INDIAN PENEL CODE

I SEMESTER

No Particulars
UNIT – I
1 General Principles of crime conceptions of crime
2 Distinction between crime and other wrongs, under common law
3 Crime and morality distinction
4 circumstances when morality amounts to crime
5 States responsibility to detect control an punish crime
6 Principles of criminal liability 1) The period of strict liability 2) mental elements in criminal liability
7 Acts, rens and mens rea (also statutory offences) and other maxims
Various in liability – mistake
8 Intoxication
9 Compulsion
10 Legally abnormal persons. A) The Sovereign B) Infants C) Insane persons
Possible parties to the crime: a) Principal in the 1 degree b) Principal in the 2 degree
11
c) Accessories before the fact d) Accessories after the fact
12 Indian penal Code : General , Explanation, Section 6, 33 and 39, - 52 A
Punishment, Section 53, 75, social relevance of capital punishment, Alternative capital punishment, Direction in awarding
13
punishment and minimum punishment in respect of certain offences with relevance to precedents (judgments)
UNIT – II
1 General exceptions section 76 – 106
2 Criminal Act by several persons or group Section 34, 38
3 Abetment sections 107 - 120
4 Criminal conspiracy – Section 120 A and 120 B
5 Offences relating to election section 171 A to 171 G
6 Contempt of lawful authority and public servants section 172 - 190
7 False evidence and offences against public trust – section 172
8 Offences relating to coins and government stamps - section 230 to 263 A
9 Offences relating to weights and measures Section 260 – 294 A
10 Offences relating to relating to religion section 295 - 298
UNIT – III
Offences affecting human life causing mis carriage injuries to un born children, exposure of infants concealment of birth –
1
Hurt, grievous hurt, wrongful restrains, wrong confinement criminal force and Assault (Section 299 – 358)
UNIT – IV
1 Kidnapping Abduction
2 Slavery and forced labour
3 Rape. Custodial rape
4 Prevention of immoral traffic prevention of pati
5 Prohibition of indecent representation of women.
6 Unnatural offences.
7 Theft
8 Robbery and dacoity
9 Criminal misappropriation of property
10 Criminal breach of trust
11 Receiving of stolen property
12 cheating
13 For audient deed and disposition of property (section 378 – 424)
1|Page
 UNIT – V
1 Mischief (Section 425 – 440)
2 Criminal Trespass (section 441 – 462)
3 Offences relating to document and property marks (sec-463 – 480)
4 Offences relating to marriage (sec 493 – 498 A)
5 Defamation (Section 499-502)
6 Criminal intimidation and annoyance and attempt to commit such offences( section 506 – 511)

UNIT-I

THE INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860.

1.1 Introduction

Social Discipline Need for Law:

Thousands years before Aristotle described man as a social animal. He said that one may be a God or a beast, anything but not a
man, if one is not social. This aspect of human life is the starting point of all social studies. Law is also one under such study.
The view that man is a social animals was not challenged until the sixteenth century when Hobbes propounded the thesis that
man is essentially selfish, anything but social: he finds only grief in the company of other men and, compelled by their fear, he
seeks the protection of some superior power

No view of man in society would be correct and comprehensive without correlating both the social and the selfish aspects of
human life.

A balance between selfishness and self-sacrifice makes social life possible. Conflict in human life, unlike any other conflict, has
a social significance. Social needs call for a restriction over selfishness of human beings, for the benefit of general public the
object of law is not only to impose restriction over human beings but to abolish the anti-social elements prevailing in the
society. Hobbes has said, is needed to keep man under restraint otherwise they were in a state called war. There may be various
considerations on account of which the society or the consensus of opinion of society in a civilized community considers or
condemns as immoral, in as much as, fit for punishment.There may be various considerations on account of which the society
looks down upon such acts with disapproval, for instance, they may be harmful to the society in general or they may tend to
disrupt the well being and peace of the society or their perpetration may set a bad example and encourage certain members in
the society itself to re-enact them and in consonance of its disapproval has set forth laws enforced by the sovereign or the State,
which visits the offender with punishment.

Object of Law:-

The object of law, according to Hobbes, is to curtail or limit the natural liberty of men so that they might not harm but
assist one another against a common enemy.

1.2 Definition of Crime What is crime?

We can arrive at a workable definition of the word "Crime" in various ways, namely, the object for which certain acts
are considered 'Crimes' or as those acts which are classed as crimes in some Code of crimes enacted by the State or placed under
the category of crimes by the sovereign.

Blackstone views. "crime is a violation of public rights and justices due to the whole community considered as a
community".

According to Austin, "A wrong which is pursued at the discretion of the injured party and his representatives in a civil
injury, a wrong which is pursued by the sovereign or his subordinate is a crime".

Having gone through the various definitions, it is clear that chief elements of crime are:-
2|Page
A man is under a legal obligation to act in one way.

That man has an ill motive and he acts in furtherance thereof.

That act results in injury to another man or to society.

1.3 Conditions for criminal liability :-

The general conditions of criminal liability are indicated with sufficient accuracy in the maxim acts non facit reum nisi mens sit
rea, that is, the act alone does not amount to guilt, it must be accompanied by a guilty mind. Thus, there are two conditions of
criminal liability –

1. Act, and

2. Guilty mind or mens rea

A brief study of the two elements is quite pertinent.

1. Act: An act is a willed movement of body. Austin defines it "as a bodily movement caused by volition a volition
being desire for bodily movement, which is immediately followed by such movement provided the bodily member is in a
normal condition".

The word 'Actus' connotes a physical result of conduct. The 'actus reus' may be defined 'such result of human conduct as the
law seeks to prevent. As actus reus is the result of conduct of human beings, it should be distinguished from event. For
example, in case of a murder, the result is victim's death by the conduct of the murderer may be said as actus reus and murdere's
intention to cause the death is the mens rea. Actus reus may be classified into following branches viz.,-

1. A willed movement or omission;

2. Certain surrounding circumstances (including present and past acts);

3. Certain consequences.

Actus reus includes negative as well as positive elements. The actus reus of muder includes not only person's killing but such
person's killing who is under the protection of the king or under state's protection. Negative act refers the omission also.

For example A parent will be held liable for murder if he or she cuase death of a child by starvation, means by not providing
food to it. Actus reus by omission is well illustrated in an English case or GibbinsVs Proctor. Where a man and woman with
the consent of man, withheld food from the child, with intend to cause death of child or grievous bodily food injury. By living
with man and receiving money from him for food, the woman assumed a duty towards child. As the woman has violated her
duty towards the child, so the woman and man were held liable for murder of child.

There are certain omissions for which the Indian Penal Code specifically provides punishment, for example

1. Omission to produce documents to public servant by a person legally bound to produce (Sec.175)

2. Omission to give notice of information when one is legally bound to give it (Sec. 176),

3. Omission to assist Public Servant (Sec.187)

4. Omission to apprehend on the part of a public servant (Secs. 221 and 222).

Mensrea or guilty mind:-

3|Page
Mensrea can be said an evil intention or knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act. Man's intention is essentially a subjective
fact. It is also said that there must be a mind at fault before there can be a crime. Mensrea is nothing more than that a person
has done intentionally the prohibited act. Mensrea began as a matter of morality and law. Earlier it was a subjective test but
gradually it became an objective test. The objective test is applied to ascertain whether a person has committed an offence with
an evil intention. Mensrea may be of different kinds as

Intention: Intention indicates the state of mind of a man who not only foresees but also desires the possible consequence of his
conduct.

Recklessness: If occurs when the actor does not desire the consequence but foresees the possibility and consciously takes the
risk about the consequences. Such consequences may or may not happen.

Negligence: Negligence is opposed to intention indicates a state of mind or absence of desire to cause a particular consequence.
Negligence means blame worthy inadvertence. Negligence, in law, has got two meanings: i)Firstly, it indicates inadvertence of
conduct of a reasonable man, ii) Secondly, the conduct of man should be a legal fault

Recklessness, more or less, includes negligent conduct. Negligence requires subjective and objective inquiry of the conduct of
a man.

Motive: There is difference between motive and intention. Motive is an attitude of mind or ultimate object which is intended to
achieve. Motive may be said as an emotion prompting the act e.g., love, compassion, fear, jealously, perverted lust, hatred,
political gesture, desire for money, desire for religion.

1.4 Short History of penal law in India

Under the Moghul rule the Mohammedan criminal law was administered by the Kazis in the courts of the county. The Quran
was repository of both civil and criminal law. In 1600 a charter incorporating the East India Company was granted by Queen
Elizabeth giving the Company exclusive right of trading to all parts of Asia, Africa and America and empowering it to make
laws. The Charter of 1668 vested the management of Bombay in the East India Company which regulated the proceedings of
the Court on the line of English courts. The Court of Judicature was established in 1672. It sat once a month for its general
sessions.

Two further Charters were granted in 1683 and 1687 enabling the Company to establish a Court of Judicature at such places as
it might decide and a Corporation at Fort St. George, Madras. The Englishmen in India were entrusted with the administration
of both civil and criminal justice.

In 1765 Lord Clive Succeeded in obtaining the grant of the Dewani from the Mughul Emperor, which enabled him to establish
Dewani courts.

In 1772 a Fouzdari Adalat was established in each district for the trial of criminal offences. The Kazi or Mufti presided over
these courts. An appeal against his decision lay to the Sudder Nizamat Adalat. The Officer presiding over the Sudder Nazamat
Adalat was assisted by Mohammedan Law officers. Such courts were established in the capital.

The Regulation Act was passed in 1773. It established a Supreme Court of Judicature of Fort William, Bengal, which took
cognizance of all matters, civil, criminal, admiralty and ecclesiastical. An appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court lay
to the King-in-Council.

In 1827 the system of administration of justice in the Presidency of Bombay was thoroughly revised and the law was set forth in
the Regulation, XIV of 1872. The position in the other Presidencies remained unchanged.

Prior to the enactment of the Indian Penal Code the laws administered in the Courts of India were neither uniform nor
universal. They were a combination of English, Mohammedan and local laws. The English Criminal Law was in force in the
three Presidency towns of India, while the Anglo-Indian Regulations, supplemented by the laws introduced by the
Mohammedan rulers, were in force in the mofussil.

4|Page
The first Indian law Commission was constituted at the initiative of Lord Macaulay. The commission in preparing the Penal
Code drew largely from the English and the Indian laws and regulations and from Livingstone's Lousiana Code the Napoleon
Code. The draft Code so prepared by the first commission was again revised by a subsequent Commission, which submitted its
reports in two parts, one is 1856 and the other in 1847. The same was again revised by law Members Benthune and Peacock. In
its final shape it was presented to the Legislative Council in 1856 and was passed on October 6, 1863. It superseded all Rules,
widely divergent regulations and orders relating to criminal law in India. The Indian Penal Code, XLV of 1860, came into
operation on the 1st of January, 1862.

1.5 Difference between Contract, Tort and Crime:-

The difference between contract, tort and crime may be studied with the aid of the following chart:
Sl
Contract Tort Crime
No
Duty is fixed as a result of the
1 contractual relationship of the Duty is fixed by the operation of law. Duty is fixed by the State.
parties.
Duty is towards the contracting
2 Duty is towards the public generally. Duty is to the whole world.
party generally.
An action lies for the infringement It constitutes an infringement or privation of It is a breach of public right and duties
3 of some right vesting in the party as civil rights of an individual considered as an affecting the whole community
a result of contractual relationship. Individual. considered as a Community.
In an action for breach of contract
the duty broken is the result of It arises out of liability independent of any Duty arises on account of statutory
4
failure to perform contractual personal obligation under a contract. enactments.
obligation.
It is founded upon consent as a
It is not based upon consent but is inflicted
5 result of an agreement between the It is not based on consent.
against consent.
parties.
There is a privity of contract
6 There is no privity between the parties. There is no privity between the parties.
between the parties.
Breach of contractual obligations
There is breach of a right against the
7 involves breach of a right in There is breach of a right in rem.
whole world.
personam.
The wrongdoer has to compensate the aggrieved
In case of breach of contract The offender is punished by the State;
party; such compensation may be nominal,
8 damages are paid by the party such punishment may be fine or
ordinary or exemplary according to the
breaking the contract. imprisonment.
magnitude and nature of the tort.
Motive may be a factor for
Motive is irrelevant in an action for
9 Motive is often taken into consideration. consideration in the quantum of
breach of a contract.
punichment.
The proceedings are conducted in the
Action is raised by the injured name of the State as the State is
10 Action is raised by the injured party.
party. supposed to be injured by wrong to the
community.
Breach of contract is a private
11 A tortious act involves breach of a private duty. It involves a public wrong.
wrong.
There is no question of negligence
in an action for breach of the Mere negligence may amount to tortuous Negligence attended with criminal
12
obligation arising out of the liability. intent amounts to crime.
contract.
In an action for breach of contract
Intention on the part of the wrongdoer is
13 the intention of the parties is Intention is an essential element.
immaterial.
immaterial.

1.6 GENERAL EXPLANATIONS

5|Page
20. Court of Justice :- This Section makes it amply clear that a Judge is a Court of Justice when the law has empowered him to
act judicially and he is acting judicially. Similarly, when a body a Judges has been empowered by law to act judicially as a
body and when such body of Judges is acting judicially, the body of Judges is a Court of Justice. Court of Justice is not the
place or building where justice is administered by a court. Justice Krishna Iyer in his landmark judgment in the celebrated case
of Baradakanta Mishra Vs Registrar, Orissa High Court, relating to contempt of court has observed that when a Judge is acting
in an administrative capacity and not in his Judicial capacity, comment against him does not amount to contempt of court.

21. Public Servant :-The words "public servant" denotes a person falling under any of the descriptions hereinafter following,
namely:

First- Every Commissioned Officer in the Military, Naval or Air Forces of India;
Second - Every Judge including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself or as a member of any body of
persons, any adjudicatory functions;
Third - Every officer of a court of justice (including a liquidator, receiver or commissioner) whose duty it is, as such officer, to
investigate or report on any matter of law or fact or to make, authenticate, or keep any document, or to administer any oath, or
to execute any judicial processor to interpret, or to preserve order in the court and every person specially authroised by a court
of justice to perform any of such duties.
Fourth - Every juryman, assessor or member of a panchayat assisting a court of justice or public servant;
Fifth - Every arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been referred for decision or report by any Court of
Justice, or by any other competent public authority;
Sixth - Every person who holds any office by virtue of which he is empowered to place or keep any person in confinement;
Seventh - Every officer of the Government whose duty it is, as such officer, to prevent offences, to give information of
offences, to bring offenders to justice, or to protect the public health, safety or convenience;
Eighth - Every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property on behalf of the
Government, or to make any survey, assessment or contract on behalf of the Government, or to execute any revenue process, or
to investigate, or to report, on any matter affecting the pecuniary interest of the Government, or to make, authenticate or keep
any document relating to the pecuniary interests of the Government, or to prevent the infraction of any law for the protection of
the pecuniary interests of the Government;
Ninth – Every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property, to make any survey or
assessment or to levy any rate or tax for any secular common purpose of any village, town or district, or to make authenticate or
keep any document for the ascertaining of the rights of the people of any village, town or district;
Tenth- Every person who holds any office in virtue of which he is empowered to prepare, publish, maintain or revise an
electoral roll or to conduct an election or parts of an election;
Eleventh- Every person
(A) In the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the performance of any public duty by
the Government;

(B) In the service or pay of a local authority, a corporation established by or under a Central Provincial or State Act or a
Government Company as defined in section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956.

23. Wrongful gain – The word "wrongful" means violating the legal right of another without just cause. The expression
"unlawful means" denotes such means as are legally not permissible. In wrongful gain a person gains such property over which
he has no legal claim and by such means as are contrary to law. Similarly, in wrongful loss one loses such property over which
he has a legal right to hold and loses the same by such means as are not permitted under law. Acquiring wrongfully and
retaining wrongfully both are covered under 'gaining wrongfully'. Likewise, wrongfully kept out of property and wrongfully
deprived of property are both 'losing wrongfully' under this section. A gain or loss for a short time by unlawful means may be a
wrongful gain or wrongful loss. Temporary use of an aircraft by unlawful means was held to be a wrongful loss to the
Government.

28. Counterfeit: when a person causes one thing to resemble another thing with the intention of deceiving thereby or with the
knowledge that deception will thereby be practiced, he is said to counterfeit. Explanation 1 makes it clear that it is not
necessary that the imitation should be exact. Explanation 2 which deals with the question of presumption, states that when a
person causes one thing to resemble another thing and the resemblance is such that there is a likelidhood of a person being
deceived thereby, the law shall presume that the intention of the person is to practice deception or that he had knowledge that
deception would thereby be practiced.

6|Page
34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention – this section lays down a very important principle of joint
liability under criminal law. It ways that when several persons do a criminal act in furtherance of the common intention of all of
them, each one of them shall be liable for that act in the same manner as if he had done it alone. The fundamental principle of
criminal liability is that the prosecution must prove the gilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The principle is easily
applicable in cases of liability of one single individual. But when the same is applied to cases where more than one person
participate in the commission of a crime, it becomes very difficult to apply this principle and prove the guilt of each of the
participants. The matter gets all the more complicated when all the accused persons are armed with similar weapons because
then even though the medical report will be able to point out as to the number of injuries inflicted and their nature and parts of
the body on which these are inflicted, the extent of participation of each of the participants may not be known. The criminal
Code of the county must have some principles to be applied to such cases. With this view in mind principles of joint criminal
liability are enacted in the criminal Codes of all the countries. One such principle in India is under Section 34 of the Indian
Penal Code.

1.7 PUNISHMETNS

53. Punishment:- The section enumerates the kinds of punishment which can be meted out to offenders under the provisions of
the Code. These are death, imprisonment for life, rigorous or simple imprisonment, forfeiture of property and fine.

Capital Punishment

1. Death – Death sentence may be awarded for offences under sections 121, 132, 194, 302, 305, 307, 364-A and 396 of the
Code.

2. Imprisonment for life – Imprisonment for life is always rigorous, never simple. Imprisonment for life may be awarded
under Sections 121, 121-A, 122, 124-A, 125, 128, 130, 131, 132, 194, 195, 225, 225-A, 232, 238, 255, 302, 304, 305, 307, 311,
313, 314, 326, 329, 364, 371, 376, 377, 388, 389, 394, 396, 400, 409, 412, 433, 436, 437, 449, 460, 467, 472, 474, 475, 477 and
511 of the Code.

3. Imprisonment- There are two kinds of imprisonment under this section rigorous, that is, with hard labour, and simple.
The former means that during the tenure of his imprisonment one has to do hard labour. The latter, on the other hand, in a case
of imprisonment only without any hard labour.

4. Forfeiture of property – The Indian Penal Code provides the punishment of forfeiture of specific property for offences
under Section 126, 127, 169 and 263-A of the Code.

5. Fine – Punishments in the form of imprisonment or fine or both have been provided under many sections of the Code and
the courts have been empowered to award whatever sentence they deem fit out of the above. Consequently, it is at the
discretion of the Court to decide as to whether either imprisonment or fine or both are to be awarded in a particular case. Fine is
the only punishment provide under the Indian Penal Code in the following sections:

Unlimited Fine – Provision has been made under Sections 155, 156 and 171-G for imposition of unlimited amount as fine.

Fine limited to Rs. 1000-00- In Section 154 and 294-A the maximum limit of fine has been fixed at Rs. 1000-00 only.

Fine limited to Rs. 500-00 –Sections 137, 171-H, 171-I and 278 provide for a maximum fine of Rs.500-00 only.

Fine Limited to Rs. 200-00 – Under Section 263-A 283 and 290 the maximum limit of fine has been fixed at Rs.200-00 only.

While imposing fine the court have been kept in mind many important factors including the nature of the offence committed,
capacity of the offender to pay usefulness of the imposition of fine.

54. Commutation of sentence of death – This section empowers the appropriate government to commute, in every case in
which sentence of death shall have been passed, the punishment for any other punishment which the Indian Penal Code
provides. The consent of the offender is not needed for such commutation.

7|Page
55. Commutation of sentence of imprisonment for life – Whereas section 54 empowers the appropriate Government to
commute sentence of death this section empowers the same authority to commute sentence of imprisonment for life. Under this
section also, like the previous section, consent of the offender is not necessary for the commutation.

60. Sentence may be (in certain cases of imprisonment) wholly or partly rigorous or simple – The section empowers the
courts to direct, while passing a sentence of imprisonment of either description, as to whether the imprisonment shall be
rigorous, simple or partly rigorous and partly simple. It has, however, been held that an imprisonment for life shall always be
rigorous and never simple.

64. Sentence of imprisonment for non payment of fine – In every case of an offence punishable with imprisonment as well as
fine, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine, whether with or without imprisonment,

And in every case of an offence punishable with imprisonment or fine, or with fine only, in which the offender is sentenced to a
fine,

It shall be competent to the court which sentences such offender to direct by the sentence that, in default of payment of that fine,
the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a certain term, which imprisonment shall be in excess of any other imprisonment to
which he may have been sentenced or to which he may be liable under a commutation of a sentence.

68. Imprisonment to terminate on payment of fine – In such cases where a person has been imprisoned because he has
defaulted in paying the fine as directed by the Court, the imprisonment shall end whenever the fine is paid or process of law has
levied the same.

69. Termination of imprisonment of payment of proportional part of fine – When an accused is undergoing imprisonment
in default of payment of a fine, has imprisonment shall come to an end whenever the fine is paid or levied, if party of the fine is
paid while the accused is undergoing imprisonment, there shall be a proportional reduction in his term of imprisonment.

70. Fine leviable within six years of during imprisonment Death not to discharge property from liability – Even if an
offender has served his full term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine, that does not liberate him from the liability to
pay the total amount of fine which the court had imposed on him. The framers of the Indian Penal Code were of the opinion that
no one should be allowed to choose between suffering in his person i.e., undergoing imprisonment, or in his property, i.e.,
paying the fine. The imprisonment which one has undergone in default of payment of fine does not release him from his liability
to pay the fine. On the face of it, it may look a little harsh but that is the mind of the makers of the Code and they had sound
logic behind this thinking. Consequently, the property of one who has undergone imprisonment in default of payment of fine
could be taken by distress in order to realize the fine.

The fine remaining unpaid in full or in part may be levied at any time within six years after the sentence as passed. If, however,
an offender is liable to imprisonment for a longer period than six years,. Then the fine may be levied at any time before that
period expires. If the offender dies before paying the fine or before the fine is levied, his property would be legally liable to pay
off his debts.

73. Solitary confinement – As it is clear from the language of this section solitary confinement is permissible only when an
offender has committed such an offence under the Code which is punishable with rigorous imprisonment. The period of solitary
confinement must follow the scale provided in this section. Consequently, in cases of imprisonment not exceeding six months
solitary confinement shall not exceed one month, in cases of imprisonment exceeding six months but not exceeding one year
solitary confinementshall not exceed two month, and in cases of imprisonment exceeding one year solitary confinement shall
not exceed two months, and in cases of imprisonment exceeding one year solitary confinement shall not exceed three months.

The maximum period of solitary confinement provided under this section is three months as is clear from the scale given in the
section as well as the use of the expression 'not exceeding three months in the whole'. But there have been cases where it has
been held that in the cases where it has been held that in the case of simultaneous convictions, the award of separate terms of
solitary confinement, which in the aggregate exceed three months, is legal. The Supreme Court has also held that solitary
confinement should be ordered in exceptional circumstances only and that a prisoner sentenced to death can be segregated only
when the sentence has become final and irrevocable. It has also been held by the Supreme Court that if a prisoner himself

8|Page
desires to be segregated for reasons of his own safety his written consent to that effect and approval by the higher authorities of
the same are absolutely essential.

Limit of solitary confinement – This provision follows the principle that solitary confinement should be imposed only in
intervals since it produces a direct impact on the mind of the person undergoing it. Such confinement shall never be for more
than fourteen days at a stretch. The interval between the periods of solitary confinements must not be less that such periods of
such confinements. In case of imprisonment of more three months, solitary confinement shall not be for more than seven days in
any one month of the total imprisonment awarded. Here also the intervals between the periods of such confinement must not be
less than such periods.

UNIT – II

2.1 GENERAL EXCEPTIONS

76. Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound, by law :-

The whole section does not does not describe the defence of mistake of fact as is the general belief. The section can be
divided not two parts, only the second part of which discusses the law relating to the defence of mistake of fact while the first
part does not do so. The division is an under:

i) Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it.

ii) Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law
in good faith believes himself to be bound by law to do it.

The first part of the section does not use the word 'mistake' at all. It simply says that a thing is not an offence if it is done by a
person who is legally bound to do it. When law asks a person to do something which he does, it is not an offence. A person is
bound by law to do something when the law puts him under an obligation. Doing a legal duty is not an offence. A person who is
bound by law to do something does not commit an offence when he does it. There is no question of mistake of fact, mistake of
law or good faith under this part of the section.

The second part of the section deals in fact with the defence of mistake of face. Under this part a thing is not an offence if it is
done by a person who because of mistake of fact and not of mistake of law in good faith believes that he is bound by law to do
it. When a person is in fact not bound by law to do something but he does not by reason of to do it, it is not an offence. Mistake
of fact and good faith must be proved to be present while mistake of fact and good faith must be proved to be present while
mistake of law must be proved to be absent under this part of the section. In other words, the well known principles
'ignorantiafactiexcusat' (ignorance of fact is excusable) and 'ignorantiafactiexcusat' (ignorance of fact is excusable) have been
incorporated under this part. There may be a difference between ignorance and mistake but they have been treated as same here.

The expression 'mistake of fact' means that there is a misconception in the mind about the existence of a fact. If truth or
otherwise of a fact is not known correctly, it is a mistake or fact. 'mistake of law', on the other hand, is a mistake as to the
existence or otherwise of a law and includes a mistake as to what the law is.

77. Act of Judge when acting judicially – The whole section can be divided into following two parts:

i) Nothing is an offence which is done by a judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is given to him
by law.

ii) Nothing is an offence which is done by a judge when acting judicially I the exercise of any power which in good faith he
believes to be given to him by law.

9|Page
The first part of the section is applicable when a Judge acting in his judicial capacity does something while exercising such a
power which in fact has been given to him by law. The law empowers him to do something and he does that thing in his judicial
capacity. In such circumstances he cannot be held liable for an offence. There is no question of good faith under this part. On
the other hand, under the second part the judge does not exercise a power which has in fact been given to him by law. He does
something in this judicial capacity under such powers which he believes in good faith to be given to him by law. The judge has
to prove good faith under this part. If must be proved under this part that even though the judge in fact had no such power under
law he in good faith believed that he had such power under which he acted in his judicial capacity. Only then is he protected
under this part of the section.

78. Act done pursuant to the Judgment or order of Court – The section is a natural corollary to section 77 of the Code. It
protects those who execute a judgment or order of the court of justice. The section says that whilst a judgment or order of a
court of justice remains in force, anything done in pursuance of the same or warranted by the same is not an offence even if the
court may not have jurisdiction of pass such judgment or order provided the person who does the act believes in good faithful
that the court did have such jurisdiction. The responsibility to prove good faith is on the accused.

80. Accident in doing a lawful act – The defence of accident or misfortune is different from the general concept of an accident
or misfortune as is commonly understood. To succeed under this section the following essential elements of the defence must be
proved

1. Something is done by accident or misfortune

2. There is absence of criminal intention or knowledge

3. The act done must be a lawful act

4. It must be done in a lawful manner

5. It must be done by lawful means

6. It must be done with proper care and caution.

If any one of the above mentioned six elements is absent, the defence under this section will fail. The words 'accident' and
'misfortune' used in this section have not been defined under the code. There is normally an element of unforesee ability in these
and intention and knowledge are absent while the consequence will generally be harmful or bad. All kinds of accident or
misfortune do not provide protection under this section. The defence is available only when all the six requirements as indicated
above are fulfilled.

The accused along with a few companions went to shoot a pig. He took his position while the others proceeded to beat the pig
towards him. A boar was driven in that direction and he shot at it. The shot missed the animals but hit one of the beaters
resulting in his death. It was held that this section applied and the accused was not liable under Section 304-A of the Code.

81. Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm – This section deals with the
defence of necessity. When someone does something knowing that the same is likely to cause harm to another, it is not an
offence if it is proved that he had done that without any criminal intention to cause harm and in good faith for the purpose of
preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property. The person claiming this defence must prove that he did not possess
any criminal intention to cause harm and that his purpose in good faith was to prevent or avoid other harm to person or property.
The use ofthe word 'other' and not 'greater' in this section shows that to succeed in this defence, it is not necessary for the
accused to prove that he caused smaller harm to prevent or avoid greater harm. The defence will still be available to him if he
proves that he caused harm to prevent or avoid other harm to Peron or property. The only thing needed to be proved by him is
that he acted in good faith without any criminal intention to cause harm. It is natural that it would be very difficult for prove
good faith if he causes greater harm to prevent or avoid smaller harm.

82. Act of a child under seven years of age –The section deals with the defence of infancy. A child below seven years of age
has total immunity from prosecution. The law presumes such a child be 'doliincapax'. Such a child cannot be held guilty under
the Indian Penal Code or any special or local law. However, of a specific Act makes a provision to the contrary, that provision
10 | P a g e
will prevail over this general provision under this section because special law overrides the general law. For example, Section
130, Indian Railways Act, 1890 deals with certain offences committed by children.

83. Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding – This section is the second part of the defence
of infancy. According to this provision a child above seven years of age but under twelve years is also not guilty of a n offence
if his maturity of understanding is not upto the level of judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
The level of such a child's maturity of understanding is to be judged by the court taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case. The section gives more importance to the maturity and understanding of the child than to his age.
The defence is subjective in nature and depends on the level of understanding the child has reached. There may be a case where
a child is nearing twelve years of age but is not mature enough to understand the nature and consequences of his act and thus he
may be entitled to the protection of this section. On the other hand, there may be another case where a child may be just above
seven years of age abut is mature enough to understand the nature and consequences of his act and is thus liable to be punished
for his act.

84. Act of person of unsound mind – Insanity has received the attention of writers, jurists and judges since very old days. The
focus of attention has been to give or not to five immunity from criminal liability to insane persons. Britton, Fitz Herbert
Corone, Coke, Hale,Hawkin and Balckstone are some of the prominent names who have expressed their views about insanity as
a ground of exemption or otherwise form criminal responsibility. Various tests were laid down by the courts, from time to time,
about the recognition of insanity as a defence under criminal law.

Mcnaughten's Case – In 1843, the accused Mcnaughten of Scotland killed Mr. Drummond, the private secretary of the British
Prime Minister Sir Robert Pel,believing under a mistake that he was killing the Prima Minister. He pleaded insanity and the
House of Lords acquitted him of the murder. This generated a lot of public sentiment and debate and the pressure was so much
that ultimately the House of Lords had to constitute a special committee of its own judges to finalize the law relating to
insanity. Five questions were put to this committee of judges and their answers are known as McNaughten's Rules.

Essentials of the defence– The defence under this section requires the following elements to be established :

1) The accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of doing the act.'

2) He was incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he was doing that was either wrong or contrary to law.

This section makes it clear that the accused must be of unsound mind at the time of doing the act. His state of mind before or
after the commission of a crime is not important except with a view to know, if that can be known, as to whether he was of
unsound mind at the time of he committed the offence. The degree or gravity of the unsoundness must be such that at that time
he did not know the nature of his act, or he did not know that his act was either wrong or contrary to law. For instance, while
shooting a man dead if the accused did not know, because of unsoundness of mind, that he was using a gun, he cannot be held
responsible because he did not know the nature of his act.

Difference between medical and legal insanity (unsoundness of mind) – Medical insanity and legal insanity (unsoundness of
mind) are different from each other. The former is dependent solely on medical grounds while the latter depends on the factor
as to be proved in a court of law to enable the accused to be acquitted of the charge. If there are sufficient medical grounds to
hold that a person is suffering from insanity, it is a case of medical insanity. On the other hand, legal insanity (unsoundness of
mind) for the purposes of this section means that the accused must prove that at the time of commission of the Crime with
which he is charged, because of unsoundness of mind, he did not know the nature of his act or that he was doing what was
either wrong or contrary to law. Medically a person may be certified sane or insane, as the case may be, but legally he will be
held insane (of unsound mind) only if he successfully proves the requirement of the law under this section which will entitle
him to be acquitted of the charge. If he fails to do so, the law presumes him sane at the time of commission of the crime by
him, even though medically he may have been insane at that time.

85.Act of a person incapable of Judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will –

When an accused is under a state of intoxication at the time of doing something as a result of which he does not know the nature
of his act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law, he is not guilty of the same if the thing which intoxicated
him was given to him without his consent or against his will. As a large number of cases of intoxication relate to drunkenness,

11 | P a g e
this defence of intoxication is also known as the defence of drunkenness. But by no means is this section limited to
drunkenness only. The following are the essential elements of the defence:

1) The accused must be under the state of intoxication at the time of doing an act.

2) He, by reason of intoxication, must not known the nature of his act, or he must not know that his act is

wrong or contrary to law.

3) The intoxication is given to him without his consent or against his will.

86. Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated – This sectionshould be read
together with section 85 of the Code. Whereas section 85 deals with the defence of intoxication, this section talks about matters
relating to presumption in certain cases where the question of intoxication is involved. There are many sections in the Indian
Penal Code wherein an accused can be held guilty only when a particular knowledge or intent is proved against him by the
prosecution. In presumed that he knew the consequences of his act in the same manner as if he had not been intoxicated unless
he proves that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge only and is silent about
presumption of intention which was effect means that in such cases there is not presumption with regard to intention of the
accused. Therefore, in such cases the particular intention against the accused is to be proved by the prosecution in the same
manner as is done in the normal cases.

87. Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent – This section is based
on the principle 'violenti non fit injuria' which means he who consents suffers no injury. The policy behind this principle is that
everyone is the best judge of his own interest, and that no one consents to what he considers injurious to his own interest.

This section says that if there is no intention or knowledge on the part of someone to cause death or grievous hurt, his act does
not amount to an offence even though it may cause or be intended by the doer to cause harm to a person who is above eighteen
years of age provided the person suffering the harm gives his express or implied consent to suffer that harm; or by reason of any
harm which the doer known to be likely to cause to such person who consents to take the risk of that harm. It is important to
note that the person giving consent must be above eighteen years of age. Also this section does not justify intentional causing
of death or grievous hurt, or where the doer knows that death or grievous hurt is likely to result to one giving consent. It is an
absolute and unconditional restriction. Implied consent may be inferred from facts and circumstances of the case, and there
cannot be a general rule in this regard. Wrestling, boxing and fencing etc., are such games or sports where implied consent may
be presumed provided the rules of the game are being followed. The section has no application where, for instance, wrestlers
and wrestling on a hard surface, or boxers are boxing without wearing gloves, or where a prize fight which is prohibited by the
law is going on.

88. Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person's benefit –The section states that when
something is done by a person which may cause any harm to another, or where the intention of the doer is to cause harm t
another, or where the intention of the doer is to cause harm to another, or where the doer knows that harm is likely to be caused
to another, the same does not amount to an offence if the act is done for the benefit of the other in good faith and he has given
express or implied consent to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm, and provided the doer has no intention to cause
death.

In R.P.DhanaVs. Bhurelal, the appellant, a medical doctor, performed an eye operation for cataract with the patient's consent.
The operation, however, resulted in loss of sight. It was held that since the doctor had acted in good faith for the benefit of the
patient, he was protected under section 88 of the Code.

89. Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane person, by or be consent of guardian - Thesection states that when
something is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or of unsound mind, by the guardian
himself or by other person having lawful charge of that person, or by express or implied consent of the guardian or other person
having lawful charge of that person, it is not an offence even though it may cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause,
any harm to that person. This provision is subject to four provisions mentioned in the section itself.

12 | P a g e
The first proviso states that where the doer intentionally causes death or intentionally attempts to cause death, this section will
not protect him.

According to the second proviso this section does not apply where the doer does something which he knows to be likely to
cause death for any grievous disease or infirmity.

According to the third proviso this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of grievous hurt, or to the attempting to
cause grievous hurt, unless the purpose of the doer be to prevent death or grievous hurt, or to cure any grievous disease or
infirmity.

The fourth proviso states that this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence
it would not extend.

96. Things done in private defence – Section 96 merely gives a recognition to the fact that whenever something is done in the
exercise of one's right of private defence, it would not amount to an offence. The use of the expression 'private defence' in
preference to 'self-defence' is deliberate and is discussed under section 97 of the Code. No state, however large its resources
may be, can provide security to each individual. Consequently, it has to have a law with respect to private defence wherein the
scope and limits of the law are clearly indicated. No state wants to citizens to be cowards. Consequently, every person has a
right to resist when attacked. This resistance is possible only when right to use force is given to him by law and that is what has
been done by this section in conjunction with other relation provisions of the code. With the recognition of the right of private
defence this section completely absolves a person from all guilt once the act is proved to be done in such defence.

To come to a just conclusion as to whether an accused has acted in right of private defence the Court must view the situation as
a whole.

97. Right of private defence of the body and of property – This section specifically provides that every person has a right to
defend the person and property of his own and that of any other person. The right, however, is subject to certain restrictions or
limitations as stated under section 99 of the Code. This first part of section 97 states that every person has a right to defend his
own body and the body of any other person against any offence affecting the human body. Since offences affecting the human
body have been covered under Sections 299 to 377 of the Code, it is apparent that the right of private defence of body is
available in a very large number of cases or situations. The second part of this section states that every person has a right to
defend the property, both movable and immovable, of any person including his own, against any act which is an offence falling
under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass or which is an attempt of any of these. The right of private
defence of property is, therefore, comparatively restricted in the sense that it is available only in cases of the four offences
mentioned above and their attempts.

As has already been discussed under section 96, it is not necessary for the accused to plead the right of private defence to be
entitled to its benefit. If the court is convinced that the facts and circumstances of the case suggest that he had acted under this
right, the benefit shall be given to him irrespective of the fact as to whether he has pleaded this defence or any other defence or
no defence at all. Similarly, the law does not require the accused to weigh in golden scales the precise force which is needed to
repel an attack.

98. Right of private defence against the act of a person unsound mind, etc., - The section says that the same right of private
defence as its available to one against another normal person is also available against such other persons who may not be liable
for their acts in view of the fact that certain specific defences have been provided to them by the Indian Penal Code. Such
defences are the defences of infancy under section 82, under section 83, under section 84, under section 85 and any
misconception on the part of those persons under sections 76 and 79 of the Code. The private defence law does not make a
distinction between a normal and a non-normal attacker on body or property of any person and in both cases same right is
available to the defender.

100. When the right to private defence of the body extends to causing death – This section shows that the Criminal law of
our country recognizes the fact that there can be certain situations wherein a person may have no other way-out except to cause
even death while exercising right of private defence of body. These situations have been identified in the form of six clauses
under this section.

13 | P a g e
Firstly, where the assault on the part on the assailant may cause a reasonable apprehension of death in the mind of the defender.

Secondly, if the defender has reasonable apprehension that the assault on the part of the attacker may result in grievous hurt, he
has a right to cause his death.

Thirdly, where the assailant commits an assault with the intention of committing rape, the defender may cause his death.

Fourthly, where the assailant commits an assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust, the defender has a right to cause
his death.

Fifthly, the defender has a right to cause death of the assailant where the assailant commits an assault with the intention of
kidnapping or abducting.

Sixthly, the right to private defence of body extends even to commit death of the assailant where he commits an assault with the
intention of committing the offence of wrongful confinement under such circumstances as may cause a reasonable apprehension
that he will not be able to have recourse to the public authorities for his release.

It is important to recollect here that section 97 of the Code gives the right of private defence to everyone to defend his own body
or property or the body or property of any other person. Consequently, the right under section 100 is exercisable by the person
who is being attacked or by another person on his behalf.

101. When such right extends to causing any harm other than death –This provision is a corollary to section 100 of the
Code. It states that if any of the circumstances enumerated under section 100 does not exist, that is to say, that if the offence be
of any other description than mentioned in that section the right of private defence of body does not extend to causing of death
of the attacker but the defender is entitled, subject to the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to voluntarily cause to him any
other harm other than death.

102. Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body –This section deals with two very
important aspects of the right of private defence of body at what point of time does the right commence and how long does it
continue. Regarding the first aspect the section says that the right commences at that point of time when a reasonable
apprehension of danger to the body arises either from an attempt to commit an offence on the body or from a threat to commit
such offence even though in either of these cases the offence itself may not have been committed. As of the second aspect the
right continues till such apprehension of danger to the body continues. This law does not command that to exercise such a right
one must wait up to the time when the first blow on the body falls. The right gets vested as soon as a reasonable apprehensions
of danger to the body arises either by a attempt or a threat of an offence relating to body though the offence may not have been
committed. Since it is a right of defence, it is available for protecting an apprehended unlawful attack and not for punishing an
aggressor.

105. Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of property – While section 102 of the code deals
exclusively with commencement and continuance of the right private defence of the body, this section relates to the same
questions with respect of the right of private defence of property. According to the first para of this section the right of private
defence of property commences with the commencement of reasonable apprehension of danger to the property. It is not
necessary for this defence to arise that offence against property must first be committed or attempted. The right gets vested the
moment reasonable apprehension of danger commences with respect to the property. This para is limited only to the question of
commencement of the right and does not go at all towards continuance. The other four paras deal exclusively with the question
of continuance of the right, and for different offences different yardsticks have been fixed.

The first part of this para has generated controversy because it cannot be said for certain that a particular stage is the exact time
when it can be said without doubt that the offender has effected his retreat. Perhaps it may be when he has got clear off or when
he has gone beyond the stage of immediate pursuit. There is also a feeling that till the offender has been brought before the
office of justice the right must go on.

The second part of this para says that the right of defence continues till the assistance of the public authorities is obtained which
means that the right comes to an end with the obtaining of assistance of public authorities.

14 | P a g e
According to the third para of the section the right of private defence of property against robbery continues as long as the
offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful causes or attempts to cause to any person death or
hurt or wrongful restraint or as long as the feat to instant death or of instant hurt or of instant personal restraint continues.

The fourth para of this section states that the right of private defence of property against criminal trespass or mischief continues
as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass or mischief.

In Karamjit Singh Vs. State, an unarmed Sarpanch of a village went to a disputed land in possession of the accused who
attacked him causing serious injuries. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that since the victim had committed a simple
criminal trespass the defender did have a right of private defence against him but not up given any reasonable apprehension to
the accused to committing or attempting any offence.

2.2 ABETMENT

A crime may be committed by one or more persons. Where more than one person is involved in its commission, their
liability will depend on the extent of their participation. It may similar or different. Thus, joint liability principles have also been
developed. The law must take cognizance of the support, help or encouragement one gives to another in the commission of a
crime.

The English law classifies the criminals into the following four categories:

i) Principal in the first degree, i.e., one who commits the crime or gets the same committed by an innocent agent.

ii) Principal in the second degree, i.e., one who is present at the scene and aids and assists in the commission of the crime.

iii) Accessory before the fact, i.e., now who though absent from the scene of crime, counsels, procures or commands another
to commit the crime.

iv) Accessory after the fact, i.e., one who knowing well that the perpetrator has committed a crime harbours and assists him to
escape punishment.

Indian law has no such categories. It only makes a distinction between the main perpetrator of the crime and the one who helps
or assists him. While the former may be a single individual, or joint criminals acting within the principles of joint liability, the
matter is known as an abettor. The crime of abetment has been dealt with under sections 107 to 120 of the Code.

107. Abetment of a thing:-According to section 107 abetment of a thing can be by instigation, by conspiracy or by intentional
aiding. It is clear from the definition that abetment involves active complicity on the part of the abettor at a point of time prior to
the actual commission or doing a thing.

108. Abettor :- There can be two ways by which a person can become an abettor according to this section firstly, when he abets
the commission of an offence, or secondly, when he abets the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by
a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. Abetment can be
done by any of the three modes prescribed under section 107 of the Code, that is to say, by instigation by conspiracy or by
aiding. Therefore, whenever a person abets by any one of these modes the commission of an offence, which is defined under
section 40 of the Code, he is an abettor. Again he will be an abettor even when though he does not abet the commission of an
offence but he does abet, by either of the three modes, the commission of an act which would amount to an offence if
committed by a person legally capable to commit an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.

Explanation 1: According to the first explanation the abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence
although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act.

Explanation 2: The second explanation states that to constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abettor
should be committed or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused. This explanation shows that the
effect of an abetment is immaterial.

15 | P a g e
Explanation 3: According to the third explanation it is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of
committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention of knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty
intention or knowledge. The legal status of the person abetted has no bearing on the liability of the abettor.

Explanation 4: This explanation says that the abetment of an offence being an offence, the abetment of such an abetment is
also an offence.

Explanation 5: This fifth explanation is applicable only to the offence of abetment by conspiracy. It states that it is not
necessary to the commission of the offence of abetment by conspiracy that the abettor should concert the offence with the
person who commits it. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed.

108- A Abetment in India of offences outside India – This section extends the law of abetment of offences committed outside
India. It states that a person, who, in India, abets the commission of an act without any beyond India which would constitute an
offence if committed in India, is an abettor within the meaning of this Code.

112. Abettor when liable to cumulative punishment for act abetted and for act done – It states that if the act or which the
abettor is liable under section 111 is committed in addition to the act abetted, and the act committed is a distinct offence, the
abettor is subject to punishment for each of the offences of the abetted and the act committed.

117. Abetting commission of offence by the public or by more than ten persons - This section comes into play when the
public or more than ten persons are abetted to commit an offence. It says that whenever an abettor abets the commission of an
offence by the public generally or by any number or class of persons exceeding ten, the abettor is liable to be punished with
simple or rigorous imprisonment of a term extending up to three years, or with fine, or with both. Since the words 'exceeding
ten' have been used in the section, the section is applicable only where the number of persons abetted is at least eleven. The idea
behind this section is to take care of abetment of class conflicts. Abetment of commission of offence by up to ten persons has
been kept away from this section. India being a country with people belonging to multifarious cases and creeds, it is necessary
to keep a check on abettors abetting commission of offences by a large number of persons, and to that extent this provision is
helpful in keeping such abettors under control.

119. Public Servant concealing design to commit offence which it is his duty to prevent - Section 119 says that when a
public servant, with the intention of facilitating or with the knowledge that it is likely that he will thereby facilitate, the
commission of an offence, which it is his duty as such public servant to prevent, voluntarily conceals, either by an act or by an
illegal omission, the existence of a design to commit such offence, or makes any representation about which he has knowledge
that it is false respecting such design, shall, if the offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of any description
provided for the offence, for a term which may extent to one half of the longest term of such imprisonment, or with such fine as
is provided for the offence, or with both, or, if the offence be punishable with death or imprisonment for life, with simple or
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extent to ten years, or if the offence be not committed, shall be punished with
imprisonment of any description provided for the offence for a term which may extent to one fourth part of the longest term of
such imprisonment or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.

2.3 CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

Conspiracy at common law originated as a civil wrong. Later on the concept entered into the field of criminal law. At
first it dealt with agreements to carry on legal proceedings in improper manner. In the Poultry's case the star chamber gave it a
concrete criminal shape making such as agreement a substantive offence even when no act was done in pursuance of it. For this
reason this is known as a source of modern law.

120- A. Definition of criminal conspiracy – According to the section, whenever there is an agreement between two or more
persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is a criminal
conspiracy. The basic thing on which the criminality lies under this section in the 'agreement' which naturally requires at least
two persons. 'Agreement' is not merely the stage of intention which is not culpable, but is more than that. It is a design to be
carried into effect. The plot is an act in itself. It is not necessary that all members of the conspiracy must be aware of each detail
of the conspiracy. Bur there has to be a common design amongst them and each conspirator must at his stage of the design carry
it into effect. By and large each of them will know the important details of the conspiracy even though each may not be aware
of each of the minutes details.

16 | P a g e
120-B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy – While prescribing punishment of criminal conspiracy this section makes a
distinction between two kinds of criminal conspiracy. According to the first clause of the section a criminal conspiracy to
commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or more has
been treated as a serious offence for which is there is no express provision is the code, a party to such a conspiracy shall be
punished in the same manner as second clause of this section, any other kind of criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable with rigorous imprisonment of less than two years or a criminal conspiracy to commit an act which is prohibited by
law or which furnishes ground for a civil action or a criminal conspiracy to commit an act which is not illegal by illegal means,
has been held to be comparatively lenient and a party thereto shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term
not exceeding six months, or with fine, or with both.

In State of Maharashtra Vs. Som Nath Thapa, popularly known as the Bombay bomb blast case the accused was alleged to
have sent his jeeps and men for smuggling and transporting RDX. Thesejeeps had cavities to conceal RDX. Traces of RDX
were also found in the jeeps. The Supreme Court held that the material transported being RDX, intent of its use for illegal
purpose can be imputed to the accused, and he was rightly charged under Section 3 (3) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1987. It was further held that to establish a charge of conspiracy knowledge about indulgence in either an
illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In some cases, intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or services
in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself. This apart, the prosecution has to establish that a particular unlawful use
was intended, so long as the goods or service in question could not e put to an unlawful use. When the ultimate offence consists
of a chain of actions, it would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring home the charge of conspiracy, that
each of the conspirators had the knowledge of what the collaborator would do, so long as it is known that the collaborator would
put the goods or services to an unlawful use.

2.4 OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE

Most of the countries have laws against treason and allied subjects and India is no exception. There is little doubt,
however, that great many changes are required to be made in view of the fact that circumstances prevalent at the time of
enacting the Code during the British rule do not exist any more after independence. The line or demarcation between legitimate
political activity in a free democratic India and practicing and preaching disaffecting towards the government needs to be
redrawn even though there is a general feeling that this is a difficult task. The guiding factor for this purpose will undoubtedly
be the Indian Constitution.

121.Waging or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against the Government of India –It can be
said that section 121 is an uncommon provision because it punishes the act, its attempt and its abetment all under this very
provision. The section says that whoever wages war against the Government of India, or attempts or abets the waging of such
war shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

121-A. Conspiracy to commit offences punishable by Section 121 – This section was inserted by the Indian Penal
Code (Amendment) Act, 1870 and the words 'and shall also be liable to fine' were added by Act XVI of 1921. This section can
be divided into two parts. According to the first part of this provision, whoever within or without India conspires to commit any
of the three kinds of offences punishable under Section 121, that is to say, waging war against the Government of India, or
attempt to wage such war, or abetment of waging such war, shall be punishable under this section. This section does not
distinguish between conspiracy within India and without, and punishment prescribed is same in both cases. The second part of
the section says that whoever within or without India conspires to overawe, by means of criminal force or show of criminal
force, the central government or any state government, shall be punished with the prescribed punishment. Under this part the
conspiracy within or without India must be to overawe the central or any statement government either by means of criminal
force or by show of it.

The explanation given with this provision explains that to constitute a conspiracy under this section there is no need of
an act or illegal omission to take place in pursuance of the conspiracy. In other words, liability under this provision exists
irrespective of the fact whether an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of the conspiracy or not.

122. Collecting arms, etc., with intention of waging war against the Government of India – This section is one of
the few sections in the Indian Penal Code in which preparation to commit an offence has been made punishable. It says that
whenever men, arms or ammunition are collected by someone, or preparation is done by him to wage war with the intention of
waging war or with the intention of being prepared to wage war against the Government of India, he shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or simple or rigorous imprisonment which may extent up to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
17 | P a g e
 123. Concealing with intent to facilitate design to wage war –This section makes concealing with intent to facilitate
design to wage war an offence. It says that whenever someone conceals the existence of a design to wage war against the
Government of India by any act or illegal omission, with the intention by such concealment to facilitate the waging of such war,
or with the knowledge that it is likely that such concealment is likely to facilitate waging of such war, he shall be punished with
simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

124-A. Sedition – Whoever being or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt or excites or attempts to excite
disaffection towards, the government established by law in India, by spoken or written words, or by signs, or by visible
representations, or otherwise, shall be punished with imprisonment for life to which five may be added, or with imprisonment
extending up to three years to which fine may be added, or with fine. There are three explanations attached to the section. The
first gives an inclusive definition of the expression 'disaffection' and states that this word includes disloyalty and all the purview
of this section. It says that comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the government with a view to obtain their
alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not takes away a few
things from the body of this section, comments expressing disapprobation of the administrative or other action of the
government, which do not excite or attempt to excite hatred, contempt or dis-affection, are not considered punishable under this
section as offence.

128. Public servant voluntarily allowing prisoner of State or war of escape – Section 128 says that whoever, being a
public servant and having the custody of a state prisoner or prisoners of war, voluntarily allows such a prisoner to escape from
his place of confinement, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending
up to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

129. Public servant negligently suffering such prisoner to escape – Section 129 whoever, being a public servant and
having the custody of any state prisoner or prisoner of war suffers such prisoner to escape from his place of confinement by his
own negligence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term extending upto three years, and shall also be liable to
fine.

130. Aiding escape of, rescuing or harbouring such prisoner – Whoever aids or assists any state prisoner or prisoner
of war in escaping from lawful custody with the knowledge that the person he is helping is a state prisoner or prisoner of war, or
rescues or attempts to rescue any such prisoner with such knowledge, or harbors or conceals any such prisoner who has escaped
from lawful custody with such knowledge, or offers or attempts to offer any resistance to the recapture of such prisoner with
such knowledge, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with simple of rigorous imprisonment extending up to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine., According to the explanation attached to the section a state prisoner or prisoner of war
who has been released n parole with the condition that he will have free movement within specified limits in India will be
presumed to have escaped from lawful custody if he goes beyond the limits within which he has been allotted movement. The
provision has a very wide ambit in the sense that knowingly aiding or assisting, or rescuing or attempting to rescue, or harboring
or concealing, or offering or attempting to offer resistance have all been made an offence under this section.

2.5 OFFENCES AGAINST THE PUBLIC TRANQUILITY

After the independence of India some moral forms of political dissent began to originate in the democratic polity in the
shape of bandhs, dharnas, gheroas and fasts. In the course of time these moral forces went out of hand and started interfering
with public peace and tranquility. The situation has reached a critical point in the present day and people have begun to feel that
the offences enumerated under this chapter being not sufficient to cope with these developments, some drastic changes are
needed in the lae.

141. Unlawful assembly –According to it, for an unlawful assembly these must be a minimum of five persons. Therefore, an
assembly of upto four persons cannot be designated an unlawful assembly. An assembly of five or more persons becomes an
unlawful assembly only when the common object of the members composing it falls under at least any one of the five clauses
enumerated in the section.

First Clause: According to the first clause an assembly of five or more persons is an unlawful assembly if the common object
of the persons composing it is to overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the central or the state government or
parliament or the legislature of any state, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant.

18 | P a g e
Second Clause: According to the second clause an assembly of five or more persons becomes an unlawful assembly if the
common object of the persons composing the same is to resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process, execution of
any law means carrying out provisions of any law and executing a legal process means to take necessary measures in
accordance with the law. An order passed in accordance with the law is an executing of law.

Third Clause: The third clause of section 141 states that an assembly of five or more persons is an unlawful assembly if the
common object of the persons composing it is to commit mischief, criminal trespass, or their offence.

Fourth Clause: The fourth clause of this section states that an assembly of five or more persons because an unlawful assembly
if the common object of the persons composing it is by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to
take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or
other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right to supposed right.

Fifth Clause: According to the fifth clause this section an assembly of five or more persons becomes an unlawful assembly if
the common object of its members is by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he
is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.

142. Being member of unlawful assembly – The section states as to who can be said to be a member of an unlawful assembly.
It says that whoever intentionally joins an unlawful assembly or continues in it, being aware of facts whish render such
assembly an unlawful assembly, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly.

143. Punishment – Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for
a term extending up to six months, or with fine, or with both.

146. Rioting – This section defines the offence of rioting., It says that whenever an unlawful assembly uses force or violence in
prosecution of the common object of such assembly, or whenever any member of an unlawful assembly uses force or violence
in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, the law holds each member of such assembly guilty of the offence of
rioting. Use of force or violence distinguishes rioting from an unlawful assembly.

147. Punishment for rioting – This section, which prescribed punishment for the offence of rioting, states that whoever is
guilty of rioting shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to two years, or fine, or with
both.

152. Assaulting or obstruction public servant when suppressing riot, etc., - This section attempts to deter persons from
interfering with some of the duties of a public servant with respect to maintaining public peace. It says that whoever assaults or
obstructs or attempts to obstruct, any public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, in his endeavor to
disperse an unlawful assembly, r in his endeavor to suppress a riot or affray, of uses criminal force, or threaten to use criminal
force. Or attempts to use criminal force to such public servant, shall be punished with simple to rigorous imprisonment for a
term extending up to three years, or with fine, or with both.

159. Affray – The word 'affray' has been derived from the French word 'affraier' which means to terrify. Therefore, in the legal
sense the act of terrorizing the people is the offence of affray. Since the people can be terrorized only when something is done in
front of the people themselves, presence of the public becomes necessary. That is why, in the definition f affray, it is necessary
that two or more persons must fight in a public place and thereby disturb public peace.

160. Punishment for committing affray – Whoever commits an affray shall be punished with simple or rigorous
imprisonment for a term extending up to one month, or with fine extending up to one hundred rupees, or with both.

2.6 OFFENCES BY OR RELATING TO PUBLIC SERVANTS

166. Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person – This section deals with the liability of a
public servant disobeying law with intent to cause injury to any person. It says that whoever, being a public servant, with
knowledge disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, with the
intention to cause, or with the knowledge that is likely that he will cause injury, to any person by such disobedience, shall be
punished with simple imprisonment for a term extending up to one year, or with fine, or with both.
19 | P a g e
167. Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury – This section deals with the liability of a
public servant for framing or translating an incorrect document with intent to cause injury. It states that whoever, being a public
servant, and being charged with the preparation or translation of any document of electronic record as such public servant,
frames, prepares or translates that document or electronic record in such a manner as he knows to be incorrect or believe to be
incorrect,. With the intention of causing, or with the knowledge that there is a likelihood that any person may suffer injury
thereby, shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to three years, or with fine, or with
both.

170. Personating a public servant – Section 170 states that whoever pretends to hold any particular office as a public servant
even though he knows that he does not hold such office of he falsely personates any other person holding such office, and in
that assumed character he either does or attempts to do any act under colour of such office, shall be punished with simple or
rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to two years, or with fine, or with both.

171. Wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent – This section penalizes one who wears
garb or carries any token which has resemblance with any garb or token used by that class of public servants, even though he
does not belong to that class of public servants, with the intention that it may be believed, or with the knowledge that it is likely
to be believed, that he belonged to that class of public servants, shall extending up to three months, or with fine extending up to
two hundred rupees, or with both.

2.7 OFFENCES RELATING TO ELECTIONS

171-A "Candidate", "electoral right", defined – For the purpose of this chapter

a) "Candidate", means a person who has been nominated as a candidate at any election.

B) "Electoral right", means the right of a person to stand, or not a stand as, or to withdraw from being, a candidate or to
vote refrain from voting at an election.

171-B Bribery – The section vide clause (1)(i) says that whoever gives a gratification to any person with the object of including
him or any other person to exercise any electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised any such right, commits
the offence of bribery. Bribery has also been defined under clause (1)(i) wherein it has been said that whoever accepts any
gratification, either for himself or for any other person, as a reward for exercising any such right or for inducing or attempting to
induce any other person to exercise any such right, commits the offence of briber. According to the third clause a person who
obtains, or agrees to accept, to attempts to obtain a gratification shall be deemed to accept a gratification, and a person who
accepts a gratification as a motive for doing something which he has no intention to do, or as a reward for doing something
which he has not done, shall be deemed to have accepted the gratification as a reward.

171-E Punishment for bribery – This section prescribes punishment for the offence of bribery defines under Section 171-B.
The punishment prescribed is simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to one year, or fine, or both.

171-G False statement in connection with an election- This section punishes making or punishing of a false statement of
certain kind with certain intent. The section says that whoever with the intention of affecting the result of an election either
makes or publishes any statement which purports to be a statement of fact which is false and which he either knows to be false
or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal character or conduct of any candidate, shall be
punished with fine.

2.8 CONTEMPTS OF THE LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS

Public servants are the backbone of any government. They are part of the governing process of a government. They have
naturally been vested with more power and more authority by the law. The power and authority are needed in the day to day
governance of the country. Consequently, any interference with the same cannot and should not be tolerated. With this view in
mind contempts of the lawful authority of public servants have been made criminal. These provisions are, however, by no
means exclusive, and there may exist other special laws also to take care of specific areas. The contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is
one such example.

20 | P a g e
 173. Preventing service of summons or other process, or preventing publication thereof – This section prescribes
penalty for prevention service of summons or other proceeding, or preventing publication thereof. It says that whoever, in any
manner :

a) intentionally prevents, either on himself or on any other person, serving of any summons, notice or order proceeding
from any public servant who holds competence under law, as such public servant, to issue such summons, notice or order; or

b) intentionally prevents any such summons, notice or order being lawfully affixed to a place; or

c) intentionally removes any such summons, notice or order from any place to which the same is affixed lawfully; or

d) intentionally prevents a proclamation being made under the authority of a public servant who, as such public servant,
is competent under law to direct the making of such proclamation; shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
extending up to one month, or with fine extending upto five hundred rupees, or with both; or

c) if the summons, notice, order or proclamation is to attend personally or by an agent, or to produce a document or electronic
record in a court of justice, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term extending up to six months, or with fine
extending up to thousand rupees, or both.

175. Omission to produce document to public servant by person legally bound to produce it – Omission to produce a
document to a public servant by a person legally bound to produce it has been made an offence under this section. The section
states that whoever is legally bound to produce or deliver up any document or electronic record to any public servant, as such,
but omits to do so intentionally, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term extending up to one month, or with fine
extending up to five hundred rupees, or with both; or, if the document or electronic record is required to be produced or
delivered up to a court of justice, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term extending up to six months, or with
fine extending up to one thousand rupees, or with both.

177. Furnishing false information – The first para of this section says that whoever is legally bound to furnish information on
any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes such information as true, which he either knows to be false or he reason to
believe to be false, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term extending up to six months, or with fine extending up
to one thousand rupees, or with both. The first para makes no provision for rigorous imprisonment.

According to the second para, if such information which he is legally bound to give is with respect to the commission of an
offence, or is required to prevent the commission of an offence, or to apprehend an offender, he shall be punished with simple
or rigorous imprisonment extending up to two years.

183.Resistance to the taking of property by the lawful authority of public servant – This servant makes offering of
resistance to the taking of property by the lawful authority of a public servant a punishable offence. It says that where any
property is being taken by the lawful authority of a public servant, whoever offers any resistance to such taking with the
knowledge or having reason to believe that he is such public servant, shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment
for a term extending up to six months, or with fine extending upto one thousand rupees, or with both.

186. Obstructing public servant in discharge of public function – Voluntarily obstructing a public servant in the discharge of
his public functions has been made a punishable offence under this section. The section says that voluntary obstruction of any
public servant in the discharge of his public functions by anyone shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment
extending upto three months, or with fine extending upto five hundred rupees, or wit both.

188. Disobedience to order duly promulgated by public servant – Disobedience to an order duly promulgated by a public
servant has been made an offence under this section. The section states that when an accused knows that a public servant has
lawfully promulgated an order, which he is empowered to do, by which he has either directed the accused to abstain from a
certain act, or directed him to take certain order with certain property in his possession or under his management, and he
disobeys such direction, he shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term extending upto one month, or with fine
extending up to two hundred rupees, or with both if such disobedience causes or has tendency to cause obstruction, annoyance
or injury, or risk of obstruction, annoyance or injury, to any person lawfully employed; and if such disobedience causes or has
tendency to cause danger to human life, health or safety, or causes or has tendency to cause riot or affray, he shall be punished
21 | P a g e
more severely, that is to say, with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto six months, or with fine extending
upto one thousand rupees, or with both.

189. Threat of injury to public servant – Holding out threat of injury to a public servant or to another in whom the accused
believes that the public servant is interested, under certain situation, has been punished under this section. The section states that
whoever holds out any threat of injury either to a public servant or to any person in whom he believes that public servant to be
interested, and the purpose of doing so is to induce that public servant either to do any such act, or to forbear to do any such act,
or to delay to do any such act, which has connection with exercising of public functions of such public servant, shall be
punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto two years, or with fine, or with both.

2.9 FALSE EVIDENCE AND OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE

One of the main objects of incorporating this chapter relating to false evidence and offences against public justice in the
Indian Penal Code was to keep interferences against public justice in check.

191. Giving false evidence –The section says that whoever is legally bound to state the truth, either by an oath or by any
express provision of law, or is bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any false statement, and about
which he has either knowledge that it is false, or he does not believe the statement to be true, is guilty of giving false evidence.
There are two explanations given in the section the first of which states that a statement under this section may be verbal or any
other kind of statement. According to the second explanation a false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is covered
by this section, and therefore, a person is guilty of giving false evidence where he states that he believes something which he
actually does not believe, or where he states that he knows something which actually he does not know.

192. Fabricating false evidence – According to the section there are three ways be which a false evidence can be
fabricated (1) by causing any circumstance to exist, under the section, (2) by making any false entry in any book or record, and
(3) by making any document containing a false statement; The intention of the fabricator must be that such a thing may appear
before such a proceeding as stated in the section, and may cause a person to entertain an erroneous opinion in the course of such
proceeding touching any material point.

193. Punishment for false evidence – The section states that whoever fives false evidence in any stage of a judicial
proceeding intentionally, or fabricates false evidence intentionally for the purpose of the same being used in any stage of a
judicial proceeding, shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto seven years, and shall
also be liable to fine; and whoever gives or fabricates false evidence intentionally in any other case not stated above shall be
punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

194. Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence – The section says that
whoever either gives or fabricate false evidence with the intention thereby to cause, or with the knowledge that it is likely that
he will thereby cause, any person to be convicted of such offence which is a capital offence as per the law in force at the time,
shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine; and if that false evidence leads to the conviction and execution of an innocent person, the giver of such false
evidence shall be punished either with death, or with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term extending
upto ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

195. Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with
imprisonment for life or imprisonment – The section punishes giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure
conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment. It states that whoever either gives or fabricates
false evidence with the intention thereby to cause, or with the knowledge that it is likely that he will thereby cause, any person
to be convicted of such an offence which is not a capital offence under the Indian Law for the time being in force, but is
punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for term of seven years or more, shall be punished with the same
punishment as the person convicted of that offence would be liable to be punished.

The Supreme Court held in Santosh Singh VsIzharHussain, that giving false evidence in support of a prosecution case
is an offence punishable under Sections 193 and 195 of the Code and not under section 211 of the Code.

22 | P a g e
 196. Using evidence known to be false – Using or attempting to use corruptly evidence known to be false has been
made an offence under this section. The section states that whoever either corruptly uses, or corruptly attempts t use, any
evidence as true f genuine evidence, about which evidence he has knowledge that it is false or fabricated, shall be punished in
the same manner as if he himself gave false knowledge that the evidence was false or fabricated this section does not apply.

197. Issuing or signing false certificate – This section makes issuing or signing of certain kind of false certificate with
certain knowledge or belief an offence. The section states that who ever either issues or signs any such certificate as is required
to be given or signed by law, or relating to any fact f which such certificate is by law admissible in evidence, with the
knowledge or belief that such certificate is false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false
evidence.

198. Using as true a certificate known to be false –This section says that whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use
any such certificate as a true certificate, with the knowledge that it is false in any material point, shall be punished in the same
manner as if he gave false evidence. The use or the attempted use must be corrupt. The certificate must be false within the
knowledge of the accused in any material point. The false certificate must be used or attempted to be used as a true certificate.

212.Harbouring offender – The section states that whenever an offence has been committed, whoever either harbours
or conceals a person whom he knows to be an offender, with the intention of screening him from legal punishment shall, if the
offence is punishable with death, be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto five years, and
shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment extending upto ten
years, shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto three years, and shall also be liable to
fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment extending upto one year and not up to ten years, shall be punished with
imprisonment of the same description as has been provided for the offence for a term extending upto one fourth part of the
maximum imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.

In State of Tamil Nadu VsNalini and others, the Supreme Court held that a wife cannot be charged for harbouring her
husband merely because she was living in the house with him. However, those accused persons who came into the picture after
the object of the criminal conspiracy, that is, assassination of a former Prima Minister of India, had been achieved, and they
harboured and sheltered the main accused persons with full knowledge that they were involved in the assassination and also
made efforts to destroy evidence were rightly convicted under section 212 of the Code.

216. Harbouring offender who has escaped from custody or whose apprehension has been ordered - The section
says that whenever any person is either convicted of an offence or is charged with an offence, and is in lawful custody for that
offence, and then escapes from such custody, or whenever a public servant while exercising lawful powers as such public
servant orders the apprehension of a person, whoever with knowledge about such escape or such order for apprehension either
harbours or conceals that person with the intention of preventing him from being apprehended, shall be punished with simple or
rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto seven years, and shall also be liable to fie, if the offence for which that person
was in custody or was ordered to be apprehended is punishable with death; and shall be punished with simple or rigorous
imprisonment for a term extending upto three years, with or without fine, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for
life, or imprisonment for ten years; and shall be punished with imprisonment for the description provided for the offence for a
term extending upto one fourth part of the maximum term of imprisonment provided for such offence, if the offence is
punishable with imprisonment extending upto one year and not upto then years.

216-A Penalty for harbouring robbers or dacoits –The section says that whoever either has knowledge or has reason
to believe that any persons are either about the commit robbery or dacoity or have recently committed robbery of dacoity, and
harbours them or any of them with the intention of facilitating the commission of such robbery or docoity or of screening them
or any of them from punishment, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto seven years, and shall
also be liable to fine.

2.10 OFFENCES RELATING TO COIN AND GOVERNMENT STAMPS

230. Indian Coin–The section says that Indian Coin is that metal which is stamped and issued by the authority of the
Government of India in order to be used as money; and metal so stamped and issued continues to be coin within the meaning of
this chapter as part of the Indian Penal Code even if it is no longer used as money.

23 | P a g e
 232. Counterfeiting Indian Coin –This section penalizes counterfeiting of Indian coin. It says that whoever either
counterfeits Indian coin, or performs any part of the process of counterfeiting Indian coin knowingly, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.

234. Making or selling instrument for counterfeiting Indian coin - Making or selling instruments etc., for
counterfeiting Indian coin has been made punishable under this section. This is a section in which preparation to commit a
crime has been made an offence. The section states that whoever either makes or mends, or performs any part of the process of
making or mending, or buys, sells or disposes of, either die or instrument, for the purpose of the same being used, or knowing or
having reason to believe that the same is intended to be used, for the purpose of counterfeiting Indian coin, shall be punished
with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

240. Delivery of Indian coin, possessed with knowledge that it is counterfeit – The section that whoever has any
such counterfeit coin which is a counterfeit of Indian coin, and about which at the time he became possessed of it he had
knowledge that it was a counterfeit of Indian coin, with intention to defraud or with intention that fraud may be committed,
either delivers the same to any person, or attempt to induce any person to receive it, shall be punished with simple or rigorous
imprisonment for a term extending upto ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

255. Counterfeiting Government stamp – Counterfeiting of government stamp has been made punishable under this
section. The section says that whoever either counterfeits, or with knowledge performs any part of the process of counterfeiting,
any stamp issued by the government for the purpose of revenue, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term extending up to
ten years, ad shall also be liable to fine. The explanation attached to this section clarifies that causing a genuine stamp of one
denomination to appear like a genuine stamp of another denomination is counterfeiting within the meaning of this section.

256. Having possession of instrument or material for counterfeiting Government stamp – The section states that
whoever possesses any instrument or material for the purpose of being used, or having knowledge or having reason to believe
that it is intended to be used, or having knowledge or having reason to believe that it is intended to be used, for the purpose of
counterfeiting any government stamp issued for the purpose of revenue, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
extending upto seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

258. Sale of counterfeit Government Stamp – Sale of counterfeit government stamp has been made an offence under
this section. The section says that whoever either sells, or offers for sale, any stamp which he either knows or has reason to
believe to be a counterfeit of any government stamp issued for the purpose of revenue, shall be punished with simple or rigorous
imprisonment for a term extending upto three years, and shall also liable to fine.

UNIT – III

3.1 OFFENCES AFFECTING THE HUMAN BODY

This chapter is very important part of the Indian Penal Code. Offences affecting human body in the form of those
affecting life causing miscarriage, injuries to unborn children, exposure of infants, concealment of birth, hurt, wrongful restraint
and confinement, criminal force and assault, kidnapping, abduction, slavery and forced labour sexual and unnatural offences
have been dealt with under section 299 to 377.

299. Culpable homicide – Homicide is the most important part of offences affecting life. Every though homicide has not been
defined in the Code, itmeans killing of a human being by a human being. It cannot be defined as killing of a person by a person
in view of the nature of the definition of the word 'person' in section 11 of the Code according to which the word includes any
company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or not. Homicide may be lawful or unlawful. Lawful
homicide may be excusable or justifiable.

Unlawful homicides under the Code have been mentioned under sections 299, 300 and 304-A. The first kind of unlawful
homicide has been designated as culpable homicide under section 299 of the Code. 'Culpable' means blameworthy, faulty or
criminal Since 'homicide' means killing of a human being by a human being, culpable homicide means such killing of a human
being as is criminal. The section which defines culpable homicide says that whoever causes death by doing an act either with

24 | P a g e
the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the
knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death. Commits the offence of culpable homicide.

Three explanations have been giving in the section with a view to remove ambiguity, if any, according to the first, causing
bodily injury to another who is laboring either under a disorder, or disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerating the
death of that other, shall be deemed to be causing his death. According to the second, in cases of death having been caused by
bodily injury, the person causing the bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death even though by having the benefit
of proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented. The third explanation states that causing death of
a child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause death of such a child if the child
is a living child and any part of that child has been brought forth, even though the child may not have breathed or may not have
been completely born.

300. Muder– This section which defines the offence or murder and also states of five exceptions when culpable homicide is not
murder, is undoubtedly the most important section in the Indian penal Code. It says that except in the five cases which have
been described as exceptions under this very section, the offence of culpable homicide, as defined in the preceding section, in
murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or secondly, if it is done with the
intention of causing such bodily injury about which the offender has knowledge that it is likely to cause the death of the person
to whom the harm is caused, or thirdly, if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily
injury which had been intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or fourthly, if there is
knowledge on the part of the person committing the act that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability, cause
death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of
causing death or such injury as mentioned above.

As is clear from the language used in this section, murder has been defined through culpable homicide. The five cases described
by way of exceptions in the latter part of this section have been excepted from the purview of the definition of murder in this
section. Except these five exceptional cases, culpable homicide is murder if circumstances described under any of the four
clauses are present. In other words only these four classes of culpable homicide are murder and any other kind of culpable
homicide continues to be culpable homicide and does not become murder. This, therefore, means that all murders are culpable
homicides but all culpable homicides are not murder. To put it differently, murder has been defined through culpable homicide
and not vice versa. Murder is an aggravated from of culpable homicide. Culpable homicide is the genus and murder is its specie.
In fact the Indian Penal Code divides culpable homicide into two categories, one amounting to murder described under the four
clauses of section 300 and made punishable under Section 302, and the other not amounting to murder described under the three
clauses of section 299 and under the five exceptions of section 300 and made punishable under section 304 of the Code. As will
do seen later, it is sometimes quite difficult to differentiate between the two, and that is why Sir Fitz Stephen was of that
culpable homicide and murder are the weakest parts of the Indian Penal Code.

Culpable homicide and murder distinguished – Melvill J discussed the two sections clause by clause and attempted to bring
out the differences between the two offences clearly. For the sake of convenience he set out the provisions in the following
manner.

INTENTION
1) With the intention of causing death;
With the intention of causing
a) With the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to
death; 2)
cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused;
With the intention of causing
With the intention of causing bodily injury to the person, and the bodily intended to be
b) such bodily injury as is likely to 3)
inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary cause of nature to cause death;
cause death; or
KNOWLEDGE
With the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability
With the knowledge that the act
C) 4) cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and without any excuse for
is likely to cause death.
incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as is mentioned above.

In Sreedharan Satheesan Vs State of Kerala, there was a dispute between the accuesed and the deceased regarding payment
of money. The accused, who was a driver, caused serious injuries by his mini bus and hit the deceased with great speed in the

25 | P a g e
middle portion of the body. Tyre marks were also found on the thighs of the deceased. Damage was also caused to the scrotum
and pelvic region. It was held that it was intentional killing and Section 300(1) was applicable.

In a bride burning case there existed enough circumstantial evidence. Dowry demands had continuously been made and bride
was being cruelly treated. The bride of 100% burn injuries. There was total absence of shouts or cries. The medical evidence
showed that asphyxia was not due to burns. Internal injuries which occur in case of strangulation were found. There was a total
burning of neck to destroy evidence of attempted strangulation. A half burnt post card was planted near the dead body to
indicate that it was a case of suicidal death. The accused persons had been watching the whole incident through a window
without any hue and cry or without any serious attempt to save the deceased. It was held to be an intentional murder.

302. Punishment for murder – This section, which prescribes punishment for murder says that whoever commits murder shall
be punished either with death or with imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. In other words the Indian Penal
Code has prescribed only two kinds of punishments, death sentence and imprisonment for life, out of which one has to be
imposed on a murder convict who shall also be liable to fine if the court so deems necessary.

304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder – Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to
murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done either with the intention of causing death, or of
causing such bodily injury as is likely or to cause death or whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall
be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act by
which the death is caused is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but there is no intention on his part to cause
death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

In Sudhir Samanta Vs State of West Bengal, the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly and armed with lathis, spear
etc., they assaulted the complainant and his son. Prior to the incident the accused had asked the complainant more than one not
to cut the crop but await adjudication by court. The accused gave a single blow by lathi on the head of the deceased, and later
another accused hit the deceased by lathi. The deceased was alive for about 32 hours after the incident. The Supreme Court held
that the accused was guilty under Section 304, Part II and not under section 304 part I of the Code.

In State of Bihar VsRamnath Prasad, the accused allegedly administered poisonous substance by way of 'prasad' to the
deceased and others who were on relay fact. The motive to kill was not established by the prosecution since the 'prased' was
given openly and not in a concealed manner. The Supreme Court ruled that there was no intention to cause death but the
accused had knowledge that by administering poisonous substance he was likely to cause grievous hurt and death, and thus, he
was guilty under sections 304, Part II and 326 of the Code.

304-A. Causing death by negligence- This section punishes causing death by a rash or negligence act. It says that whoever
causes the death of any person by doing either any rash act or any negligent act, and such rash or negligent act does not amount
to either culpable homicide amounting to murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with simple
or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto two years, or with fine, or with both.

In Ram NiwasVs State of U.P, the accused who was not a qualified doctor administered an injection to the deceased causing
him death. There was no evidence that the accused gave any test does to the deceased before administering the full does of the
injection. The Allahabad High Court held him guilty under Section 304A of the Code.

The offence under section 304-A of the Code is cognizable, bailable and non compoundable and is triable by magistrate of the
first class.

304-B. Dowry death –This section defines and punishes dowry death. The first sub section which defines the offence states that
where a woman's death is caused by either an burns or bodily injury or occurs under such circumstances which are not normal
within a period of seven years from the date she was married and the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that soon
before she died either her husband or any of his relatives had subjected her to cruelty or harassment either for or in connection
with any dowry demand, such a death is a 'dowry death', and her death shall be deemed to have been caused by such husband or
relative. Since the word `dowry has not been caused by such husband or relative. Since the word `dowry has not been defined,
an explanation has been attached to this sub section according to which dowry for the purposes of this part shall have the same
meaning as given in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. The second sub section with prescribes punishment for this

26 | P a g e
offence says that whoever commits this offence shall be punished with imprisonment for a term not less than seven years but
which may be extended up to imprisonment for life.

In Pawan Kumar Vs State of Haryana, the Supreme Court held that agreement for dowry is not always necessary and that
persistent demands for television and scooter from the bride after marriage would be held to be in connection with marriage and
the accused is guilty under Section 304-B of the Code and section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

In Surinder Kumar Vs State, a wife was deserted by her husband. The defence pleaded that the desertion was because of the
fact that the wife was suffering from epilepsy and not for demand of dowry. However, in her dying declaration and the suicide
note the deceased had specifically named the accused making demand of colour television and scooter and that she was being
abused and harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. Though she was staying with her parents when she committed suicide,
there were meetings with her parties and attempts made to rehabilitate her. It was held that it was sufficient incitement and
continuous harassment when she was not accepted unless dowry demands were met attracting rigour f section 304-B and thus
the conviction was sustained.

305. Abetment of suicide of child or insane person - The abetment of suicide of a child or an insane person etc., where the
abetted person commits suicide has been made an offence under this section. Section 305 and 306 should be read together. The
section says that whoever abets the commission of suicide by any person who is either less than eighteen years of age, or insane,
or delirious, or idiot, or in a state of intoxication, and the abetted person commits suicide, shall be punished with death, or
imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term extending up to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.

306. Abetment of Suicide – This section punishes the abettor of a suicide where suicide is committed because of such
abetment. In this respect sections 305 and 306 are similar in nature. The section says that whoever abets the commission f a
suicide, and suicide in fact is committed, shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine. The section requires that suicide must be committed as a result of the abetment and the
deceased must have been abetted by the accused to commit suicide.

In State of M.P Vs Matadeen, the victim and the accused stayed as wife and husband and they used to have quarrels. The
victim doused herself with kerosene. The accused him not dissuade her but handed her a match stick. The Madhya Pradesh
applied section 306 of the Code and held the accused guilty.

307. Attempt to murder –The section says that whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such
circumstances that had he caused death by that act he would be guilty of the offence of murder, shall be punished with simple or
rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto ten years, and shall also be liable of fine; and if by that act he caused hurt to
any person, he shall be punished with either imprisonment for life or simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and where the offender under this section is under sentence of imprisonment for life,
he may be punished with death if he caused hurt.

In Om Prakash Vs State, the husband and his mother deliberately ill treated and starved his wife as she had not brought
enough dowrywith her. Her health deteriorated but she was neither given access to medical treatment nor was the allow to see
anyone outside. She escaped from the house one day, managed to reach the civil hospital and told the doctor everything. She
was admitted as an indoor patient. The husband and his mother wanted to take her back to their home but the doctor refused.
She remained in the hospital for abut then months to recuperate. It was held that the long period of recuperation showed that her
condition was so bad at the time of her arrival in the hospital that she was almost on the verge of death by starvation and
consequently and husband and his mother were guilty of attempt to commit nurder.

308. Attempt to commit culpable homicide – It says that whoever does any act with such intention r knowledge and under
such circumstances that if the act causes death he would be guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder,
shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto three years, or with fine, or with both; and if
the act causes hurt to any person, shall be punished with simple r rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto seven years,
or with fine, or with both.

309. Attempt to commit suicide – This section penalizes the crime of attempt to commit suicide. It says that whoever makes an
attempt to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term extending upto one year, or with fine, or with both.

27 | P a g e
310. Thug –A thug according to section 310, is one who after the passing of this Code shall have been associated as a matter of
habit with any other person or persons for the purpose of committing either robbery r child stealing either by means of murder
or accompanied with murder.

311. Punishment – This section prescribes penalty for one who is a thug. It says that whoever is a thug shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.

312. Causing miscarriage – This section punishes the offence f causing miscarriage. It states that whoever voluntarily causes a
woman to miscarry, shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto three years, or with fine,
or with both, where the miscarriage is not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman; and shall be
punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto seven years, and shall also be liable to fine where the
woman is quick with child. The explanation attached to the section says that a woman who causes herself to miscarry is also
covered by this provisions.

319. Hurt - This section defines hurt. It says that whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person commits hurt.
The duration of the pain is not important.

320. Grievous Hurt – This section designates certain kinds of hurt as grievous hurt. It says that the following kinds of hurt are
designated as grievous.

Firstly – Under the first clause emasculation means deprivation of the properties of a male, or deprivation of masculine vigour,
or costration.

Secondly – Under the second clause the privation of the sight of either eye must be permanent.

Thirdly – Under the third clause, privation, that is to say, state of being deprived of, the hearing of either ear, must be
permanent.

Fourthly – Under the fourth clause, privation of any member of joint is grievous hurt. Member means distinct part of a whole,
especially a limb.

Fifthly – Under the fifth clause, destruction of the power of any member or joint, or permanent impairing of the powers of any
member or joint amounts to grievous hurt.

Sixthly – Under the sixth clause, permanent disfiguration of the head or face amounts to grievous hurt.

Seventhly – Under the seventh clause, fracture or dislocation of a bone t tooth is grievous hurt.

Eighthly – under the eight clause, any hurt which endangers life or which causes the victim to be during the space of twenty
days in severe bodily pain, unable to follow his ordinary pursuits amounts to grievous hurt.

In E.K.Chandrasenan Vs State of Kerala, twenty four persons lost their eye sight permanently when they consumed arrack
mixed with methyl alcohol. The Supreme Court held that the accused who were responsible for the same were guilty of causing
grievous hurt as defined under clause (2) of section 320 of the Code.

321. Voluntarily causing hurt - This section defines the offence of voluntarily causing hurt. It states that whoever has the
intention of causing hurt to any person and with that intention does ant act, of whoever knows that by doing any act he is likely
to cause hurt to any person and by that act cause hurt to any person, is said 'voluntarily to cause hurt'.

321. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt - This section defines the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt. It says that
whoever voluntarily causes hurt, if the hurt which he has intention to cause is grievous hurt or if the hurt which he has
knowledge to be likely to cause a grievous hurt, and if the hurt, which has been caused by him is grievous hurt, is said
'voluntarily to cause grievous hurt'.

28 | P a g e
323. Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt – This section prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing hurt defined under
section 321. It states that except in the case provided for by section 334, whoever voluntarily causes hurt shall be punished with
simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto one year, or with fine extending upto one thousand rupees, or with
both.

The revenue authorities had left a certain portion of land as public road for the use of the villagers. The complainant encroached
upon his land, cultivated it and grew paddy over it. The accused persons trespassed on to it and there was a fight between the
trespassers and the encroachers in which some members of both sides received injuries and one person on the side of the
encroachers was killed by the accused appellant. It was held that he was rightly convicted of murder while the others were
guilty of committing hurt voluntarily and also with dangerous weapons in furtherance of common intention and also for
criminal trespass since the encroachers had a settled possession over the piece of land encroached upon by them.

324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means – This section punishes voluntarily causing hurt by
dangerous weapons or means. It says that except in cases stated in section 334, whoever voluntarily causes hurt by means of any
instrument for shooting, stubbing, or cutting, or by any instrument which can be used as a weapon of offence and when so used
is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or corrosive substance, or by
means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow
or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animals, shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term
extending upto three years, or with fine, or with both.

325. Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt – This section prescribes punishment for voluntarily causing grievous
hurt. It says that except in the case provided under section 335, whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt shall be punished with
simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto seven years, and shall be liable to fine.

326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means – It says that except in the case under section 335,
whoever voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing, or cutting, or any instrument
which when under as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of
poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious
to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.

339. Wrongful restraint – This section defines the offence of wrongful restraint. It says that whoever voluntarily obstructs any
person in such a way as to prevent him from proceeding in any direction in which he has a right to proceed, commits wrongful
restraint of that person. An exception has however, been mentioned in the section itself according to which it is not wrongful
restraint to obstruct a private way over land or water where the obstructer believes in good faith that he has a lawful right to
obstruct the way.

340. Wrongful Confinement – This section defines wrongful confinement. It says that whoever wrongfully restrains any
person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said wrongfully to
confine that person.

341. Punishment for wrongful restraint –The offence of wrongful restraint defined under section 339 is punished under this
section. This section states that whoever wrongfully restrains any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
extending upto one month, or with fine extending upto five hundred rupees, or with both.

342. Punishment for wrongful Confinement – This offence of wrongful confinement defined under Section 340 is punished
under this section. This section states that whoever wrongfully confines any person, shall be punished with simple
imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto one year, or with fine extending upto one thousand rupees, or
with both.

349. Force – This section defines the expression 'force'. It says that a person is said to use force to another if he causes either
motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of
motion or cessation of motion as brings that substance either into contact with any part of that others body, or with anything
which that other is wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affects that others sense of feeling. There

29 | P a g e
is a proviso clause in the section which says that whatever has been said above is subject to the condition that the person who
causes the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes the same in one of the following three ways : first by the
poser of his own body; secondly, by the disposal of any substance in such a manner that he motion or change of motion or
cessation of motion takes place without any further act either on his own part or on the part of any other person; thirdly, by
inducing any animal to move, or by inducing any animal to change its motion, or by inducing any animal to cease to move.

350. Criminal force – This section defines criminal force. It says that whoever intentionally uses force to any person without
the consent of that other person, in order to the committing of any offence, with the intention of cause by the use of such force
injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, or with the knowledge that by the use of such force he is
likely to cause injury, fear or annoyance to him, is said to sue criminal force to that other.

351. Assault – This section defines assault. It says that whoever makes any gesture or any preparation with the intention that
such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that the person making that gesture or preparation is
about to use criminal force to that person, or with the knowledge that it is likely that such gesture or preparation will cause any
person present to apprehend that the person making that gesture or prepatation is about to use criminal force to that person, it
said to commit assault.

352. Punishment for assault or criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation – This section punishes assault or
criminal force otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation. It says that whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any
person otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with simple or rigorous or
rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto three months, or with fine extending upto five hundred rupees, or with both.

353. Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty – Assaulting or using criminal force to
deter a public servant from discharging his duties has been made punishable under this section. The section states that whoever
either assaults or uses criminal force to any public servant, in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with the
intention of preventing or deterring him from discharging his duty as such public servant or in consequence of anything done
attempted to be done by him in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with simple or
rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto two years, or with fine, or with both.

UNIT – IV

4.1 KIDNAPPING

359. Kidnapping – This section merely enumerates the kinds of kidnapping. It says that kidnapping is of two kinds :
Kidnapping from India, and kidnapping from lawful guardianship. It may be possible to commit both the kind of kidnapping by
one single act like when a minor is kidnapped from lawful guardianship and conveyed beyond the limits of India.

360. Kidnapping from India – It says that whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of India without the consent of that
person or of some person who is authorized to consent on his behalf, is said t kidnap that person, from India.

361. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship – This section defines the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship. It says
that whoever either takes or entices away any minor who is under sixteen years of age if a male, and is under eighteen years of
age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound
mind, without the consent of that lawful guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship. In addition
to this, there is an exception too attached to the section which states that this provision does not apply the act of any person who
believes in good faith that he is the father of an illegitimate child, or who believes in good that he has a legal right to the lawful
custody of such child. But in either of the above mentioned cases the act on his part should not be committed for either an
immoral or an unlawful purpose.

362. Abduction – The crime of abduction has been defined under this section. The section states that whoever compels any
person by force to go from any place, or whoever induces any person by any deceitful means to go from any place, is said to
abduct that person. Thus, the victim must be compelled by the offender by force to go from any place, or he must be induced by
the offender by any deceitful means to go from any place.

30 | P a g e
363. Punishment for kidnapping – This section lays down the punishment for the offences of kidnapping from India and
kidnapping from lawful guardianship. It says that whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be
punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

It has been held by the Orissa High Court that were in some tribe a custom prevails that a man first forcibly takes away a
woman and later marries her with the full consent of their community including the elders of the families of both the man and
the woman, and under this custom a married woman was first taken away by force by the appellant from her lawful guardian
against her will, all the accused persons had committed the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship and were
punishable under section 363, and that a custom could not interfere with the law of the land, but since the victim was not
molested only a light sentence was awarded to them.

372. Selling minor for purposes of prostitution etc., - Selling or letting to hire etc., of a minor for prostitution etc., has been
made a punishable offence under this section. The section says that whoever either sells, or lets to hire, or otherwise disposes of
any person under eighteen years of age with the intention that such person shall at any age by either employed or used for the
purpose of prostitution or illicit intercourse with any person or for any unlawful or immoral purpose, or with knowledge that if
is likely that such person will at any age be either employed or used for any such purpose, shall be punished with simple or
rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

373. Buying minor for purposes of prostitution etc., - This section is complementary to the preceding section and penalizes
buying, hiring or otherwise obtaining possession of a minor for the purposes of prostitution etc. It says that whoever buys, hires
or otherwise obtains possession of any person under the age of eighteen years with the intention that such person at any age be
either employed or used for the purpose of either prostitution or for illicit intercourse with any person or for any unlawful and
immoral purpose, or with the knowledge that it is likely that such person at any age will be so employed or used,. Shall be
punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

375.Rape

– Section 375 says that except under the exception provided for in this section, a man commits the offence of rape who has
sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances stated in any f the six clauses of this section. The language used is a man
is said to commit rape who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman which means that only
a man and no other person can be guilty of rape, and the sexual intercourse of only a man with a woman can amount to rape.

First Against her will – According to the first clause, sexual intercourse by a man with a woman against her will amounts to
rape if it does not fall under the exception provided in the section.

Secondly Without her consent – If the sexual intercourse by a man with a woman is without her consent, it amounts to rape
under the second clause if it does not fall under the exception given in the section.

Thirdly – Where a man has sexual intercourse with a woman with her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting
her or any person in whom she is interested in fear of death or of hurt, he is guilty under the third clause of committing rape.

Fourthly – Where a man has sexual intercourse with a woman with he knows that he is not her husband but she has given her
consent because she believes that he is another man to whom she is, or believes herself to be, lawfully married, it amounts to
rape under the fourth clause.

Fifthly – According to the fifth clause of this section a man is guilty of committing rape if he has sexual intercourse with a
woman with her consent, when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of either unsoundness of mind or intoxication or
the administration by him either personally or through any other person of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is
unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent.

Sixthly – The sixth clause of the section states that a man is guilty of committing rape who has sexual intercourse with a woman
with or without her consent when she is under sixteen years of age.

376. Punishment for rape – This section provides punishment for the offence of rape. The first sub section says that whoever,
except in the cases covered under the second sub section, commits rape shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment
31 | P a g e
for a term which shall be less than seven years but which may be for life of for a term extending upto ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine unless the victim is his own wife and not under twelve years of age, in which case, he shall be punished with
simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto two years, or with fine, or with fine, or with both. A proviso clause
has been attached to this part of the section according to which the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in
the judgment impose a lesser sentence than seven years.

According to the second sub section, whoever (a) being a police officer rapes a woman (i) within the limits of his police station
to which he is appointed; or (ii) in the premises of any station house situated in his police station or not; or (iii) in his custody or
in the custody of his subordinate officer; or (b) being a public servant, takes advantage of his official position and rapes a
women in his official custody or in the custody of his subordinate public servant; or (c) being on the management or staff of a
jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under a law in force or of a women's or children's institution takes
advantage of his official position and rapes any inmate of such jail, remand home, place or institution ; or (d) being on the
management or staff of a hospital, takes advantage of his official position and rapes a women in that hospital; or (e) rapes a
women with the knowledge that she is pregnant; or (f) rapes a woman under twelve years of age; or (g) commits gang rape,
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years but which may be for life, and shall also be
liable to fine. There is a proviso attached to this sub section also like in the first sub section, according to which the court may,
for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of simple or rigorous imprisonment for a
term of less than ten years.

376-A. Intercourse by a man with his wife during separation –It says that whoever has sexual intercourse with his own wife,
who is living separately from him either under a decree of separation or under any custom or usage, without her consent shall be
punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto two years and shall also be liable to fine.

376-B. Intercourse by public servant with woman in his custody –It says that whoever, being a public servant, takes
advantage of his official position and either induces or seduces, and woman, who is either in his custody as such public servant
or in the custody of a public servant subordinate to him to have sexual intercourse with him, and such sexual intercourse does
not amount to rape, shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto two years and shall also
be liable to fine.

376-C. Intercourse by superintendent of jail, remand home etc., - It states that whoever being the superintendent or manager
of a jail, remand home or other place of custody established by or under any law which is in force from the time being or of a
women's or children's institution takes advantage of his official position and induces or seduces any woman inmate of such jail,
remand home, place or institution to have sexual intercourse with him, and such sexual intercourse does not amount to rape,
shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto five years and shall also be liable to fine.

377. Unnatural offences –

This section makes unnatural offences punishable under the Code. It says that whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse
against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with simple or
rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. The explanation attached to this
section states that penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence under this section

4.2 OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY

378. Theft –

This section defines the offence of theft. It says that whoever, with the intention of taking dishonestly any movable property out
of the possession of any person without the consent of that person, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to
commit theft. There are five explanations attached to this section:-

1) The intention of the part of the offender must be to take the property dishonestly.

2) The property of which theft is committed must be movable.

3) The property must be in the possession of some person.

32 | P a g e
4) The property must be taken without the consent of its possessor.

5) The property must be moved in order to such taking.

379. Punishment f theft. –This section prescribes punishment for the offence of theft. It states that whoever commits theft shall
be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to three years, or with fine, or with both.

380. Theft in dwelling house etc. –Theft in dwelling house etc., has been punished under this section. The section says that
whoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel which is used an a human dwelling or for custody of property, shall be
punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

383. Extortion – Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury, either to that person or to any other person, and
thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person either any property or valuable security or
anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits extortion.

Difference between theft and extortion –In theft the property which is subject of theft must be movable, which is extortion the
property may be movable or immovable. It may even be a valuable security or anything signed of sealed which may be offender
himself moves the property in order to such taking, whereas in extortion the victim is induced to deliver the same to the
offender or to any person. In theft the property is taken without the consent of the possessor, whereas in extortion consent of the
victim is obtained by putting him or any other person in fear of injury. In theft element of force on the part of the offender is
absent, while in extortion property is obtained by putting the victim or any other person in feat of injury and thus inducing him
to deliver the property.

384. Punishment for extortion –This section provides punishment for extortion. It says that whoever commits extortion shall
be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto three years, or with fine, or with both.

390. Robbery –

This section defines the offence of robbery which is an aggravated form of either theft or extortion. It says that robbery consists
of either theft of either theft or extortion. As to when theft is robbery it says that it is so if either in order to the committing of
the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away property obtained by the theft, or in attempting at carry away property
obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, either voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person either death or hurt
or wrongful restraint, or feat of instant death or instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint. As to when extortion is robbery it says
that it is so if at the time of committing the extortion the offender is in presence of the person put in fear and commits the
extortion by putting that person in fear of either instant death, or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint either to that
person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in frat to deliver up the thing extorted then
and there.

391. Dacoity – This section defines the offence of decoity. It days that when five or more persons conjointly commit a robbery
or they conjointly 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 who is so
committing, attempting r aiding is said to commit 'dacoity'.

392. Punishment for robbery – This section prescribes penalty for the offence of robbery defined in section 390. It says that
whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine. The section also says that if it is a highway robbery committed between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may
be extended to fourteen years.

395. Punishment fordacoity – This section prescribes punishment for dacoity. It says that whoever commits dacoity shall be
punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto ten years, and shall also be liable
to fine.

396. Dacoity with murder –This section punishes the offence of dacoity with murder. It says that if any one of the five or more
persons who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be

33 | P a g e
punished with death, or imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto ten years, and shall also be
liable to fine.

400. Punishment for belonging to gang of dacoits–This section punishes any person who belongs to a gang of dacoits. It says
that whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall belong to such a gang of persons which is associated for the purpose
of habitually committing dacoity, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term
extending upto ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

401. Punishment for belonging to thieves – This section punishes a person who belongs to a gang of thieves or robbers. It
states that whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall belong to either any wandering gang or any other gang of
persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing either theft or robbery, and not being a gang of thugs or dacoits,
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

403. Dishonest misappropriation of property –

This section defines and punishes the offence of dishonest or criminal misappropriation of property. It says that whoever either
dishonestly misappropriates, or dishonestly converts to his own use, any movable property, shall be punished with simple or
rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto two years, or with fine, or with both.

405. Criminal Breach of trust –

This section defines the offence of criminal breach of trust. It says that whoever, being in any manner entrusted either with
property or with any dominion over property, either dishonestly misappropriates or dishonestly converts to his own use that
property, or either dishonestly uses or dishonestly disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law which has
prescribed the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal express or implied contract which he has made
touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits 'criminal breach of trust'.

In Anil Saran Vs State of Bihar, a partner was entrusted with property under a special contract. The Supreme Court held that
the property is held by him in a fiduciary capacity and if he misappropriates it he will be guilty of committing criminal breach
of trust.

Where the victim handed over some money to a branch post master for opening a savings bank account, it amounted to
entrustment, and so where the money was dishonestly misappropriated or converted to his own use by the post master, he would
be guilty of this offence.

406. Punishment for criminal breach f trust – This section provides punishment for criminal breach of trust. It states that
whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto
three years, or with fine, or with both.

409. Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent – Criminal breach of trust by a public
servant, or by a banker, merchant or agent etc., has been made punishable under this section. It says that whoever being in any
manner entrusted with either property or dominion over property in his capacity either of a public servant or in the way of his
business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of this property,
shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto ten years, ad
shall also be liable to fine.

410. Stolen property –

This section defines stolen property. It says that property the possession whereof has been transferred either by theft, or by
extortion, or by robbery, and property which has either been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach
to trust has been committed, is designated as 'stolen property', and it is immaterial as to whether the transfer has been made, or
the misappropriation or breach of property if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person who is legally
entitled to the possession of the same.

34 | P a g e
411. Dishonestly receiving stolen property – This section states that whoever either dishonestly receives or dishonestly retains
any stolen property with the knowledge that the same is stolen property or having reason to believe that the same is stolen
property, shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto three years, or with fine, or with
both.

412. Dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity – Dishonestly receiving or retaining property
stolen in the commission of a dacoity has been made punishable under this section. The section states that whoever either
dishonestly receives or dishonestly retains any stolen property about which either he knows that its possession has been
transferred by committing dacoity, or he has reason to believe that its possession has been transferred by committing dacoity, or
dishonestly receives from a person about whom he either has knowledge or has reason to believe to belong or to have belonged
to a gang of dacoits, property which he knows or has reason to believe to have been stolen, shall be punished with imprisonment
for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

415. Cheating –

This section defines the offence of cheating. It says that whoever, by deceiving any person, wither fraudulently or dishonestly
induces the person so deceived to either deliver any property to any person, or to give consent that any person shall retain any
property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to either do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he
were not so deceived, and such act or omission, as the case may be, either causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that
person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to 'cheat'. The explanation attached to the section explains that a dishonest
concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.

416. Cheating by personation -This section defines cheating by personation which is one of the ways in which the offence of
cheating is committee. It says that a person is said to cheat by personation if he cheats either by pretending to be some other
person which he is not, or by knowingly substitution one person for another person, or representing that he is a person other
than he really is, or representing that any other person than such other person really is. The explanation attached to the section
states that the offence of cheating by personation is committed whether the individual personated is a real person or an
imaginary person.

417. Punishment for cheating – This section prescribes punishment for cheating. It says that whoever cheats shall be punished
with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto one year, or with fine, or with both.

In Mailsami Vs State Tamil Nadu, the accused by making a promise of marriage to the victim girl induced her to have sexual
intercourse with him. Once she became pregnant he started evading the issue of marriage and putting impossible condition to
terminate the six month pregnancy. The Madras High Court held that the offence of cheating was made out.

419. Punishment for cheating by personation – This section punishes the offence of cheating by personation which is defined
under section 416. It says that whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term
extending upto three years, or with fine, or with both.

UNIT – V

5.1 MISCHIEF

425. Mischief – This section defines the offence of mischief. It says that whoever, with the intention to cause, or with the
knowledge that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage either to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any
property, or any such change in any property or in the situation of that property as destroys or diminishes its value of utility or
affects it injuriously commits 'mischief'.

There are two explanations attached to the section. The first one explains that it is not necessary that the offender should have
intention to cause loss or damage to the owner of that property which is injured of destroyed. It is sufficient if his intention is to
cause wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring any property, whether that property belongs to that person or not.
According to the second explanation mischief may be committed by any act affecting property which belongs to the person who
commits the acts, or to that person and other persons jointly.

35 | P a g e
426. Punishment for mischief – This section provided for punishment of the offence of mischief. It says that whoever commits
mischief shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto three months, or with fine, or with
both.

441. Criminal trespass –

This section defines criminal trespass. It states that whoever enters into or upon such property which is in the possession of
another, with the intention to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property of
after having lawfully entered into or upon such property, remains there unlawfully with the intention thereby to intimidate,
insult or annoy any such person, with the intention to commit an offence, is said to commit 'criminal trespass'.

442. House – trespass – This section defines house trespass. It says that whoever commits criminal trespass by either entering
into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used either as a place for worship or
as place for the custody of property is said to commit house trespass. The explanation attached to the section explains that to
constitute this offence the interdiction of any part of the body of the person committing criminal trespass is sufficient entering
within the meaning of this section.

443. Lurking house-trespass – This section defines luring house trespass. It states that whoever commits house trespass having
taken precautions to conceal such act from such person who has a right to either exclude or eject the trespasser from the
building, tent or vessel in which the trespass is committed, is said t commit lurking house trespass.

444. Lurking house trespass by night –This section defines lurking house trespass by night. It states that whoever commits
lurking house trespass after sunset and before sunrise is said to commit lurking house trespass by night.

445. House breaking – This section defines house breaking. It says that a person commits house breaking who commits house
trespass if he effects his entrance into the house or any pert thereof in any of the six ways described in this section; or after
having already been in the house or in any part thereof for the purpose of committing an offence or after having already been in
the house or in any part thereof for the purpose of committing an offence or after having committed an offence therein, he quits
that place in which he is in, in any of the six ways described here.

First – It he either enters or quits through a passage which has been made either by himself, or by any abettor of house
trespasser, in order to commit house trespass.

Secondly – If he either or quits through passage which no other person except the offender himself or an abettor of the offence
intends for human entrance; or through any passage where he has been able to cause by scaling or climbing over any wall or
building.

Thirdly – If he either enters or quits through any passage which has been opened either by him or by any abettor of the house
trespass in order to commit the house trespass by any means by which the occupier of the house had no intention to open that
passage.

Fourthly – If he enters or quits by opening any lock in order either to the committing of the house trespass or in quitting the
house after a house trespass.

Fifthly – If he either enters or quits by either using criminal force or committing an assault or by threatening any person with
assault.

Sixthly –If he either enters or quits by any passage about which he has knowledge that the same has been fastened against such
entrance or departure, and he himself or an abettor of the house trespass has unfastened it.

446. House breaking by night – This section defines house breaking by night. It says that whoever commits house breaking
after sunset and before sunrise, commits house breaking by night.

36 | P a g e
447. Punishment of criminal trespass – This section prescribes punishment for the offence of criminal trespass which is
defined in section 441. It states that whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment
for a term extending upto three months, or with fine extending upto five hundred rupees, or with both.

In DevkaranVs State of Rajesthan, the Rajesthan High Court ruled that where the accused persons assaulted the complainant
and the facts showed that the heap of wood, which was a disputed property, belonged to the complainant and was situated on the
land of the complainant and that the incident took place on the complainant's land, the accused were guilty under sections 447
and 452 of the Code.

448. Punishment for house trespass –This section prescribes punishment for the offence of house trespass defined in section
442. It states that whoever commits house trespass shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending
upto one year, or with fine extending upto one thousand rupees, or with both.

453. Punishment for lurking house trespass or house breaking – The section states that whoever commits either lurking
house trespass or house braking shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto two years,
and shall also be liable to dine. Same punishment has been provided for lurking house trespass and house breaking.

456. Punishment for lurking house trespass or house breaking by night – This section provides punishment for lurking
house trespass or house broking by night whereas section 453 provides punishment for lurking house trespass or house
breaking, not by night. It says that whoever commits either lurking house trespass by night, or house breaking by night, shall be
punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

5.2 FORGERY

463. Forgery – [Whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with
intent to cause damage or injury], to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part
with property, or to enter into express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed,
commits forgery.

Comment

Ingredients – The ingredients of the offence are :

1. the making of a false document or part of it

2. such making should be with intent :

a. to cause damage or injury to the public, or to any person or

b. to support any claim or title; or

c. to cause any person to part with property; or

d. to enter into any express or implied contract; or

e. to commit fraud or that fraud be committed.

A made-out note, i.e., joining of different pieces of legal and genuine notes, is not a forged note, since no mechanical process is
involved in making it.

464. Making a false document –Section 463 defines forgery. It says that whoever makes any false document or false electronic
record or part of a document, or electronic record, with the intention to cause either damage or injury to the public or to any
person, or to support either any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or
implied contract, or with the intention to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
37 | P a g e
Section 464 explains as to what is meant by making a false document. It says that a person is said to make a false document or
false document or false electronic record in any one of the following three ways.

First – Who either dishonestly or fraudulently : (a) makes, signs, scales or executes a document or part of a document, (b)
makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record (c) affixes any digital signature on any electronic
record; makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the digital signature with the intention of
causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a
document electronic record or digital signature was made, signed, sealed, execute, transmitted or affixed either by or by
authority of a person by whom or by whose authority has knowledge that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed, or affixed;
or

Secondly – Who, without lawful authority, either dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or
an electronic record in any material part thereof, after the same has been made, executed or affixed with digital signature either
by himself or by any other person, whether such person was living or dead with the alteration was made; or

Thirdly – Who either dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document, or an electronic
record, or to affix his digital signature on any electronic record with the knowledge that such person by7 reason of either
unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason by deception practiced upon him he does not know the contents
of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alternation.

465. Punishment for forgery – This section provides punishment for forgery. It says that whoever commits forgery shall be
punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto two years, or with fine, or with both.

470. Forged document – This section defines 'a forged document'. It states that a false document or electronic record made
wholly or in part by forgery is designated a forged document or forged electronic record.

479. Property mark –This section defines property mark. It says that a mark used for denoting that movable property belongs
to a particular person is called a property mark.

481. Using a false property mark –The section states that whoever marks either any movable property or goods or any case,
package or other receptacle containing movable property or goods, or uses any case, package or other receptacle having any
nark thereon, in such a manner which is reasonable calculated to cause it to be believed that the property or goods so marked, or
an property or goods, contained in such receptacle so marked, is owned by a person who does not own them, is said to use a
false property mark.

482. Punishment for using a false property mark – This section punishes the offence of using a false property mark defined
under section 481. It says that whoever uses any false property mark shall, unless he proves that he acted without intention to
defraud, be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto one year, or with fine, or with both.

489-A. Counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes – This section punishes counterfeiting currency notes or bank notes. It
states that whoever either counterfeits, or with knowledge performs any part of the process of counterfeiting, any currency note
or bank note, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending up to
ten years, and shall also liable to fine.

5.3 OFFENCES RELATING TO MARRIAGE

494. Marriage again during lifetime of husband or wife –Marrying again during the lifetime of husband or wife, that is to
say, bigamy, has been made a punishable offence under this section. This section says that whoever, having a husband or wife
living marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife,
shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for a term extending upto seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

There is an exception attached to the section which states that this section does not extend to any person whose marriage with
such husband or wife has been declared void by a court of competent jurisdiction. It also does not extend to any person who
contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife shall have been continually absent from such person for the
space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive within those seven years, provided the
38 | P a g e
person contracting such subsequent marriage shall, before such marriage takes place, inform the person with whom such
marriage is contracted of the real state of facts so far as the same are known to him or her.

495. Same offence with concealment of former marriage with person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted –
The section states that whoever commits the offence of marrying again during the lifetime of the husband or wife, as the case
may be, as defined in section 494, having marriage is contracted, shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment
extending upto ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

496. Marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without lawful marriage - Dishonestly or fraudulently going though
the ceremony of being married knowing that no lawful marriage has taken place has been made punishable under this section.
The section states that whoever, with dishonest or fraudulent intention goes through the ceremony of being marred, with the
knowledge that thereby no lawful marriage has taken place, shall be punished with simple or rigorous imprisonment for term
extending upto seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

497. Adultery – This section defines and punishes adultery. It says that whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is
and whom he know to be or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man,
such sexual intercourse not amounting to rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with simple or rigorous
imprisonment for a term extending upto five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as
an abettor.

5.4 CRUELTY BY HUSBAND OR RELATIVE OF HUSBAND

498-A. Husband or relative of husband of woman subjecting her to cruelty This section punishes a husband of a woman or
any relative of the husband subjecting her to cruelty. It says that whoever, being either the husband of a woman or the relative
of the husband of a woman subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term extending upto three
years and shall also be liable to fine.

The section punishes that the offender must be either the husband of woman or a relative his. The offender must subject such
women to cruelty. The explanation attached to this section defines cruelty by saying that for the purposes of this section cruelty
means (a) any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman either to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to life, limb or physical health or mental health of the woman, or (b) harassment of the woman where
such harassment is with a view to either coercing her or any person related to her either to meet any unlawful demand for any
property or valuablesecurity or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

In Shanti BehalVs State, there was allegation of harassment, cruelty and mal-treatment by the husband and the mother in law
against the bride. The victim had written a few days before the incident to her parents expressing apprehension of danger to her
life. In her dying declaration her mother in law was implicated for burning her and both she and the husband for harassing her.
This declaration was duly recorded and the corroborated by medical and other circumstantial evidence. The victim's father who
testified as to the dowry demands made by the husband the conviction of the mother in law for murder and under section 498-A
and the husband under section 498-A was held to be proper.

In Sham LalVs State of Haryana, there was evidence by the prosecution of only fact that there was a dispute between parties
regarding dowry and that the wife was sent back to her parental home, and was again taken back to the nuptial home after the
'panchayat' intervened about ten to fifteen days before the wife died. There was no evidence, however, that she was treated
with cruelty or harassed with demand for dowry again. The Supreme court held that the accused was liable to be convicted
under section 498-A on the basis of evidence of father of the deceased and her dying declaration, but section 304-B would not
apply.

5.5 DEFAMATION

499. Defamation:-

The section says who ever, either by spoken words or by words that are intended to be read, or by sings or by visible
representations either makes or publishes any imputation which concerns any person, either with the intention to harm the

39 | P a g e
reputation of such person or with the knowledge or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of
such person, is said to defame that person, expect in the case which have been provided as exceptions under this section.

First Explanation – According to the first, a defamation of a dead person is also possible if the imputation against such person
is such as would harm the reputation of that person if he were living and the intention of the offender is to be hurtful to the
feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Section Explanation – The section explanation says that imputation concerning either a company or an association or
collection of persons as such may amount to defamation.

Third Explanation – The third explanation states that imputation in the form of an alternative or ironical expressions may
amount to defamation.

Fourth Explanation- According to the fourth explanation, a person's reputation is not harmed by any imputation unless that
imputation, whether directly or indirectly, lowers either the moral or intellectual character of that person, or his character in
respect of his case or his calling, or his credit, or causes it to be believed that the body of that person is either in a loathsome
state, or in such a state as is considered disgraceful.

EXCEPTIONS OF DEFORMATION

Criminal Intimidation, Insult And Annoyance

503. Criminal intimidation. – Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputations or property to the
person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that
person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as
the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.

Explanation. – A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened in interested, is
within this section.

Illustration

A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B's house. A is guilty of
criminal intimidation.

Comment

A person commits criminal intimidation if he : (1) threatens another with any injury: (a) to his person, reputation or
property, or (b) to the person, reputation or property, or (b) to the person or reputation of anyone in whom that person is
intended, (2) with intent: (a) to cause alarm to that person or (b) to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound
to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
[Two years', or fine, or both] (S. 506).

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION AND EXTORTION AND CRIMINAL INTIMIDATION

AND ASSAULT

Criminal intimidation and extortion. – Criminal intimidation is almost analogous to extortion. It differs in the
following respects:

1. Purpose. – In extortion, the immediate purpose is obtaining any property or valuable security; in criminal
intimidation, the immediate purpose is to induce the person threatened to do act which he is not legally bound to do or to abstain
from doing an act which he is legally entitled to do.

40 | P a g e
2. Effect. – Extortion is committed when the offender is present and the victim is through feat of any injury induced
to deliver any property or valuable security; in criminal intimidation the threat need not produce the effect aimed at nor need it
be addressed directly to the person intended to be influenced.

3. Deliver. – In extortion delivery of property is of the essence of the offence, but in criminal intimidation there is no
delivery of the property by the victim to the accused.

Criminal intimidation and assault. – 1. Threat. – Assault is committed by making some gesture or preparation as to cause any
person present to apprehend that criminal force is about to be used to him, but in criminal intimidation there is threat of injury to
one's person, reputation or property.

The Indian Penal Code provides the following two provisions relating to insult offered to persons other than public
servants:

(a) Intentional insult with intent to provoke a breach of peace, or to cause the commission of any offence. Two years or
fine or both. (S. 504). (b) Uttering any word, or making any sound or gesture, or exhibiting any object, intending to insult the
modesty of a intruding upon the privacy of women – One year, or fine, or both. (S. 509).

504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. – Whoever intentionally insults, and thereby gives
provocation to any person intending or knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him to break the public peace, or
to commit any other offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two
years, or with fine, or with both.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DERAMATION AND INSULT

Sl.
Defamation Insult
No.
Not so here-its object is provision with intent to
1 A person's reputation affected.
cause a breach of the peace.
2 Includes insult. The converse is not necessarily true.
There must be publication of matter complained of to some person The publication is not the sine qua non of the
3
other than the person defamed. offence.
There is no offence if the defamatory matter is communicate only to
4 It is directly addressed to the person insulted.
the person defamed.
5 A true statement of fact does not amount to defamation. It may amount to insult.

505. Statements conducing to public mischief. – (1) Whoever makes, publishes or circulates any statement, rumour or report,
-

a) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, any officer, soldier, sailor or airman in the Army, navy or Air Force of
India to mutiny or otherwise disregard or fail in his duty as such; or

b) with intent to cause, or which is likely to cause, fear or alarm to the public or to any section of the public whereby any
person may be inclined to commit an offence against the State or against the public tranquility; or

c) with intent to incite, or which is likely to incite, any class or community, or persons to commit any offence against any
other class or community, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

(2) Statements creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes. – Whoever makes, publishes, or circulates
any statement or report containing rumour or alarming news with intent to create or promote or with is likely to create or
promote, on grounds or religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, caste, or community or nay other ground whatsoever,
feelings of enmity, hatred or ill-will between different religious, racial, language or regional groups or castes or communities,
shall be punished with imprisonment with may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

41 | P a g e
(3) Offence under sub-section (2) committed in place of worship, etc. – Whoever commits an offence specified in sub-
section (2) in any place of worship or any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies,
shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.

Exception. – It does not amount to an offence, within the meaning of this section, when the person making, publishing or
circulating any such statement, rumour or report, has reasonable grounds for believing that such statement, rumour or report is
true and makes, publishes or circulates it [in good faith] and without any such intent as aforesaid.

509. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman. – Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of
any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be
heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be
punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

500. Punishment for defamation – This section provides punishment for defamation. It states that whoever defames another
shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term extending upto two years, or with fine, or with both.

ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT OFFENCES

511. Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.-
Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such
an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express
provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided
for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment of life or, as the case may be, one-half of the
longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.

Illustrations

a) A makes an attempt to steal some jewels by breaking open a box, and finds after so opening the box, that there is no jewel
in it. He has done an act towards the commission of theft, and therefore is guilty under this section.

b) A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by thrusting his hands into Z's pockets. A fails in the attempt in consequence
of Z's having nothing in his pocket. A is guilty under this section.

Scope and applicability – Section 511 is not restricted in its application to attempt to attempt to commit offences that are
punishable with death or imprisonment for life. An attempt to commit murder, an offence punishable with death, is a specific
offence under the Indian Penal Code and S.511 is a general section that makes punishable all other attempts to commit offences
punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment.

First Exception – Imputation of truth with public good requires to be made or published.

Section Exception – Public conduct of Public servants.

Third Exception – Conduct of any person touching any public question.

Fourth Exception – Publication of reports of proceedings of courts.

Fifth Exception – Merits of case decided in court or conduct of witnesses and other concerned.

Sixth Exception – Merits of public performance.

Seventh Exception – Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another.

Eight Exception – Accusation preferred in good faith to authorized person

42 | P a g e
 Ninth Exception – Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests.

Difference between criminal misappropriation and criminal trust

Ima
ge source: https://bit.ly/3eSLc2i

This article is written by Vividh Jain, a student of the Institute of Law, NIRMA University. In this article, the author
differentiates between Criminal Misappropriation and Criminal Trust.

Table of Contents
 Introduction
 Dishonest Misappropriation of Property
 Essential Ingredients of Section 403 of IPC
 Misappropriation of a deceased person’s property
 Essential Ingredients of Section 404 of IPC
 Criminal Breach of Trust
 Essential Ingredients of Section 405 of IPC
 Section 407, 408 and 409 of IPC
 The major difference between Criminal Misappropriation and Criminal Trust
 Conclusion
 References
Introduction
The offences like Criminal Misappropriation and Criminal Breach of Trust are criminal offenses against property as mentioned
under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines Misappropriation of the property
whereas Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines Criminal Breach of Trust. 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. The essential ingredient of Section 405
of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is trust and whoever breaches it, has committed the offense of Criminal Breach of Trust.

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

43 | P a g e
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;

44 | P a g e
  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.

45 | P a g e
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.

The major difference between Criminal Misappropriation and Criminal Trust

On the basis of:


o Provision: Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines Misappropriation of the property
whereas Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines Criminal Breach of Trust.
o Possession: In Criminal Misappropriation, the property comes into the possession of the offender in
some natural manner or by some casualty, but in Criminal Breach of Trust, the property comes into the
possession of the offender due to the entrustment by the owner of the accused.
o Relationship: In Criminal Misappropriation, there is no contractual relationship between the offender
and owner of the property, but in Criminal Breach of Trust, there is a contractual relationship between
the offender and owner regarding the property.
oNature of the property: In Criminal Misappropriation, the subject matter i.e. the property is always
movable in nature, but in Criminal Breach of Trust, the property may be movable or immovable in
nature.
 Misappropriation: In Criminal Misappropriation, the property is dishonestly misappropriated by the offender for his
own use, but in Criminal Breach of Trust, the property or goods are misappropriated for his own personal use.
Conclusion
It is concluded that the Criminal Misappropriation and Criminal Breach of Trust are not the same. Criminal Breach of Trust
includes Criminal Misappropriation but the reverse is not always true. Also, there is a huge difference between Criminal
Misappropriation and Theft. Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the provision related to Theft. Under theft, the
consent of the real owner of the property is not known to the offender, but in Criminal Misappropriation, initially, the real
owner of the property grants consent to the offender. Another one, in theft when the offender got possession of the property, he
commits an act of theft, but in Criminal Misappropriation, the offender just denies to give back the property to its real owner.

46 | P a g e