Amendment 368IPC BARE

Application:
 Any citizen of india in any place without and beyond india.
 Person on indian registered ship and aircraft.
 Any place in india or beyond inndia targeting a computer resource located in india.

Exception:
 mutiny and desertion of officers, soldiers, sailors or airmen in the service of the
 Government of India or the provisions of any special or local law.
 The word "person" includes any Company or Association or body of persons, whether
incorporated or not.

Property
 Movable property are intended to include corporeal property.

Wrongful gain:
 Wrongf ul gain" is the gain by unlawf ul means of property which the person gaining is not
legally entitled. 23
 fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise.

Counterfeit
 e thing to resemble another thing, intending by means of that resemblance to practices
 deception, or knowing it to be likely that deception will thereby be 28
 Valuable security
 Document
 Will
 Omisiion
 SECTION.34
When a criminal act is done by several person infurtherance of common
intention of all each of all is liable for that act.

Principle of joint liability:object is common to all person forming a group

alleged to have committed a crime. Normally a person may be
participant in a crime in the following four ways:
A. When he himself commit a crime
B. When he share in the commission of it
C. When he ,with a view to the commission of crime ,set some third
agency to work
 D. When he help the offender

The third and fourth are related to the law of abetment.the

second shall be discussed here as it deals with the principle of
joint liability.
All cases of crime committed by one person fall in the first
category and we do not feel much difficulty in fixing up criminal
liability.
Section 34 only create rule of evidence and not create any
substantive offence.it create joint and constructive liability.223
Crpc
Essence of liability
In this section several person means two or more than two person
, criminal act must be done by several person.
Section 34 enuciates the principle of joint liability.if two or more
person intentionally do an act jointly, it is just the same as if each
of them had done it individually.
NOTE:VVI-expression “in furtherance of common intention of all”
did not exist in the original code , but was added by the Amending
Act of 1870.

Reg v. cruisexa

Ingredients:-

1. Some criminal act

2. Criminal act done by more than one person
3. Criminal act done by such person in furtherance of common
intention of all of them
4. Common intention in the sense of pre-arranged plan
between such person
Physical presence at the time of commission of crime of all is not necessary
.True content of section 34 are that if two or more person intentionally
do an act jointly.
Criminal act:criminal act used in section 34 does not refer to individual act
where a crime is commited by a group of person.in furtherance of common
intention when a criminal act is commited by a several person doing some
act,similar or diverse, big or small shall be liable for the act.
Illustration:
 A,b,c make an agreement to kill D and they themselves assign different
duty .
1.A Making all the arrangement
2.B Purchasing gun
3.C Stab
It is irrelevant the nature of act and its quantum.
Lallan singh v state of bihar: word act used in section 34 denote series of act as
asingle act.culpabilty under section 34 cannot be excluded by mere distance
from the scene of occurrence.requirment of statute is sharing the common
intention
Nand kishor v. state of maharsatra: section 34 deals with constructive
criminaliability.
The expression common intention has been given various meaning:
o It implies pre-arranged plan ,prior meeting of minds,prior
consultation.
o Common intention means desire to commit a criminal act without
any contemplation of the consequences
o Mens rea necessary to constitute the offence.exception section
304
o Section 34 is applicable even if no injury has been caused by the
particular accused.
o Pre arrange plan is one of the essential to attract section 34.
o Prior meeting of minds is necessary.

NOTE: common intention means pre oriented plan and acting in

pursuance to the plan. Burden lies on prosecution to prove that
the actual participationof more than one person for commission
of criminal act.

S.39: A person is said to cause an effect voluntarily when he causes it by

means whereby he intended to cause it,or by means which at the time of
employing those means ,he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause
it.
S.43 ILLEGAL: Legally bound to do: The word illegal is applicable to everything
which is an offence or which is prohibited by law , or which furnishes ground
for civil action. Or against the law—Contra legam.
S.44 Injury : any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body ,mind
,reputation or property
 There are five kinds of punishment mention in IPC under section 53.
 Commutation of sentence of death. Section 54 .
S.76 Ignorantia facti excusat: Ignorance of fact is excusable..
Ignorantia juris non excusat: ignorance of law is no excusable
Illustration:
A. A , a soldier ,fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in
conformity with the command of law. A has commited no offence
Note: distinction between two section 76 and 79 involved in the words bound
by law and justified by law .
Justification means the act by which party accused shows and maintain a good
legal reason in court.
Excuse means a reason for doing or not doing a thing.
In the context of criminal law , justification and excuse are touchstone for
prescribing and proscribing conduct generally and for assigning guilt or
innocence.
Claim of justification are universal in nature.
In the nature of an act justifiable and unjustifiable must possess to one of the
side whether acussed or victim.
S.80: Accident in doing a lawful act:
The word accident derived from latin word ‘ accidere’ signifying fall upon
,befall, happen ,chance.
Essential element is that act where there is no contribution of human fault.
done without criminal intent or, Doing a lawful act in a lawful manner.
 By lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.
Accident have been always recognised as valid defence in criminal liability.
Note: Not taking proper care and precaution and act negligently shift defence
into culpability.
Happening must be unintentional and unexpected.it means undesigned
happening out of ordinary course which no man of ordinary prudence can
anticipate .
Note: Familiarity, understanding or awareness gained through experience or study
Accident in unlawful acts: where accident occur in doing of unlawful act , there may be no
liability for the harm so caused if there is no causal connection between the resulting harm
so harm and the act in question
Quod necessitas non habet legem: he may do this.
Maculay in his draft of IPC had cited two illustration :

 A pilot is navigating in the river with utmost care . He directs the vessel against the
sand bank , the existence of which was unknown to him till the disaster . several
passengers are drowned in the river. In this case to hang the pilot as a murderer on
account of his misfortune would be an act of atrocities injustice. If the voyage of the
pilot is illegal and an offence , will it make difference .his answer then too is negative
 Another example by maculay which could elaborate unlawful act: hundred of person
in some great cities are in habit of pickets . they know that they are guilty of an
offence. unhappily , one of them attempt to take the purse of a gentleman who has
loaded pistol and the trigger goes of, the gentleman is shot dead . in his opinion this
man cannot treated different. It means he should only punished for pick- pocketing
and not for killing.
Onus probandi in accident is on the accussed

Necessity Section 81 Ipc

Necessity rule as to admissibility of evidence is contained in section 32 of evidence.
Act likely to cause harm ,but done without criminal intent , and to prevent other harm.

 Act likely to cause harm: It means accused must aware for the consequence , as a
prudent man he can anticipate the upcoming harm .in this kind of offence accussed
is well known know the nature of the act which he can also draw.
 Done without criminal intent: if an act done with criminal intent then it must
possess malign intent . to take plea of necessity two things must not inherit Criminal
intention and good faith , if any one of them possessed then he shall cannot take
 defence of necessity. If a person causing harm to another by doing an act without
any criminal intention, but with the knowledge that some harm may be caused , he
will not be responsible for the harm caused.
 In necessity desire or motive should be to curtail the greater harm –course of action
might be through these:

 Motive should be to reduce the greater harm , to

curtail this there must be some actus reus
 Defendant need to prove that there must be
connection of act with the intent to reduce greater
harm.
 Without the excuse of reducing greater harm this
singular might be consider as crime.
 Section81 excuses the doing of evil so that good may
 The main principle on which this section is based is
that, causing of lesser evil may be justified to prevent
greater evil.
 result.

Mens
rea

Act
Reduce the
greater
harm

In Reniger v. fogosa: serjeant pollard observed as follows: in every law , there are some
things which when they happen a man may break the words of law, and not yet not break
the law itself ,and such things are exempted from penalty

 The typical instance of necessity is pulling down a house to prevent a

fire from spreading.
Choice of evil affecting person other than the accussed: An illustration of
cases falling under this category arises when a doctor has a choice in killing of
the child and killing of mother delievering the child. If the doctor acting in good
faithm to save the mother
 INFANCY (the state or period of babyhood or early childhood.)
82.Act of child under seven years of age:- Nothing is an offence which is done by a child
under seven years of age. Infancy is a defect of understanding and infant under the age of
discretion ought not be punished by any criminal prosecution. CRC also signifies the
concept of Infancy.
Child below 7 years is absolute immune to any kind of punishment. Child below the age are
consider doli incapax

83:Above:7 years
Below: 12 years
Immature of understanding.

INSANITY : Insanity means a state of mind in which one or

more function of feeling , knowing , emotion, and willing is performed in an
abnormal manner
84: Act of a person of unsound mind:
Time of doing it by reason of unsoundness of mind
Incapable of knowing the nature of the act
Or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law
NOTE: These all defence must be establish on credible evidence.
Note: Law presume every person to be sane unless contrary is to be proved.it
is most dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon the arguments
derived merely character of the crime.
Mc Naughtens rule: Defence on insanity
o Capacity of wrong doer to form a criminal intent and capacity of wrong
doer to form a criminal intent is a relevant consideration. Due to some
defect in mental faculty a person may lack mental capacity to form
criminal intent.

Test for determining unsoundness of mind

  Wild beast case: reason of unsoundness of mind he was unable to
distinguish between good and evil and also did not what he did.
 Insane delusion case: it was evolved in hadfield case . ground of insane
delusion with which accussed was alleged to suffering . insanity is to be
determined by the fact of fixed insane delusion with which accussed was
suffering.

Ingredients of insanity under indian law:

1. Act must be done by a person of unsound mind.
2. Such person must incapable of knowing.
I. Nature of act
II. Act was contrary to law
III. That the act was wrong
3. Such incapacity must be done by reason of unsoundness of mind
of the offender.

Lack of rationality.

The accussed is not protected if he knew that what he was doing ws wrong ,
even if he didi not known that it was contrary to law or the vice versa. In order
to establish legal insanity it is necessary to prove that the cognitive faculties of
the person are such that he does not what he has done or what will follow his
act.
It was held in state of Maharashtra v. govind mitrabai shinde that if the plea
of insanity raised by the accussed .it is the duty of prosecution to subject the
accussed to medical examination immediately. This is Important because if it is
revealed during course of investigation that the accussed was suffering from
mental disease .
The penal code use the word “ unsoundness of mind “ and not use the word
insanity . mere unsoundness of mind is not defence, it must be such as affect
the judgement of a person .

85 INTOXICATION:
 Intoxication caused against his will.
  Intoxication incapable of knowing the nature of the act.
 Intoxication administered to him without his knowledge or against his
will.

The indian law on involuntary drunkness is contained in section 85 of the

code . this section afford the same protection to .

S.86 offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by

one who is intoxicated- Law related to voluntrly drunkness. A person
voluntarily intoxicated will be deemed to have the same knowledge as
he would have had if he had not been intoxicated.

Section 87. Act not intended

Not known likely to cause death or grevious hurt
Done by consent whether express or implied.
Voluntry non fit injuria .
All offence against property are offence against alienable right. The right to live
is inalienable right in the above sense.
Consent is not defined in the penal code although section 90 states when
consent is not free. Consent means to agree to a thing being done . According
to story consent means an act of reason accompanied with dilebaration of
mind , weighing in as in balance the god and evil each side.
INGREDIENTS OF SEC.88.
 If act is done neither with the intention of causing death
or grievous hurt nor the knowledge that it is likely to
death or grevious hurt.
 Harm is caused to any person with his consent.
 Person giving consent is above 18 years of age
 Consent given may be expressed or implied.
The defence of consent is based on two proposition
 That every person is the best judge of his own interest
 That no man will consent to what he think hurtful to himself
Note: this section does not permit a man to consent to anything intended, or
known to be likely to cause his own death or grevious hurt. If Z chooses to sell
his teeth to a dentist , and permit dentist to pull them out , the dentist ought
not be punished for injuring Z .
SECTION 87,88 and 89 of penal code deal with law of consent. Consent does
not justify causing of death or grevious hurt

SECTION 90:CONSENT KNOWN TO BE GIVEN UNDER FEAR OR

MISCONCEPTION: A consent is not consent as is intended by any section of
this code ,if the consent given by a person
Under fear of: Injury
or under misconception of fact
if the person doing the act knows ,or has
reason to believe that consent was given in
consequence of such fear or misconception.
Consent of insane person: if the consent is given by a person who from
unsoundness of mind ,or intoxication ,is unable to understand the nature and
consequence of that to which give his consent.
Consent of child: unless the contrary appear from the context, if the consent
is given by a person who is under twelve years of age.
Exclusion of act which are offences independently of harm caused-

SECTION 92 . Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent:
Must be good faith
Without consent of a perso
Provisio: This exception is not available in intentional causing of death.
This exception shall extend to the doing of anything which the
person doing it know to be likely to cause death

SECTION 95: Act causing slight harm: Nothing is an offence by reason that it
cause , or that it is known to be likely to cause , any harm , if that harm is so
slight.
question in judiciary
DJS. 2015 .Q.193. Section 76 of IPC Mistake of fact in good faith believes
provides that nothing is an offence , himself to be bound by law to do it.
which is done by a person
DJS .2014 . Q.112.The bueden of ACCUSSED
proving that the case of acussed
comes within any of the general
exception in the INDIAN PENAL CODE
Which section of the ipc codifies in Section 95 IPC
the field of criminal law , the maxim :
de minimis non curat lex’
Right of private defence I avialable Against all member of unlawful
assembly.but its not available in free
fight . SECTION .97
 ABETMENT (UKSANA)
Abetment itself is a substantive offence.
Attempt to abet itself is punishable govern under section 511
Mens rea is essential
Abetment is separate and distinct offence
 INSTIGATE

ENGAGES

INTENTIONALLY AID
ABETTOR

When several person take part in commission of an offence , each one of

them may contribute in a manner and degree different from others to
commission of it.it is therefore to mark the nature and degree of
participation of each of the person to determine their degree of
culpability.

ABETTOR
INTENT/DESIRE: mouth of commission of a crime is abettor and every wave in
criminal intent ignite from here.

Physically act is committed by

Other person but the man who
Had instigated in the commission
Of these all offences , what will be his criminal liability.

INDIAN LAW: The indian law make a broad distinction between principal and
abettor but does not .Abetment is an offence if the act abetted would itself be
an offence punishable under indian penal code.
It was held in gangalu mohan reddy v. state of AP that abetment involves
mental process of instigation or intentionally aiding person
 This thing signify
Actus reus Mens rea
section 107 deal with this
 Instigation(provoke, encourage) means act of inciting another to do a
wrongful act.one may abet the commission of an offence by counselling ,
suggesting, encouraging , procuring or commamding another to do an
act.instigation must be some active suggestion or support.
Note: in commission of these act malign intention must be endorse.
Mere acquiescenece , silent assent or verbal permission would not
constitute instigation.
Example: A tells B that he intends to murder C . B says ‘ do as you like’ .
A kill C .B cannot be said to have instigated A to murder C , because
instigation means .
Actively to suggest or stimulate the commission of an offence.

EXPLANATION.1. Wilful misrepresentation or concealment of

material fact:
Example: A police men came to my locality to arrest z . if I wilfully misrepresent
C to be Z and provide false information it is instigation.
In some cases indirect instigation might also fall in the category of offence. For
example:if A went out to Meet B wife for another purpose, but if I provoke B
that A will going to meet your wife and they have develop ilicit relationship.
Now this indirect instigation .
QUEEN V.MOHIT : A women went out to become sati and during this course
nearby people standing there advise her to chant ram ram. Court said that it
also amount to abatement.
ABATEMENT BY CONSPIRACY:IMPORTANT PENDING.

ABETMENT BY AID: intentionally aid—by an act or illegal omission.

Explanation 2. Clause 3 of section 107 must read with explanation 2 of
107.facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission
thereof is said to aid the doing of that act.
Mere intention to facilitate ,even coupled with an act calculated to facilitate is
not sufficient to constituent .
If the person who gives aid does not know that an offence was being
committed or contemplated.
Note: mere presence does not amount to aiding.

S.108: Abettor: abet an offence.

Explanation:1. Abetment of illegal omission of an act may amount to an
offence.
Explanation : 2: it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed.
Explanation 3: it is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable
by law of committing an offence…abetment of insane
Explanation : 4. Abetment of abetment is also an offence.

Section 108-A abetment commission of any act outside india .. QUEEN

EMPRESS V. GANPAT RAO=
Section 109: act committed in consequence. Suppose if A aid B to commit
robbery in C house and also A facilitate arms . in the course of committing
robbery B kill one person. In this case it was stated aiding by A create
consequence of murder, therefore A is punishable for the offence.
This section provide for the same punishment to the abettor as that which may
be inflicted on the principal offender provided that:
o Act abetted is committed in the consequence of the abetment
o No express provision is made in the code for punishment of such an act.

SECTION: Must read with explanation 3 of 108 . person abetted have different
intention…
Section 111 talk about liability of abettor when one act abetted and different
act done.. it must be read with section 109..the abettor is liable for the act
done .
Provided act done was probable consequence of the abetment.
One of the principle underlying the provision of section 111 is that “ Every man
is presumed to be intend the natural consequences of his act” therefore , this
section applies only when the act done is the probable consequence .
Liablity of abettor if the different act commited:- if the different act is probable
and natural consequence , then the abettor shall liable.
If the different act don’t have direct consequence from abetment then abettor
will be not held liable.
In Girja Prasad the Allahabad high court observed that a probable
consequence of an act is one which is likely or which can reasonably be
expected to follow from such act.

SECTION.112
Abettor when liable: if additional act is committed with the act has been
committed. Question is that what will the liability of abettor.
Abettor present when offence is committed. 114
PUNISHMENT:

Added in 1913.. chapter –V-A

SECTION:120A CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY. Two or more person agree to do
Civil action is also illegal
It is substantive offence.

 Ilegal act . section 43—ilegal act:- an offence,-- civil wrong, prohibited

by law.section 40 ipc offence.
 Act which is not illegal but by illegal means.

STATE V NALINI ..Agreement to commit an offence shall amount to

criminal conspiracy.meeting of minds is necessary
It is immaterial whether illegal act is ultimate object .

Note: To establish the charge of conspiracy it is essential that there

should must be agreement. meeting of minds.

It was held in yogesh alias Sachin jagdish joshi v. state of

maharastra.that to constitute offence of criminal conspiracy meeting of
mind of two or more person is sine qua non.

only agreement to commit conspiracy amount to criminal conspiracy.

 Mere knowledge of agreement is not sufficient to convict under

section 120A. For example, A discussed his plan to kill ‘c’ with B.
but never agreed for the same neither assisted him any way . A
killed C . b is not liable unse 120A- .
 Other than offence pursuance of this ovurt act is necessary.
HUSBAND AND WIFE: in English law if a man and his wife are the only parties
to a conspiracy they cannot be indicted for conspiracy because legally they are
deemed to be one person.
Agreement with minor or person of unsound mind: in ISHA SINGH V. STATE
OF UP the accussed had an agreement with a minor to kill c . the accussed was
charged under section
n 120A. the argument of the accussed was that sine the second person i.e the
minor is not capable of giving his consent, how can you change that thing into
agreement. But the court held that it is matter of policy that accussed can’t be
acquitted as the minor or the unsound person will repeatedly be used for same
act.
Q. if there was agreement between 5 person but 4 of them were abscond,
only 1 is getting arrested , how charge is been frame.

120B PUNISHMENT.