Unit-IV Offences against Property (Lectures:10)

a. Theft, Extortion, Robbery and Dacoity

b. Criminal Misappropriation and Criminal Breach of Trust
c. Cheating and Forgery
d. Mischief

Theft under the IPC

The crime of theft has been defined under Section 378 of the Act. It defines the crime of theft as:
 Whoever Indenting to take dishonestly
 Any moveable property
 Out of the possession of any person
 Without the (express or implied) consent of that person
 Moves that property in order of such taking
Is said to commit theft.
For analysing the crime of theft, each of its parts must be construed. Section 24 of the Act
defines the term dishonestly as “doing something with the intention of causing a wrongful gain
or wrongful loss”. Therefore only stealing something dishonestly will be regarded as theft under
this section. Where in a case cattle were seen as trespassing and causing damage on one’s land,
were seized and taken to a cattle pound, it was not regarded as theft as there was the absence
of a dishonest intention.
Similarly taking the property out of the possession of a person, even temporarily, will constitute
theft, illustration (l) of Section 378 makes this point clear by stating that the watch was taken by
A that belongs to Z, without Z’s and with the intention of keeping it amounts to the criminal
offence of theft. However, there is a fine line that needs to be drawn here. In the case
of Gopinath Naik v. State, it was held that keeping the owner out of the possession of the goods,
not with the intention of causing any harm whatsoever, but just for the purposes of mental
anxiety, will not constitute theft.
Illustration (p) of the similar Section which states that A taking in good faith the property
belonging to Z, establishes that a Bona Fide claim will not be regarded as theft. That is, if a
person takes the moveable property of another in the false conception that it is his own, it would
not amount to theft.
The Property must be moveable
The property that is subject to theft must be moveable, this has been explained under
explanation(1) to the Section. Anything that is attached to the earth, cannot be subject to theft
because it is not moveable property in the first place. However, anything that is severed from the
earth, at that moment itself becomes moveable property, the act of severing it in itself is
tantamount to Theft. For example, a tree in the first place is not subject to theft, but as soon as it
is severed from the Earth it becomes a moveable property.
Ownership, Possession and Custody
First, it is important to construe the difference between ‘possession’ and ‘custody’. Having the
possession of a property is dealing with it like its owner. The person in possession will have
authority over the property to the excursion of others. Possession is the actuality or objective
realisation of ownership. On the other hand, a person who only has custody over the property
cannot deal with it like its owner, he merely keeps it. A custodial guardian cannot partake with
the possession of the property.
Also, Illustration (g) to the Section explains that one cannot steal a property that is in nobody’s
possession. This concept has also been applied to dead bodies, as they don’t have any particular
possession. Therefore the stealing of a buried body will not come under the definition of Section
378, however, its criminalization has been given effect under Section 279 of the Act, which deals
with offering indignity to a human corpse.
Consent
The property that is stolen, must be removed without the consent of the person, express or
implied. Illustration (m) and (n) make this point clear. Whereas a person goes to the library of his
friend, with whom he is on good terms with and borrows a book without the consent of that
person, with the intent of returning it afterwards. It will not be regarded as theft as the book was
taken under the implied consent of the other party and there is no dishonest intention attached
to it.
Movement of such property
The movement of such property should be made out of the possession of the person who has it.
The physical carrying off of such property is not essential. If a person A puts bait in his pocket
and therefore lures the dog to come his way with the intent of dishonestly taking the dog out of
the possession of its owner, he is said to have committed theft.
It is also not essential that such movement of the property may be of permanent character, if a
person hides any moveable property in the house of the person with the internet that the other
may not find it, it will constitute theft. It is not necessary that the person stealing the property
should gain something out of it.
Necessitas inducit privilegium quo ad jura privata, this Latin maxim quite literally allows the
formation of a privilege based upon necessity but has no application in criminal law. Meaning
that if a person steals some property out of bare necessity and with the intent of helping him
with his penury, the law will allow for no such excuse. Furthermore, Section 379 of the Indian
Penal Code states the punishment for theft, it lays down that whoever commits theft shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or
with fine or both.

Robbery under IPC

All robberies are either Thefts or Extortions. Robbery has been defined under Section 390 of the
Act.
The offence of theft amounts to robbery under the following circumstances :
 When in order to commit theft, or in attempting to commit theft
 The offender to that end voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person
 Death or
  Hurt or
 Wrongful restraint
 Or fear of either of these
Quantum of time at which the constituents of Robbery happen or their fear thereof:
Even after a theft has taken place, commission of death, hurt or wrongful restraint will give rise
to robbery for example, if a person after removing the property from possession, slaps the
appellant, for scaring him and so that he does not alarm the people in the vicinity, it will amount
to robbery under the Section.
In Kusho Mahton and Anr. v. State of Bihar, the accused while carrying away the stolen property
exploded a cracker to frighten the inmates who were trying to pursue him, this was rightly held
as robbery under the Section.
Punishment
The offence is robbery is cognizable, non-bailable and non-compoundable. Punishment for
robbery is imprisonment for up to 10 years and fine. If committed on the highway between
sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may go upto 14 years as stated under Section 392.
Punishment for attempting to commit robbery is upto 7 years as laid down in Section 393.

 Conditions when theft is Considered as Robbery-

o Theft is “robbery” if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the
theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by
the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any
person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt,
or of instant wrongful restraint.
 Conditions when Extortion is Considered as Robbery
o Extortion is “robbery” if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is
in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting
that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful
restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear,
induces the person, so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
 Illustrations
o A holds Z down, and fraudulently takes Z’s money and jewels from Z’s clothes,
without Z’s consent. Here A has committed theft, and, in order to commit that theft,
has voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to Z. A has, therefore, committed robbery.
o A meets Z on the high roads, shows a pistol, and demands Z’s purse. Z, in
consequence, surrenders his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z by putting
him in fear of instant hurt and being at the time of committing the extortion in his
presence. A has, therefore, committed robbery.
Punishment for being a Member of Gang of Thieves or Robbers
 Section 401 of the IPC punishes those who constitute a gang of thieves or robbers.
  It is not necessary to prove that each individual member of the gang has
habitually committed theft or has committed any particular theft in the company
with the other members.
 Being a member of the gang is enough for punishment. Punishment for being a
member of a gang of thieves or robbers is imprisonment for a term up to seven years
with fine.

Extortion under IPC

Extortion has been defined under Section 383 of the Act:
 Whosoever intentionally puts any person in the fear of any injury to that person, or to any
other;
 Thereby dishonestly inducing that person so put in fear, to deliver to any person;
 Any property or valuable security; or
 Anything signed or sealed that may be converted into a valuable security.
To extort means to obtain by show of force or threat. Walker in his book ‘The oxford companion
to Law’ stated that extortion may be defined as the crime of dishonestly taking some property
from a person, which are not legally due, particularly by the use of threat. Extortion may be
defined as the middle ground between the crimes of theft and robbery. The punishment for the
crime of extortion is 3 years imprisonment, or fine or both.
The Supreme Court in R.S Nayak v. A.R Antulay explained in detail what might amount to
extortion. Before a person is said to be put in the fear of injury there must be something that the
accused is alleged to do or not do, which he is legally bound to do. Meaning that in case if a
person promises to do a thing which he is not legally bound to do, saying that he will not do it
unless money is paid to him, that will not amount to extortion.
Dacoity
 Section 391 of IPC states that ‘when five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt
to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or
attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or
attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said
to commit dacoity.’
Essentials of Crime of Dacoity
 Five or more people should be concerned in the commission of the offence.
 Act must be robbery or attempt to commit robbery.
 Five persons must consist of those who themselves commit or attempt to commit robbery
or those who are present and aid the principal actors in the commission or attempt of such
robbery.
Punishment for Dacoity
 Section 395 of IPC provides punishment for dacoity. The maximum punishment for the
offence of dacoity is life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may
extend to ten years and shall also be liable for fine.
Aggravated form of Dacoity
  Section 396 of IPC states that if any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly
committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons
shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Offences Connected with Dacoity
 Section 399, 400 and 402 are all provisions which deal with offences connected with
dacoity.
Preparation to Commit Dacoity


o Section 399 of the IPC states that whoever makes any preparation
for committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
o Ordinarily, preparation to commit an offence is not per se punishable. Dacoity is
one of the few exceptions to the general rule.
o Dacoity has been regarded as an offence so intrinsic against the interests of the
public that the legislature has made a departure from the general rule and made
even preparation to commit dacoity an offence punishable under IPC even if the
people concerned do not proceed beyond the stage of preparation.
o However, a mere assembly of persons carrying knives, choppers etc., does not
attract Section 399 unless some act amounting to preparation is proved.
Belonging to Gangs of Dacoits


o Section 400 of IPC states that whoever, at any time after the passing of the code,
shall belong to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually
committing dacoity, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or
with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine.
Assembling for Purpose of Committing Dacoity
 Section 402 of the IPC states that whoever, at any time after the passing of the code,
shall be one of five or more persons assembled for the purpose of committing
dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend
to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Minimum Sentence to be Awarded in Certain Cases of Dacoity
 Section 397 of the code states that if at the time of committing robbery or dacoity,
the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person,
or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with
which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
Attempt to Commit Robbery or Dacoity when Armed with Deadly Weapon
 Section 398 of the code states that if at the time of attempting to commit robbery or
dacoity, the offender is armed with any deadly weapon, the imprisonment with which
such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
Dishonest Misappropriation of Property
Section 403 and Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with the provision related to
criminal misappropriation of property. Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code talks about the
Dishonest misappropriation and the prescribed punishment under this offense while Section 404
of the Indian Penal Code deals with the provision related to criminal misappropriation of a
deceased person’s property.
Under Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, when a person dishonestly misappropriated or uses
the property of another person to satisfy his own purpose or to capitalize it for one’s own use,
has committed the offense of criminal misappropriation, shall be punished with imprisonment for
not less than a term that may extend to 2 years or with fine or maybe with both, provided that
the property is movable in nature.
Essential Ingredients of Section 403 of IPC
To make a person liable for an offence of Criminal Misappropriation, the following essential
ingredients must be fulfilled:
 The property must be of another person: The property must be of another person,
meaning to say, the owner of the property should not come under the definition of
‘another person’. The property must belong to its owner and dishonestly misappropriated
by another person to satisfy his own purpose.
For example, Ram took a red car belonging to Shyam by mistake or unknowingly but returns the
same when he found that the real owner of the car is Shyam, then there is no misappropriation
of the property but if Ram does not return the car even after knowing that the car belonged to
Shyam, then Ram committed the offense of misappropriation of property.


o Dishonest Intention: When any person misappropriated or converts any property of

another person with dishonest intention, has committed the offence of criminal
misappropriation. The offender must possess dishonest intention while committing
the crime.
o Conversion of the property: For constituting an offence of criminal misappropriation
the essence behind this section is when a person converts any property for his own
use. A word ‘converts to his own use’ connotes the usage or deals with the property
in derogation of the right of the owner, as per Ramaswami Nadar vs The State of
Madras (1957).
 Finder of the goods: When a person found something belonging to another person and he
took all the necessary steps to find the real owner of the goods and kept the found good
for a reasonable time to return it to the true owner of the property, even after this, if he is
unable to found the true owner of that goods, the finder of the goods can use the goods
for his own purpose. But, if he keeps the goods to himself since the true owner is unknown
and not took reasonable steps to identify the real owner or if he immediately
misappropriates the property without waiting for sufficient time, he has committed the
 offence of Criminal Misappropriation and would be liable under Section 403 of the India
Penal Code, 1860.
In the case of U. Dhar vs The State of Jharkhand (2003), the Supreme Court of India held that any
dispute related to the recovery of money is always of civil nature and criminal complaint in this
regard is not maintainable.
Misappropriation of a deceased person’s property
Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is an aggravated form of criminal misappropriation.
Under Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code, when a person dishonestly misappropriated or uses
the property belonging to a deceased person to satisfy his own purpose or to capitalise it for
one’s own use, has committed the offence of criminal misappropriation, shall be punished with
imprisonment for not less than a term that may extend to 3 years or with fine or maybe with
both. If at the time of the person’s death, it was found that the offender was employed by the
deceased person as a servant or clerk, the punishment may extend to seven years. This Section
is intended to protect the property of a deceased person which needs special protection under
these conditions or these circumstances. This Section aims to punish servants, strangers or other
domestic workers who have no rights or interests in the effects of the dead man.
Essential Ingredients of Section 404 of IPC
To make a person liable for an offence mentioned Under Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860, the following essential ingredients must be fulfilled:
 The property must be movable in nature or must be a movable property;
 Such property must be in the possession of the deceased person at the time of the death
of such person;
 The offender converted it or misappropriated it for his own use;
 The accused must have dishonest intention while committing such a crime.
Criminal Breach of Trust
Under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, when a person is entrusted with the property
or that person has power or dominion over that property, dishonestly misappropriated or uses
that property to satisfy his own purpose or to capitalise it for one’s own use, or disposes of that
property is contrary to a law that prescribes how to discharge such trust or in violation of any
contract, express or implied, or willfully directed any person to do so, has committed the offence
of Criminal Breach of Trust. Under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, any person commits an
offence of Criminal Breach of Trust, shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than a term
that may extend to 2 years or with fine or maybe with both.
Essential Ingredients of Section 405 of IPC
To make a person liable for an offence of Criminal Breach of Trust, the following essential
ingredients must be fulfilled:


o Entrustment: As per the case of Surendra Pal Singh Vs. The State of Uttar
Pradesh (2017), entrustment means handling over the property or giving them
control over the property from one person to another so that the person on whose
behalf the property is transferred remains the owner of that property. To constitute
an offence of criminal breach of trust, the essence of word entrustment is a must.
The interpretation of this Section is very wide as it takes servants, clerks, business
 partners, or any other person who is capable of holding a position of trust, under its
ambit.
o Such entrustment of the property must be in trust: In case of Ramaswami Nadar vs
The State of Madras (1957), the apex court held that to constitute an offence of
Criminal Breach of Trust or to make any person liable under Section 405 of the
Indian penal Code, 1860, the essence of word entrustment is a must. There must be
an entrustment of property. The defendant must go through with the trust and
possess the property with an authority.
o Dominion over the property: The domain is the superior or the fullest right over
goods or property. The domain includes the right over goods or property as well as
the possession of the property and also includes the right to use that property. It is a
type of absolute and complete ownership over the property, but in certain
circumstances, the government may seize the property with or without any
permission.
 Dishonest Misappropriation: To make a person liable for an offense of Criminal Breach of
Trust, the essence of dishonest misappropriation as an essential ingredient is a
must. Section 24 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines ‘dishonesty’ as generating
wrongful loss or wrongful gain to a person. Misappropriate means using the property of
another person to satisfy one’s own greed. Hence, dishonest misappropriation is a crucial
fact that has to be proved to make a person liable for an offense of Criminal Breach of
Trust.
In the case of Mohammed Sulaiman vs Mohammed Ayub and Ors. (1964), the Supreme Court of
India held that Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code requires doing something wrong to the
property in form of, dishonestly misappropriating or using the property to satisfy his own purpose
or to capitalize it for one’s own use, or dispose of that property is contrary to a law that
prescribes how to discharge such trust or in violation of any contract, express or implied. The
apex court also held that a mere dispute which is of civil nature does not attract the provisions of
this section.
Section 407, 408 and 409 of IPC
Section 407, 408, and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 are the aggravated form of Criminal
Breach of Trust. Section 407 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with Criminal Breach of trust by
carrier, etc. When any person is entrusted with the property as a carrier, warehouse keeper, or
wharfinger, commits a criminal breach of trust regarding that property, shall be punished with
imprisonment for not less than a term that may extend to 7 years or with fine or maybe with
both.
Section 408 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with Criminal Breach of trust by clerks and
servants. When any person is entrusted with the property as a clerk or a servant, or that person
having power or dominion over that property, commits a criminal breach of trust regarding that
property, shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than a term that may extend to 7
years or with fine or maybe with both.
Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with Criminal Breach of trust by public
servants, or by a merchant, banker, or agent. When any person is entrusted with the property as
a public servant, or by a merchant, banker or agent, or that person having power or dominion
over that property, commits a criminal breach of trust regarding that property, shall be punished
with imprisonment for not less than a term that may extend to 10 years or with fine or maybe
with both.
Basis of Difference Criminal Misappropriation Criminal Breach of Trust

Offence of Criminal Breach of

Offence of criminal misappropriation is
Provision under Trust is �defined under section
defined under section 403 of Indian Penal
IPC,1860 405 of �Indian Penal
Code, 1860
Code,1860

But in Criminal Breach of Trust,

In misappropriation, there is no contractual there is a contractual
Relationship
relationship relationship �of the offender
regarding the property.

In criminal breach of trust, the

In misappropriation, the property is property is obtained due to the
Possession
obtained by some casualty or otherwise. �truest vested by the owner on
the �offender.

In criminal breach of trust, the

property is misappropriated for
The property is misappropriated by the his own personal use. A breach
Misappropriation
offender for his own use. of trust �includes criminal
misappropriation, �but the
converse is not always true.

Whereas, in criminal breach of

In, Criminal misappropriation the property trust, �the nature of property
Nature of Property
is always movable in nature. can either �be movable or
immovable

Offence of Criminal Breach of

Offence of Criminal Misappropriation is Trust �is punishable with
punishable with imprisonment of either imprisonment �of either
Punishment description for a term which may extent to description for a term which
2 years or with fine, or with both �may extent to 2 years or with
(Sec.403,IPC) fine, �or with both
(Sec.406,IPC)

Forgery:
According to section 463 of Indian penal code 1860, whoever makes any false document or false
electronic record or a part of the document with criminal intention to cause, or knowing that he is
likely to cause damage or injury to the general public or to any individual, or to support any claim
or title, or cause any person to part with property, or enter into implied or express contract or
with intent to commit fraud, commits forgery. Therefore, the crime of forgery generally refers to
the making of a false document.
Elements of Forgery:
· False making- The document or electronic record or the part of it must be false or fake in
fact.
· Material alteration- The person must have taken a genuine document and changed it to
cover situations like a false signature or improperly filling in blanks on a form.
· Legal efficacy-The false document or writing must have some legal significance.
· Intent to defraud- It must have been done with intent to deceive or cause damage to the
general public or to any person within the meaning of the word used in section 464 of the Indian
Penal Code.
· Ability to defraud: The document or writing must look genuine enough to qualify as having
the apparent ability to fool most people.
Cheating:
Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to
deliver any property, to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or
intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which act or omit if he
were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to
that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat. (Sec. 415).
· There should be fraudulent or dishonest inducement of an individual by deceiving him, the
person who is deceived should be induced to deliver any property to any person, or to consent
that a person shall retain any property, or the person so deceived should be intentionally induced
to try and do or omit to do anything which he wouldn’t do or omit if he weren’t so deceived.
· In the second case, the act or omission should be one which causes or is probably going to
cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property.

The difference between cheating and forgery:

· Forgery is explained under Section 463-477 of the IPC. Cheating is explained under Section
415-420 of the IPC.
· Punishment in the case of forgery can be of two years or a fine. Cheating carries a
punishment of seven years or a fine.
· Forgery may cause damage or harm to the title deeds and property only. Cheating may
cause damage or harm to the body, mind, reputation or property.
· Forgery is an offence associated with ‘documents and property marks’ while cheating is
related to the ‘offence against property
· Cheating relates to the entire property while forgery relates to the title of the property and
is indirectly related to the property.
· Cheating is considered to be a wide offence which incorporates forgery under its ambit
while forgery is often committed with the aim of cheating.

What is Mischief?
The concept of mischief is defined in Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and the
corresponding punishment is outlined in Section 426 of the IPC. Additionally, Sections 427 to 440
of the IPC specify the punishment for aggravated forms of mischief, considering the nature and
value of the property damage.
According to Section 425 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code) enacted in 1860, mischief is committed
when an individual intentionally causes destruction or damage to any property, thereby reducing
its value and usefulness, resulting in unnecessary loss or damage to the public or any person.
This applies to situations where the person performing the act is aware that it is likely to cause
harm to the property.
In simpler terms, mischief in IPC can be defined as the intentional act or the act performed with
the knowledge that it will prevent another person from enjoying the benefits of their property.
This act can be directed against either the public or a specific individual.
Illustrations
 For a simple understanding, some examples of mischief under IPC that can be seen are:
 ‘A’ destroys a car jointly owned by ‘A’ and ‘B’, intending wrongful loss to ‘B
 ‘A’, a student takes a copy of the question paper before the exam to diminish its utility.
 ‘A’ damages important documents belonging to ‘B’, intending wrongful loss to ‘B’.
 ‘A’ causes cattle to enter the property of ‘B’ to cause damage to his crops.
 ‘A’ deliberately throws a ball at the neighbour’s window.
The objective of Law of Mischief under IPC
The Law of Mischief under the IPC is designed to offer safeguards against destroying property
that leads to wrongful loss or damage to the public or an individual. It serves as an extension of
the legal principle sic utere tuo ut alienum non-laedas, which translates to “use your property in
such a way as not to injure the property of others or your neighbours.”
Illustrations
 “A” intentionally sets X’s home on fire, causing him wrongful loss or injury.
 “A” a doctor deliberately prescribed the wrong medicine to “B’s” cattle with an intent to
cause wrongful loss or injury.
 “C” diverts the flow of the canal in such a way as to prevent “B” from irrigating his field,
causing him loss by damage to crops.
 “B” tears off some important business-related documents of A to cause him financial loss.
 “A” deliberately burns off the standing crop that was jointly cultivated by “A” and “B”.
 “B” intentionally damages a “signboard “installed by order of the municipality, causing
wrongful losses & injury.
Punishment for Mischief in IPC
The punishment for mischief is outlined in Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code. According to this
section, anyone found guilty of committing mischief can be sentenced to imprisonment for up to
three months, or they may be fined, or both imprisonment and fine may be imposed as a
collective punishment.
Scope of Mischief under IPC
Section 425 of the IPC encompasses acts that damage or destroy property, leading to wrongful
loss or damage. It has a broad scope and applies to both public and private damages.
However, it is important to note that this section does not apply in cases where there is no
element of intention. Furthermore, the accused person doesn’t need a valid motive or benefit
from the act of mischief under IPC.
There are additional considerations to be taken into account. For instance, whether this section
applies in cases where the accused person damages their property or if it covers situations
where property damage is a consequence of an illegal act or failure to make a payment.
Essential Ingredients of Mischief in IPC
The elements essential for an act to be considered mischief in IPC are:
Intention or Knowledge to Cause Wrongful Loss or Damage (mens rea)
The accused must have the intention or knowledge that their actions will result in damage to
property or wrongful loss to an individual. The intent to cause damage or wrongful loss is
sufficient for an act to be considered mischief in IPC. The act does not necessarily have to be
directed at the property owner.
For example, in a communal disturbance where individuals intend to destroy property without
concern for ownership, falls within the criteria of mischief under IPC.
In the case of Krishna Gopal Singh And Ors. vs the State Of U.P., it was established that the
offence of mischief is not committed if the accused did not act to cause wrongful loss or damage
to a person or the public. Acts performed under duress or without the free consent of the
accused do not fall under the scope of mischief in IPC.
Wrongful Loss or Damage
The essential element of committing mischief under IPC is that the act should result in
destruction, damage, or wrongful loss to the public or an individual. This constitutes the actus
reus of the offence. The accused’s intention may be to cause wrongful loss or damage to a
person, such as tearing important documents related to property or finances.
Causing Destruction of Any Property or Any Change in It
Mischief can also be committed by causing the destruction or alteration of any property. It is
crucial that the damage or change is a direct result of the alleged act. For example, modifying
the content of a speech or intentionally destroying someone’s belongings would fall under the
category of mischief in IPC.
Destroys or Diminishes Value or Utility, etc.
Furthermore, mischief can be constituted by diminishing the value or utility of something. This
could involve actions such as leaking an exam paper or deliberately misplacing important files
and folders when they are needed. The object’s utility is determined from the owner’s
perspective, not the accused.
In the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Ors, the defendant removed an
aircraft’s engines, thereby diminishing its utility and rendering it useless. The court held that the
damage caused fulfilled all the elements of mischief, thus establishing the mischief offence in
IPC.
Aggravated Forms of Mischief under IPC
Different forms and criteria of mischief under the IPC are as follows:
Mischief causing loss or damage to property
Section 427 of the IPC states that if someone commits mischief and causes loss or damage to
fifty rupees or more, they can be imprisoned for up to two years, with a fine, or both.
Mischief by killing or maiming animals
Sections 428 to 434 of the IPC deal with mischief committed by killing, poisoning, maiming, or
rendering useless any animal or animal valued at ten rupees or more. The intention behind these
sections is to prevent animal cruelty, and the punishment for such acts can be imprisonment for
up to two years, a fine, or both.
It is important to note that the term “animal” in this context refers to any living creature other
than a human being. The term “maiming” refers to causing permanent injury that affects using a
limb or other body parts.
Mischief by killing or maiming cattle
Section 429 of the IPC specifically deals with killing or maiming cattle, which refers to animals
used for commercial purposes. This section focuses on analyzing the intent and motive behind
the crime. It is assumed that the accused intended to maim or kill the cattle with the motive of
causing wrongful loss to the owner. The punishment for such offences can be imprisonment for
up to five years, a fine, or both.
Mischief by Injuring Works of Irrigation
Section 430 of the IPC addresses the punishment for causing damage to irrigation works,
rendering them useless, or wrongfully diverting them to cause mischief. The objective of this
section is to prevent any disruption in the supply of water used for commercial purposes, such as
agriculture, manufacturing, or essential needs like drinking and storage. The punishment for such
offences can be imprisonment for up to five years, a fine, or both.
Mischief by Injuring Public Road, Bridge, River, or Channel
Section 431 of the IPC pertains to the commission of mischief by causing damage to any public
road, bridge, navigable river, or channel. The act renders them impassable or less safe for
traveling or conveying property. The assumption in this section is that the accused intends to
cause wrongful loss to the public by destroying or diminishing the value of the property. The
punishment under Section 431 can be imprisonment for up to five years, a fine, or both.
Mischief by Obstructing Public Drainage attended with damage
IPC Section 432 deals with individuals who perform acts that result in or are likely to cause
inundation or obstruction to any public drainage, causing injury or damage. This section
addresses the concept of causing destruction of property and affecting the public at large for
mischief in IPC. The punishment for such offences can be imprisonment for up to five years, a
fine, or both.
Mischief by Destroying a Lighthouse or Seamark
Section 432 of the IPC addresses the offence of committing mischief by destroying or disturbing
a lighthouse, light used as a seamark, sea-mark, buoy, or any other object placed as a guide for
navigators. This section considers the intention to misguide navigators as part of the mischief,
whether by destroying or moving the sea-mark in a way that renders it useless or diminishes its
usefulness. The punishment for such offences can be imprisonment for up to seven years, a fine,
or both. The increased punishment reflects the potential for significant commercial or personal
losses caused by this mischief under IPC.
Mischief by Destroying a Landmark fixed by public authority
Section 434 of the IPC deals with the offence of committing mischief by destroying or moving any
landmark fixed by the authority of a public servant or by any act that renders such landmark less
useful. The punishment for this offence can be imprisonment for up to one year, a fine, or both.
The landmark that is destroyed or diminished should be significant and have been fixed by the
authority of a public servant.
Mischief based on the method adopted to cause damage
Offences of Arson: Sections 435 to 438 of the IPC cover aggravated forms of mischief based on
the method adopted to cause damage. These sections are collectively called “offences of arson,”
which involve the intentional and malicious burning or charring of property.
If the damage caused by fire or explosive substances amounts to one hundred rupees or more,
the punishment can be imprisonment for up to seven years and a fine. For agricultural produce,
the damage caused must amount to ten rupees or more to be punishable under these sections.