INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860

03/08/2023 (Megha Ma'am)

1. A police officer chasing a person accused to commit robbery, the accused resists and assaults
the officer, in return officer again causes hurt to the accused. Is he liable?
- Found in General exceptions- exceptions which negate criminal liability. It is a right of
private defence.
2. You are a farmer, he is in his own fields trying to harvest crops, not expecting anybody else,
suddenly 3 people come up with farm tools and taking away his crops, threatening to fire his
crops. They are threatening to injure the unarmed farmer. Farmer is injured by A, and in return
injures them even more. Is he liable?
act- justifiable or excusable sec 4 IPC
Who are the parties in a criminal case?
- State takes the responsibility. claiming the person has committed a crime. burden on it to
prove and demonstrate evidence. however, accused if takes general defence, burden is of the
accused to prove.
example: allegation by state, accused claiming defence that act was justifiable. (allegation- state
has the burden of proof, defence- burden of proof on accused)
- State vs Accused
- Complainant is not the party, he/she is barely informing about the crime.
Section 6

04/08/2023 (Mohit Sir)

B.A.LL.B.
What is law?
-Law is the common opinion of common people of a time.
Hence, it is what the common people think.
In order to frame the UCC, they want people's opinion.
Common people considered as majority, how do we protect the rights and interests
and opinions of minority?
JURISPRUDENCE, CONSTITUTION, INTERPRETATION

IPC-511 LAWS
Law is the aggregation of rules and regulations framed or adopted, to regulate an individual,
group, society, organization etc.
It can be classified in 2 parts: CODIFIED, UNCODIFIED

All laws passed by a particular authority (legislature for State, Parliament for entire nation) and
available into the form of an Act with a specific name- Codified. Ex: LAW OF CONTRACT

All the conduct (practice) that have become the part of a person's life based on certain custom
or traditions.- Uncodified.

How are uncodified laws decided in the court of law, and if somebody doesn't abide by it, how
does the court decide its conclusions?
1
07/08/2023- (Mohit sir)

Territorial - All laws applicable to everyone being on a particular territory, irrespective of

religion, caste, sex, and including the nationality. If law provides certain rights, those rights are
available to all. If that law provides certain restriction or punishment, it will be applicable to
law. Freedom as well as restriction are provided by law. Like- Seema Haider, went through an
investigation. She is being casted for a movie.

Personal - Laws applicable to a particular community or religion, irrespective of the boundary

of the nation. Hindu laws applicable to Hindus and Muslim law applicable to Muslims. They
are governed by their laws.

Civil- Where against any wrong, compensation needs to be paid, all such laws are civil laws.
Tort is a civil wrong.

Criminal- The wrong against which apart from paying the compensation, person will be
entitled for certain punishment so that an example can be set to the society.

Substantive- Laws that defines the rights and duties or, what to do, what not to do, that are
known as substantive laws. Contract Law, IPC.

Procedural- Laws that provide a mechanism to obtain or enjoy the rights defined under
substantive law. CrPC, CPC, Law of Evidence.

10/08/2023 (Mohit Sir)

Codified, substantive, criminal and territorial law.

Crime: Crime is an act or omission of an act, prohibited and punishable by:

-SOCIAL - MORAL - RELIGIOUS - LEGAL (Aggregation of all- DHARMA) But we take up

only the LEGAL wrong.

When the people start living in an association or group, they felt certain kinds of rules to
regulate the social behaviour and for such purpose they have approved certain conduct as right
while disapproved certain conduct, these conducts are known as wrong. Out of all the wrongs,
certain wrongs attract the provision of social, moral or religious provisions and they can be
corrected as per these norms while certain wrongs attract the provisions of law (legal). The
wrongs that attract the legal provisions are again of 2 kinds: 1, against which compensation
needs to be paid- civil crime. 2, against certain norms we need to penalise the person, such
wrongs are termed as criminal.

NATURE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY

1. The activity (wrong) must be against the large no. of people of the society.
2. The wrong must always be a rem and not the personam and the action for that needs to be
2
taken by the state or the govt.
3. The activity should always also be punishable by law (legal).
4. The punishment can be given by following the specific provision or process of any
law.(Procedural)

PRINICPLE OF CRIMINAL LAW

1. The accused is innocent until proven guilty as there is a process to prove a person guilty,
charge is to be framed. But framing the charge doesn't mean the accused is guilty that is only
the allegation of a crime.
2. The burden to prove the guilt is on the prosecution
3. The accused is authorized for having a right to be silent unless he is specifically asked to
answer. No duty on the accused.
4. Double jeopardy- for the same offence you cannot be punished twice.

17/08/2023- Mohit Sir

BENTHAM- Crime or offences are whatever the legislature has prohibited for good or bad
reason. This definition is not apt. e.g.: ICA
PAUL- Crime is an intentional act or omission in the violation of criminal law without
justification. Not apt as there are certain justification. eg: Private defence
STEPHEN- Crime is an act forbidden by law and which at the same time revolts the moral
sentiments of the society.
This definition is not suitable based on morality as it differs from place to place and time to
time. eg: satipratha
BLACKSTONE- An art comitted to omitted in violation of public law.
AUSTIN- Public law means constitutional law i.e. only political offenders are criminal.
GERMANS- Public law means consti+ criminal law.
OTHERS- Public law means positive law (statutory laws passed by the legislature)
This definition is also not appropriate.
"Crime is like searching a black cat by a blind man in a dark black room while there is not cat."
Difference between Contract, Tort and Crime
Contract is a way to convert an agreement and provides a merely .....

CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Corporate is a group or association of large number of people that comes into existence as a
separate legal entity by following the provisions of Company Law.
Initially the Court was with an opinion that Company being an artificial person cannot be liable
under Criminal Law and the Person working on behalf of it were liable but now the Court is
with the opinion, the Company can also be liable as a person.

22/08/2023- MOHIT SIR

ESSENTIALS OF THE CRIME
4 Elements of a crime-
1. Human being: It is the very 1st condition to constitute a crime. While there are certain
3
examples of ancient european countries where not only the human being but animals as well as
any inanimate object were punished. Because at that time the criminal administration of justice
was based on the theory of retribution and the ultimate aim was to take the revenge. The right
to punish was with the individual one and they did the activity to console themselves. Later on
this right was transferred from individual to the society. But we all are lucky not to have such
criminal administration in India. Here, only the humans were punished for their activity and not
the animals. Though, sometimes, human beings were punished on behalf of the animal but it
was on the omission of taking care of their animal.
2. Evil intent (mens rea, guilty mind):
Actus non Facit reum nisi mens sit rea means an act alone doesn't make a person guilty unless
its intentions were so.
Actus mi invito factus non est mens actus means an act done by me against my will is not my
act at all.
3. Act or omission(actus reus): The initial human being or mens rea are not sufficient to
constitute a crime unless we do certain activity in order to fulfill, the concept of guilty mind.
Because a person cannot peep into the mind of another person to judge the guilty mind. So in
order to judge it, certain activity is required but the act or omission that resulted in a particular
manner must be the legal one.
4. Injury: The act done with criminal intention must produce an injury either to any individual
one or to the group or society at large. Injury maybe of 4 kinds: MIND, BODY, PROPERTY or
REPUTATION.
The above 4 provisions are essential to constitute any crime with certain exceptions.
Though mens rea is required but there are certain activities that is a crime done in absence of
mens rea is a crime based on strict liability. But the activity should be clearly defined in any
criminal law.
Though injury is required to constitute a crime but there are certain activity where no injury is
taking place even the activity is an offence. Example: attempt

23/08/2023- Mohit Sir

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF IPC

1. ANCIENT ENGLAND- At that time there was not the Law of Crime while it was Law of
Wrongs. And every wrong were to be punished and there was no difference between the
wrongs as tort or crime. This was the reason why even the animals were punished and right to
punish was with the individual one and later on it was transferred to the society. The concept of
mens rea was absent for punishment

2. HINDU CRIMINAL JUSTICE- Among Hindu criminal admin. of justice the right to
punish was never with the individual one while it was always with the king and mens rea was
the important point to hold a person liable for any crime.

3. MOHD. CRIMINAL JUSTICE- Muslim law were based on Quran and Hadis. There were
2 types of wrongs or crime. A- Against God (intoxication) B- Against individual (murder).
There was no crime against society. Crime against God was considered public wrong and right
4
was with the society to punish for them while for offences against individual, the right was with
that individual. There were certain defects in criminal law as non muslim could not be the
witness in a case affecting muslim.

4. BRITISH INDIA- When east india company took over the criminal admin. of justice on
Indian dominion they continued the Muslim law in practice but gradually they found certain
defects and tried to remove that. Warring Hatings and Lord Cornwallis started removing those
defects. But the removed effects were not applicable to whole India. In 1832 it was decided to
frame the law for the entire country and in 1833 a charter was passed for the permission to
legislate the law in 1834 1st law commission was appointed with lord macaulay as its chairman
along with Mcleod, Anderson and Millet as members. The draft of Indian Penal Code was
submitted it was revised by Peacock and More in 1850 and submitted the revised draft to the
legislative council in 1856. The draft got assent on 6th October 1860 and came in force on 1st
January 1862.

Section 1- TITLE AND APPLICABILITY OF INDIAN PENAL CODE

SECTION 1: The name of this Code is IPC, 1860 and it is applicable to the whole of India.
India means as per Article 1 (3) of Constitution:
1. State territories
2. Union territories
3. Any other territory as may be acquired

Jurisdiction (Power of the court to apply the provisions of Indian Penal Code):

1. Section 2: Internal- It means every person irrespective of caste, religion including the
nationality does any activity that is prohibited under Indian Penal Code on Indian territory will
be liable under the provisions of IPC.
There is no exception but certain privileges given under constitution and as well as based on
certain adopted principles. Example: President, Governor, Sovereign heads, Diplomats
The provisions of IPC are applicable on Indianterritory including states, union and sea water
upto 12 nautical miles.
Sometimes a person while commiting the act is not in India but the activity took place in Indian
territory. The court will presume the precense of that person on Indian territory and will be
liable under IPC and known as constructive presence.
The foreigner cannot take plea of ignorance of Indian law.

2. Section 4 : External- Generally, any govt has the right to frame the law for its own territory
but in exceptional condition, the law applicable in different territory in its own citizen.
Section 3: If any citizen of India commits any activity prohibited by IPC on a territory other
than Indian territory, Indian citizen will be liable under IPC.

24/08/2023 (Megha Nagpal)

Mistake of fact (S-76) - Act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing himself
5
bound, by law.
(factual mistake + Good faith)

#Queens v Toleson 1889 Queen's Bench Division

- Mrs Toleson living in England in 1880s. She was married to H (adventorous) and tells her
will go for sea exploration. Boards ship, Mrs. Toleson reveives news- ship met an accident and
none were left alive. Informs society, she is remarrying. She is arrested for remarrying even
after husband alive. Punishable for bigamy.

Held:
Fact of death turns to be incorrect
Judge the intention by relevant actions.
Good faith:
a) Looked out finding husband
b) Thought of herself as widow
c) Third marriage not done in secret, not hiding her marriage
d) Was sad about the news

#State of Maharashtra vs MH George 1965

- MH George travelling from one place to another, stops in Bombay.
- Inquired about reason for coming to India by officials.
- He knew about the layovers.
- Officials take authority to do personal search of body
- 17 packets and has gold in it @30 kg
- They said the day he was travelling RBI says gold cannot be carried.
- Not paid any customs duty (Customs act)
- Officials given right to search.
- DEFENCE:
- RBI guideline not known on time
- Not carrying luggage in the manifest of plane (where luggage is kept) Therefore- Goods in my
jacket not subject to any custom duty.
• Even if not carrying goods in luggage compartment, it's therefore Cargo and not personal
apparel.
• It's not an offence intention is important but act is.
• Knowledge of notification?- No, BUT aware of carrying high value
• Logic- make yourself about rules of a country as you're carrying high value goods.
• Rules released not individually informed but publication in gazette.
• Defence of unawareness unacceptable- Liable

#West Bengal vs Shew Mangal Singh

- Shew on patrolling duty and receives info about son of a person staying.
- They encounter son of protestors, as they interferred in police's duty, others joined who arent
protesting and use force against police.
- They receive info to allow to be able to use rifle to control mob. in naxalite prone area. He
6
shoots a man.
- 302 applied against Shew.

S-76 illustration (a) bound by law (b) believing to be bound by law

• Held- if order given is 'justified by law' doesn't make subordinate liable for ordering it.
• Unjustifiable order by senior not taken.
• Here he was bound by law.

26/08/2023 (Mohit sir)

Section 4: Extention of extra territorial jurisdiction

- Citizen of India on any place beyond India
- Any person on any ship, aircraft registered in India
- Any person commit any offence targeting the computer resource located in India

Section 5: Certain laws not to be affected by IPC

Eg: Military, Navy, Air force
Certain activity covered through special or local law

General Explanation (SECTION 6- 52A)

- Subject to exception is its definition.
- Every definition, every penal provision and every illustration are subject to general
exceptions.

28/08/2023 (Mohit Sir)

General Law
Special Law
Local Law

Section 6- Definition, Penal Provision, Example

The court is under duty to check the provisions from S-76 to 106 for punishing any person for
any crime.
Section 7- Sense of expression once explained- This chapter defines certain words with
intention wherever the word is used in the entire code, their meaning will be described under
chapter General explanation.
Section 8- Gender It includes he and she.
#National legal service authority vs Union of India 2014
- What about the 3rd community people? It is also included.
Section 9- Number- Singular number includes Plural number.
Section 10- Man and Woman- Man includes a male person of any age and woman includes a
female person of any age.
After death there is no concept of age.
7
Section 11- Person- A person includes any company, association, or body of person whether
incorporated or not.
Section 12- Public- Includes class of the public or community.
Section 13- Queen- repealled
Section 14- Servant of Government- Any officer or servant who is continued, appointed or
employed by government.
Section 15- British India- repealled
Section 16- Govt. of India- repealled
Section 17- Government - Central or State Govt.
Section 18- India- The territory
Section 19- Judge- Not only officially designated person but empowered by law for legal
proceedings.
Section 20- Code of Justice- When Judge acts judicially
Section 21- Public Servant-
Differece between Public Servant and Servant of Govt.
PS- Not necesarilly on payroll of the govt.
SofG- The person is on the payroll of the govt.
Section 22- Movable property- Corporeal property of every description, except LAND,
THINGS ATTACHED TO THE EARTH, PERMANENTLY FASTENED TO
SOMETHING WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE EARTH.
Section 23- Wrongful gain- A gain by unlawful means of any property to which the person
gaining is not legally entitled.
Wrongful loss- A loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it
is legally entitled.
Section 24- Dishonestly- General meaning is deviation from honesty, but in IPC it means any
act done with an intention to cause wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another
person.
Section 25- Fraudulently- A person does anything with intention to defraud other.
Section 26- Reason to believe- There must be sufficient cause to believe something if we are
not sure about the things but the reason should be based on certain grounds as personal
knowledge, education, past experience, circumstances, time, place etc.
Section 27- Possession of property- If any property is into the possession of a
person's wife, clerk or servant, the property will be considered into this possession.
Section 28- Counterfeit- Causes one thing to resemble another thing to deceive or
likely to deceive someone else.
Section 29- Document- Any matter expressed upon a substance by Figures,
Numbers or Marks
Section 29(A)- As per IT Act
Section 30- Valuable security- Any document whereby any legal right is created,
extended, transferred or restricted, or through which any person acknowledges
that he is under certain duty or he has no legal right.
Section 31- Will- A testamentary document (in which a person dispose his
property after his death and not prior to it)
Section 32- Act (includes illegal omission)- Single act includes series of acts.
Section 33- Omission
Section 34- 38- Common intention (Megha Ma'am)
Section 39- Voluntarily- Every person is the best judge of his own act and can
valuate the probable consequences of the same act. If a person is sure about the
result, by means he is using or having reason to believe about the result, his act
will be considered a voluntarily act.
Section 40- Offence- Any act or omission punishable by IPC or in certain
circumstances by special law or local law.
Section 41- Special law- Law applicable to a particular subject
Section 42- Local law- Applicable to a part of india
Section 43- Illegal- which- an offence, prohibited by law, furnished the ground for
civil action
Section 44- Injury- Any harm, illegally caused in:
1. Body 2. mind 3. reputation or property
Section 45- Life Life of a human being unless contrary appears
Section 46- Death Death " "
Section 47- Animal . Any living creature other than human being.
Section 48- Vessel Anything made for the conveyance by water of human being or
property.
Section 49- Year and month- As per British calendar not Hindu.
Section 50- Section- A portion of chapter.
Section 51- Oath - An affirmation or declaration made to any public servant or to
probe in court of justice (whether used or not)
Section 52- Good faith- An act done or believed to be done with proper care and
attention. (honesty, fairness, careful, etc are attached with this section)
Section 52A- Harbour
STAGES OF A CRIME
1. Formation of an intention to commit a crime: This stage starts with the
conceiving of Mens Rea or intention into mind to commit a crime. This stage
basically relates with the internal part of a mind & no one can judge a person’s
mind because he cannot peep into his mind. The word Mens Rea is not defined but
IPC has used certain words to indicate the Mens Rea or guilty minds such as
dishonesty, fraudulently, maliciously, negligent etc. but this stage is not
punishable because of the above-mentioned position and there is always an
opportunity or chance to change the evil intention of the person.
2. Preparation to commit the intended crime: After conceiving the idea,
preparation is required to commit the offence and it includes arranging or
organizing all necessary means requires to commit the offence but this stage is also
not punishable.
 ⦁ Apart from evil intention, preparation is generally a harmless act.
 ⦁ It is also impossible to prove that the preparation was to commit
any wrongful or unlawful act.
  ⦁ Preparation does not generally affect the sense of security
 ⦁ Innocent person or people may be harassed.
Exception: this case excludes the possibility of any innocent intention.
Section 122: Collecting arms with intention of waging was against Govt. of India.
Section 399: Preparation to commit. (126, 237, 234)
3. Attempt to commit the intended crime: After preparation, an act done towards
the comm of crime is an attempt. It is the step necessary to attempt a crime.
Though such step is not defined, it depends on case to case but it should be step
after which we can wait only for the result. This stage is punishable but so long
there is possibility for changing the mind before taking the step and through
which intended crime could be avoided is not an attempt. Failure is getting the
final intended result.
4. Commission or completion of intended crime: It is getting the final intended
result, and it is in all cases punishable.
16/09/2023- Megha Ma'am
Insanity and Intoxication
 Section 84- #Dayabai Thakkar vs Gujarat
- Husband killed wife and then took a plea of insanity u/S- 84.
 #Ratanlal vs Madhya Pradesh
- Father with 2 minor kids...Insanity as a defense was accepted. Was suffering from
depression/ maniac.
Section 85 & 86- Intoxication (voluntarily/ involuntarily)
 #Basdev vs PEPSU
A drunk person killed (shot in the abdomen) a boy in the wedding because he
refused to give him the seat. Intoxication will not be any kind of defense. Does he
have the intention? We will know that by the conduct of this individual. During,
prior and after. He asked to vacate the chair- ego involved. After the act he ran
away. everything proves that he voluntarily did it and is pretty aware of his
surroundings.
28/09/2023- Megha Ma'am
  #Bablu vs Rajasthan
Bablu married, wife, 3 children. Daily drinks. Wakes up one day at 8 a.m. and kills
the entire family with an axe. Went to police station and convinced.
Whether the private defense of intoxication is available to him?
No. SC said that his act of confessing in the police station was diabolical. So he did
not get the defense.
INFANCY (82 AND 83 OF IPC)
82- Absolute Infancy- under 7 years of age.
83- Above 7 and under 12 years of age.
 #Hiralal vs Bihar
- How will be decide the level of maturity?
Hiralal is 12, lives in the company of teenagers. They are all gang members, they
keep weapons and Hiralal keeps an ustra (sharp edged razor), he put grievous hurt
by using it (S-320). Being of an infant age, at the time of commission of an
offence, ask the child, decipher and understand the level of child's understanding.
In this case, it was understood that the child was aware of the dangers. He knew
that this is illegal.
 #Prakash Singh vs Jharkhand
- Age is not the age when the child was brought, rather it is the age when
the offence was committed.
29/09/2023- Megha Mam
Necessity (Section 81)
 #Queen vs Dudley and Stephens
- Case of extreme starvation. Self-preservation instinct cannot go on to causing
excess harm to someone else. Dudley was found liable. But only for one year
imprisonment.
Private Defense (Section 96 to 106)
25/09/2023- Mohit Sir
ATTEMPT UNDER IPC
The commission of an offence and its attempt are defined in the same section and
the attempt is punishable with the same punishment as that of the offence.
The offence and its attempt are defined in separate sections and the attempt is
punishable with different punishments.
Offences are only punishable, but attempts are not defined in any section.
Section 511 of IPC will be taken into account for such an attempt. This section
deals with 3 kinds of attempt:
 1. Offence punishable with life imprisonment
 2. Offence punishable with imprisonment
 3. Causes the offence to be committed (abetment)
Punishment:
 1. Half of the life-imprisonment
 2. Half of the maximum punishment
 3. Fine or both
Theories of Attempt:
1. Proximate Theory (near to the result)
Once the offender has completed his task for commission of his offence and
waiting for the result which is the ultimate ingredient of the offence but the result
has not taken place either due to the lack of the skill of the offender or due to some
other factor, the offender will be liable for attempt.

2. Theory of Impossibility:
An attempt to do an act which in fact was impossible to perform. Initally the
Court was with the opinion that the person cannot be liable for attempt of any
impossible act. But now the court is with the opinion and a person can be liable
for attempt of an act which is actually impossible.
  #Queens vs Collins
 #R vs Ring (1892)
-A person wanted to steal from a bag, but the bag was empty.
Though in prior case, the Court did not hold the person liable, but in current case
the Court held the person liable because of the Mens Rea, Actus Reus and only in
the absence of injury.
04/09/2023- Mohit Sir
ABETMENT (section.107)
Sometimes a person doesn’t commit any offence through his own hand but he gets
the offence done through some other hand by commanding the person/ request/
help or through some other method. Any activity that actually engrave the person
to commit any crime or promotion of the crime is termed as abetment. Abetment in
itself is an offence and can be done through different manner. The offence of
abetment starts with the intention (mens rea) of the person abetting others to
commit crime.
Can be done by following method:
 1. By instigation
 2. By conspiracy
 3. By intentionally aid or help
ABETMENT BY INSTIGATION
It is a provocation for committing a crime through active participation it may
include any request, command, urge etc. Any form of language may be used; only
the intention should be to promote any crime. The language or the communication
may be direct or indirect. Generally, silent approval or general communication are
not considered as abetment.
 Queen Vs. Modi

ABETMENT BY CONSPIRACY:
An agreement to do an illegal act or to do a legal act with illegal means.
For abetment by conspiracy mere agreement is not sufficient but some act needs to
be done in furtherance of the agreement. (Mere agreement is an offence under
criminal conspiracy under section.128).
BY INTENTIONALLY AID OR HELP
If any person does any act or omission for helping some other person to commit
the crime, that person will be liable.
Abettor (section.108)
Any person who abets
a. For commission of an offence
b. Commission of an act (which would be an offence if done by a person
capable by law or with same intention or knowledge)
Explanation 1:
To be the abettor it is not necessary that the person abetting someone else for
omitting his duty should also be bound with the same.
Explanation 2:
The act abetted not necessarily:
a. Committed
b. Should get the requisite result.
c. The abetted should be capable by law or having any guilty intention or
knowledge as that of the abettor.
d. Abetment of abet.
e. Abetment by conspiracy not necessary to discuss the plan with all the members.
 OCTOBER (CRIMES)
06/10/2023- Megha Ma'am
(Section 96-106)
Section 96: Things done in private defence.
Section 97: Right to private defence of body and property
1. Right to private defence to body
2. Right to private defence to property
#Deo Narayan vs State of UP
-2 groups of people, claiming ownership of a farm. A civil suit going on wrt the ownership.
Group A has the occupation of the farm. Group B on a particular day reaches the farm in a
jeep. 3-4 people of group A are already present.
1. Verbal exchange of abusive words.
2. Argument going on and each of them fighting every other. Deo Narain hit one of the
members of jeep group and is able to catch hold of lathi. Hits on head, shoulder.
Section 100: RPD of body extends to causing death. As in the situation of Deo Narayan.
SC- When a person is in a situation where there is threat to life, bodily injuries, the person cannot
be expected to use Golden scales to know how much severe the blow is. Harm cannot be to take
revenge or to teach someone a lesson.
Section 102: Commencement and continuance of right of private defence.
#James Martin v State of Kerela SC
2009 #Kesho vs Delhi Administration
Are MCD officials justified by LAW?
A person cannot exercise pvt defence against govt. officials. No private defence available.
23/10/2023- Mohit Sir
HURT (Section 319)
Bodily Pain (Physical pain and more than slightly pain)
Disease - communicable disease
Infirmity - inability of an organ of the body to perform the normal functions of daily
life Whoever causes the hurt voluntarily (S-39):
1. Intention to cause hurt
2. Knowledge that hurt can be caused (unsoundness,
intoxicated) PUNISHMENT (Section 321)
General punishment (Section 323) (1 year + fine or both)
On provocation (Section 334) (1 month + fine upto 500 or both)
There may be cases where the act resulted into death, if the intention or the knowledge was only
upto hurt the person will not be liable for death but will be liable only for the hurt.
GRIEVOUS HURT (Section 320)
1. Emasculation.
2. Permanent Privation of sight of either eye
3. Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
4. Privation of any member or joint.
5. Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.
6. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
7. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
8. Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of
twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
VOLUNTARILY CAUSING HURT (Section 322)
i. Intention ii. Knowledge
Punishment
Section 324- General Punishment (7 years + fine or
both) Section 335- On Provocation ( 4 years + fine or
both) 26/10/2023- Mohit Sir
Voluntary Causing
Hurt (324) Grievous Hurt
(326) Deadly Different Weapon
1. Instrument used for shooting, stabbing or cutting.
2. Through fire, poison corrosive/ explosive substance.
3. Any substance harmful through inhale, swallow or if mixed in the blood.
4. Through any animal.
Punishment
Hurt Grievous Hurt
3years + fine (Section 324) Life Imprisonment/ 10years (Section 326)
Acid Attack
Whoever causes permanent/ partial damage, deformity, burns, hurt or grievous hurt on any
part or parts of the body with the intention or knowledge.
 PUNISHMENT
Commission (326A) Not <10 years + fine Attempt (326B) 5 years + fine ---> 7 years + Fine
Fine shall be reasonable as per medical treatment.
MURDER
Homicide (Homi + Cido)
Lawful
 Excusable (Insane, Intoxicated, Child)
 Justified (Private
Defence) Unlawful
 Culpable Homicide amounting to murder
 Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder
 Death by negligent/ rash act
 Dowry death
Section 299- Culpable Homicide
Whoever causes death by doing any act (actus reus) with:
 Intention to cause death (expectation of result based on certain probability)
 Intention of causing such bodily injury as in likely to cause death
 Knowledge that such act may cause the death
Murder (S 300)
Whoever causes the death by doing any act with:
 Invention to cause death
 Intention to cause such bodily injury as the offender knows as is likely to cause death
 Intention to cause such bodily injury as sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature sufficient to cause death
 Knowledge that such act is so dangerous that in all probability death may be
caused Culpable Homicide amounting to Murder
#Reg vs Govinda
Husband and wife (minor) fight, husband used fist and hit on her face and chest and wife died.
So, here in this case according to probability (low) even when death compulsorily and likeliness
will amount to culpable homicide.
27/09/2023- Megha Nagpal
#Ratanlal vs State of UP
-A farmer in a village, had a footpath beside his house, encroached and converted into farm. He
was held liable.
#Amjad Khan vs State
299. CULPABLE HOMICIDE

Section 299 provides that, culpable homicide has wider spectrum than that of
murder. Let us examine each phrase of this section one by one.

1. Whoever causes death. —

Where the injury caused on the top of the head was simple and the deceased himself did
not take it seriously and did not go to the hospital but died three weeks after the
occurrence due to sepsis consequent to the bad handling of the wound, this section was
held to be not attracted; Shobha v. Emperor, AIR 1935 Oudh 446.

2. By doing an act. —

Hence, death may be caused by neglect of duty, such as parent not supplying food and
medical care to his child, a husband starving his wife; Om Prakash v. State of
Punjab, MANU/SC/0125/1961 : AIR 1961 SC 1782.

3. (i) Intention to cause death.--

In Dibia v. State, MANU/UP/0172/1953 : AIR 1953 All 373 it was held that, causing
serious injury on a vital part of the body of the deceased with the dangerous weapon must
necessarily, lead to inference that the accused intended to kill.

(ii) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death. —

The expression 'intention to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death' merely
means an intention to cause a particular injury, which injury is, or turns out to be, one
likely to cause death. It is not the death itself which is intended, nor the effect of injury;
King v. Aung Nyug, AIR 1940 Rang 259.

Grover, J. has rightly emphasized in Mohammed Hossein's case, (1864) WR (Cr 131), that
"it is indispensable that the death should be clearly connected with the act of violence, not
merely by chain of causes and effects, but by such direct influence as is calculated to
produce the effect without the intervention of any considerable change of circumstances".
The difference between the two expressions 'intention of causing death' and 'intention of
causing such bodily injury as it's likely to cause deaths' is a difference of degrees in
criminality. The latter is a lower degree of criminality than the former. But as, in both the
cases the object is the same, the law does not make any distinction in punishment.

(iii) With the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death. --

Here, knowledge means the personal knowledge of a person who does the act. The word
'knowledge' is a strong word and imports a certainty and not merely a probability. Where
the accused picked the abdomen of B with such violence as to cause fracture of two ribs
and rupture of the spleen which was normal B died. It was held that the accused knew
that the abdomen is a most delicate and vulnerable part of the human body and should,
therefore, be presumed to have kicked with the knowledge that by so kicking he was likely
to cause death; Mansel Pledell v. Emperor, AIR 1926 Lah 813.

Sometimes even gross negligence may amount to knowledge. –

When a person acts negligently or without exercising the due care and caution, he will be
presumed to have knowledge of the consequences arising from his act. Where A had gone
to his father-in-law's house to fetch his wife. There was some quarrel between A and his
brother-in-law B on the question whether his wife should accompany him by the night
train the same day or by the morning train the next day as desired by their in-laws.
During the quarrel A lost his temper and gave one blow with a knife on the chest of B
which resulted in his death. It was held that A was guilty under the second part of section
304 for culpable homicide not amounting to murder because death was caused by doing
an act with the knowledge that it was likely to cause death; Queen Empress v. Kangla,
(1898) 18 AWN 163.

EXPLANATIONS TO SECTION 299, I.P.C.

Explanation 1.--

A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or
bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have
caused his death.

It is important that the accused knows that condition of the deceased was such that his
act was likely to cause death. When the injury inflicted was not such as would cause his
death but death resulted from rupture of spleen (which was considerably enlarged) and
the accused has no knowledge of his ailment, the accused was held to be guilty of
grievous hurt; Megha Meeah, (1865) 2 WR (CR) 30.

Explanation 2.--

Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be
deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skillful
treatment the death might have been prevented.

In R. v. Davis, (1883) 15 Cox CC 174. A gave a blow to D, the injury to inflicted rendered
an operation advisable. As a preliminary to the operation, chloroform was administered to
D who died during its administration and it was agreed that the patient would not have
died but for its administration. A was held liable for manslaughter because he had caused
an injury which in the opinion of competent medical men necessitated the operation.

Explanation 3.--

The causing of the death of child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it may
amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child
has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.

300. MURDER

Clause 1
In order to attract the provisions of clause (1) of section 300, I.P.C. the prosecution has to
prove that very act, that was done with the intention to cause the death of the victim.

A question of intention is always a matter of fact. Once intention of causing death is

proved, culpable homicide amounts to murder unless any of the exception is applied;
Rajwant Singh v. State of Kerala, AIR 1966 SC 1874. Intention can rarely be proved by
direct evidence, when facts are so entertained, determining whether it is culpable
homicide and then finding out separately whether it amounts to murder may not be
convenient; State v. Rayavarapu Punnayya, 1977 Cr LJ 1.

Where the accused sets fire to the room in which the victim was sleeping and the room
was locked from outside and the villagers were prevented from rendering help, the
intention to kill is fully made out; Rewalpenta Venkalu v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC
171. Intention can also be inferred from the acts of the accused - namely nature of the
weapon used, the part of the body where injury is inflicted, the force of the blow, etc.
Stabbing wife with the aid of torch, in the middle of the back with such force as to
penetrate the spinal cavity - the intention could only have been to kill her; Ghasi Ram v.
State of Bhopal, AIR 1952 Bhopal 25.

In Maqbool v. State of A.P., MANU/SC/0472/2010 : AIR 2011 SC 184, in this case the
appellant murdered and cash snatched away from deceased. Incident taking place near
house of deceased. Evidence by wife and employee were truthfully describing events
without exaggeration and can't be discarded on ground of interested witnesses. A faulty
investigation where IO failing to collect blood stained earth from place of incident. After
three fires on deceased the accused snatch his bag and run away. Appeal dismissed and
judgment upheld by the Supreme Court.

Clause 2

No case

Clause 3

Supreme Court in the case of Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0041/1958 : AIR
1958 SC 465 observed that to bring the case under this part of the section the prosecution
must establish objectively:

(1) That a bodily injury is present;

(2) That the nature of injury that must be proved;

(3) It must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that particular
bodily injury;

(4) That the injury inflicted is sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course
of the nature (this is purely objective).

Once these four elements are established by the prosecution then the offence is
committed under clause 3 of section 300, I.P.C.

Clause 4
The explosion of a bomb in a crowded room must have been known to the accused that it
would cause death and the fact that the accused had no intention of killing a particular
person does not take the case outside the preview of clause (4); State of Madhya Pradesh
v. Ram Prasad, MANU/SC/0084/1967 : AIR 1968 SC 881.

EXCEPTION TO THE OFFENCE OF MURDER

PROVOCATION (Exception 1)

The following conditions must be complied with in order to invoke the benefit of this
clause:

(1) The deceased must have given provocation to the accused.

(2) The provocation must be such as would deprive any reasonable man of his power of
self-control over himself.

(3) The act of killing of the accused must have been done when he was deprived of his
power of self-control by the grave and sudden provocation. It must be done under the
immediate impulse of provocation.

(4) The offender must not have reflected, deliberated or cooled, between the provocation
and the mortal stroke. Thus, there must not be sufficient time for the passion caused by
the provocation to cool down and reason to reassert its control; Datta Gem v. State of
Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0102/1973 : AIR 1974 SC 387.

(5) The offender must have caused the death of the person who gave the provocation or
that of any other person by mistake or accident.

K.M. Nanavati's case

In K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0147/1961 : AIR 1962 SC 605 the

fact of the case was, the accused, a naval officer was charged with the murder of Prem
Ahuja, a businessman of Bombay, for having illicit intimacy with his wife, Sylvia. On
coming to know from his wife about the illicit relationship with the deceased, he went to
the ship, took from the stores a semi-automatic revolver and six cartridges on a false
pretext, loaded the same, went to the flat of Ahuja to his bedroom and shot him dead
after a heated exchange of words.

It was held that, between 1.30 P.M. when he left his house, and 4.20 P.M. when the
murder took place, three hours had escaped, and therefore there was sufficient time for
him to regain his self-control, even if he had not regained it earlier. His conduct clearly
showed that the murder was deliberate and calculated one. The mere fact that before the
shooting the accused abused the deceased and the abuse provoked an equally abusive
reply could not conceivably be a provocation for the murder. Conviction of the accused
under section 302, I.P.C. and sentence of imprisonment for the life was upheld.

RIGHT TO PRIVATE DEFENCE (Exception 2)

It is a cardinal principle of the law of right of private defence that the accused must be
free from fault in bringing about an encounter; there must be present an impending peril
to life or of great bodily harm, either real or apparent. The right of private defense is
purely preventive and not punitive or retributive; Kirpal Singh v. State, AIR 1951 SC 137.

Four cardinal conditions must have existed before the taking of the life of a person is
justified on the plea of self-defense; Firstly the accused must be free from fault in bringing
about the encounter; Secondly, there must be present an impending peril to life or of
great bodily harm either real so apparent as to create honest belief of an existing
necessity; Thirdly, there must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat; and
Fourthly, there must have been a necessity for taking life; Balbir Singh Balwant Singh v.
State of Punjab, 1959 Cr LJ 901 (SC).

Jassa Singh case

Tn Jassa Singh v. State of Haryana, MANU/SC/0008/2002 : (2002) 2 SCC 481 the fact of
the case was, dispute of land arose between deceased Surmukh Singh and the accused
Jassa Singh @ Jaswant Singh (appellants). At about 6.00 p.m. when Surmukh Singh and
Narinder Singh were sitting on the boundary of the held, all the appellants came there.
While appellants Jassa Singh, Bakha Singh and Sukha Singh were armed with guns, other
accused persons were having gandasis with them. Labh Singh and Jassa Singh made
exhortations to kill Surmukh Singh, the Sarpanch. Gurmukh Singh and his deceased
brother, Surmukh Singh made an appeal to the appellants not to pick up a quarrel and
that they may settle the dispute in court. But the appellants advanced towards the tractor
driven by Gurvinder Singh and Jassa Singh fired a shot at Surmukh Singh. The appellant
Bakha Singh also fired a shot at Surmukh Singh. Surmukh Singh fell down on the ground.

The appellant Sukha Singh also fired a shot at Surmukh Singh with his 12 bore gun.

In this case, the appellants went to the place of occurrence with guns and deadly
weapons. This clearly indicated that there was premeditation on the part of the appellants
and from the acts committed by the appellant, it is evident that they had intention of
doing more harm than was necessary for the purpose of self-defence. Therefore, the acts
committed by the appellants will not come within Exception 2 of section 300, I.P.C. so as
to make it culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

CULPABLE HOMICIDE WHEN PUBLIC SERVANT EXCEEDS HIS POWERS (Exception

3)

Where a suspected thief who has been arrested by a police officer escapes by jumping
down from the train from its off side and the police officer finding that he is not in a
position to apprehend him, shoots at him but in doing so hits the fireman and kills him; it
was held that the case is covered by exception 3 to section 300, I.P.C. and the accused is
guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder; Dukhi Singh v.
Slate, MANU/UP/0109/1955 : AIR 1955 All 379.
SUDDEN FIGHT (Exception 4)

Suresh Chandra case

In Suresh Chandra v. State of Uttar Pradesh, MANU/SC/0435/2005 : AIR 2005 SC 3120, it

was argued that the incident had happened without any premeditation or prior concert,
upon a sudden quarrel and the resultant attack on the victims was unintentional and
therefore, the offence would appropriately fall under Exception 4 punishable under section
304, Part I or II.

It was held by the apex Court that, though there was absence of premeditation and it was
a case of sudden fight, that is not sufficient to bring the offence committed by the accused
within the purview of Exception 4. The further requirement of Exception 4 that the
offender should not have taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner
should be satisfied. The very fact that accused used the firearms in the course of a
frivolous quarrel, would demonstrate beyond doubt that the appellants acted in a cruel
manner and it would further demonstrate the intention to cause death or at any rate, to
cause a bodily injury of the nature mentioned in clause thirdly of section 300, Such
intention is writ large on the acts done by the accused. Thus, it is a case in which clauses I
to III of section 300, I.P.C. are attracted and Exception 4 would not come to the rescue of
the accused.

DEATH BY CONSENT (Exception 5)

Dasrath Paswan case

In Dasrath Paswan v. State of Bihar, MANU/BH/0071/1958 : AIR 1958 Pat 190 the
accused was a student of class X. He had failed at the annual examination for three years
in succession. The accused was very upset and depressed. He took his last failure so much
to heart that he decided to end his life and informed his wife, an illiterate woman of about
19 years of age, of his decision. His wife asked him first to kill her and then kill himself. In
accordance with the pact the accused killed his wife first, but was arrested before he could
kill himself.

It was held by the Supreme Court that, the deceased was above the age of 18 years and
that she had suffered death with her own consent. The deceased did not give the consent
under the fear of injury, nor under misconception of fact, but voluntarily, and so the case
would fall under Exception 5 to section 300, I.P.C.

301. CULPABLE HOMICIDE BY CAUSING DEATH OF PERSON OTHER THAN PERSOn

WHOSE DEATH WAS INTENDED

Principle of Transfer of Malice

Section 301, I.P.C., embodies the principle of transfer of malice or transmigration of

malice/motive e.g. Where A aims a shot at B in order to kill him but it misses B and hits
some other person C, whether within sight or out of sight, A is deemed to have hit C with
the intention to kill and the case will be covered under this section.
In Shankarlal Kachrabhai v. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/0083/1964 : AIR 1965 SC 1260
the Supreme Court held that, if the accused shoots at a particular person with the
intention of killing him though under a misapprehension of his identity, shoots another the
ingredients of sections 299 and 300 of I.P.C. are satisfied. Similarly, there will be no
difference when the injury intended for one falls on another by accident. If 'A' makes a
thrust at 'B' meaning of kill, and 'C throws himself between, receives the thrust and dies,
'A' will be liable for killing 'C as though he had intended to kill 'C'.

302. PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER

In Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0055/1982 : AIR 1980 SC 898 the

Supreme Court by a majority of four to one held that, the provision of death penalty as an
alternative punishment for murder under section 302 of I.P.C. is not unreasonable and is
in the public interest. The court laid down the following propositions:--

(i) The extreme penalty of death need not be inflicted except in gravest cases
of extreme culpability.

(ii) Before opting for the death penalty the circumstances of the offender is
also required to be taken into consideration along with the circumstances of
the crime.

(iii) Life imprisonment is the rule and the death sentence is the exception. In
other words, the death sentence must be imposed only when life
imprisonment appears to be an altogether inadequate punishment having
regard to the relevant circumstances of the crime, and (provided and only
provided) the option to impose sentence of imprisonment for life cannot be
conscientiously exercised having regard to the nature and circumstances of
the crime and taking into account all the relevant considerations.

(iv) A balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances have to be

drawn up and in doing so the mitigating circumstances have to be accorded
full weightage and a just balance struck between the aggravating and the
mitigating circumstances before the option is exercised.

In Rameshbhai Chandubhai Rathod v. State of Gujarat, MANU/SC/0075/2011 : AIR 2011

SC 803, the Supreme Court held appellant taking the girl with him on his bicycle.
Appellant made an extra-judicial confession that ha had raped and killed the child. Dead
body recovered from the place of incident. High court dismissed the appeal and confirmed
the death sentence. Case fell with in the category of the rarest of rare cases. Deceased
was a helpless child of tender age and the accused being a watchman in the building, was
in a position of trust and as the murder and rape was brutal, so the death sentence was
the only adequate one. At the same time the gravity of the offence, the behaviour of the
appellant and the fear and concern such incidents generate in ordered society, cannot be
ignored. Supreme Court confirm the conviction and commute the death sentence into that
of life imprisonment.

Nathuram V Ghodse vs. Mahatma Gandhi--- Godse fired three bullets at the chest of
Gandhi ji from a close range, ensuring his death. He chose not to escape and was
arrested, tried and sentenced to death. It was his third attempt to assassinate Gandhi ji.
Earlier in 1944, he had made two attempts to kill him, but were unsuccessful. He was not
alone in the assassination conspiracy; he had plotted the assassination with Narayan
Apte and six others.

After the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi, Godse was arrested and was put on trial at
the Punjab High Court, at Peterhoff, Shimla. In 1949 he was sentenced to death. Although
Manilal and Ramdas Gandhi, the two sons of Mahatma Gandhi requested for commutation
but was turned down by Indian government and Godse was hanged at Ambala Central Jail
on 15 November 1949.

State of UP vs. Ramanand 2022--- The accused/ convict, Ramanand has committed the
murder of his wife and four minor innocent daughters aged about seven, five, three and
the youngest one aged one and a half months. It transpires from the evidence that the
criminal act of the convict actuated to pave a way to marry one lady, namely, Manju, who
was already married. It was the deceased, Sangeeta, convict’s wife who was opposed to
the marriage of her husband with Sangeeta and hence the convict not only murdered his
wife but also his own four innocent daughters in the most brutal and barbaric manner
without their no fault or without nay rhyme or reason. Before murdering the deceased the
accused had chopped off various parts of the body and inflicted severe incised wounds as
is evident from the post-mortem report.

The Apex court confirmed the death sentence awarded under Section 302 of IPC.

304. PUNISHMENT FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER

In Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab, MANU/SC/0074/2011 : AIR 2011 SC 840, in this

instant case three appellants armed with gandasi and other two with dangs caused injuries
to deceased. Weapons used for common use which are normally carried by villagers.
Accused had used Gandasi from its blunt side confirmed by the doctor. No prior intention
to commit murder, incident happened all of sudden when deceased objected to
construction of drain by accused. All accused are liable for offence under section 304, Part
1 read with section 34, IPC. Trial Court convictedand sentenced to life imprisonment. The
High Court dismissed the appeal, but the Supreme Court's view that they have already
undergone about 5 years of sentence, so keeping in view sentence of 5 year is sufficient.

In Dayal Das v. State of Rajasthan, MANU/SC/0326/2011 : AIR 2011 SC 1361, where

Supreme Court held that Culpable Homicide not amounting to murder where death caused
by consuming illicit liquor. It is nowhere mentioned in entire evidence that liquor was
purchased by deceased from shop of accused. When liquor consumed by deceased at shop
of accused was not sent for chemical examination, conviction of accused cannot be
sustained on the basis of statement that deceased was seen drinking liquor at shop of
accused. Supreme Court have no hesitation at the conclusion that both Trial Court and
High Court erroneously read the statement and unfortunately led to the conviction of the
appellant. Appeal allowed and conviction of appellant set aside.

304A. CAUSING DEATH BY NEGLIGENCE

Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar, 1964

The definition of the rash or negligent act can be understood by the famous case
of Cherubin Gregory v. State of Bihar. In this case, the Supreme Court stated the
difference between the rash or negligent act. Here, in this case, the appellant was charged
under Section 304A of IPC for causing the death of a woman who stayed near the house
of the appellant. Here the deceased was using the latrine/ toilet of the accused for about a
week. The accused gave the oral warnings related to it to the deceased but the deceased
continue to use the latrine of the accused. As he (accused) finds his oral warnings to be
insufficient so he put a naked copper wire carrying electricity on the passage leading to
the latrine. On the day of the occurrence of the incident, the woman went to the latrine of
the appellant and there she touched the fixed wire and she died because of this. There
were several issues raised in this case. Here the Court held that the mere fact that the
person entering is a trespasser does not entitle the owner of the land to inflict personal
injury upon the trespasser. The same principle also applies to the fact that the owner
inflicted the injury by indirect ways of doing something. The owner should know that it
may cause a serious injury to the trespasser.

Here the Apex Court also held that in this case, the appellant would be liable for his rash
act (as the act was considered to be reckless) and the accused was held liable under
Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code.

305. ABETMENT OF SUICIDE OF CHILD OR INSANE PERSON

No case laws
306. ABETMENT TO SUICIDE

The Gujarat High Court in the case of State of Gujarat v. Raval Deepakkkumar
Shankerchand (2022) laid down the ingredients which constitute the act of abetment of
suicide. The essential ingredients are:

1. Abetment, and
2. The intention of the accused is to aid, instigate or abet the individual to commit
suicide.

In the case of B Sridevi v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2022), the Andhra Pradesh High Court
ruled that proof of incitement and abetment is required and that mere claims of workplace
pressure or harassment will not serve to attract components of Section 306 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860.

In the case of Ramesh Babubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2022), the Gujarat High Court
held that words spoken in anger, not with the intention of instigation, cannot be
constituted as abetment of suicide.

ABETMENT TO COMMIT SATI

Mohit Pandey case

307. ATTEMPT TO MURDER

In Liyakat Mian and Others v. State of Bihar, 1973, there were four appellants who were
held guilty of committing dacoity under Section 395 of the IPC by the Sessions Court.
Therefore, he was charged under Section 307. While the appellants were committing
dacoity, appellant No. 2 fired a gun at Burhan Mahton (victim) which injured him gravely.

It was held by the Sessions Court that the death of Burhan Mahton was caused due to the
injuries inflicted upon him by the accused No. 2 and thus, he would be held guilty of
attempt to murder under Section 307. The Trial Court convicted the accused under
Section 395 for the offence of dacoity and under Section 307. He punished all the accused
of dacoity and punished them with imprisonment for a term of nine years. The accused
charged under Section 307 was sentenced to nine years of rigorous imprisonment. It was
held that accused no. 2 will serve both the punishments parallel to each other.

The four convicts filed an appeal before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the
appeal and upheld the decision of the Trial Court and rejected their plea. The Apex Court
also considered all the evidence and dismissed their appeals.

Vasant V. Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, 2004

In Vasant Vithu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra (2004), the Supreme Court had observed
the same as that in State of Maharashtra v. Balram Bama Patil, 1983, that Section 307
does not say that bodily injury capable of causing death should be inflicted. However, the
nature of the injury may assist the Court in finding the intention of the accused. A
conviction under Section 307 is easy to justify if the intent is coupled with some overt act
in its execution. Hence, the accused should not be acquitted of the charge under Section
307 merely because the injuries on the victim were in the form of a simple hurt.

Ram kumar vs. State of Delhi

The appellant who had a desi katta (pistol) while chasing Ram Karan fired a shot from his
pistol injuring him, while he was running ahead of him. Accordingly, the accused was
convicted under Sec 307 of IPC.

The Apex court said that the circumstances under which the injury was caused clearly
indicte that the accused had intentions to cause death justified conviction under section
307 of IPC.

308. ATTEMPT TO COMMIT CULPABLE HOMICIDE

Ali Zaman v. State (1963)

The accused used a handgun, but no one was killed as a consequence. The question here
was whether the act would have constituted murder if any of the people injured by the
revolver rounds had died.

The accused’s conviction was changed to Section 308 IPC, and his sentence was lowered
to two years of harsh imprisonment after all the facts were considered. The Hon’ble Court
determined that if one of the people shot died as a result of the shooting, the crime would
have been culpable homicide rather than murder. The accused was found guilty of
attempting to commit culpable murder. However, the act would have been culpable
homicide under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code if the shot had killed any of the
people.

State v. Vimal Singh (2017)

In this case, the Delhi District Court clarified the components that needed to be proven for
an accused to be held guilty under Section 308.

The basic factual matrix is that on the morning of December 2010, Nitin Nirwan
(complainant) was walking from the red light to the bus station. Suddenly, a white sedan
arrived, and one person with a sound body and mind exited the vehicle and approached
him. He questioned Nitin why he pelted stones at his car while holding a baseball bat in
his hand. The complainant stated that he did nothing wrong, but the accused did not hear
him and struck him in the legs with the bat, and when he attempted to defend himself,
the accused struck him in the left hand. The accused struck him in the head once more,
and blood began to ooze from his head wound. He took down the licence plate number of
the vehicle, and the accused fled the scene. He had dialed his relative’s number as well as
the police and was then brought to the hospital. The defendant was charged under Section
308 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Delhi District Court (Sessions Court, Delhi) stated on August 28, 2017, that the
following basic components must be proven to prove an offence under Section 308 of the
IPC:

1. The accused did something wrong,

2. The conduct was carried out with the intent or knowledge of committing culpable
homicide that did not amount to murder.
3. The conduct was done in such a way that if the accused had caused the victim’s
death, he would have been charged with culpable homicide.
4.
309. ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE

Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) (See from book Pg. 1020/ 930)

The Supreme Court’s constitution bench in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996) held that
the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution does not include the right to die or the
right to be killed, thereby providing some clarity on the constitutionality of Section 309 of
the Code of 1860.