after. The capital punishment avoids all such incidences.
6. It is a moral war: There are certain persons, viz, sadists, sexual perverts, etc., who has
no sensibility or shame to do illegal acts. Moreover they feel proud in doing them. Such
persons rape the children, women, and kill them brutally. Is such criminal entitled to live in
the society? No. Executing capital sentence against such person is a moral war of the
society.
7. Selective Process: Darwin proposed the doctrine of “Struggle for existence”. Capital
punishment is a selective process to eliminate such anti-social elements. For the healthy
existence of a good society
8. It is a legal demand: Generally the principle of punishment is grown up from a legal
demand of the society. Capital punishment is also one of such demands. If a cruel and brutal
minded criminal is not punished, and he is left free to move in the society, it destroys the
very structure of the society. The capital punishment is necessary to eliminate the most
violent law-breakers.
9. Rarest of the rare: The capital punishment is not imposed for every small or big offence.
Only for grave, unpardonable, heinous crimes it is imposed. There are 511 Sections in the
Indian Penal Code defining various offences and prescribed offences. Out of 511 sections,
only less than 10 sections impose capital punishment. In those crimes too, the crime of the
wrong-doer must be proved by the prosecution beyond any doubt to the entire satisfaction to
the High Court and Supreme Court.
ARUMENTS AGAINST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
From the beginning of 20th century, several criminologists, penologists, sociologists,
jurists, politicians, etc. started reformative thinking, and began to argue against the capital

11
2. Mistake of fact is not accepted as a defence plea at all, if the act is penalized by a
statute. For e.g.: Selling of adulterated food/medicines has been made an offence under
the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 and in case of any prosecution, it is of no
defence.
(Sec.77) A judge is not criminally responsible for the harmful consequences of his act while
acting judicially believing in good faith. (Sec.78) Ministerial or Executive officers, if they act in
good faith and legally within their jurisdiction, they are immune from criminal liability.
(Sec.79) Any act done by any person, who by reason of mistake of fact in good faith
believes himself to be justified by law in doing so, is not an offence.
MISTAKE OF LAW / IGNORANCE OF LAW (IGNORANTIA JURIS)
This rule is based on another rule of evidence that “every man is presumed to know
the law” i.e., ignorance of law is not an excuse.
For e.g.: If ‘A’ after killing B says that he does not know that murder is an offence,
then it is not a defence. It is based on the maxim “Ignorantia juris non excusat”.
REASONS:
Austin gives two reasons as to why ignorance of law should not be excused:
1. If ignorance of law is admitted as a ground of exemption from punishment, it would
render the administration of justice very impracticable.
2. In every case, ignorance of law would be alleged by the accused and the Court, in every
case, would be bound to decide the point whether the accused was really ignorant of
law. It would lead to uncertainty in the administration of justice.
Exceptions:
1. If the person has authority to act on behalf of the State in the matter; and
2. If in so acting, he was professing to act as a matter of policy, outside the law, and not as
a matter of right within the law.
DEFENCE OF ACCIDENT: (Sec.80)
DEFINITION:
1. “Accident is unintentional and an unexpected act which no prudent man can foresee”.
2. An accident means an event that occurs without one’s knowledge and beyond one’s
expectation.
3. An accident is an incident that takes place in the ordinary course of events, which no
man of ordinary prudence could expect.
NO CRIMINAL LIABILITY:
Accident is a defence against criminal, liability under the Indian Penal Code.
Sec. 80 reads, “Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and
without any criminal intention or knowledge, in the doing of a lawful act, in a lawful manner
by lawful means with proper care and caution”.

15
ESSENTIALS:
1. The act should be proved to be accident or misfortune. Accident is an event that
happens without one’s foresight or expectation.
For e.g.: A workman throws a raft from the roof where he is working, after giving proper
warning. A passer by heedlessly walks by and is killed. The workman is not responsible
for the death caused.
2. The act must not be done with any criminal intention or knowledge.
3. The act must be done with proper care and caution. For e.g.: . A is at work with a
hatchet. The head flies off and kills a man who is standing nearby. Since A has taken
proper care and caution, his act is excusable.
4. The harmful consequence must be the outcome of lawful act done in a lawful manner by
lawful means. Only then, it is an accident.
D. CASE LAWS:
Shakir Kham Vs. Crown:
A big party of men went out to shoot pigs. A big boar rushed near the accused and so he
fired at the boar, which missed the boar and hit the leg of a person in the party. The death
was held to be caused by accident.
DEFENCE OF NECESSITY (Sec. 81)
ESSENTIALS:
1. The act of necessity must be committed to avoid other harm.
2. The amount of injury or harm done should be proportionate to the harm expected.
3. There should not be any criminal intention.
4. The act must have been done in good faith.
Illustration: A in a great fire, pulls down houses in order to prevent the forest fire from
spreading. He does this in order to save human life and property. So, he is not guilty of any
offence.
Sec. 81 applies under three circumstances:
1. Injury can be done to one person or few persons in order to prevent greater injury to
others.
2. Smaller injury can be done to individuals in order to prevent great injury to themselves.
3. Risky act can be done to save a person from danger.
Illustration: A sees a tiger attacking his friend B. He shoots at the tiger to save B but misses
and kills B. A is not held liable for B’s death.
HOMICIDE UNDER NECESSITY:
Homicide committed under necessity is justified. The necessity is of two kinds:
1. The necessity which is of a private nature. Here, necessity compels a person to his own
defence and safeguard.

16
2. The necessity which relates to the public justice and safety. Here also, the homicide is
justifiable only in self-defence and for the good of the society.
For e.g.: War, Civil war, Suppression of rebellion, Mutiny, etc.
THEFT UNDER NECESSITY:
Sometimes for preserving one’s life, which is a necessity, a person may commit theft.
Here, the defence of necessity gives rise to conflict between the ethical values of life and
property.
Thus, if a starving person steals food for the necessity of preserving his life, then the
question arises whether such person is punishable for the offence of theft or such necessity
of preserving his life is a defence to him.
DEFENCE OF INSANITY /
LEGALLY ABNORMAL PERSONS (Sec. 84)

Sec. 84 I.P.C. reads: ‘Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at the time of
doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or
that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law’.
R Vs. Kader Nasyer Shah, (1896) 23 Cal 604, 607:
The Privy Council held that the following are included in “unsoundness of mind”. The want of
capacity whether temporary or permanent, natural or supervening, whether it arises from
disease, or exists from the time of birth is included in this expression “unsoundness of mind”.
ESSENTIALS OF INSANITY/LEGAL ABNORMALITY:
1. The offence must be committed by a person of unsound mind.
2. He must be incapable of knowing the nature of the act at the time of committing such act.
3. He must be incapable of knowing that his act is contrary to law.
MEDICAL INSANITY AND LEGAL INSANITY / ABNORMALITY: -
Medical insanity need not be legal insanity. Mere unsoundness of mind is sufficient for
medical insanity.
In legal insanity, the insane person should not know what he was doing at the time of
committing the offence.
T.N. Laskhmaiah Vs. State of Karnataka, CDJ 2002 SC 046):
The Supreme Court held that if exception under Section 84 of IPC is claimed, then the Court
has to consider whether, at the time of commission of the offence, the accused, by reason of
unsoundness of mind, was incapable of knowing the nature of the act.
TEST FOR UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND:
1. The person must be of unsound mind at the time of committing the offence.
2. Insanity before or after the commission of the crime, is not a valid defence, because
when the offence was committed, the person was not insane.

17
Lakshman Dagdu Va. Emperor: Lakshman was suffering from high fever. He was annoyed
by his children who were crying. So he killed all of them by cutting their throats. The Court
held that Lakshman was guilty of murder because he failed to prove that he was totally
unconscious of the nature of his act.
DEFENCE OF INTOXICATION: (Drunkenness) (Sec. 85 & 86)
Sec. 85 reads “Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at the time of doing it, is
by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what
is either wrong or contrary to law provided that the thing which intoxicated him was
administered to him without his knowledge or against his knowledge or against his will”.
VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION:
Voluntary drunkenness is not a defence for the commission of a crime, but if he is made
drunk through fraud of others or if he is ignorant or if he is administered against his will, then
his act is treated as in the case of unsoundness of mind.
Director of Public Prosecution Vs. Beard:
A girl of thirteen years was going to market and the accused was a watchman on
duty. When the girl passed by, he attempted to commit rape, but the girl struggled. In an
effort to close her mouth, he unintentionally killed her. The accused was convicted for
murder, though he was drunk at that time.
Principles laid down from the above case:
1) If a person is so drunk that he is incapable of forming the intention required to commit
the particular crime, then he cannot be convicted of that crime unless his intention was
proved. This does not mean that drunkenness is in itself an excuse.
2) Insanity, whether produced by drunkenness or otherwise, is a defence to the crime
charged.
3) In order to determine whether the accused had the intention essential to constitute the
crime, evidence of drunkenness which renders the accused incapable of forming the
specific intent must be considered.
PRINCIPLES REGARDING LAW RELATING TO INTOXICATION (VOLUNTARY
INTOXICATION):
1. Drunkenness caused without one’s knowing or against one’s will is an excuse.
2. Voluntary drunkenness is a complete excuse in crimes requiring the presence of an
‘intention’ to complete a crime.
3. Voluntary drunkenness is not an excuse for a crime which requires knowledge as distinct
from intention.
DEFENCE OF CONSENT (Sec. 87 to 94)
Consent means ‘to agree to a thing being done’, is thus a positive act; act of an assent of the
mind and is different from mere submission.

18
Sec.87 reads “Nothing is an offence which is not intended to cause death or grievous hurt, if
the person to whom such hurt is caused being above the age of eighteen years has
expressly or impliedly consented to suffer harm, or to take the risk of any harm”.
(Sec. 88) The act done must be in good faith for the benefit of the persons who have given
such consent.
E.g.: A, a surgeon, knowing that a particular operation is likely to cause the death of Z in
good faith and for Z’s benefit, and not intending to cause Z’ s death performs operation on Z,
with Z’s consent. A has committed no offence.
Essentials of Sec. 88:
1. The act done must be for the benefit of the person who suffers injury. Mere pecuniary
benefit is not considered as ‘benefit’ mentioned above.
2. The person who suffers the harm should consent to take the risk of suffering harm. It
should le a lawful consent and the person giving consent must be capable of giving
consent.
Sec. 89 extends the operation of consent to persons under 12 years of age and persons of
unsound mind. For these persons, the guardians alone can give consent.
Such consent must be given in good faith and for the benefit of the child or insane
person. Here, both the persons causing unintentional harm and the guardian who has given
consent are not punishable.
Exceptions: In the following cases, the guardian’s consent is not valid:
1. The consent of the guardian for intentional causing of death is not valid.
2. The consent of a guardian in case of a minor for acts intending to cause death or
grievous hurt is not valid
3. The consent of a guardian is invalid if it amounts to abetment of any offence. The act
must be in good faith.
E.g.: A in good faith, for his child’s benefit without his child’s consent, has the child
operated by a surgeon. The child dies, but since A did not intend causing the death of the
child, A is within this exception.
Sec.90 says that if consent is given under fear or injury or misconception of fact, then it is
not a valid consent. Consent in criminal cases in not vitiated by undue influence, fraud,
mistake, etc.
For e.g.: If a man persuades a woman to have sexual intercourse with him under the
false promise of payment of money, then he is punished for rape because the consent is
valid though it is obtained by fraud.
CONSENT BY INSANE PERSON: If consent is given by a person of unsound mind, or an
intoxicated person; who is unable to understand the nature and consequences of his
consent, it is not a valid consent.

19
CONSENT OF A CHILD: Consent given by a child under 12 years is not valid. The
following are not free consent:
1. Consent given by a person under fear of injury.
2. Consent given under misconception of fact.
3. Consent given by a child under 12 years of age.
4. Consent by a person of unsound mind.
5. Consent by an intoxicated person.
In Re Poonai Fatemah:
The accused was a snake charmer. He persuaded the deceased to allow himself to
be bitten by a poisonous snake. He induced the public to believe, that he had the power to
protect them from snake poison.
The Court held that the accused was punishable for murder because the consent
was given in consequence of misconception.
IMPLIED AND INFERRED CONSENT: (Sec. 92)
Sometimes, the person who has to give consent may not be in a position to give consent. If
any harm is caused in good faith for him, without his consent, it is not punishable, provided
the following conditions are satisfied:
a. The harm caused must; be for the benefit of the injured person.
b. The injured person must be incapable of giving consent For e.g., lunatic or infant.
c. The consent of the guardian of the injured person cannot be obtained in time.
DURESS AND NECESSITY: (Sec. 94)
Duress is known as compulsion or threats. Sec. 94 speaks about acts to which a person is
compelled to do by threats.
Except the offence of murder and offences against the State punishable with death, it is not
an offence if a person is compelled to commit illegal acts by threats, which at the time of
doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension, that if he does not commit such acts, he will be
put to instant death.
DEFENCE OF RIGHT OR PRIVATE DEFENCE (Sec. 96 to 106)
As per these provisions, a man can use necessary force against an assailant or a wrong
doer for the purpose of protecting his own body and property and also another man’s body
and property, when immediate aid or help from the State (Police) is not readily available.
Self help is the basic rule of criminal law. The right of private defence is absolutely
necessary for the protection of one’s life, liberty and property.
Sec. 96. IPC reads, “Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of
private defence”.
This law of private defence is based on two important principles -

20
1. Everyone has the right to defend his own body and property and also another’s body and
property.
2. This right, however, cannot be applied as pretence for justifying aggression for causing
harm to another person.
Section 97 provides that subject to the restrictions contained in Section 99, every man has a
right to defend.
1. His own body and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human
body.
2. His property, and the property of any other person, whether moveable or immoveable
against theft,
3. Robbery, mischief, or criminal trespass or an attempt to commit any one of these
offences.
RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE OF TRESPASSER AGAINST TRUE OWNER:
1. A true owner has every right to dispossess or throw out a trespasser.
2. Such right against the trespasser is available both during the process of trespassing and
also after the trespass is complete.
3. If the trespasser has proved his right to possession, then the true owner can dispossess
the trespasser only by seeking civil law remedies.
4. The burden of proof is on the person who exercises the right of private defence. The
right of private defence is purely preventive and not punitive or retributive.
5. Further, to exercise the right of defence to person or property, the accused must prove
that he was placed in such a dangerous situation that he has to protect himself and that
he had to use reasonable force.
6. The accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt, if the Court is in doubt whether or not the
accused has been able to prove completely the dangerous situation.
7. The right of private defence does not authorize a person to act with aggression, but it
encourages him to help himself and others, if there is a reasonable apprehension of
danger to his/others life and property.
RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE AGAINST THE ACT OF A PERSON OF UNSOUND
MIND, ETC.: (Sec. 98)
According to Sec. 98, private defence can be exercised against any aggressor, whether
competent or incompetent, sane or insane, or acting under any misconception, and it does
not depend upon their mental
Examples:
1. Z, an insane person attempts to kill A. Z is not guilty of any offence. But even here, A can
have the right of private defence.
(Sec. 99) There is no private defence in the following cases:

21
1. If the act is done by a public servant in good faith and not to the extent of causing death
or grievous hurt, then a person cannot have the right of private defence against the
public servant.
2. There is no private defence of body, if sufficient time is available to report the act to
public authorities and get their help.
3. The private defence should not be excessive. A person should not cause harm than
necessary. The harm should be proportionate to the harm expected from the other
person.
4. There is no private defence against a public servant, if he knows or has reason to
believe that he is a public servant.
5. There is no private defence of body against acts done by third persons under the
directions and authority of public servants.
JOINT LIABILITY / CONSTRICTIVE LIABILITY or
LAW RELATING TO JOINT OFFENDERS (Sec.34 to 38)
When an act punishable by law is committed jointly by two or more persons, all of
them are punishable for such act. It is because the act is done in furtherance of common
intention
ACT DONE IN FURTHERANCE OF COMMON INTENTION (Sec. 34):
If a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of common intention, then
each person is liable for the criminal act. It is considered as if the criminal act was done only
by him.
Even if one person does the criminal act, and others only assist him in doing it, they are
all held liable, as they have acted with a common intention.
DOCTRINE OF JOINT LIABILITY:
Sec. 34 incorporates the principle of joint liability laid down in the case of Reg Vs. Cruse. A
police head constable along with other constables went to A’s house to arrest him. On
seeing the police constables, B, C, D and others came out of the house and beat the police
head constable and drove him off along with his assistants.
The Court held that each of the members of the group B, C and D were equally liable for
the beating, even though only one of them actually gave the beating Act.
ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF COMMON INTENTION:
The following are the essentials:
a. A criminal act must be done by several persons.
b. There should be a common intention.
c. The act done must be in furtherance of the common intention

22
2. ABETMENT BY CONSPIRACY:
Criminal conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do an illegal act or a
legal act by illegal means.
When two or more person agrees to commit abetment, then it is called abetment by
conspiracy. Such abetment must be for doing an illegal act.
Gurbachan Singh Vs. Salpal Singh:The husband quarreled with his wife every day
demanding more dowries. One day when the wife said that death would have been a relief
for her, he had said hat if she died that day itself it would be better. She committed suicide
by fire. The husband was guilty of abetment of suicide by instigation.
ABETMENT BY INTENTION AID:
Here, abetment is done by aiding. The aid may be by commission or omission of an act.
E.g.: Giving weapons while a person is quarreling.
Illustration: A and B plan to murder V by poisoning him. A procures the poison and gives it
to B. B administers the poison to V in A’s absence, and V dies. B is liable directly for the
murder whereas A is liable as an abettor.
ABETMENT BY ILLEGAL OMISSION:
When a Public servant omits to do his duty and hereby aids in commission of an offence, it is
aiding by illegal omission.
ABETMENT OF AN ABETMENT:
Abetment of an offence is an offence. So, the abetment of such abetment is also offence.
Illustration: A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z. Here A and B are abettors for the
murder and liable for the same punishment.
PUNISHMENT FOR ABETMENT:
(Sec. 110) If there is variation between the abettor and the person abetted both in intention
and knowledge, the punishment is the same for both the abettor and the person abetted.
(Sec. 115) If any person abets the commission of an offence punishable with death or life
imprisonment, and if the offence is not committed, then the punishment is imprisonment up
to seven years and also fine
(Sec. 116) If any person abets the commission of an offence punishable with imprisonment,
and if the offence is not committed, then the abettor is punishable with imprisonment up to
1/4 of the maximum term prescribed for that offence of fine or both.
Sec. 117: Abetment of an offence committed by the general public or more than 10 persons
is punishable with imprisonment for 3 years or fine or both.
Sec. 119: If any public servant who has duty to prevent the commission of an offence,
conceals by any act or illegal omission the existence of a design to commit such offence,
then he is punishable with

25
 I. 1/2 of the term of imprisonment prescribed for the offence if it is committed.
II. Imprisonment for 10 years if the offence is punishable with death or life
imprisonment.
III. Imprisonment for 1/4 of the term prescribed for the offence, if it is not committed.
Sec. 120: If any person voluntarily conceals the existence of a design to commit an offence
punishable with imprisonment, then he is punishable with 1/4 of the term of imprisonment
prescribed for the offence, if the offence is committed. 1/8 of the term and fine, if the offence
is rot committed.
CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY: (Sec. 120A & 120B)
Criminal conspiracy is dealt under the Indian Penal Code in four forms:
1. As a substantive offence (Sec. 120-A)
2. As abetment by criminal conspiracy (Sec. 107)
3. Conspiracy to wage, attempt or bet waging of war against the Government of India (Sec.
121-A)
4. Conspiracy in offences such as assembling for committing dacoity.
ESSENTIALS:
1. An agreement between two or more persons:
One person alone cannot be convicted for the offence of criminal conspiracy There
should be more than one person to agree to commit are illegal act.
If one person is acquitted then all the others should also be acquitted. There must ‘be an
agreement between the accused to commit the illegal act.
2. To do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means:
An agreement to do a legal act by legal means is not punishable. The conspiracy should
be to do an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means.
Assassination of Mrs. Indira Gandhi Case:
One of the two actual killers and two conspirators were tried. One of the conspirators
away from the scene of the crime was acquitted as his movements showed that there was
no agreement between him and the other accused.
But the other conspirator was associated with the actual killers and was planning
something secret. This constituted prima facie evidence of Conspiracy. All of them were
punished for the crime.
State (CBI/SIT) Vs. Nalini (Rajiv Gandhi murder case):
The Supreme Court held that an agreement between two or more persons to do an
illegal .act amounts to criminal Conspiracy.
The illegal act may or may not be done in pursuance of agreement but the very
agreement is an offence and is punishable.

26
PUNISHMENT FOR CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY: (Sec. 120-B)
When a person is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with
death or imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment of two years or upwards.
When a person is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to
commit an offence punishable as aforesaid, then he is punished with imprisonment up to six
months or fine or both.
OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE (SEDITION) (Sec. 121 to 130)
The following are the offences against the State:
1) Waging, attempting or conspiring to wage, collecting men and arms, etc, towage war
against the Government of India (Sec. 121 to 123)
2) Assaulting high officers with intention to compel or restrain the exercise of any unlawful
power (Sec. 124)
3) Sedition (Sec. 124-A)
4) War against any Asiatic power in alliance with the Government, Committing depredation
on territories of power at peace with the Government receiving property taken by war or
depredation mentioned in Sec. 125 & 126 (Sec. 125 to 128)
5) Permitting, aiding or negligently suffering the escape of, or rescuing or harbouring a
State prisoner (Sec. 128 to 130)
(Sec. 121) If any person/s wages war against the Government of India, or attempts to wage
such war, or abets to wage such war, then he is punished with death or imprisonment for life
and is also liable to fine.
For e.g.: If A joins an revolt against the Government of India, then he has committed the
offence under Sec. 121.
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT OFFENCE PUNISHABLE BY SECTION 121 (Sec. 121-A)
COLLECTING ARMS, WITH INTENT OF WAGING WAR AGAINST GOVERNMENT OF
INDIA (Sec. 122)
1. The accused must collect men, arms or ammunition etc.
2. Such act must be with intention to wage war against the Government of India.
3. The punishment for this offence is imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years and
fine.
CONCEALING WITH INTENT TO FACILITATE DESIGN TO WAGE WAR (Sec. 123)
1. There should be a design to wage war against the Government of India.
2. The accused must have knowledge of such designs.
ASSAULTING PRESIDENT GOVERNOR ETC., WITH INTENT TO COMPEL OR
RESTRAIN EXERCISE OF ANY LAWFUL POWER (Sec. 124)

27
1. The accused must have a. committed assault or attempted to commit assault or b.
Wrongful restraint or attempt to restrain, or Use criminal force. The punishment for this
offence is imprisonment up to seven years and fine.
SEDITION (Sec. 124-A)
Bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or Contempt or exciting or attempting to excite
disaffection towards the Government of India.
Such act must be done by spoken words or written words or signs or visible representations.
The punishment for this offence is imprisonment up to three years or fine or both.
WAGING WAR AGAINST ANY ASIATIC POWER IN ALLIANCE WITH THE
GOVERNMENT (Sec. 125). The punishment is imprisonment up to seven years and fine or
both.
COMMITTING DEPREDATION ON TERRITORIES OF POWER AT PEACE WITH THE
GOVERNMENT (Sec.126) The punishment is imprisonment up to seven years and fine or
forfeiture of the property used or intended to be used in committing such depredation, or
acquired by such depredation.
RECEIVING PROPERTY TAKEN BY WAR OR DEPREDATION MENTIONED IN SECTION
125 & 126 (Sec. 127)
1. The accused must have obtained the property by waging war against an Asiatic power in
alliance with the Government of India or by depredation in such territories.
2. The punishment for the offence is imprisonment up to seven years and fine and forfeiture
of property so received.
PUBLIC SERVANT VOLUNTARILY ALLOWING PRISIONER OF STATE OR OF WAR TO
ESCAPE (Sec. 128)
1. The accused must be a public servant.
2. The accused must have had the custody of the prisoner.
3. The prisoner must be a State prisoner or prisoner of war.
4. The accused must have voluntarily allowed the prisoner to escape.
5. The prisoner must have escaped from the place where he was confined.
6. The punishment is imprisonment for life or ten years and fine.
PUBLIC SERVANT NEGLIGENTLY ALLOWING PRISONER TO ESCAPE (Sec. 129). The
punishment for this offence is simple imprisonment up to three years and fine.
AIDING ESCAPE OF RESCUING OR HARBOURING PRISONER (OFFENDER). (Sec.
130) The punishment is imprisonment for ten years and fine.
OFFENCES AGAINST THE PUBLIC TRANQUILITY
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY (Sec. 141 to 160)
UNLAWFUL ASEMBLY: (Sec. 141)

28
 It consists of five or more persons assembled to execute the common object of the
assembly as specified in this section.
Essentials:
1. The assembly should have five or more persons.
2. They should have a common object for execution of which they have assembled.
3. The common object must be one among the five given below
a To overawe by criminal force the Central or State Government or the Legislature or
any public servant.
b To resist the execution of law or legal process. E.g.: Resistance offered to a court
Amina in the execution of a Court decree.
c Commission of any mischief, criminal trespass or other offence.
d To take of any property or to deprive any person of any incorporeal right or to enforce
any right by criminal force.
e To compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do or to omit what he is
legally entitled to do, by criminal force.
For e.g.: An assembly may be lawful when it is assembled, but may subsequently
become an unlawful assembly.
(Sec. 143)The punishment for being a member of an unlawful assembly is imprisonment for
a term which may extend to six months or fine or with both.
Sec: 144 says that, if any person armed with deadly weapon or anything which used as a
weapon of offence likely to cause death, is a member of an unlawful assembly. He is
punishable with imprisonment up to two years or fine or both.
RIOTING: (Sec. 146) The offence of rioting is committed when force or violence is used by
member of an Unlawful assembly.
Unlawful Assembly + Violence = Rioting
The punishment for rioting is imprisonment for a term of two years or fine or both.
AFFRAY: (Sec. 159)
When two or more persons, by fighting in a public place disturb the public peace, they are
said to commit Affray. The punishment may be imprisonment for one month or fine.

OFFENCES BY OR RELATING TO PUBLIC SERVANTS

(Sec. 161 to 171)
OFFENCES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC SERVANTS UNDER SECTION 7 TO 12 OF
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988
(Sec. 7 OF P.C.A.): If a public servant accepts or agrees to accept or attempts to accept any
gratification other than legal remuneration (salary) as a motive or reward for doing or
forbearing to do any official act or favour or disfavour to any person in exercise of his official

29
functions then he is punishable with not less than 6 months and up to 5 years imprisonment
with fine.
(Sec. 8): If any person accepts or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain from any person,
for himself or for any other person, any gratification as a motive or reward for inducing, by
corrupt or illegal means, then he is punishable with imprisonment not less than six months
but up to five years and fine.
(Sec. 9): If any person accepts or agrees to accept, or attempts to obtain, from any person,
for himself or for any other person, any gratification as a motive or reward for inducing, by
the exercise of personal influence, then he is punishable with imprisonment not less than six
months but up to five years and fine.
(Sec. 11): If any public servant, accepts or obtains any valuable thing, without consideration
from person concerned in proceeding or business transacted by such public servant then he
is punishable with imprisonment not less than six months but up to five rears and fine.
OFFENCES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC SERVANTS UNDER SEC. 166,167,168 & 169 OF
IPC.
(Sec.166): Any public servant knowingly disobeying law with intent to cause injury to any
person is punishable with simple imprisonment up to one year or fine or both.
(Sec. 167): Any public servant knowingly framing, preparing any incorrect document or
electronic record with intent to cause injury to any person is punishable with imprisonment
up to three years or fine or both.
(Sec. 168) If any public servant engages unlawfully in trade,he is punishable with simple
imprisonment up to one year or fine or both.
(Sec. 169): If any public servant unlawfully buys or bids for property in his name or in the
name of another, he is punishable with simple imprisonment for 2 years or fine or both.
OFFENCES RELATING TO COINS AND GOVERNMENT STAMPS
(Sec. 230 to 263-A)
OFFENCES RELATING TO COINS (Sec. 230 to 254)
The offences relating to coins are divided into three heads:
1) Counterfeiting (Sec. 231 to 243)
2) Act of mint employees (Sec. 244 to 245)
3) Alteration
(Sec. 231): If any person counterfeits or knowingly performs part of counterfeiting coin is
punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years and fine.
(Sec. 232): Any one who counterfeits or knowingly performs any part of the process of
counterfeiting Indian coin is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years and fine.

30
(Sec. 233): Any person who makes or performs any part of making or mending, or buy, sells
or disposes of, dye or instruments for using for counterfeiting coin is punishable with
imprisonment up to 3 years and fine.
(Sec. 234): If any person is in possession of any instrument or material for using it for
counterfeiting coin is punishable with imprisonment up to 7 years and fine.
(Sec. 235): Any person who is in possession of any instrument for counterfeiting coin is
punishable imprisonment up to 3 years and fine and if it is for counterfeiting Indian coin, then
the punishment is imprisonment up to ten years and fine.
(Sec. 236): If any person abets the counterfeiting of coin out of India is punishable with,
imprisonment up to 3 years and fine.
(Sec. 237): Any person who imports into India or exports there from any counterfeit coin is
punishable with imprisonment up to 3 years or fine.
(Sec. 238): Any person who imports into India or exports there from any counterfeit of
Indian coin is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years or fine.
(Sec. 239): If any person delivers any coin knowing that it is counterfeit so that fraud may
be committed or attempts to induce any person to receive, then it is punishable with
imprisonment up to 5 years and also Line.
(Sec. 240): If any person delivers an Indian coin knowing that it is counterfeit so that fraud
may be committed or attempts to induce any person to receive, then it is punishable with
imprisonment up to 10 years and also fine.
(Sec. 241): If any person delivers to any other person as genuine or attempts to induce any
other person to receive as genuine any counterfeit coin which he knows to be counterfeit,
but which he did not know to be counterfeit is punishable with imprisonment up to 2 years or
fine up to 10 times of the value of the coin counterfeited or both.
(Sec. 242): In the above provision, if the person knows that it is counterfeit at the time of
possession and continues to possess the same, he is punishable with imprisonment up to 3
years and fine.
(Sec. 243): In the above provision, if the counterfeit coin is an Indian one then the
punishment up to 7 years imprisonment and fine.
II. ALTERATION (Sec. 246 to 254)
(Sec. 246): Fraudulently or dishonestly diminishing weight or altering composition of coin is
punishable with imprisonment up to three years and fine.
(Sec. 247): In the above provision, if the diminishing of weight or alteration relates to Indian
coin, the punishment is imprisonment up to seven years and fine.
(Sec. 248): Altering appearance of coin with intention that it pass as coin of different
description is punishable imprisonment up to three years and fine.

31
(Sec. 249): In the above provision, if the alteration of appearance is relating to Indian coin,
so that it may pass as coin of different description, the punishment is imprisonment up to
seven years and fine.
(Sec. 250): Delivery of coin with knowledge that it is altered and with intention that fraud may
be committed, delivers the same to any other person or attempts to include any other person
to receive the same, he is punishable with imprisonment up to five years and fine.
(Sec. 251): Delivery of Indian coin as in the above provision is punishable with imprisonment
up to ten years and fine.
(Sec. 252): Fraudulently possessing coin by person with knowledge that it is altered at the
time when he possessed it is punishable with imprisonment up to three years and fine.
(Sec. 253): In the above provision, if the coin is an Indian one, then the punishment is
imprisonment up to five years and fine.
(Sec. 254): Any person delivering a coin as genuine, which when first possessed, he did not
know that it is altered, is punishable with imprisonment up to two years or fine up to 10 times
of the value of the coin for which the altered coin is passed or attempted to be
[Link] RELATING TO GOVERNMENT STAMPS:
(Sec. 255 to 263-A)
COUNTERFEITING GOVERNMENT STAMP: (Sec. 255)
Counterfeiting or performing any part of the process of Counterfeiting, any Government
Stamp, is punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment up to ten years and fine.
(Sec. 256): Possessing instrument or material for counterfeiting Government Stamps issued
by the Government is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and fine.
(Sec. 257): Making or selling instrument for counterfeiting Government stamp is punishable
with imprisonment up to seven years and fine.
(Sec. 258): Any person selling Counterfeit Government stamp or offering for sale which he
knows to be Counterfeit Government Stamp is punishable with imprisonment up to seven
years and fine.
(Sec. 259): Any person in possession of Counterfeit Government Stamp, intending to use or
dispose of the same as genuine stamp is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years
and fine.
(Sec. 260): Using as genuine, a Government Stamp known to be counterfeit is punishable
with imprisonment up to seven years or fine or both.
(Sec. 261): If any person, fraudulently or with intention to cause loss to the Government
removes or effaces from any substances, bearing any Government Stamp, or remove from
any document used for it, then he is punishable with imprisonment up to three years or fine
or both.

32
(Sec. 262): Using Government Stamp which has been already used with intention to cause
loss to the Government is punishable with imprisonment up to two years or fine or both.
(Sec. 263): If any person erases any mark put or impressed upon any Government Stamp
which denotes that it has been used, or possesses such erased stamps and if he knowingly
sells or disposes of such stamps, then he is punishable with imprisonment up to three years
fine or both.
(Sec. 263.A) : Any person making, dealing, selling any fictitious stamps, or has in his
possession fictitious stamps without lawful excuse, or make or has any dye, plate,
instrument etc., for making fictitious [Link] punishable with fine up to Rs. 200/-.

33
 UNIT – III
OFFENCES AFFECTING HUMAN BODY (Sec. 299 to 377)
HOMICIDE: Homicide is killing of human being by another human being. It is considered to
be the greatest injury that one can cause to another.
EXCUSABLE HOMICIDE:
1. When death is caused by an accident, it is excusable.
2. Death caused by a person of unsound mind, intoxicated or an infant (below 7 years) is
also excusable.
JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE: If death is caused by a person who is bound by law or who by
mistake of fact believes himself to be bound by law, it is not an offence. E.g.: A, a soldier fire
into a mob by the order of his Superior Officer in conformity with the, commands of the law.
B, C & D) in the mob are killed. A has committed no offence.
UNLAWFUL HOMICIDE: If the killing is not legally justified, then a person is liable for
punishment under the Indian Penal Code. For e.g. Even if an alien enemy is killed when
there is no war with the alien nation, such killing is punishable.
CLASSIFICATIONS OF UNLAWFUL HOMICIDE:
1) Murder (Sec. 300 & 302)
2) Death by negligence (Sec. 304-A)
3) Dowry death (Sec. 304-B)
4) Abetment of suicide and attempt to commit suicide (Sec. 305, 306 and 309)
5) Attempt to murder and attempt to commit culpable homicide (Sec. 307 and 308)
CULPABLE HOMICIDE: (Sec. 299)
Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death or with the
intention of causing such bodily injured as is likely to cause death or with this knowledge that
he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.
ESSENTIALS:
1) Causing of death
2) By doing an act.
3) The act of causing death must be done a) With the intention of causing death b) With
the, intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the
knowledge that such act is likely to cause death.
CAUSING DEATH: To hold a person liable for culpable homicide, there must be causing of
death of a human being as per Sec. 46 of IPC (i;e., death denotes the death of human
being).
It is sufficient if the death of the human being is caused whether such person was
intended to be killed or not i.e., death may be attempted at one person, but the result may be
death of a different person. Still it amounts to offence of culpable homicide.

34
Illustrations: A abets B to poison A’s mother. B obtains poison from A and gives it to A’s
mother by mixing it in milk. A’s mother gives the milk to the child of B, not knowing that it
contains poison. The child drinks the milk and dies. Now, the act of A amounts to culpable
homicide by B, though both A and B never intended to kill B’s child (Sec. 301 I.P.C.)
BY DOING AN ACT: Death must be caused by doing or committing an act. Thus death may
be caused by many ways like poisoning, starving, striking, drowning or communicating some
shocking news etc., The term ‘doing an act’ includes ‘illegal omission’ also.
For e.g.: If a child who has a claim over his parents is starved to death by omission to
supply him food, then it amounts to the commission of the offence of culpable homicide.
PUNISHMENT FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE: (SEC. 304)
Any person committing the offence of culpable homicide shall be punishable with
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for 10 years and Fine.
In the case of death caused with intention of causing death or causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death or with imprisonment for 10 years or fine or both if death is
caused with the knowledge that his act is likely to cause death or to cause such bodily injury
as is likely to cause death.
PROOF OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE:
The following proofs are required for convicting a person for the offence of culpable
homicide.
1. There should be the death of the victim.
2. Such death must have been by the act of the accused.
3. The accused must have caused death in any of the three ways
a. Intentional causing of death.
b. Intentional causing of such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
c. With knowledge that his act would cause death.
MURDER or
CULPABLE HOMICIDE AMOUNTING TO MURDER (Sec. 300)
Murder is dealt with under Sec. 300 of the I.P.C. The Section lays down the
circumstances under which culpable homicide amounts to murder.
Culpable homicide amounts to murder because of a relatively higher degree of mental
intention to cause the death of the victim. The punishment for murder is death or life
imprisonment and fine.
ESSENTIALS:
Death must be caused with the following requirements to constitute the offence of murder
(culpable homicide amounting to murder):
1) Causing death with the intention of causing death.

35
2) Causing death with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to
be likely to cause death.
3) Causing death with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death.
4) The person committing the act knows that his act is so imminently dangerous that it
must, in all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
1. Causing death with intention to cause death:
In murder, the intention of causing death is more than the intention of causing death in
culpable homicide. It is inferred when the other three clauses of Sec. 300 are read together
along with this clause.
Illustrations: A shoots Z through his head, with the intention of killing him. Z dies in
consequence. A has committed murder.
R Vs. Venkalu: The deceased was sleeping in a cottage. The accused set fire to the cottage
after locking it from outside, so that the servants of the deceased who were sleeping outside
could not help the deceased.
This showed clear intention to cause death of the deceased and hence he was convicted of
murder under Sec. 300.
2. Causing bodily injury which the offender knows to be likely to cause death:
It applies to cases where the injured person is in such condition or state of health that
his death would be likely to be caused by an injury which would not ordinarily cause the
death of a person in sound health.
Illustration: A is suffering from an enlarged spleen. Z, knowing that A is labouring under
such a disease and a kick is likely to cause his death, strikes him in the stomach, as a result
of which, the spleen is ruptured and A dies. Z is guilty of murder.
R Vs. Hukunt Singh: Dacoits fired indiscriminately at people who tried to catch them. One
of them died from the gun shot. The dacoits were guilty of murder.
Death by poisoning:
In the case of murder caused by poisoning, the following must be proved:
a That the death is due to poisoning.
b That the accused must have had the poison in his possession.
c That the accused must have the opportunity to give the poison to the deceased.
3. Inflicting bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course to cause death:
Under Sec. 299, the words - ‘Bodily injury likely to cause death’ is used and under Sec.
300, the words ‘Bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death’ is
used.
The framers of IPC have used the above words to indicate the higher degree of
probability of death in the case of murder under Sec. 300.

36
R Vs. Virsa Singh, AIR 1958 SC 465:
The Supreme Court held that to punish a person under Sec.302 or Sec. 304, it must be
proved that there must be an intention to inflict the particular bodily injury actually found to
be present.
4. With the knowledge of doing an act which is so Imminently dangerous:
Here, if the accused has knowledge that his act is imminently dangerous that it must, in
all probability cause death, then the accused is punishable for the offence of murder.
Illustration:
A, without any excuse, fires a loaded gun into a crowd of persons and kills one of them.
A is guilty of murder although he had no preplan to kill anyone particularly.
a. R Vs. Kanhai:
The deceased who was defenceless was attacked by four persons who were armed
with heavy sticks. They gave severe blows to the accused for a very long time, thereby
completely smashing the skull. The Court held that all of them were guilty of murder under
this clause.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER
CULPABLE HOMICIDE Sec.299 MURDER Sec. 300
1. It has no special characteristics of 1. It has special characteristics of
murder. It is genus. murder. It is specie.
2. It is called the culpable homicide of 2. It is the gravest form of culpable
first degree of intention. homicide - culpable homicide of the
3. A person commits culpable homicide, second degree.
if the act by which the death is 3. A person commits murder (subject to
caused is done. certain exceptions) if the act by which
a. With the intention of causing death. death is caused is done
b. With the intention of using such bodily a. With the intention of causing death.
injury as is likely to cause death (Here, b. With the intention of causing such
there is only intention and no bodily injury as the offender knows
knowledge). (knowledge) to be likely to cause death.
4. With the knowledge that the act is c. With the intention of causing bodily
likely to cause death. injury to any person as it is sufficient in
5. The punishment for culpable homicide the ordinary course of nature to cause
is imprisonment for life or imprisonment death.
up to ten years and fine, if the offence
committed is under clause (1) and (2) of 4. With the knowledge that the act is so
Sec. 299. imminently dangerous.
If the offence committed is under clause 5. The punishment for murder is death

37
(3) of Sec. 299, the punishment is up to sentence or imprisonment for life and
ten years or fine or both fine.
CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER or
EXCEPTIONS TO MURDER or
MURDER REDUCED TO CULPABLE HOMICIDE.
Sec.300 has got five exceptions. In these exceptions, murder is reduced to culpable
homicide. The 5 exceptions to murder are:
1) Grave and sudden provocation
2) Exceeding the right of private defence
3) Public servant exceeding his power
4) Death caused by sudden fight
5) Consent
In all these cases, though the offence committed is actually ‘murder’, because of the
presence of certain extenuating circumstances in the commission of the offence, the law
takes a lenient view and convicts the accused with a reduced punishment.
1. GRAVE AND SUDDEN PROVOCATION:
Due to sudden and grave provocation, if the offender loses his control and causes the death
of the person who gave the provocation or any other person by mistake or accident, then it is
not murder, but it is reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
ESSENTIALS:
1. The accused must be deprived of the power of self control.
2. The death should be caused only out of grave and sudden provocation.
3. The person who caused provocation must be killed or any other person by mistake or
accident must be killed.
4. There is no provision against provocation by a public servant who acts in the lawful
exercise of power.
5. There is no provision for provocation against anything done in obedience of law.
6. There is no provision for provocation by anything done in the lawful exercise of private
defence.
7. Whether the provocation was grave and sudden is a question of fact, and it is decided by
nature and circumstances of each case.
8. The act of causing death must have been committed before the excitement due to
provocation has subsided. If there was time to cool down from the excitement, then the
offence committed is ‘murder’ only and not ‘culpable homicide not amounting to murder’.

38
 DOWRY DEATH (Sec. 304-B)
If the death of woman is caused by any burn or bodily injury or occurs under any
abnormal circumstances within seven years of her marriage; and if it is shown that soon
before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative
of her husband in connection with demand for dowry, such death is called “Dowry Death”.
Such husband or relative is deemed to have caused her death. The punishment for
causing dowry death is imprisonment for seven years which may extend to life.
ESSENTIALS (PRESUMPTION OF DOWRY DEATH):
1. Death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury otherwise than under
normal circumstances.
2. Such death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage.
3. There should be cruelty to the woman by the husband or any relative of the husband.
4. Cruelty or harassment must be in connection with demand for dowry.
CRUELTY: The term ‘cruelty’ means any willful and intentional conduct. It is of such a nature
as is likely to drive a woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to her life,
body, etc.
Cruelty or harassment should have been meted out to the woman before her death.
Cruelty thus includes both physical and mental torture. Cruelty and harassment are used in
dowry demands.
For e.g.: Demands like scooter, fridge, jewels, money, etc., made soon after the
marriage by the husband and/or his relatives to the wife and/or her parents.
DOWRY: The term ‘dowry’ is defined in Sec. 2 (1) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 28 of 1961.
It states that ‘dowry’ means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given
either directly or indirectly -
1. By one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or
2. By the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to the either party to the
marriage or to any other person at or before or any time after the marriage, but it does not
include dower or mahar under the Muslim Personal (Shariat) Laws.
Pad Maben Shamalbhal Patel Vs. State: The deceased expressed in her dying declaration
that her husband’s sister had burnt her. This was admitted as evidence as the deceased was
able to speak and give the statement, before she died.
Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan:
The deceased woman’s body and hair smelt of kerosene. The accused contented that it was
an accidental burning while preparing tea. But the Court convicted the accused (deceased
woman’s husband) under Sec. 304-B, as there was sufficient proof that cruelty was meted to
her in connection with the demand of dowry.

41
 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MURDER AND DOWRY DEATH:
MURDER (Sec. 300) DOWRY DEATH (Sec. 304 – B)
1. A person commits murder if he causes 1. Death is caused by bodily injury or burns
death. or occurs under abnormal circumstances
a With the intention of causing death. within 7 years of marriage.
b With the intention of causing such bodily
injury as the offender knows to be likely
to cause death of the person to whom
the harm is caused.
c With the intention of causing bodily injury
to any person and it is sufficient in the
ordinary course to cause death.
2. Death may be caused in any manner and 2. Death must be caused to a married
to any person married or unmarried and woman by burns or bodily injury
there is no time limit. otherwise than under normal
3. There need not be cruelty to the victim circumstances.
become causing death.
3. There should be cruelty to the woman by
4. The question of dowry does not arise.
the husband or any relative of the
husband.
5. Punishment for murder is death or
4. Cruelty or harassment must be in
imprisonment for life and fine.
connection with demand for dowry.
5. Punishment for dowry death is
imprisonment for 7 years which may
extend to imprisonment for life.

ATTEMPT TO MURDER (Sec. 307)

If any person does an act with intention or knowledge and under the circumstances that
if he, by his act has caused the death, he would be guilty of murder, then he is punished for
attempt to murder with imprisonment up to 10 years and also fine.
If hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender is punishable to imprisonment
for life or 10 years and also fine.

42
Illustrations A, with intention to kill ‘Z’, buys a gun, loads it and fires at Z. Though death is
not caused by his shooting, and Z escapes with a wound, A is guilty of the offence of
‘attempt to murder’.
ESSENTIALS OF Sec. 307:
The act must have been done with intention and knowledge and circumstances, which if it
results in death, the offender would be convicted of murder under Sec. 302.
So, all the essentials of murder under Sec. 300 are also required for constituting the
offence of attempt to commit murder’.
The only difference is that for Sec. 300 read with Sec. 302, the victim should die, but for
Sec. 307, the victim should not die, though, he may be grievously hurt or he may not have
been hurt at all.
For Sec.307, two important essentials namely 1. Evil intention or knowledge and 2. The
act done is important, though the act is incomplete.
For E.g, The nature of the weapon used, the nature of injuries sustained, the motive of
the commission of the offence, the parts of the body chosen for inflicting injuries, the strained
relations between the accused and the victim, etc., are evidences to prove the intention.
MISCARRIAGE (Sec. 312 to 318)
Miscarriage means the premature expulsion of the child or foetus from the mother’s
womb at any period of pregnancy before the period of pregnancy is normally completed.
(Sec. 312): If any person voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry, not in good faith
to save her life, then he is punishable with imprisonment up to three years or fine or both.
If the woman has miscarriage during her fourth or fifth months of pregnancy, then the
punishment is imprisonment up to seven years and fine.
(Sec. 313): If the miscarriage as under Sec. 312 is caused without the mother’s consent,
then it is punishable with imprisonment up to 10 years and fine.
(Sec. 314): If death is caused by a person doing any act with intent to cause miscarriage,
he shall be punished with imprisonment up to ten years and fine.
If such act is done to her without the consent of the mother, then the punishment is life
imprisonment or imprisonment up to ten years and fine.
(Sec. 315): Any act done with intention to prevent child being born alive or to cause it to die
after birth, not in good faith to save the life of mother is punishable with imprisonment up to
ten years or fine or both.
(Sec. 316): Causing death of quick unborn child by act amounting to culpable homicide is
punishable with imprisonment up to ten years and also fine.
(Sec. 317): Exposure or abandonment of child under 12 years, of age by parent or person
having care of it is punishable with imprisonment up to seven rears or fine or both.

43
 The object of this Section is to prevent abandonment or desertion by a parent of his
child of tender age, whereby the child may die or be injured.
(Sec. 318): Concealment of birth of a child by secretly disposing of its dead body (whether it
dies before or after or during its birth) is punished with imprisonment up to two years or fine
or both.
HURT AND GRIEVOUS HURT (Sec. 319 to 330)
HURT: (Sec. 319)
Definition: ‘Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause
hurt’.
The word ‘pain’ signifies only ‘bodily pain’ and not ‘mental pain’. The hurt caused must
be the direct result of the act. The term ‘infirmity’ used in the definition is the inability of an
organ to perform its normal function, temporarily or permanently.
Voluntarily causing hurt: (Sec. 321)
If any person does any act with intention of causing hurt to or with the knowledge he is
likely to cause hurt to another, then he voluntarily causes hurt to such person.
To commit the offence of hurt, there need not be any direct physical contact. For e..g.: If
a person, knowing the other person has a weak heart, intentionally tells the shocking news
by which the other person develops chest pain, he commits the offence of hurt to the other
person. Thus bodily pain is necessary to constitute hurt.
GRIEVOUS HURT: (Sec. 320)
All kinds of hurt are not grievous hurt. Only the following kinds of hurt are designated
grievous:
1. Emasculation: It is deprivation of masculine vigour of man. This offence can be applied
only against men. Sometime emasculation may also amount to death.
2. Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
3. Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
4. Privation of any member or joint.
5. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. E.g.: Cutting off a man’s nose or ears
branding a girl’s cheeks with red hot iron leaving permanent scar, are all disfigurations.
6. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
7. Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be in severe bodily pain for
twenty days.
Voluntarily causing grievous hurt: (Sec. 322)
A person is said to voluntarily cause grievous hurt if he intends to cause or knows
himself to be likely to cause grievous hurt.
The punishment for causing grievous hurt is imprisonment up to seven years and
fine. (Sec.323)

44
AGGRAVATED FORMS OF HURT AND GRIEVOUS HURT: (Sec. 324 to 330)
(Sec. 324) If any person voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting,
stabbing or cutting or used as a weapon of offence to cause death or fire or heated
substance or poison or corrosive substance (e.g.: nitric acid, sulphuric acid, etc.,) explosive
substance or gaseous substance or animals, then he is punishable with imprisonment up to
three years or fine or both.
(Sec. 326) If grievous hurt is caused by above means, then the punishment is imprisonment
for life or up to ten years and fine.
(Sec. 327) If any person voluntarily causes hurt for committing extortion of property or to
force a person to do an illegal act, then he is punished with imprisonment up to ten years
and fine.
(Sec. 328) If any person administers poison or intoxicating drug to another with intent to
cause hurt or to commit an offence, then he is punishable with imprisonment up to ten years
and fine.
(Sec. 329) If grievous hurt is caused for the above, then he is punished with imprisonment
for life or imprisonment up to ten years and fine.
(Sec. 330) If any person voluntarily causes hurt to extort confession from a victim or to
compel restoration of property, then he is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years
and fine.
(Sec. 331) If grievous hurt is caused to do the above, then he is punished with imprisonment
up to ten years and fine. Illustration:
(Sec. 332) If any person voluntarily causes hurt to a public servant to deter him from duty,
then he is punishable with imprisonment up to three years or fine or both.
(Sec. 333) If grievous hurt is caused to do the above, then he is punished with imprisonment
up to ten years and fine.
(Sec. 334) If any person voluntarily causes hurt to a person on grave and sudden
provocation, then he is punished with imprisonment up to one year or fine up to Rs. 500/- or
both.
(Sec. 335) If grievous hurt is caused due to the above, then he is punished with
imprisonment up to four years or fine up to Rs. 2,000/- or both.
(Sec. 336) If any person does any act rashly and negligently to endanger human life or the
personal safety of others, then he is punishable with imprisonment up to three months or fine
up to Rs. 250/- or both.
WRONGFUL RESTRAINT (Sec. 339 to 340)

A. WRONGFUL RESTRAINT: (Sec. 339)

45
 Definition: “Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from
proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed”.
ESSENTIALS:
1. Voluntary obstruction of a person.
2. Such obstruction must prevent that person from proceeding in any (one) direction.
3. The person must have a right to proceed in any direction.
Illustrations: A builds a wall across a path along which Z has a right to pass. [Link] thereby
prevented from passing; A is guilty of wrongfully restraining Z.
R Vs. Telapoiu Subbadu:The accused removed a ladder and detained a person on the roof
of a house. The accused was guilty of wrongful restraint.
Punishment:The punishment for wrongful restraint is simple imprisonment up to one month
or fine up to Rs. 500/ or both.
WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT: (Sec. 340)
Definition: ‘Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that
person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said wrongfully to confine
that person’.
ESSENTIALS:
1. Wrongful restraint of a person.
2. Such restraint must prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing
limits (in all directions).
Illustrations: A puts Z in a room or a walled space and locks him in. Z is thus prevented
from proceeding in any direction beyond the line of wall. A is guilty of wrongful confinement.
R Vs. Shimbu Narain: The accused kept his insane brother in chains. As he was completely
prevented from going to any place in the house due to the chains, the accused was guilty of
wrongful confinement.
Punishment: (Sec. 343)
The punishment for wrongful confinement is imprisonment up to one year or fine upto Rs.
1,000/- or both.
AGGRAVATED FORMS OF WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT:
(Sec. 343): Wrongful confinement for 3 or more days - punishment - imprisonment up to two
years or fine or both.
(Sec. 344): Wrongful confinement for 10 or more days - punishment - imprisonment up to
three years and fine.
(Sec. 345): Wrongful confinement of person for whose liberation a writ has been Issued -
apart from the punishment under relevant Section, additional punishment of imprisonment up
to two years.

46
(Sec. 346): Wrongful confinement in secret - apart from the punishment under relevant
section, additional punishment of imprisonment up to two years.
(Sec. 347): Wrongful confinement to extort property or to do an illegal act - punishment -
imprisonment up to three years and fine.
(Sec.348): Wrongful confinement to extort confession or compel restoration of property -
punishment - imprisonment up to three years and fine.

WRONGFUL RESTRAINT WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT

1. The person who is restrained is free 1. The person confined cannot proceed
to proceed in other directions. beyond certain limits in all directions.
2. Only one direction is not free to 2. All the directions are not free to
proceed. proceed.
3. It is preventing a person from 3. It is preventing a person from
proceeding in a direction in which he proceeding in all directions or beyond
has a right, to proceed. certain fixed limits in which he has a
4. It is a simple form. right to proceed.
5. Punishment is imprisonment upto 4. It is an aggravated form of wrongful
one month or fine upto .R. 500/- or restraint.
both. 5. Punishment is imprisonment upto
one year or fine upto Rs. 1,000/- or
both.

47
 UNIT - IV
KIDNAPPING (Sec. 360 & 361)
Kidnapping means carrying away or stealing away a person, especially a child by illegal
force. The object of this provision is to protect children from being kidnapped.
Kidnapping is not confined only to child-stealing, but it includes carrying away a human
being against his or her consent.
TYPES OF KIDNAPPING:
KIDNAPPPING FROM INDIA: (Sec. 360)
If a person conveys another (irrespective of age) beyond the limits of India, without the
consent of that person or any person authorized to give such consent, it is kidnapping from
India.
Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras:
The accused took a girl of 17½ years from her father’s lawful custody and got her
married. The girl was studying in a college and it was she who telephoned the accused to
take her away and marry. There was no inducement of force by the accused. The marriage
was purely on the compulsion of the girl.
The Court held that it was not kidnapping because of the girl’s active participation and
her sufficient maturity of mind.
KIDNAPPING FROM LAWFUL GUARDIANSHIP (Sec. 361)
If a person takes or entices away a minor male under 16 years of age, or a minor female
under 18 years of age or a person of unsound mind out of the lawful custody of a guardian,
without the consent of such guardian, then he commits the offence of kidnapping from lawful
guardianship.
Deepchand Vs. State, 2000, Cr.L.J. 463 (Del.):
Two girl friends of 17 years of age bad gone voluntarily with the accused. In the
examination before the Court, both the girls deposed that they only had persuaded the
accused to take them for sight seeing. The Court held that the accused did not commit the
offence of kidnapping.
Without the consent of the guardian:
The taking of the minor out of the lawful guardian must be without his consent and the
minor’s consent is not material. But if a person fraudulently induces the parents of a girl to
give consent, such taking amounts to kidnapping.
The punishment for kidnapping is imprisonment up to seven years and also fine. (Sec. 363)
ABDUCTION: (Sec. 362)
“If any person by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces another to go
from any place, he is said to abduct that person”.

48
ESSENTIALS:
1. Forceful compulsion or inducement by deceitful means.
2. The object of such compulsion or inducement must be the going of a person from any
place. If no force or compulsion or deceit is used by the accused on the person
abducted, then it is not an offence. So, in abduction, force or deceit is necessary.
For e.g.: If a major girl voluntarily goes out of her parents protection and meets her friend,
who treats her well with no compulsion or fraud, then such person has not committed
abduction, because in this case, the girl is a willing party.
Illustrations: A forcibly carries or entices B away from his home order that B may be
murdered. A has committed the offence of abduction
AGGRAVATED FORMS OF KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION:
(Sec.363-A): Kidnapping or maiming a minor to use him for begging punishment -
imprisonment up to ten years and fine.
(Sec. 364): Kidnapping or abducting in order to murder - punishment - imprisonment for life
or rigorous imprisonment up to ten years and fine.
(Sec.364-A): Kidnapping, for ransom (demand of huge money) - punishment - death or
imprisonment for life and fine.
(Sec. 365): Keeping such person secretly and wrongfully in detention after kidnapping or
abduction - Punishment - imprisonment up to five years and fine.
(Sec. 366): Kidnapping, Abducting or inducing a woman to compel her marriage or force her
to illicit intercourse - punishment - imprisonment up to ten years and fine.
Thakarlal D. Vadgama Vs. ‘State of Gujarat (1973) SC 2313:
A girl under eighteen years of age was taken away from the keeping of her father by
the accused with the object of marriage or seduction.
The Supreme Court held that, the accused is guilty of an offence under Sec. 366 The
defence of the accused that the girl accompanied him of her own accord and not as a result
of force or misrepresentation is of no excuse.
(Sec. 366-A): Procuration of minor girl under 18 years of age to force her to illicit
intercourse - punishment imprisonment up to ten years and fine.
(Sec. 366-B): Importation of a girl under 21 years of age into India from foreign country to
force her to illicit intercourse - punishment - imprisonment up to ten years and fine.
(Sec. 367): Kidnapping or Abducting to subject the person to grievous hurt - punishment -
imprisonment up to ten years and fine.
(Sec. 368): Wrongfully confining a kidnapped or abducted person - punishment depends on
the purpose for which such person is confined.
(Sec. 369): Kidnapping or abducting a child under ten years for stealing - punishment -
imprisonment up to seven years and fine.

49
 DACOITY: (Sec. 391 to 402)
When five or more persons jointly commit or attempt to commit robbery, every person so
committing or attempting to commit or aiding the commission of robbery is punishable for
dacoity.
There is no difference between robbery and dacoity except in the number of offenders.
Robbery is dacoity, if the persons committing robbery are five or more in number.
Punishment for Dacoity:
The punishment for dacoity is life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment up to ten years
and fine.
AGGRAVATED FORMS OF ROBBERY AND DACOITY:
Dacoity with murder (Sec. 396): If any one of the dacoits, while committing dacoity
commits murder, every one of them is punishable with death or life imprisonment or rigorous
imprisonment up to ten years and fine.
(Sec. 397): Robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt by using deadly
weapon – punishment - imprisonment of not less than seven years.
(Sec. 398): Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon -
punishment - imprisonment of not less than seven years.
(Sec. 399): Making preparation to commit dacoity - punishment - rigorous imprisonment up
to ten years and fine.
(Sec. 400): Any person belonging to a gang of dacoits - punishment - life imprisonment or
rigorous imprisonment up to ten years and fine.
(Sec. 401): Any person belonging to a gang of thieves (thug) - punishment - rigorous
imprisonment up to seven years and fine.
(Sec. 402) Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity rigorous imprisonment up to seven
years and fine.
R Vs. Ram Baron:
A large number of Hindus attacked the Mohammedans who were driving cattle along
a public road. They also deprived the Mohammedans of the possession of such cattle. The
Court held that the Hindus were guilty of dacoity.
CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION: (Sec. 403)
If any person dishonestly misappropriates, or converts to his own use any movable
property, he is guilty of criminal misappropriation.
The punishment for this offence is imprisonment up to two years or fine or both.
EXPLANATION: The offence of misappropriation consists in dishonest misappropriation or
conversion either permanently or temporarily of movable property.

55
 When the property of another person comes into possession of the offender and if it
is dishonestly converted or misappropriated by the offender to his own use, then the offence
of criminal misappropriation is committed.
Illustrations:
A finds a rupee on the road. Not knowing to whom it belongs, A picks it up. Here, A
has not committed any offence.
A finds a letter on the road containing a bank note. From the direction and contents
of the letter he learns to whom the note belongs. He appropriates the note. He is guilty of an
offence under this Section.
ESSENTIALS:
1. Dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property to his own use.
2. Such property must be movable.
If a person finds a thing innocently, he does not commit the offence of criminal
misappropriation. But, if the person, after finding the thing knows to whom it belongs, and yet
keeps it for himself, then the retaining becomes wrongful and thus guilty of criminal
misappropriation.
R Vs. Sita:
The accused found a gold sovereign in an open place and the next day, he sold it and
appropriated the money. As the real owner could not be traced, the Court held that the
accused was not guilty of criminal misappropriation.
AGGRAVATED FORMS OF CRIMINAL MISAPPROPRIATION:
(Sec. 404): Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the
time of his death.
If the property possessed by a person at the time of his death is dishonestly misappropriated
by another person, then the punishment is imprisonment up to three years and fine.
In case, the accused was an employee or clerk of the deceased, then the
punishment is imprisonment up to seven years.
CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST: (Sec. 405 to 409)
If any person is entrusted with property or with any dominion over property and if he
dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own uses that property, then he commits
criminal breach of trust.
To constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust, there must be a relationship
between the transferor and transferee, where under the transferor remains the legal owner
of the property and the transferee has only the custody of the property for the benefit of the
transferor or himself or someone else.
The punishment for this offence is imprisonment up to three years or fine or both.

56
ESSENTIALS:
1) The accused must be entrusted with property or with dominion over it.
2) He must dishonestly misappropriate or convert such property to his own use.
3) The accused must dishonestly use or dispose of such property or willfully make any
other person to do so, in violation of
a Any direction of the law prescribing the mode in which such trust (entrustment) is to
be discharged.
b Any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust (entrustment).
Illustrations:
A is executor of the will of a deceased person. He dishonestly disobeys, the law which
directs him to divide the property according to the will, and appropriates them to his own use.
A has committed criminal breach of trust.
Babaji Bin Bhau’s case:
The accused entrusted with silver for making ornaments introduced copper into them. This
was held to be criminal breach of trust.
OTHER OFFENCES RELATING TO CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST:
(Sec.407): Criminal breach of trust by carrier, etc - punishment imprisonment up to seven
years and fine.
(Sec.408): Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant - punishment - imprisonment up to
seven years and fine.
RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY (Sec.410 to 414)
When the possession of a property is transferred by theft, extortion robbery, criminal
misappropriation or criminal breach of trust, then such property is termed as ‘stolen
property’. (Sec. 410)
Whoever dishonestly receives or retains any stolen property, knowing or having reason to
believe the same to be stolen property commits the offence of ‘receiving stolen property’
(Sec. 411).
The punishment for receiving stolen property is imprisonment for three years or fine or both.
ESSENTIALS:
1. The possession of a property is transferred by theft or extortion or robbery.
2. Or which has been criminally misappropriated.
3. Or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed within or outside
India.
4. There should be substantial identity between the stolen property and the article found in
the possession of the accused.
5. The property stolen need mot be kept in the same form or appearances, but may be
altered. Manual possession is not necessary for receiving.

57
6. A person cannot be convicted of receiving stolen property, if he had no guilty knowledge
at the time of its receipt.
7. The accused must have known that the property is stolen.
8. Proceeds of the thing stolen do not form stolen property.
E.g.: If A steals a buffalo and sells it to B for Rs. 10,000/- which sum he pays to C.
Here the buffalo is stolen property but the amount of Rs. 10,000/- is not a stolen property.
AGGRAVATED FORMS OF RECEIVING STOLEN PROPERTY:
(Sec. 412): Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission5 of dacoity -
punishment - life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment up to ten years and fine.
(Sec. 413): Habitually dealing in stolen property punishment - life imprisonment or
rigorous imprisonment up to ten years and fine.
(Sec. 414): Voluntarily assisting in concealing or disposing of or making away with it -
punishment - imprisonment up to five years or fine or both.
CHEATING (Sec. 420)
Cheating is defined as a fraudulent or dishonest inducement of a person to deliver
any property or to consent for the retention of such properly by the other person.
TYPES OF CHEATING: Cheating may be committed in three ways:
1. By fraudulently deceiving and inducing the person so deceived -
2. By dishonestly inducing the person -
3. By intentionally inducing the person deceived -
ESSENTIALS OF CHEATING:
1. The accused must have deceived a person: A person deceives another when he
causes the other to believe as true when it is false.
2. By such deception he must induce that person -
i. to deliver any property or
ii. to consent to retain any property.
3. The above inducement must be done either fraudulently or dishonestly.
4. The induced person must have been deceived to do or omit to do something which is
likely to cause damage or harm to the person, body, mind, reputation or property to that
person.
Bholanath Vs. State: Cheques of already closed bank account were handed over by the
accused to the seller for the price of the goods purchased by him. The cheques were
dishonoured. Since the bank account of the accused was already closed. The Court held
that the accused was guilty of cheating under Sec. 420.
PUNISHMENT FOR CHEATING: (Sec. 417)
If a person cheats another/others, then he is punishable with imprisonment up to one year or
fine or both.

58
(Sec. 416): If a person pretends to be some other person or if he substitutes another person
or if he represents that he is really the other person, then he is guilty of cheating by
personation. The punishment is imprisonment up to three years or fine or both.
(Se. 418): If a person standing in a fiduciary capacity to the other person cheats, then he is
punishable with imprisonment up to three years or fine or both.
(Sec.420): If a person cheats and thereby dishonestly induces another person to deliver any
property to any person, then he is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and fine.

59
 UNIT - V

MISCHIEF: (Sec. 425 to 440)

If any person with intent to cause, or with knowledge that he is likely to cause
wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any other person and if he causes -
I. The destruction of any property or
II. Any change in the property so as to destroy or diminish the value or utility of the
property or
III. Affects it injuriously, then he commits ‘mischief’
ESSENTIALS:
1. There must be intention or knowledge of the likelihood to cause wrongful loss or
damage to the public or to any person.
2. The person must cause destruction of some property or any change in it or in its
situation.
3. Such destruction or change must destroy or diminish its value.
Nagendara Nath Vs. State of West Bengal:
The accused trespassed into an educational institution and burnt its books and records. He
also threatened its staff that he would put a bomb in the institution. The Court held that the
accused was guilty of mischief which would disturb public order.
AGGRAVATED FORMS OF MISCHIEF:
(Sec.427): Mischief causing damage of Rs. 50/- or more - punishment - imprisonment up to
two years or fine or both.
(Sec.428): Killing or maiming animal of value of Rs. 10/- or more - punishment -
imprisonment up to two years or fine or both.
(Sec.429): Killing or maiming cattle of more than Rs. 50/. - Punishment - imprisonment up to
five years or fine or both.
(Sec.430): Injury to works of irrigation or by wrongfully diverting water - punishment -
imprisonment up to five years or fine or both.
(Sec.431): Injury to public road, bridge, river or channel punishment - imprisonment up to
five years or fine or both.
(Sec.432): Causing inundation to public drainage attended with damage - punishment -
imprisonment up to five years or fine or both.
(Sec.433): Destroying, moving or rendering a light house or sea, mark useless - punishment
- imprisonment up to seven years or fine or both.
(Sec.434): Destroying or moving a land mark fixed by public authority - punishment -
imprisonment up to one year or fine or both.

60
(Sec.435): mischief by fire or explosive with intent to cause damage to property of Rs. 100/-
or morel agricultural, property - Rs. 10/- or more - punishment - life imprisonment or
imprisonment up to ten years and fine.
(Sec.436): Mischief by fire or explosive with intent to destroy house, temple or where
property is retained - punishment - life imprisonment or imprisonment up to ten years and
fine.
(Sec.437): Mischief by destruction of decked vessel or vessel of twenty tons burden -
punishment – imprisonment up to ten years and fine.
(Sec.438): Mischief by destruction of decked vessel or vessel of twenty tons burden by fire
or explosive - punishment - life imprisonment or imprisonment up to ten years and fine.
(Sec.439): intentionally running a vessel aground / assure to commit theft - punishment -
imprisonment up to ten years and fine.
(Sec.440): Mischief committed after preparation made for causing death or hurt -
punishment – imprisonment up to five years and fine.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MISCHIEF AND CHEATING:
Mischief: If any person with intention or knowledge causes wrongful loss or damage to the
public or to any other person and causes the destruction or any change in the property so as
to destroy or diminish the value or utility of the property or affects it injuriously, then he
commits ‘mischief.
Cheating: It is deception practiced fraudulently to induce any person to do or omit to do a
thing likely to cause injury or damage in some manner to person induced.
CRIMINAL TRESPASS, HOUSE TRESPASS, LURKING HOUSE TRESPASS AND HOUSE
BREAKING (Sec. 441 to 462).
Trespass means an encroachment on the property of another. It is an unjustifiable
interference with the property of another. Such interference is both a civil and criminal
wrong.
The punishment for criminal trespass imprisonment up to three months or fine up to
Rs. 500/- or both.
KINDS OF TRESPASS:
Indian Penal Code has classified criminal trespass into five categories and the punishments
vary according to the gravity of the offences. There are
1. Criminal Trespass (Sec. 441 & 447)
2. House Trespass (Sec. 442, 448 to 452)
3. Lurking House Trespass (Sec. 443,455 to 460)
4. House Breaking (Sec. 445, 453 to 455)
5. House breaking by night (Sec. 446, 456 to 460)

61
CRIMINAL TRESPASS: (Sec. 441 & 447)
A person commits criminal trespass if he -
1. Enters into or upon property in the possession of another
2. With intent to commit offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person, in possession
of such property, or
3. Having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent
to commit an offence.
HOUSE TRESPASS: (Sec. 442, 448 to 452)
A trespass into a house is more serious than in one’s field and this is an aggravated form of
criminal trespass. The punishment is imprisonment up to one year or fine up to Rs. 1,000/-
or both.
(Sec. 442): If any person commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any
building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place of worship,
or as a place for the custody of property, he is said to commit house trespass.
For e.g.: If A has locked the house in his possession and if B. puts another lock on
the premises, then B is not guilty of house-trespass.
(Sec.449): For house trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death, the
punishment is imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment up to ten years and fine.
(Sec.450): For house trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for
life, the punishment is imprisonment up to ten years and fine.
(Sec.451): For house trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment, the
punishment is imprisonment up to two years and fine. However, if the house trespass is
committed to commit theft, the punishment is up to seven years and fine.
(Sec.452): If house trespass is committed after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful
restraint, then the punishment is imprisonment up to seven years and fine.
LURKING HOUSE TRESPASS: (Sec. 453, 455 to 460)
If a person, committing house trespass, takes precaution to conceal such house
trespass from some person who has a right to exclude or eject the trespasser from the
building, then the first person commits - ‘lurking house trespass’.
The punishment for lurking house trespass is imprisonment up to two years and fine.
LURKING HOUSE TRESPASS BY NIGHT (Sec. 444)
If a person commits lurking house trespass after sunset, and before sunrise, he is said to
commit ‘lurking house trespass by night’. The punishment is imprisonment up to three years
and also fine.
HOUSE BREAKING: (Sec. 445, 453 to 455)
If a person committing house trespass affects his entrance or quits the house in any of the
six ways mentioned below, he is said to commit house breaking.

62
The punishment is imprisonment up to two years and also fine.
1. If he enters or quits through a passage made by himself or by an abettor of the house
trespass, in border to the committing of the house trespass.
2. If he enters or quits through any passage not intended for human entrance or through
any passage to which he has obtained access by scaling or climbing over any wall or
building.
3. If he enters or quits through any passage, which he or any abettor of the house trespass
has opened to the committing of the house trespass, by any means by which that
passage was not intended to be opened by the occupier to the house.
Raj Narain Vs State of U.P:
The accused entered into the house of the complainant without his permission and
committed adultery with his wife in his absence and without his consent. The Court held
that the accused was guilty of house breaking and adultery.
4. If he enters or quits by opening any lock in order to the committing of the house trespass
or in order to quit the house after house trespass.
5. If he effects his entrance or departure by using criminal force or committing an assault or
by threatening any person with assault.
6. If he enters or quits by any passage which he knows to have been fastened against such
entrance or departure, and to have been unfastened by himself or by an abettor of the
house-trespass.
AGGRAVATED FORMS OF LURKING HOUSE TRESPASS OR HOUSE BREAKING:
(Sec. 454): House breaking to commit an offence - punishable with imprisonment -
punishment is imprisonment up to three years and fine.
If it is for committing theft, then imprisonment up to ten years and fine.
(Sec. 455): House breaking after, preparation for grievous hurt, assault or wrongful restraint
- punishment - imprisonment up to ten years and also fine.
HOUSE BREAKING BY NIGHT: (Sec. 456)
If a person commits house breaking after sunset and before sunrise, it is called house
breaking by night; it is punishable with imprisonment up to two years and also fine.
(Sec. 457): Lurking house trespass or house breaking by night to commit an offence
punishable with Imprisonment punishment is imprisonment up to three years and fine. If it is
for committing theft, then imprisonment up to fourteen years and fine.
(Sec. 458): Lurking house trespass or house breaking by night after preparation for hurt,
assault or wrongful restraint - punishment - imprisonment up to fourteen years and also fine.
(Sec. 459): Grievous hurt caused while committing Lurking house trespass or house
breaking - punishment - life imprisonment or imprisonment up to ten years and fine.

63
(Sec. 460): All persons jointly concerned in house breaking by night or punishable where
death or grievous hurt is caused by one of them - punishment is life imprisonment or
imprisonment up to ten years and also fine.
OFFENCES RELATING TO DOCUMENTS: (Sec. 463 to 489 – E)
FORGERY: (Sec. 463 to 477 – A)
Forgery is an offence which can be traced back to its origin with the invention of
writing and the custom of preserving the written document.
When a false instrument is made with the intention that someone will be induced to
believe it as genuine and original, then the offence of forgery is committed.
ESSENTIALS: (Sec. 463)
1. The document or electronic record or part of the document or part of the electronic
record must be false.
2. It must have been made dishonestly or fraudulently. Thus to make a false document,
there must be dishonest or fraudulent intention.
3. It must have been made with the intention to cause damage or injury to the public or to
any person.
4. It is simply making any false document or false electronic record.
5. It is for causing damage or injury to the public or to any person.
MAKING A FALSE DOCUMENT: (Sec. 464)
A person makes a false document or electronic record.
1. When he dishonestly or fraudulently -
a makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document
b Makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record.
c Affixes any digital signature on any electronic record.
d Makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital
signature with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document, sealed,
executed or affixed, or
2. When a person, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or
otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any of its material part, after it has
been made, executed or affixed with digital signature or
3. when a person dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or
after a document or an electronic record or to affix hi digital signature on any electronic
record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot,
he does not know the content of the document or electronic record or the nature of the
alteration.

64
CASE LAWS:
R Vs. Sheo Dagal: A fabricated receipt for rent in place of a lost genuine receipt was held
not to be forgery as no injury is caused to any one.
R Vs. Appaswami: The accused, falsely representing that he was another person at the
university examination, got the other person’s hail ticket, wrote the examination and signed
the papers. The Court held that the accused was guilty of forgery.
AGGRAVATED FORMS OF THE OFFENCE OF FORGERY:
(Sec. 466): Forgery of record of Court of public registers - punishment - imprisonment up to
seven years and fine.
(Sec. 467): Forgery of a valuable security, will, etc. punishment - life imprisonment or
imprisonment up to ten years and fine. (Sec. 467)
(Sec. 468): Forgery for the purpose of cheating - punishment - imprisonment up to seven
years and fine. (Sec. 468)
(Sec. 469): Forgery for purpose of harming reputation - punishment - imprisonment up to
three years and fine. (Sec. 469)
(Sec. 471): Using as genuine a forged document or electronic record - punishment -
imprisonment up to two years or fine or both.
(Sec. 472): Making or possessing counterfeit seal, with intent to commit forgery u/s 467 -
punishment - life imprisonment or imprisonment up to seven years and also fine.
(Sec. 473): Making or possessing counterfeit seal, etc., with intent to commit forgery
punishable otherwise - punishment - imprisonment up to seven years and also fine.
(Sec. 474): Possession of record of Court or of public register knowing it to be forged and
intending to use as genuine - punishment - imprisonment up to seven years and also fine.
(Sec. 475): Counterfeiting device or mark used for authenticating Court records or public
register or Possessing Counterfeit marked material – punishment - life imprisonment or
imprisonment up to seven years and fine.
(Sec. 476): Counterfeiting device or mark used for authenticating documents (other than
Court records or public register) or Possessing counterfeit marked material - punishment -
imprisonment up to seven years and fine.
(Sec. 477): Fraudulent cancellation, destruction, etc, of will authority to adopt or valuable
security Punishment life imprisonment or imprisonment up to seven years arid fine.
OFFENCES RELATING TO MARRIAGE: (Sec. 493 to 498)
BELIEF OF LAWFUL MARRIAGE (Sec. 493)
Any man who, by deceit, induces any woman who is not lawfully married to him to
believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him
in that belief is punishable with imprisonment up to ten years and fine.

65
MOCK MARRIAGE (Sec. 493 & 496)
If any person, dishonestly or with fraudulent intention, goes through the ceremony of
being married, knowing that he is not thereby lawfully married, then be is punishable with
imprisonment up to seven years and fine.
BIGAMY: (Sec. 494 & 495)
When a husband or wife marries again during the life time of the other spouse, such
marriage is void and the wife or husband is guilty of bigamy. If a person conceals the first
marriage and contracts a second marriage during the life time of the other spouse, then he is
punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and fine.
ESSENTIALS:
1) The accused must have been married to some person. Proof of first marriage is
necessary.
Here, the first marriage must be a valid marriage. Further, the second marriage must
have been properly solemnized according to the customary rites of the parties.
2) On the date of the second marriage, the person to whom the accused was married
should be alive.
If the marrying persons i.e., first wife or first husband is already dead, and then the
second marriage does not constitute bigamy.
3) The second marriage must be celebrated in the same manner as the first marriage and
must be a valid one.
In other words, both the first and the second marriages must be valid marriages in law. In
case either of the marriage is not valid, then such marriage is not a marriage in the eye
of the law.
4) The second marriage is void because it has taken place during the life time of the first
spouse without her consent.
Here, the person aggrieved by the act of remarriage by the other spouse or the father of
the woman (wife) can give a complaint.
EXCEPTIONS:
The second marriage is not an offence in the following cases:
1. When the first marriage is declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction, then it is
not an offence if the person marries again.
2. When the former husband or wife has been continuously absent for seven years and not
heard of being alive during that period, then the other person can marry again. Here, the
second marriage spouse must be informed of the above facts.
3. If the first marriage was dissolved by a decree of divorce by a competent Court.

66
 Prasanna Kumar Vs. Dhanalakshmi:
The accused married during the pendency of special appeal against the decree of
divorce of his first marriage. He also did not conceal this fact to the parents of the second
marriage proposal. As there was no dishonest or fraudulent intention on his part, he was
held not guilty under Sec. 494.
AGGRAVATED FORM OF BIGAMY:
(Sec. 495): If any person committing the offence of bigamy conceals the former marriage
from the person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted, then he is punishable with
imprisonment up too ten years and also fine.
(Sec. 496): Under Sec. 494, the accused intends for a valid marriage and honestly goes
through the marriage ceremonies, but during the life time of his/her spouse.
But under Sec. 496, the accused intends only for a show of marriage and dishonestly or
fraudulently goes through the marriage ceremony knowing fully well that he is not legally tied
by it.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BIGAMY AND ADULTERY:
Bigamy: When a husband or wife marries again during the life time of the other spouse,
such marriage is void and the wife or husband is guilty of bigamy. It is punishable with
imprisonment up to seven years and fine.
Adultery is having sexual intercourse by a man with a woman knowing that she is the
wedded wife of another person without the consent or connivance of her husband and such
sexual intercourse not amounting to rape. The punishment for adultery is imprisonment up to
five years or fine or both.
ADULTERY (Sec. 497)
Adultery is having sexual intercourse by a man with a woman knowing that she is the
wedded wife of another person without the consent or connivance of her husband and such
sexual intercourse not amounting to rape.
In India, the man who commits adultery is punished but the woman is not punished.
In I.P.C., the punishment for adultery is imprisonment up to five years or fine or both.
ESSENTIALS:
1) The accused must have sexual intercourse with the woman in question.
2) Such woman is the lawfully wedded wife of another person.
3) The accused must know or have reason to believe that she is a lawfully married wife of
another person.
4) The intercourse must be without the consent or connivance of the husband of the
woman.
5) The sexual act must not amount to rape, i.e. the Intercourse must be with the consent of
the woman.

67
 Adultery is an invasion on the right of the husband over his wife. In other words, it is
an offence against the sanctity of the matrimonial home.
The wife is not punishable for adultery, even if she is as an abettor of the offence and
a fully consenting party to the offence.
Yusuf Abdul Aziz case:
The Supreme Court observed that Section 497 I.P.C. is not ultra vires of Articles 14,
15 and 21 of the Constitution on the ground that sex is a reasonable and sound classification
accepted by the Constitution.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ADULTERY AND RAPE:
‘ADULTERY:
1. Adultery is an offence relating to marriage.
2. Adultery is an offence against the husband.
3. In the case of adultery, the consent of the woman is immaterial.
4. Adultery may be committed only when the woman is married and when she is the wife of
another person.
5. Adultery is a less serious offence and punishment is imprisonment up to five years or
fine or both for the man.
6. Adultery cannot be committed with an unmarried woman, widow or if the woman is a
divorced woman.
RAPE (CUSTODIAL RAPE):
1) Rape is an offence affecting the human body.
2) Rape is an offence against the woman herself.
3) Consent is a defence to rape. In the case of rape, the offence is committed against the
will and without the consent of the woman.
However, if the girl is under sixteen years of age and even if she gives her consent, it is
an offence.
4) Rape can be committed on any woman married or unmarried.
5) Rape is a more serious offence and the punishment is imprisonment not less than seven
years and it may be for life up to ten years and also fine.
6) Rape cannot be committed when the woman has consented for the sexual intercourse.
CRUELTY BY HUSBAND or RELATIVES OF HUSBAND (Sec. 498-A)
If any person being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman subjects
such woman to cruelty, then he is punished with imprisonment up to three years and also
fine.
ESSENTIALS:
1. The woman must be a married woman
2. Her husband or the relative of her husband must have subjected her to cruelty.

68
CRUELTY:
The term ‘cruelty’ includes both physical and ‘mental torture. Its meaning has to be
judged depending, upon the facts of each particular case.
It has been given a wider meaning to include -
a. any willful conduct as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide, or to cause a grave
injury or danger to life, limb or mental or physical health of the woman, or
b. harassment of the woman with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet
any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security.
1. Inder Raj Vs. Sunita:
The accused threatened the wife to take her son away from her and also compelled her
parents to sell their property to meet his monetary demands. The Court held that the
accused was guilty of subjecting the wife to cruelty under Sec. 498-A.
DEFAMATION: (Sec. 499 to 502)
Defamation simply means causing injury to the reputation of person. Injury means damage
or loss to reputation.
Defamation is a publication of a statement without justification or excuse which is
calculated to injure the reputation of another, tending to bring him into hatred or contempt in
the estimation of right thinking members of the society.
ESSENTALS: -
1) Making or publishing of an imputation concerning a person.
2) Such imputation should have been made -
a By words either spoken or written, or By signs or
b By visible representations
3) Such imputation should have been made with intent to harm the reputation of such
person.
DEFAMATION OF A COMPANY: If a company, an association or a collection of persons
are defamed, it is an offence. E.g.: If a company is accused of having committed fraud, then
it affects the reputation of the company.
INNUENDO: If an imputation is in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, it is
called Innuendo (indirect defamation).
E.g.: A says Z is an honest man. He never stole my watch. A really means that Z only
stole his watch. This is an indirect way of defamation and hence amounts to innuendo.
WAYS OF HARMING THE REPUTATION OF A PERSON:
1. Harming the reputation of a person in the estimation of others directly or indirectly.
2. Harming the moral and intellectual character of that person.
3. Lowering the caste or occupation of such person.

69
4. Harming the credit of the person to be believed that he is in loathsome state, or in a state
of disgrace.
5. Harming the chastity of a woman.
R Vs. Panna Lal’s Case:
The accused published a poster at an election contest against his rival candidate (a-
Barrister) as follows: “The hollowness of M’s capacity as a Barrister has been exposed”. It
was held that the imputation was made to lower the estimation of his qualification as a
Barrister.
PUBLICATIONS:
Publication is a communication of the statement at least to one person other than the
person defamed. If the defamatory matter is communicated directly to the person concerned,
it is not defamation as there is no publication.
Thus, if defamatory matter is addressed to the concerned person in closed cover, it is not
defamation. However, defamatory matter on a post card is punishable.
MODES OF PUBLICATION:
There are four modes of publication:
1. Spoken words
2. Written words
3. Signs
4. Visible representations
Visible representation includes a statue, an effigy, chalk marks on a wall, signs or pictures,
etc.
E.g., A is asked who stole B’s watch, A points to Z, by sign intending that it may be believed
that Z stole B’s watch. This is defamation by sign.
A drew a picture of Z running away with B’s watch, intending to be believed that Z stole B’s
watch. This is defamation by visible representation.
EXCEPTIONS OR DEFENCES THE OFFENCE OF DEFAMATION (Sec. 499)
1. IMPUTATION OF TRUTH FOR PUBLIC GOOD:
If any true imputation is made concerning any for public good, then it is not defamation.
Truth alone is not a defence, but it should be for public good.
2. PUBLIC CONDUCT OF PUBLIC SERVANT:
Here, the opinion or criticism about the public conduct of public servant must be made in
good faith and it should be true.
3. FAIR COMMENT ON PUBLIC CONDUCT or PUBLIC MEN:
If public conduct of public men other than public servants is expressed in good faith, then it
is not defamation. Thus, the Members of Parliament, Legislative. Assembly, Corporation or
Municipal Council can be commented upon in good faith.

70
4. REPORTS OF PROCEEDINGS OF COURTS:
If any true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice or of the result of any such
proceedings is published, it is not defamation.
5. MERITS OF JUDICIAL DECISIONS:
Expressing any opinion in good faith regarding the merits of any case, Civil or criminal,
which has been decided by a Court of Justice is not defamation.
6. MERITS OF PUBLIC PERFORMANCE:
Opinion expressed in good faith regarding any public performance such as literary work,
drama, cinema, is not defamation.
7. CENSURE BY PERSON HAVING AUTHORITY:
If a person who has authority over another either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful
contract, passes in any good faith any, censure on the conduct of that person, then it is not
defamation.
8. COMPLAINT TO AUTHORITY:
A bonafide complaint made to a lawful authority about the accusation of another is not
defamation, However, there must be reasonable, grounds for believing the allegations and
that the person must have acted on the bonafide belief that the allegations were
9. IMPUTATION FOR PROTECTION OF INTEREST:
The imputation of a person’s character for the protection of his interest or for public good is
not defamation.
The imputation must have been made or published by the accused for the protection of his
interest, and in good faith.
E.g.: A, a shopkeeper says to B, who manages his business, “sell nothing to Z unless he
pays you ready money, for I have no good opinion of his honesty”. This is not defamation, as
it is made for his own interest.
10. CONVEYING CAUTION IN GOOD FAITH:
A person can caution another for the good of the latter or himself, or any other person or for
public good. E.g.: A confidential advice given by a relation to a lady not to marry a particular
man is not defamation.
PUNISHMENT FOR DEFAMATION: (SEC. 500)
The punishment for the crime of defamation is simple imprisonment up to two years, or fine,
or both. The offence is non-cognizable, bailable and triable by a Court of Sessions.
AGGRAVATED FORMS OF DEFAMATION:
1. Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory: (Sec. 501)
If any person prints or engraves any matter knowing or having good reason to believe that
such matter is defamatory of any person, he is punishable with simple imprisonment up to
two years or fine or both.

71
2. Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter: (Sec. 502)
CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION: (Sec. 503)
A person commits criminal intimidation, if he threatens another with any injury to his person,
reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is
interested.
Ramesh Chandra Arora Vs. The State:
The accused, pretending to make love to X, took her naked photographs and threatened her
father of circulating those photographs if he failed to pay money. Here as he caused alarm to
them and of injury to their reputation he was held liable for criminal intimidation.
PUNISHMENT FOR CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION: (Sec.506)
If any person commits the offence of criminal intimidation, then he is punishable with
imprisonment to two years or fine or both.
If the threat is to cause death or grievous hurt or destruction of any property by fire or
any offence punishable with death or life imprisonment or imprisonment up to ten years.
ANONYMOUS CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION: (Sec. 507)
If the criminal intimidation is by an anonymous letter or by a letter signed with a false
name, then the offence is punishable with imprisonment up to two years. In addition to two
years imprisonment for criminal intimidation under Sec. 506 I.P.C, as it causes great alarm
to the receiver of the letter.
Sec.508. Act caused by inducing person to believe that he will be rendered an object of the
Divine displeasure shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Illustrations
(a) A threatens Z that, unless Z performs a certain act, A will kill one of A’s own children,
under such circumstances that the killing would be believed to render Z an object of Divine
displeasure. A has committed the offence defined in this section.
Sec.509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman shall be punished
with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
Sec.510. Misconduct in public by a drunken person shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to twenty four hours, or with fine which may
extend to ten rupees, or with both.
ATTEMPT TO COMMIT OFFENCES: (Sec. 511)
Attempt is the stage just before the completion of the crime in time and place. For
e.g.: A person buying a pistol loads it (preparation) and follows his victim to murder him. Now
the offender has come to the stage of attempt.

72
 When a person attempts to commit an offence punishable by the I.P.C. for
imprisonment for life or mere imprisonment then he is punishable for the attempt to commit
such offence under Sec. 511.
ESSENTIALS OF ATTEMPT U/S 511:
1. The offender must attempt to commit an offence punishable with life imprisonment or
imprisonment only. Offences punished with death only or fine only are not covered under
this Section.
2. For such attempt, he must do some act towards the commission of the offence.
Illustrations:
1. A makes an attempt to steal jewels by breaking open a box but he finds no jewel in it. A is
guilty of attempt to commit theft, under Sec. 511.
2. B makes an attempt to pick a purse from the pocket of Z. He attempts to commit theft,
under Sec. 511.
Thus Sec. 511 is introduced to punish all attempts to commit offences except the offence for
which attempt provisions are specifically provided under IPC.
R Vs. Abhayanand:
The accused got permission to appear at M.A. examination as a private candidate,
representing that he was a B.A. graduate and also attached false certificates to the effect.
The University authorities of Patna at first gave permission to write the examinations, but
later on, found out that the certificates were false, and withdrew his application. The Court
held that the accused was guilty of attempt to cheating under Sec. 511 read with Sec. 419.
PREPARATION:
Preparation is generally not punishable because a preparation, apart from its motive,
would generally be a harmless act.
Besides, a mere preparation would not ordinarily affect the sense of security of the
individual intended to be wronged, nor could society be distributed. For e.g., mere purchase
of poison, weapons, loaded guns, etc.,

73