1. Intention v.

Motive
1.1. Generally, Motive is not required to be proved for establishing guilt. IPC uses the term
Motive only once while describing an offence [Section 171B – Bribery.]
1.2. We will look into the difference between the ‘knowledge’ & ‘intention’ once we take up
Sec 171B. Knowledge is being aware about consequences of your acts, intention is to
ensure that those consequences do happen. Detailed difference in next sessions.
1.3. Motive is what makes you to follow that path to those make consequences real.

2. Jurisdiction .
2.1. ‘Every Person’ in Section 2 of the IPC v ‘Any Person’ in Sec 3.
2.1.1. EP – includes every single person, there is no other filter involved there.
2.1.2. AP – has to be read with ‘…….liable, by any Indian law’ [Refer to Sec 3]. ‘Any
Person’ who has is liable as per any ‘Indian Law’ for the purpose of the application
of Section 3.
2.1.3. Section 3: say, XYZ Act states any person living in Pakistan inciting Indian citizens
against the Govt established by law shall be tried in India as if the offence was
committed in India. Here, ‘Any person’ is as referred under XYZ Act i.e., only those
living in Pakistan.
a) Offences committed in India, triable in India.
b) Any Indian citizen committing an penal offence [under IPC] anywhere in the
world would be liable to be tried in India.
2.2. Foreigner in India – yes, liable to be tried.
2.3. Parliament can make an extra-territorial law only if it has some ‘impact on’ or ‘any
nexus with’ India. GVK Industries Limited v. ITO, (2011) 4 SCC 36. [Check Para 56,
57, 118-120. It’s beautiful case and a must read to understand Parliament’s power to
legislate law as stipulated under Article 245 of the Constitution]
2.4. Foreigner without & beyond India.
2.4.1. Sec 4(2) –
2.4.2. Sec 3 – if any Indian Law makes a foreigner liable for commission of an offence
beyond India.
2.4.3. V. Falya, an Indian citizen, gets killed by Donald Duck, a foreigner outside India.
Indian courts do not have jurisdiction to try Mr Duck. [Though such laws may be
made in accordance with GVK Case.]
2.5. Indians beyond India. Without & beyond – yes, liable to be tried. Vide: Sec 4.
3. Public Servant [“PS”]
3.1. There is no specific test to determine whether a person would be a PS within the
boundaries of Sec 21. The only way to establish it is prove that one of the clauses of
Section 21 would be applicable.
3.2. Though, generally, [‘In Service or On Pay’ + ‘Public Duty’] is regarded as a test to
determine but even then it is essential that one of the clauses of Section 21 of the IPC is
satisfied.
3.3. Neither ‘R S Nayak’ nor ‘P V Narsimha v. State’ state that MLAs & MPs are PS under Sec
21 of the IPC. Nayak Case: MLAs & MPs are not public servant under 21 of the IPC; P
V Narsimha Case: They are public servant as per Sec 2(c) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act.
3.4. M. Karunanidhi v. Union Of India, 1979 SCR (3) 254: Ministers & CMs are public servant
within Sec 21. [Again, Not MPs or MLAs]
3.5. While dealing with offences enumerated in Chap IX ‘Of offences by or relating to Public
Servant’, you need to first establish that person in question is a public servant and then
fulfil the specific ingredients laid down of those specific provisions of the IPC.
3.6. Check the list given in R&D.

4. Wrongful Gain v. Wrongful Loss [Refer to Sec 23 IPC]

4.1. It is not necessary that a wrongful loss leads to Wrongful Gain
4.2. Section 23 does not constitute any offence but merely describes a few terms which are
later used as ingredients for determining guilt under certain IPC provisions.
4.3. Section 418. Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person
whose interest offender is bound to protect —
Whoever cheats with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause wrongful loss to
a person whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating relates, he was bound,
either by law, or by a legal contract, to protect, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
4.4. Section 425 Mischief
Whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or
damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such
change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or
utility, or affects it injuriously, commits "mischief".
 a) A voluntarily burns a valuable security belonging to Z intending to cause wrongful
loss to Z. A has committed mischief.
b) A introduces water into an ice-house belonging to Z and thus causes the ice to melt,
intending wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.
c) A voluntarily throws into a river a ring belonging to Z, with the intention of thereby
causing wrongful loss to Z. A has committed mischief.

4.5. Teeka And Others vs State Of Uttar Pradesh, 1962 SCR (1) 75 –
appellants in unlawfully taking away the cattle from the possession of the decree-holder,
who is only a bailee of the sapurdar, have caused wrongful loss to him and therefore they
are guilty of an offence under Section 424 IPC

5. Common Intention. Common Object.

5.1. Meeting of Minds [CI]
5.1.1. Prior meeting of minds. Vide: Suresh v State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 2001 SC 1344.
[Everyone should be on the same page].
5.1.2. There is a possibility common intention may develop on the spot; vide: Kripal Singh
v. State of U.P., AIR 1954 SC 706.
“ The common intention to bring about a particular result may well develop on the
spot as between a number of persons, with reference to the facts of the case and
circumstances of the situation. Whether in a proved situation all the individuals
concerned therein have developed only simultaneous and independent intentions or
whether a simultaneous consensus of their minds to bring about a particular result
can be said to have developed and thereby intended by all of them, is a question that
has to be determined on the facts.”

5.2. Similar Intention

5.2.1. Mohan Singh & anr. vs. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 174] observed, it is now well
settled that the common intention required by Section 34 is different from the same
intention or similar intention. The persons having similar intention which is not the
result of pre-concerted plan cannot be held guilty for the "criminal act" with the aid
of Section 34
Mentioned in: Suresh and Ors. vs. State of U.P, (2001) 3 SCC 673.
5.2.2. If prosecution could establish that there is some doubt wrt establishment of common
intention among, benefit would go to accused
5.3. Overt Act [CI]
5.3.1. An overt act is not required to be proved once common intention has been
established.
5.3.2. Surendra Chauhan v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 2000 SC 1436
“once common intention is proved and no overt act is attributed to the individual
accused, s 34 will be attracted, as essentially it involved vicarious liability, however if
participation in the crime of the accused is proved but there is no common intention,
then s 34 cannot be invoked” [Also in Jai Bhagwan v State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC
1083.]

5.4. Common Object v. Common Intention [Dani Singh v State of Bihar]

5.4.1. Two or more person [CI]; 5 or more [CO]
5.4.2. There is no specific criteria under Sec 34 or any other provision to establish common
intention. However, for common object, it is must that one of the five clauses under
Section 141 is proved.
5.4.3. No prior meeting of minds [for common object]. It is possible that members of
unlawful assembly have common object but no common intention whatsoever.

5.5. Unlawful Assembly

5.5.1. Common object has to be established as per Sec 141
5.5.2. Over Act is not necessary to be shown for incurring vicarious liability
5.5.3. Members would liable if – offence was committed in pursuance to common object
& they (members) knew that such offence was likely to committed. Vide: Sukhan
Raut v. State of Bihar, AIR 2002 SC 319
5.5.4. Common intention is irrelevant for purpose of establishing an offence by the virtue
of Sec 149.

5.6. Section 34 & 35

5.6.1. Sec 35 is an extension of Sec 34 with one slight changes wrt how these 2 provisions
approach. Sec 35 does not establish a common intention for all but rather establishes
intention against each accused. Instead of common intention, Sec 35 uses ‘…done
by several persons’, ---
 5.6.2. say, Batman & Superman intend to murder to Doomsday, while they are still
executing their plan, Gal Gadot joins them carrying the same intention. All of them
would be liable to be punished as if each of them committed the offence alone.

5.7. Section 37 – Intentional Cooperation

5.7.1. Common intention not required to be proved
5.7.2. There must be some positive for Sec 37 to be applicable

**Will keep updating after every session.