IPC/ BNS

Question. "Crime is a revolt against the whole society and an attack

on the civilization of the day."

Introduction: Crime as a Revolt against Society

Crime is not merely an offence against an individual but a wrong against

society at large. When an act disturbs the peace, order, and security of
society, it becomes a crime. Therefore, it has been said that “Crime is a
revolt against the whole society and an attack on the civilization of the day.”

This reflects the idea that crime undermines the very foundation of social
order and civilisation by violating the norms, values, and legal rules that hold
society together. Unlike private wrongs (civil wrongs), crimes invite the
coercive power of the State to punish, as the injury is to the public at large.

Questions: What are the essential elements of crime?

Broadly, every crime consists of two fundamental elements:

1. Mens Rea (Guilty Mind) – the mental element

2. Actus Reus (Guilty Act) – the physical element

The principle is captured in the maxim: “actus non facit reum nisi mens
sit rea” – the act itself does not make a person guilty unless the mind is
also guilty.

1. Actus Reus (The Physical Element)

 Meaning: Actus reus means the guilty act, i.e., the external, visible
part of the crime. According to Kenny, it is “such result of human
conduct which the law seeks to prevent.”

 Requirement: A mere evil intention is not enough; there must be a

voluntary act or illegal omission.

 Forms of Actus Reus:

o Commission: e.g., theft, murder.

o Omission: failure to act where law imposes a duty, e.g., not

providing food to a dependent child.
  Examples:

o In homicide, the actus reus is the victim’s death.

o In housebreaking by night, the actus reus is linked both to place

and time.

Actus reus may vary depending on the definition of each offence under the
BNS.

2. Mens Rea (The Mental Element)

 Meaning: Mens rea means guilty mind, i.e., the intention, knowledge,
recklessness, or negligence behind the act.

 Importance: There can be no crime without a blameworthy state of

mind. In Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895) 1 QB 918, it was held that mens
rea is presumed in every criminal offence unless a statute excludes it.

 Illustration: In Queen v. Tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168, the accused

remarried believing her husband to be dead. The Court held absence of
mens rea as a defence.

Exceptions: Crimes without Mens Rea (Strict Liability Offences)

Certain offences do not require proof of mens rea, mainly for public welfare,
safety, and policy reasons. In such offence guilty mind is not necessary.

1. Statutory Offences:

o Waging war, sedition, kidnapping, public nuisance, contempt of

court, etc.

o In R v. Prince (1875) LR 2 CCR 154, the accused was held guilty

of kidnapping a minor despite honestly believing the girl was an
adult.

2. Economic & Social Welfare Offences:

o Sale of adulterated food, environmental offences, tax evasion,

foreign exchange violations.
 o In State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George, AIR 1965 SC 722, SC
held that economic offences affecting the country impose strict
liability.

3. Regulatory Offences:

o Traffic violations, licensing breaches, petty fines, etc.

o Expediency justifies dispensing with proof of mens rea.

4. Ignorance of Law is No Excuse:

o Even if a person is unaware of the law, liability still arises.

Question. How far is a motive necessary for determining a crime?

How it is different from intention.

Answer

1. Meaning of Motive

 Motive is that which prompts a person to form an intention.

 It is the emotion or reason which impels a person to commit a

particular act.

 Intention, on the other hand, is the immediate mental condition, while

motive is the ulterior object behind it.

 Intention relates to the means; motive relates to the end.

2. Relevancy of motive

 The criminality of an act depends on the intention and act, not on the
motive behind it.

 Even if the motive is pure, the act may still be criminal.

 Example: Killing a person to relieve his suffering (mercy killing) still

amounts to homicide under law.

3. Evidentiary Value of Motive

 Though not essential, motive may have evidentiary significance:

o Direct Evidence Cases: Motive is immaterial where direct

evidence proves guilt.
 o Circumstantial Evidence Cases: Motive becomes important, as it
helps establish why the accused would commit the crime.

Case Law:

 Tanviben v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1997 SC 2193 – Conviction can be

based on strong evidence of murder even if motive is not established.

 State of U.P. v. Nahar Singh, AIR 1998 SC 1328 – Absence of motive is

irrelevant when eyewitnesses clearly establish participation of the
accused.

 Chandan v. the State (Delhi Adminstration) 2024 SC

Motive is insignificant when there is direct evidence proving the guilt of

accused.

Question. Distinguish between 'intention', 'knowledge' and 'motive'

giving appropriate illustrations.

1. Meaning of the Terms

 Intention:
The conscious objective or design of the person to bring about a
particular result. It reflects the purpose of the act.
Example: If ‘Ram’ stabs ‘Ganshyam’ in the chest aiming to kill him,
‘Ram’s intention is to cause death.

 Knowledge:
Awareness of the natural and probable consequences of an act,
whether desired or not. It denotes mental cognition of the result.
Example: If ‘A’ sets fire to an inhabited house at night to facilitate
robbery, and someone dies, ‘A’ may not have intended death, but he
had knowledge that death was a likely consequence.

 Motive:
The reason that impels a person to form an intention. It is the driving
force or emotion behind the act.
Example: Killing for revenge or for monetary gain. Motive explains why
the act was committed but does not affect its criminality.

2. Statutory Recognition

 Section 39, IPC/ 2(33) BNS: A person is said to cause an effect

voluntarily when he causes it:
 (a) with intention to cause it,
(b) with knowledge of likelihood of causing it, or
(c) having reason to believe it is likely to be caused.

Thus, criminal liability embraces both intention and knowledge, but not
motive.

3. Distinction at a Glance

Aspect Intention Knowledge Motive

Purpose or aim to
Awareness of likely Reason or driving force
Nature bring about a
consequences behind act
result

Active desire to Passive awareness

Mental Emotion/feeling
cause a particular that effect may
State prompting intention
effect occur

Relevance Essential for Equally relevant in Generally irrelevant, but

in Law serious crimes establishing guilt aids in proving intention

Firing into a crowd

Shooting a person Killing out of jealousy,
Illustration knowing death is
to kill him revenge, or greed
likely

4. Evidentiary Value of Motive

 Not a sine qua non for conviction. It means not essential for conviction.

 Relevant only to shed light on intention.

 In cases with direct evidence, absence of motive is immaterial.

 In circumstantial evidence cases, or in case of indirect evidence motive

gains importance.

Case Law:

 Tanviben v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1997 SC 2193 – Conviction possible

even without proving motive, if other evidence is reliable.

Question. Under what circumstances may an offence outside India

be tried as an offence committed in India?
In the following circumstances Section 3 IPC/ 1(4) BNS: Extends jurisdiction
of Indian courts over acts committed outside India if they amount to offences
under IPC/BNS.

Section 4 IPC/1(5) BNS: Provides extra-territorial operation of IPC, applying

to:
(a) Citizens of India committing offences abroad,
(b) Persons on ships or aircraft registered in India,
(c) Offences committed targeting computer resources located in India.

Example: A hacker in the USA attacks servers located in Delhi; offence triable
in India.

 These provisions are reinforced by Section 188 CrPC/ 208 BNSS,

which requires prior sanction of the Central Government for trial in
India.

Place of Trial

 Case: Om Hemrajani v. State of U.P., (2005) 1 SCC 617 – Victim can file
complaint in any competent Indian court at his convenience; not
necessary to state where accused may be found.

Constitutional and Judicial Limits

 Extra-territorial jurisdiction applies qua citizen; citizenship at the time

of offence is material.

 Case: Central Bank of India v. Ram Narain, AIR 1955 SC 36 – If person

was not an Indian citizen at the time of offence but acquired citizenship
later, trial in India is illegal.

Object of Sections 3 & 4

 To ensure that Indian citizens and persons affecting Indian interests do

not escape liability merely because the offence was committed outside
territorial India.

 Reflects principle of nationality jurisdiction and protective principle of

international law.

Question: Short Note on Common Intention (Section 34 IPC/ 3(5)

BNS)

1. Meaning and Concept

  Common intention means a prior concert or meeting of minds
between two or more persons to commit a criminal act.

 Once such agreement is formed, each becomes the agent of the other,
and whatever is done by one in furtherance of the common intention is
deemed to be done by all.

2. Nature of Section 34 IPC

 Section 34 IPC does not create a substantive offence; it is a rule of

evidence.

 It embodies the principle of joint liability or vicarious liability in

criminal law.

 The section applies when a criminal act is done by several persons in

furtherance of a common intention.

3. Essentials of Section 34 IPC

As explained in Mahboob Shah v. Emperor, AIR 1943 PC 118 (Indus

River case):

1. It laid down that “common intention” requires prior concert, and

not just a spontaneous similarity of conduct. There must be a criminal
act done in furtherance of such intention. It must be proved from the
facts, conduct, and circumstances of the case.

2. Common intention implies a pre-arranged plan, but it may also develop

on the spot (Rishidev Pandey v. State of U.P., AIR 1955 SC 331).

4. Judicial Interpretation

 Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor, AIR 1925 PC 1 (Post Office

case): Even if one does nothing but shares common intention (e.g.,
keeping watch outside), he is liable — “They also serve who only stand
and wait.”

 Ashok Kumar v. State of Punjab, AIR 1977 SC 109: The essence is

the simultaneous consensus of mind; mere presence is not enough.

 Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1955 SC 216: Common

intention can form during the act.

 Sheoram Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1972 SC 2555: There must be

clear proof of common intention; suspicion is insufficient.
  State of U.P. v. Rajvir Singh, (2007) 15 SCC 545: Mere presence of
accused persons together does not prove common intention.

5. Illustration

 A and B plan to kill X. B blocks the door so X cannot escape, while A

stabs X. Both A and B are guilty of murder under Section 34 IPC

Question. Explain the meaning of "criminal act done in furtherance

of common intention" and differentiate between common intention
and similar intention.

1. Meaning of "Criminal Act Done in Furtherance of Common

Intention"

 The phrase means that when several persons act together with a
shared intention to commit a crime, each of them is jointly liable for
any act done by one or more of them in carrying out that intention.

 It extends liability even for incidental or consequential acts that

facilitate the common design.

Case Law:

 Girija Shankar v. State of U.P., AIR 2004 SC 1808 – Section 34 does not
require “intention common to all” but proof that the criminal act was
done in furtherance of a shared intention animating all accused.

 Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor, AIR 1925 PC 1 – Even if a person

only stands outside on watch, he is equally liable if his act is in
furtherance of the common intention.

2. Common Intention vs. Similar Intention

Basis Common Intention Similar Intention

A pre-arranged plan or
Independent but identical intentions to
Definiti prior meeting of minds;
commit the same act without prior
on active participation with
meeting of minds.
shared design.

Joint liability – each

Individual liability – each accused is
Liability accused is liable for the act
responsible only for his own act.
of the others.

Essence Requires proof of Mere simultaneous act with the same

agreement or active
Basis Common Intention Similar Intention

participation in furtherance
objective, but no common plan.
of a shared plan.

Mahboob Shah v. Emperor, Pandurang v. State of Hyderabad, AIR

AIR 1945 PC 118 – 1955 SC 216 – Simultaneous attack
Case
Common intention must be with same intention is not equal to
Law
proved by facts and common intention unless pre-arranged
conduct. plan is shown.

Question. A, B, and C agree to kill X. While escaping after killing X,

they are chased by Y. B kills Y. Explain the liability of B and others?

Facts:

 A, B, and C agree to kill X (so there’s a conspiracy/plan).

 They kill X.

 While escaping, Y chases them.

 B kills Y.

 The issue: liability of B and of A and C for Y’s death.

1: Liability for X’s death

 Since A, B, and C agreed to kill X and did so, they are jointly liable for
murder of X under:

o Section 302 IPC (murder), read with

o Section 34 IPC (acts done in furtherance of common intention).

 All three are equally guilty for X’s murder.

2: Liability for Y’s death

 Did the common intention extend to killing Y?

o The original plan was to kill X, not Y.

o Killing Y was not part of the agreement.

  B’s act:

o B killed Y while escaping, presumably to avoid arrest/capture.

o Unless it is shown that A and C also shared this further common

intention (to kill anyone who chased them), liability for Y’s death
is personal to B.

o So B is liable for murder of Y under Section 302 IPC.

 A and C’s liability for Y’s death:

o They are not liable unless prosecution proves they too shared the
intention to kill Y or abetted B.

o At best, they may be liable for the murder of X only.

Question. A and B are joint jailors, and as such have the charge of Z,
a prisoner, alternatively for six hours at a time. A and B, intending
to cause Z's death, knowingly co-operate in causing that effect by
illegally omitting, each during the time of his attendance, to furnish
Z with food supplied to them for that purpose. Z dies of hunger.
Decide the liability of A and B.

Answer:

Facts

 A and B are joint jailors, each in charge of Z for six hours alternatively.

 Both intend to cause Z’s death.

 Each omits to give Z food during his period of duty, although food was
supplied for that purpose.

 Z dies of hunger.

Issue

 Whether A and B can be held liable for Z’s death when each acted by
omission during different intervals of duty?

Law Applicable

 Section 37 IPC/ 3(8) BNS: When an offence is committed by means

of several acts, whoever intentionally co-operates in the commission of
 that offence by doing any one of those acts (either singly or jointly)
commits the offence.

 Principle: Co-operation in a series of acts, which together constitute

an offence, makes each participant liable for the whole offence.

 Case Law: Afrahim Sheikh v. State of West Bengal, AIR 1964 SC 1263
– Co-operation in doing several acts which together constitute a single
offence makes each participant liable for the offence.

Application

 Here, the offence of murder was committed by a series of omissions.

 Each omission, by itself, may not cause death immediately, but

together they caused Z’s death.

 Both A and B shared the common intention and knowingly co-operated

to bring about Z’s death.

 Their intentional omission constitutes a single criminal act done by

several acts within the meaning of Section 37 IPC/3(8) BNS.

Conclusion

 A and B are both guilty of murder under Section 302 IPC/ 103(1) BNS
read with Section 37 IPC/3(8) BNS.

 Their liability arises because they intentionally co-operated in causing

Z’s death through successive omissions.

 This problem is directly covered by Illustration (b) to Section 37

IPC/3(8) BNS.