IPC NOTES

MODULE 1

 Crime.

Crime refers to any act or omission that violates a law which results in a punishment or penalty.
Crimes can range from minor offenses like petty theft to more serious offenses such as murder. The
classification and punishment for crimes vary based on legal jurisdictions and the severity of the
offense.
 Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.

This Latin phrase translates to "an act does not make a person guilty unless there is a guilty mind." It
reflects the principle that, in many legal systems, both a wrongful act (actus reus) and a guilty mind
or intent (mens rea) are necessary elements to establish criminal liability. In other words, for an
individual to be convicted of a crime, there must be both a prohibited act and a culpable state of
mind.

 Novus actus interveniens.

This Latin phrase means "a new intervening act." In legal terms, novus actus interveniens refers to a
new and intervening act that breaks the chain of causation between the defendant's original act and
the resulting harm. If a new and independent event occurs after the defendant's action, and this
event is the primary cause of the harm, it may absolve the defendant of legal responsibility for the
consequences.

In summary, the Latin phrases emphasize key principles in criminal law. "Actus non facit reum nisi
mens sit rea" highlights the importance of both a wrongful act and a guilty mind for criminal liability.
"Novus actus interveniens" underscores the concept that a new intervening act can affect the
causation between the defendant's action and the resulting harm, potentially impacting legal
responsibility.

 Ingredients of crime.

In criminal law, the commission of a crime involves two essential elements: actus reus and mens rea.

1. Actus Reus:

Actus reus refers to the physical act or conduct that constitutes the criminal offense. It is the
external, observable behavior that is prohibited by law. This element ensures that a crime involves
more than just a person's thoughts or intentions; it requires some form of outward action. Actus reus
can take various forms, including actions, omissions, or a state of affairs that the law considers
criminal. For example, in a theft case, the actus reus would be the physical act of taking someone
else's property without authorization.

2. Mens Rea:

Mens rea, Latin for "guilty mind," pertains to the mental state or intent of the individual at the time
of committing the criminal act. It reflects the notion that not all wrongful acts are criminally
punishable; the perpetrator must have had a culpable state of mind when committing the act. Mens
rea can range from intentional wrongdoing to recklessness or negligence, depending on the specific
requirements of the offense. Using the theft example again, the mens rea might involve the intention
to permanently deprive the owner of their property.

1
The court ultimately held that George did violate the law based on the Foreign Exchange Regulation
Act of 1947, which prohibited the import and export of certain goods without proper authorization.
The court found that mens rea was not necessary for the offense and that the act of smuggling itself
was enough to constitute a violation of the law.- State of Maharashtra vs. MH George

The combination of actus reus and mens rea is crucial in establishing criminal liability. Generally, for
an individual to be convicted of a crime, both elements must be present. This dual requirement
ensures a fair and just legal system by considering not only the actions of the accused but also their
state of mind at the time of the offense. The nuances of actus reus and mens rea may vary
depending on the jurisdiction and the specific elements of the crime in question.

 4 stages of Crime.

The "four stages of crime" typically refer to the four elements or stages involved in the commission
of a criminal offense. These stages help in understanding the complete process of a criminal act. The
four stages are:

Intent (or Mens Rea):

Definition: Intent, or mens rea, refers to the mental state or guilty mind of the perpetrator before
committing the crime. It encompasses various levels of culpability, from purposeful intent to less
severe mental states like recklessness or negligence.

Significance: The legal system distinguishes between individuals who committed a harmful act with
criminal intent and those whose actions lacked wrongful intent. Mens rea ensures that the law
considers not only the act but also the mental state of the offender.

Preparation:

Definition: This stage involves planning or taking concrete steps toward the commission of the crime.
It goes beyond mere intent and includes activities that demonstrate a clear move towards criminal
conduct.

Significance: Preparation is crucial in establishing criminal liability because it shows that the
individual has progressed from a mere desire or intent to a proactive engagement in activities
leading to the commission of the crime.

Attempt:

Definition: An attempt occurs when the perpetrator takes a direct step towards committing the crime
but, for some reason, does not complete it. The attempt must be a substantial step that goes beyond
mere preparation.

Significance: Attempted crimes are punishable, recognizing that the actions taken by the offender
pose a sufficient threat or danger to warrant legal consequences. The law acknowledges that even if
the full crime is not carried out, the attempt itself is deserving of punishment.

Commission (Actus Reus):

Definition: Actus reus is the actual execution or completion of the criminal act. It involves the
physical element of the crime, such as stealing, harming, or damaging property.

2
Significance: Actus reus is a crucial element in establishing criminal liability. For an individual to be
held criminally responsible, there must be concrete evidence that they committed the prohibited act.
This stage completes the process of a crime, leading to legal consequences.

Understanding these four stages helps legal systems differentiate between mere thoughts or
intentions and actual criminal behavior. Criminal liability typically requires evidence that an
individual not only intended to commit a crime but also took concrete steps towards its commission.
It's important to note that not all crimes progress through each of these stages. Some offenses may
be completed in a single act, while others involve a more extended process. The specific elements
and stages can vary based on the nature of the crime and legal jurisdictions.

 Dudley vs. Stephens

R v Dudley and Stephens is a landmark English criminal case that established a precedent
throughout the common law world that necessity is not a defence to a charge of murder. The case
concerned survival cannibalism following a shipwreck, and its purported justification on the basis of
a custom of the sea. Dudley and Stephens murdered a fellow young seaman (Parker) in order to save
their own lives from starvation, and were found guilty of murder. The case raised debates on the
morality of using necessity as a defence to murder, and questioned when it was ethically and morally
justified to murder someone, let alone eat them without consent

MODULE 2

Notes in notebook

 Extra-territorial application of the IPC

Emperor v. Vinayak Damodar Savarkar

Where a person is in the country and charged before the Magistrate for offence under IPC, it’s not a
defence to say that he was brought from a foreign country illegally. Savarkar had escaped at
Marseilles from custody of police officers tasked with bringing him from London to Bombay. He was
re-arrested and brought to Bombay, where he was committed for trial by Special Magistrate at Nasik.
Bombay HC held arrest and trial valid.

Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay

Even though offender not physically present in India, ingredients of the offence occurred in Bombay
so the offence was committed at Bombay

MODULE 3

 Meaning and Definition of Punishment

Meaning:

Punishment refers to the imposition of a penalty or suffering in response to an offense or

wrongdoing. It is a consequence intended to deter individuals from engaging in undesirable behavior,
seek retribution for harm caused, protect society, or rehabilitate the offender. Punishment can take
various forms, including fines, imprisonment, community service, probation, or even capital
punishment, depending on the severity of the offense and the legal system in place.

3
Definition:

Punishment can be defined as the authorized imposition of a penalty or deprivation designed to

address or redress a violation of the law. It serves as a deterrent to both the offender and others who
might contemplate similar actions, and it is a fundamental component of legal systems around the
world. The type and severity of punishment are often determined by the nature and gravity of the
offense, as well as the legal principles and cultural values of a particular society.

 Theories of Punishment
1. Retributive Theory of Punishment:

The retributive theory of punishment is based on the concept of justice and the idea that
punishment should be proportionate to the offense committed. It asserts that individuals who
violate the law deserve to be punished as a form of retribution or payback for their wrongdoing. The
severity of the punishment is determined by the severity of the crime, with the aim of restoring a
sense of balance or justice in society.

2. Deterrent Theory of Punishment:

The deterrent theory focuses on preventing future crimes by instilling fear in potential offenders. It
operates on the principle that the threat of punishment, whether through fines, imprisonment, or
other means, will discourage individuals from engaging in criminal behavior. There are two aspects to
this theory: specific deterrence aims to discourage the punished individual from committing future
crimes, while general deterrence aims to deter others in society from engaging in criminal acts.

3. Reformative or Rehabilitative Theory of Punishment:

The reformative theory emphasizes the rehabilitation and transformation of the offender. Rather
than focusing solely on punishment, this theory seeks to address the root causes of criminal behavior
and aims to reintegrate offenders into society as law-abiding citizens. It advocates for education,
counselling, vocational training, and other rehabilitative measures to help individuals overcome
criminal tendencies and lead productive lives.

4. Preventive Theory of Punishment:

The preventive theory is concerned with preventing the offender from committing further crimes. It
includes both individual preventions, where the focus is on the specific offender and measures like
imprisonment are taken to physically prevent them from committing additional crimes, and general
prevention, which aims to protect society at large by incapacitating the offender and serving as a
warning to others.

The ongoing debate in criminology and legal philosophy revolves around finding the right balance
between these theories to achieve the goals of justice, deterrence, rehabilitation, and societal
protection.

Phul Singh v. State of Haryana

Reduction of sentence based on factors like age, forgiveness of victim and having wife and child.
Punishment should be humanely restorative, not just deterrent

4
Sunil Batra v. Delhi Administration

Prisoners have fundamental rights, can’t be subjected to personal violence. Punitive measures can’t
be implemented without judicial approval. Suggested measures like lawyer’s visits, grievance deposit
boxes and distribution of prisoner’s handbook

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab

Death penalty is constitutionally valid, but must only be given in exceptional circumstances after
examining balance of aggravating and mitigating factors: Judge must record special reasons. ‘Rarest
of rare’ doctrine expounded

MODULE 4

GENERAL EXCEPTIONS

Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), there are certain general exceptions that provide legal
justifications for actions that would otherwise be considered offenses. These exceptions recognize
circumstances where a person is not held criminally liable for their conduct. Some key general
exceptions under the IPC include:

1. Insanity (Section 84): A person who, at the time of committing an offense, is by reason of
unsoundness of mind incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it is wrong, is not criminally
responsible.

2. Intoxication (Section 85): If an offense is committed by a person who, at the time of the offense, is
intoxicated to the extent that they are incapable of knowing the nature of their act or that it is
wrong, then they may be exempt from criminal liability.

3. Consent (Section 87-89): Acts not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for the
benefit of a person, are not offenses. This includes acts done by a guardian for the benefit of a minor
or a person of unsound mind.

4. Private Defense (Section 96-106): A person has the right to defend themselves, their property, or
the property of others against certain offenses. Excessive force, however, may not be justified under
this exception.

5. Necessity (Section 81): Acts that are done in the reasonable belief that they are necessary for the
purpose of saving a person's life or property are generally not offenses.

6. Mistake of Fact (Sections 76-79): A person who commits an offense under a mistaken belief in fact,
which, if the facts were as the person believed them to be, would not be an offense, may be exempt
from criminal liability.

7. S.95: Slight harm that no ordinary person would complain. Reflection of the maxim de minimis
non curat lex- Trivial violations of the law do not constitute offences.

It's important to note that these general exceptions are interpreted and applied by the courts based
on the specific circumstances of each case. Additionally, other sections of the IPC may contain
specific exceptions related to particular offenses. Legal advice and consultation with a legal
professional are recommended for a comprehensive understanding of these provisions.

5
 MODULE 5

PRIVATE DEFENCE

The right of private defense is a legal concept enshrined in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that grants
individuals the right to protect themselves, their bodies, and their property against unlawful
aggression. This right is an exception to criminal liability and recognizes the inherent instinct of self-
preservation. Here's a brief note on the right of private defense under body and property:

Right of Private Defense of Body (Sections 96-106, IPC):

1. Extent of Force: A person is entitled to use reasonable force to defend their own body or the body
of another against imminent harm. The force used should be proportionate to the threat faced.

2. No Retreat Requirement: Unlike some legal systems, Indian law generally does not impose a duty
to retreat before exercising the right of private defense. A person can stand their ground and defend
themselves.

3. Protection against Assault and Wrongful Restraint: The right of private defense extends to
protecting oneself against offenses like assault, wrongful restraint, and attempts to commit
kidnapping or abduction.

Right of Private Defense of Property (Sections 97-106, IPC):

1. Protection of Property: Individuals have the right to use reasonable force to protect their movable
and immovable property from theft, robbery, mischief, or any other criminal act that threatens the
possession of the property.

2. No Excessive Force: The force used must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat. Excessive
force, leading to death or grievous hurt, may exceed the scope of the right of private defense.

3. Protection against Trespass: The right extends to defending one's property against unlawful
trespass, but the force used should be commensurate with the nature of the intrusion.

4. Continued Aggression: The right of private defense continues as long as the threat persists. Once
the threat ceases, the right also ceases.

It's essential to note that the right of private defense is not absolute, and its application depends on
the facts and circumstances of each case. The use of force must be reasonable and in proportion to
the danger faced. If excessive force is used, leading to harm beyond what is necessary for defense,
the person invoking the right may be held criminally liable. Legal advice is recommended to
understand the specific implications in different situations.

MODULE 6

JOINT LIABILITY UNDER THE IPC

Under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), joint liability of offenders is addressed in relation to offenses
committed by multiple individuals acting together. Provisions regarding joint liability can be found in
various sections of the IPC. Here are some key points related to joint liability:

1. Common Intention (Section 34): Section 34 of the IPC deals with acts done by several persons in
furtherance of a common intention. If an offense is committed by several persons in furtherance of a
common intention, each of them is liable for that offense as if the act was done by them alone. This
means that when individuals act together with a common intention to commit a crime, they are

6
jointly liable for the consequences. However, if an offense is committed by a member of a group with
a common intention, but it was not committed in furtherance of that common intention, only the
person who actually committed the act is held liable for the offense.

2. Common Object (Section 149): Section 149 of the IPC deals with the common object of an
unlawful assembly. If an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in the
prosecution of the common object of that assembly, every person who, at the time of the
committing of that offense, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that offense. This means
that if a crime is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in pursuit of the common
object, all members of that assembly may be held liable.

These provisions emphasize the principles of shared criminal liability when individuals act together
with a common intention or in the pursuit of a common object. It's important to note that the
liability is not always equal for all individuals involved, and it depends on the specific facts and roles
of each person in the commission of the offense. Legal interpretation and application of these
provisions may vary based on the circumstances of each case.

UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY

Definition of an unlawful assembly:

Section 141 of the IPC defines an "unlawful assembly" as an assembly consisting of five or more
persons. This assembly is considered unlawful if the common object of the individuals forming it is to
engage in specific criminal activities. These criminal activities include:

 Committing mischief or criminal trespass or other offenses.

 Using criminal force or showing a display of criminal force against any person.
 Using a show of criminal force against any property.
 Overawing, through the use of criminal force or a show of criminal force, any public servant
while they are exercising their lawful powers.
 To resist any legal process or execution of law.

Punishment for members of an unlawful assembly:

If an offense is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly while pursuing the common
object of that assembly, or an offense that the members of that assembly knew was likely to be
committed during the pursuit of that object, all members of the assembly at that time are held
accountable for that offense. They may be punished in the same manner as if they had committed
the offense themselves.

summary: In summary, Section 141 of the IPC deals with the legal concept of collective criminal
liability for individuals who are part of an unlawful assembly. When a crime is committed by any
member of such an assembly in the pursuit of their common objective, this section ensures that all
members of the assembly can be held responsible for the offenses committed by any other member
during the assembly's unlawful activities.

Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor-Meaning of participation in the context of common intention

Mahboob Shaw v. Emperor-difference between same intention and common intention

Priya Patel v. State of M.P.(2006)-Whether a woman can form common intention necessary for
prosecution under S. 376(2)(g) and Explanation 1

MODULE 7 AND 8

7
CULPABLE HOMICIDE,MURDER,HURT AND GREVIOUS HURT

1. Culpable Homicide (Section 299, IPC): Culpable homicide refers to the act of causing the death of
a person with some degree of criminal liability. It can be categorized as culpable homicide not
amounting to murder and culpable homicide amounting to murder. The former involves causing
death without the intention to cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. The
latter involves causing death with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
2. Murder (Section 300, IPC): Murder is a more severe form of culpable homicide. It occurs when
the act causing death is done with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing
such bodily injury that the offender knows is likely to cause death. The presence of certain
circumstances, like the act being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause a person's
death in a cruel manner or during the commission of certain specified offenses, elevates culpable
homicide to murder.
3. Hurt (Section 319, IPC): Hurt, under the IPC, refers to any bodily injury that causes pain, harm, or
impairment of health. The severity of the hurt can range from minor to grievous. The act causing
hurt can be intentional or unintentional. The punishment for causing hurt varies based on the
extent of harm inflicted.
4. Grievous Hurt (Section 320, IPC): Grievous hurt involves causing a more severe form of bodily
injury that endangers life or causes severe pain, disfigurement, or disability. The IPC specifies
various types of injuries that are considered grievous hurt. The severity of punishment is greater
for offenses causing grievous hurt compared to simple hurt.

In summary, culpable homicide, murder, hurt, and grievous hurt are categories that delineate the
nature and severity of offenses related to causing harm to another person. Culpable homicide and
murder focus on the act of causing death, while hurt and grievous hurt pertain to causing bodily
injury. The distinctions are crucial in determining the legal consequences and appropriate charges
under the IPC.

DIFFERENCE: CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER

Culpable Homicide and Murder are two distinct offenses under criminal law, and the key difference
between them lies in the intention and circumstances surrounding the killing. Here's an explanation
of the differences between culpable homicide and murder:

1. Intention:

Culpable Homicide: Culpable homicide refers to the act of causing the death of another person. The
accused may not necessarily have the intention to cause death, but their actions result in someone's
death. The intention could range from causing harm that could lead to death (not amounting to
murder) to recklessness or negligence that causes a person's death.

Murder: Murder, on the other hand, involves the intentional killing of another person with the clear
intention to cause death. In a murder case, the accused has a guilty mind (mens rea) and intends to
cause the death of the victim.

2. Mens Rea (Guilty Mind):

8
Culpable Homicide: Culpable homicide may involve a lesser degree of mens rea, such as an intention
to cause grievous bodily harm or knowledge that the act is likely to cause death without a specific
intent to kill.

Murder: Murder requires a higher degree of mens rea, which is the specific intent to cause death.
The accused must have the intention to kill or cause injury that they know is likely to result in death.

3. Punishment:

Culpable Homicide: Culpable homicide is generally considered a less severe offense, and the
punishment is typically less severe than that for murder. The punishment varies based on the specific
circumstances and intent involved.

Murder: Murder is a more serious offense, and the punishment is typically more severe, often
including life imprisonment or the death penalty in some jurisdictions.

4. Legal Consequences:

Culpable Homicide: Culpable homicide can encompass a wide range of situations, including
accidental deaths, deaths resulting from negligence, or deaths caused in the heat of the moment
without premeditation. The accused might have a defense, such as lack of intent or acting under
duress.

Murder: Murder generally implies a deliberate and premeditated act, and the accused has fewer
defense available. The prosecution must prove the accused's intent beyond a reasonable doubt.

In summary, the main difference between culpable homicide and murder is the level of intent or
mens rea. Culpable homicide involves causing death without a specific intent to kill, while murder
involves the deliberate intent to cause the death of another person. The legal consequences and
punishments differ accordingly.

KM Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra-1962

In the KM Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (1961) case, a naval officer named KM Nanavati was
charged with the murder of Prem Ahuja after learning of his wife's extramarital affair with the
deceased. Nanavati, in a fit of rage, retrieved a firearm from his ship, went to Ahuja's home, and
fatally shot him. He later turned himself in to the police.

The Supreme Court had to decide whether Nanavati's actions could be considered as falling under
Exception 1 of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, which allows for reduced charges in cases of
"grave and sudden" provocation. The Court established key principles regarding provocation:

1. The test for "grave and sudden" provocation assesses whether a reasonable person from the same
social group as the accused would lose self-control in such circumstances.

2. In India, words and gestures can be considered grave and sudden provocation, potentially reducing
the charge.

3. The prior actions and mental state of the victim may be considered when determining
provocation.

4. The fatal act must be directly connected to the immediate passion from the provocation and
should not occur after a cooling-off period allowing for premeditation.

9
In this case, the Court found that Nanavati had sufficient time to cool down after initially losing
control, making Exception 1 inapplicable. As a result, he was found guilty of murder and sentenced to
life imprisonment. This case set significant legal precedents for the assessment of "grave and
sudden" provocation in cases of homicide.

CAUSING DEATH BY NEGLIGENCE

Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) pertains to the offense of "Causing Death by
Negligence." This section deals with situations where a person causes the death of another due to
their negligent or rash actions.

Section 304A: Causing Death by Negligence

"Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to
culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

Section 304A of the IPC states that if a person causes the death of another individual by performing a
rash or negligent act that does not amount to culpable homicide (intentional killing), they can be
punished with imprisonment for up to two years, a fine, or both. This section aims to hold individuals
accountable for causing death due to their negligent or reckless behavior, even if they did not have
the intention to kill.

MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

Medical negligence is primarily addressed through civil and professional liability laws rather than the
Indian Penal Code (IPC). In India, cases of medical negligence are typically dealt with under the
consumer protection laws and regulations governing the medical profession, such as the Indian
Medical Council Act and State Medical Councils. Criminal liability in cases of medical negligence is
rare and usually requires evidence of gross negligence or recklessness. In such cases, relevant
sections of the IPC may be invoked, such as:

1. Section 304A - Causing Death by Negligence: This section can be applied when a doctor's
negligent actions result in a patient's death. It provides for imprisonment for a term that may
extend to two years, or a fine, or both.
2. Section 337 - Causing Hurt by Act Endangering Life or Personal Safety: If a doctor's negligent
conduct leads to injuries to a patient, this section may be invoked. The punishment under this
section is imprisonment for a term that may extend to six months, or a fine, or both.
3. Section 338 - Causing Grievous Hurt by Act Endangering Life or Personal Safety: If the medical
negligence leads to severe injuries, Section 338 may apply, and the punishment can be
imprisonment for a term that may extend to two years, or a fine, or both.

ABETMENT

Abetment of an offense under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) refers to the act of aiding, instigating,
encouraging, or facilitating the commission of a crime. The person who aids or abets is known as an
abettor, and their role is crucial in the commission of the offense. Here's a short note on abetment:

1. Definition (Section 107, IPC): Abetment is defined under Section 107 of the IPC. According to
this section, a person abets the doing of a thing when:
 They instigate any person to do that thing,
 Engage with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal
omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and

10
 Intentionally aid, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

 Abetment by Instigation: Instigating someone to commit a crime involves actively encouraging or

provoking that person to carry out the illegal act.
 Abetment by Conspiracy: Participating in a conspiracy to commit an offense constitutes
abetment if an act or illegal omission is carried out in furtherance of that conspiracy.
 Abetment by Aid: Providing assistance, support, or any act that contributes to the commission of
the offense, with the knowledge that it will facilitate the commission, falls under abetment.

2. Punishment: Section 109 of the IPC prescribes punishment for abetment. The punishment may
be the same as that provided for the offense abetted or may be different based on the nature of
abetment.
3. Role of Intention: For an act to be considered abetment, the abettor must have the intention to
aid or instigate the commission of the offense. Mere knowledge that an offense is likely to be
committed is not sufficient; there must be an active role or encouragement.

Abetment is a distinct offense, and individuals involved in abetting a crime can be held criminally
liable. The provision recognizes the significance of those who, though not directly committing the
offense, play a pivotal role in its commission by supporting or encouraging others. Legal
consequences for abetment depend on the nature of the underlying offense and the specific
circumstances of abetment.

ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

Abetment of suicide is a criminal offense in India, and it is covered under Section 305 and 306 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC). These sections deal with cases where a person abets or encourages another
person to commit suicide.

Section 305 of the IPC: Abetment of Suicide of Child or Insane Person

Section 305 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) addresses cases where individuals under eighteen years of
age, insane persons, delirious individuals, idiots, or those in a state of intoxication commit suicide. It
criminalizes the abetment of suicide in these circumstances. The punishment for abetment of suicide
in such cases can be as severe as the death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment for a term
not exceeding ten years, along with the possibility of a fine.

Section 306 of the IPC: Abetment of Suicide

Section 306 of the IPC pertains to the general abetment of suicide. It applies to situations where any
person commits suicide, and someone abets or encourages the act. The punishment for abetment of
suicide under Section 306 includes imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend to
ten years, in addition to the potential for a fine. This section is applicable to a broader range of cases
involving suicide and focuses on the act of abetment, regardless of the victim's age or mental
condition.

11
CRIMINAL FORCE AND ASSAULT

Criminal force: Section 350

Criminal Force is any force applied to the body or property of another person with the intention of
causing harm, restraint, or annoyance, and it can be done without that person's consent. It may not
necessarily result in bodily harm but involves the use of physical force against the will of the victim.
The application of criminal force can be both direct and indirect. An example of this might be pushing
someone, snatching an object from their hand, or applying force to detain them without their
consent.

Assault: Section 351

Assault is an act with the intention to cause apprehension or fear of an impending harm in the mind
of the victim. It does not necessarily require physical contact but involves creating a reasonable
belief in the victim's mind that they are about to suffer harm or force. Assault may or may not result
in physical harm but centres on causing fear or intimidation. For example, raising a hand in a
threatening manner towards someone without actually making physical contact can constitute an
assault.

In summary, "Criminal Force" is about the use of physical force against a person or their property
without their consent, while "Assault" is primarily about creating an apprehension of harm in the
victim's mind, whether or not actual physical contact occurs. Both of these concepts are crucial in
understanding and prosecuting cases related to physical harm or threats in the context of criminal
law in India.

WRONGFUL RESTRAINT AND CONFINEMENT

Wrongful Restraint

Section 339 of the IPC: This section defines "Wrongful Restraint."

Wrongful Restraint occurs when a person intentionally prevents another person from proceeding in
any direction in which that person has a lawful right to proceed. It involves obstructing or impeding
someone's movement without their consent, even if it's done for a brief duration. The use of force or
the threat of force can constitute wrongful restraint. This offense is less severe than wrongful
confinement.

For example, if someone physically holds back another person from leaving a room, even if it's only
for a short time and without any intention to confine them, it may be considered wrongful restraint.

Wrongful Confinement

Section 340 of the IPC: This section addresses "Wrongful Confinement."

Wrongful Confinement is a more serious offense compared to wrongful restraint. It involves

intentionally restraining another person in a closed space or within certain limits without their
consent and without lawful authority. The key element is the restriction of the person's freedom of
movement beyond what is authorized by law. Wrongful confinement is often associated with longer
durations and more severe restrictions compared to wrongful restraint.

12
For example, if someone forcibly locks another person in a room or confines them within an area
against their will, it can amount to wrongful confinement.

In summary, "Wrongful Restraint" involves obstructing or impeding a person's lawful movement,

while "Wrongful Confinement" is a more serious offense that entails unlawfully restraining a person
within certain limits or within a closed space without their consent and without lawful authority.
Both offenses relate to the unlawful restriction of a person's freedom of movement and are
important concepts in the realm of criminal law in India.

KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION

Kidnapping and Abduction are the criminal offenses defined and regulated under various sections of
the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Both of the offences involve the unlawful abduction or restraint of an
individual without their consent. Here are the key provisions related to kidnapping and abduction
under the IPC:

1. Section 359 - Kidnapping

This section defines "Kidnapping." It states that whoever takes a person beyond India's territorial
boundaries against their will, or kidnaps or abducts a person with the intent to make them subject to
unlawful confinement, may be charged with the offense of kidnapping. The punishment for
kidnapping may include imprisonment for a term that can extend up to seven years, along with a
potential fine.

2. Section 360 - Kidnapping from India

This section deals with the "Kidnapping from India." It states that whoever takes a person beyond the
territorial boundaries of India without their consent may be charged with the offense of kidnapping.
The punishment for this offense may involve imprisonment for a term that can extend up to seven
years, along with a potential fine.

3. Section 361 - Kidnapping from lawful guardianship

This section covers the "Kidnapping from lawful guardianship." It defines the offense as the
abduction of a minor [under 16 for male and under 18 for female] or person of unsound mind from
their lawful guardian's custody without the guardian's consent. The punishment for this offense may
include imprisonment for a term that can extend up to seven years and a potential fine.

4. Section 362- Abduction

Abduction refers to the unlawful act of taking or restraining an individual against their will. It involves
actions where a person is moved from one place to another or confined without their consent.
Abduction can occur through the use of force, where physical compulsion is involved, or through
deceitful means, where the victim is induced to take actions they would not have done voluntarily.

MODULE 9

OUTRAGING THE MODESTY OF A WOMAN

Section 354: Assault or Criminal Force to Outrage Modesty.

13
Section 354 of the IPC addresses offenses involving the assault or use of criminal force against a
woman with the intent to outrage her modesty. This provision is designed to protect the modesty,
dignity, and personal integrity of women and to penalize actions that violate these rights.

Objective: The primary objective of Section 354 is to provide legal protection to women against any
form of assault or criminal force aimed at violating their modesty. It recognizes that a woman has the
right to be free from unwarranted and unwanted physical advances or gestures that intend to
outrage her modesty.

Offenses Covered: This section covers various offenses, including but not limited to actions such as
molestation, unwelcome physical contact, or any behavior that is sexually offensive in nature and is
intended to humiliate, intimidate, or outrage the modesty of a woman.

Punishment: The punishment for an offense under Section 354 may include imprisonment for a term
that can extend to five years and a fine. The severity of the punishment depends on the specific
circumstances of the case and the discretion of the court.

Section 354A: Sexual Harassment and Punishment

Section 354A of the IPC deals with the offense of sexual harassment and prescribes punishments for
such conduct. It recognizes that women have the right to live and work in an environment free from
sexual harassment. Here's a more detailed explanation:

Objective: The primary objective of Section 354A is to address various forms of sexual harassment
and provide legal protection to women in public or private spaces. It aims to create a safer
environment by penalizing unwelcome advances, comments, or behavior of a sexual nature that
causes discomfort or fear in women.

Offenses Covered: Section 354A covers a wide range of acts, including making unwelcome sexual
gestures, making sexually coloured remarks, or showing pornography against a woman's will. It also
includes online harassment and cyberbullying when it involves sexual advances or comments.

Punishment: The punishment for an offense under Section 354A may include imprisonment for a
term that can extend to three years, a fine, or both. The severity of the punishment is determined
based on the specific circumstances of the case and the discretion of the court.

Section 354B: Assault or Use of Criminal Force to Woman with Intent to Disrobe

 Section 354B addresses offenses involving the assault or use of criminal force against a woman
with the intent to disrobe her.
 It is aimed at protecting the physical integrity and modesty of women and penalizing actions that
involve disrobing or attempting to disrobe a woman against her will.
 The punishment for this offense can include imprisonment for a term that may extend to seven
years, a fine, or both, with the severity of the punishment depending on the specific case.

Section 354C: Voyeurism

 Section 354C deals with the offense of voyeurism, which involves capturing images or video of a
woman engaging in a private act without her consent.
 It aims to protect women's privacy and prevent the unauthorized recording or distribution of
private images.
 The punishment for voyeurism under Section 354C may include imprisonment for 2 convictions
extending up to 7 years, and a fine.

14
Section 354D: Stalking

Stalking is a criminal offense defined under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It addresses
the act of persistently following, contacting, or monitoring another person, causing fear, distress, or a
sense of violation, without their consent. Here is an in-depth explanation of stalking under the IPC:

Definition of Stalking

1) Persistent Behavior: Stalking involves a pattern of unwelcome and repetitive conduct by one
person towards another. This can include following the victim, attempting to establish
communication, or monitoring their activities.
2) Victim's Fear or Distress: For an act to be considered stalking, it must cause the victim to
experience fear, distress, or a sense of violation. The victim's perception of being harassed or
pursued is crucial.
3) Without Consent: Stalking is characterized by actions that occur without the victim's consent. It
involves behavior that is unwanted and intrusive.

Types of Stalking Behavior

Stalking behavior can take various forms, including but not limited to:

1) Physical Stalking: This involves physically following the victim, showing up at their home,
workplace, or other places they frequent without their permission.
2) Cyberstalking: Stalking can also occur online or through electronic means, such as sending
unwanted emails, messages, or tracking the victim's online presence without consent.
3) Harassing Phone Calls: Making unwanted phone calls, including threatening, obscene, or
persistent calls, can also be a form of stalking.
4) Sending Unsolicited Gifts or Letters: Sending gifts or letters without the victim's consent can also
be considered stalking if it causes fear or distress.

Exceptions to stalking

1) If the woman is pursued by the man as a part of his responsibility to the state, to detect a crime
or prevent one from happening.
2) To abide by any condition or law given by a person authorised by law.
3) Other situations that might make his conduct reasonably justifiable.

Punishment for Stalking

The IPC prescribes penalties for individuals found guilty of stalking under Section 354D:

1) For the first offense, the punishment may include imprisonment for a term that can extend to
three years and a fine.
2) For subsequent offenses, if the same person is convicted again for stalking, the punishment may
include imprisonment for a term that can extend to five years and a fine.

15
SEXUAL OFFENCES

Sec.375: Rape

Rape, as defined in Section 375 of the IPC, is a heinous criminal offense that involves non-consensual
sexual intercourse. It is a crime that seriously violates an individual's bodily autonomy and human
rights. The core element in a rape case is the absence of valid consent. For an act to be considered
rape, there must be a clear lack of informed and voluntary consent from the victim. Sexual
intercourse without the victim's consent, freely and willingly given, is categorized as rape. Consent
should be unequivocal and voluntary, specific to the act, and not obtained through force, coercion,
or deception.

Under Section 375, a man is said to commit rape if he;

1) Penetrates his penis into a woman’s vagina, mouth, urethra, or anus to any amount, or forces her
to do so with him or anybody else; or
2) Inserts any object or portion of the body, other than the penis, into the vagina, urethra, anus, or
any other part of her body, or forces her to do so with him or another person; or (commonly
known as digital rape)
3) Manipulates any part of a woman’s body to produce penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus,
or any other part of her body, or forces her to do so with him or anybody else; or
4) Applying his tongue to a woman’s vagina, anus, or urethra, or forcing her to do so with him or
another person, or

Any of the seven clauses laid down under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The provision
embraced with seven clauses that majorly lays down circumstances that if takes place, can be quoted
to be amounting to the offence of rape. The same has been discussed hereunder.

1) Against Her Will: If a man has sexual intercourse with a woman against her will, it is considered
rape unless it falls under specific exceptions. Consent should be freely given, and any act done
against the woman's opposition can be rape.
2) Without Consent: Rape occurs when a man engages in sexual activity with a woman without her
consent. If the woman claims a lack of consent, it is presumed that there was none.
3) Consent Obtained by Fear: If a woman's consent is obtained by instilling fear of death or harm,
even if she agrees, it is considered rape. Fear-based consent is not genuine consent.
4) Consent Obtained by Fraud: If a man misleads a woman, and she consents to intercourse under
false pretences, it is still considered rape. Consent must be fully informed and voluntary.
5) Sexual Intercourse with an Incapacitated Person: When a person engages in sexual activity with
an individual who is unable to appreciate the nature and consequences of the act due to
unsoundness of mind, intoxication, or drugging, it is rape.
6) Sexual Intercourse with a Minor: If sexual activity occurs with a girl under the age of eighteen, it
is classified as rape, irrespective of her consent.
7) Inability to Communicate Consent: If the woman is unable to communicate her consent at the
time of intercourse, the act is considered rape. This may apply in cases where the victim is
incapacitated, unconscious, or physically unable to express consent.

16
Exceptions in Section 375.

Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, contains two significant exception clauses that delineate
specific circumstances where an act may not be considered rape:

1) Exception 1: Medical Procedure or Intervention - This exception clarifies that a medical

procedure or intervention performed on a woman does not constitute the offense of rape under
the law. The exception recognizes that certain medical treatments and interventions, even if they
involve physical contact, are not criminal acts and should not be categorized as rape.
2) Exception 2: Sexual Intercourse with a Man's Own Wife (Wife Not Under Eighteen Years) - This
exception addresses the issue of sexual intercourse or sexual acts between a man and his wife,
provided that the wife is not under eighteen years of age. It stipulates that such acts, even if they
involve a minor wife, are not classified as rape.

The age requirement in Exception 2 was increased from 15 to 18 years by the 1949 Amendment to
the IPC. The amendment aimed to prevent early marriages and protect young girls from exploitation.
However, it's important to note that the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Independent Thought
vs. Union of India (2017), ruled that sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 18 is considered
rape, irrespective of her marital status. The Court held that Exception 2, which distinguishes between
married and unmarried minor girls, is artificial and has no rational basis. This artificial distinction was
found to be in violation of the spirit and ethos of the Indian Constitution, including Article 15(3) and
Article 21, which emphasize equality and individual rights.

 Consent of girl below the age of 16 years is immaterial- Bishnu Dayal vs. State of Bihar,1981.
 Merely because the victim was more than 16 years of age that cannot be a ground to hold that
she was consenting party.

Sec.376: Punishment for Rape

Following the outcry produced by the Nirbhaya case, the Criminal Amendment Act of 2013 was
approved, which made significant revisions to the definition and punishment of rape, which had
previously been found to be insufficient. The Justice Verma Committee was established to gather
proposals for the legislature’s consideration in developing a legal framework to address rape and
other crimes against women. In a short period of time, the Committee received approximately
80,000 recommendations on which to deliberate. Activists, lawyers, NGOs, and other members of
the so-called “civil society” sent these recommendations. The proposals were made as an ordinance
because the legislature had adjourned, preventing the introduction of the amended Act. The crime
of rape was given a broader definition under the ordinance, which included any sort of penetration,
including any area of the victim’s body.

Voyeurism (Section 354C) was also made an offence by the Amendment, which was previously not a
crime under the Indian Penal Code. The recording or viewing of photographs, movies, or other forms
of media without the permission of the person portrayed or screened in them is known as
voyeurism. Prior to the 2013 Amendment, the Indian Penal Code did not specify a minimum
sentence for rape, which is now ten years and can be extended up to life imprisonment with a fine. It

17
also introduced fourteen circumstances in which the penalty for rape must be at least ten years in jail
and may include imprisonment for the rest of the accused’s natural life or death. The following is a
list of these scenarios:

1) Rape by a police officer.

2) Rape by a public servant.
3) Rape by armed force personnel.
4) Rape by the management or staff of a jail, remand home.
5) Rape by the management or staff of a hospital.
6) Rape by a relative, guardian or teacher.
7) Rape during communal or sectarian violence.
8) Rape of pregnant women.
9) Rape of a woman incapable of giving consent.
10) Committing rape being in a position of control and dominance over a woman.
11) Rape of a woman suffering from mental or physical disability.
12) While committing rape causes grievous harm or maims or disfigures or endangers the life of a
woman.
13) Commits rape repeatedly on the same woman.

 Subsection 3 states that if any person rapes a woman under 16 years of age, he will be liable to
punishment for a minimum of twenty years, which may extend to life imprisonment and a
fine[must be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim]-
inserted by Act 22 of 2018.

Nature of sec.376- cognizable, non-bailable, and triable by the Sessions Court.

Sec.376A: Punishment for causing death or resulting in persistent vegetative state of victim.

Punishment for causing death or putting the person into a vegetative state. This clause punishes a
man who commits an act against a woman that results in her being injured, going into a vegetative
state, or dying. In situations under section 376 A, the sentence must be at least 20 years, although it
can be increased to life imprisonment. It is a non-bailable and cognizable offence that can be tried in
the Court of Session.

Sec.376AB: Punishment for rape on woman under 12 years of age.

Provides that whoever commits rape with a woman, who is under 12 years of age shall be punished
with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 20 years, and it may extend to life
imprisonment, in legal sense, reminder for that person’s natural life, and with fine or death penalty.
And also, liable to pay compensation and such compensation shall be reasonable and just, to meet
the medical expenses and for victim rehabilitation.

Additionally, commands that any payment by the denounced under this section will be paid to the
person in question (victim).

Sec.376B: Sexual intercourse by husband upon his wife during separation.

This Section outlines the consequences of a husband having sexual relations with his wife when
separated. A husband cannot be found guilty of rape against his wife under general principles.

18
Marriage is a relationship in which both the husband and wife are able to use their marital rights.
Sexual intercourse by the husband without her agreement is punishable under this Section when the
woman lives separately from her husband under a judicial separation decision. Under these
instances, sexual intercourse means the same thing as it does in Section 375 clauses (a) to (d).

Sec.376C: Sexual intercourse by person in authority.

Sexual intercourse by a person in power is punishable under this Section. If a person in authority or
under the influence of his power seduces or takes advantage of a woman, that person shall be held
accountable for the offence under this Section. Sexual intercourse in these situations will not be
considered rape, but will result in a sentence of not less than 5 years, with the possibility of a 10-year
sentence and a fine. [sexual intercourse not amounting to rape]

Sec.376D: Gang Rape.

Gang rape offences are punishable under this Section. Gang rape occurs when a woman is raped by
multiple people who all have the same aim to rape her. Offenders face a sentence of no less than 20
years in jail, with the possibility of being sentenced to life in prison.

Sec.376DA: Gang rape on woman under 16 years of age.

Provides that when a woman under the age of sixteen years raped by one or more person
constituting a group or done some action for the pursuance of common intention, each of that
person deemed to commit the offence of rape and shall be punished with imprisonment for life, in
legal sense, reminder for that person natural life, and with fine. And also, liable to pay compensation
and such compensation shall be reasonable and just, to meet the medical expenses and for victim
rehabilitation.

Additionally, commands that any payment by the denounced under this section will be paid to the
person in question (victim).

Sec.376DB: Gang rape on woman under 12 years of age.

This section states that where a woman who, is below the age of 12 years is raped by one or more
person constituting a group or action for the pursuance of common intention, each person shall be
deemed to commit the offence of rape, and punished with life imprisonment, in legal sense,
reminder for that person natural life, and with fine or death penalty. And also, liable to pay
compensation and such compensation shall be reasonable and just, to meet the medical expenses
and for victim rehabilitation.

Additionally, commands that any payment by the denounced under this section will be paid to the
person in question (victim).

Sec.376E: Punishment for repeat offenders.

Punishment for repeat offenders is defined in this Section. If a person has been previously convicted
of an offence under Section 376, 376 A, or 376 D[ sec.376AB, sec.376DA, sec.376DB] and commits
the same offence again, he or she will be sentenced to life in prison for the remainder of that
person’s natural life or with death.

Sec.377: Unnatural offences

19
Before 2018:

 Section 377 was originally introduced during the British colonial era in India in 1860.
 The provision criminalized "carnal intercourse against the order of nature," which included same-
sex relations and other non-penile-vaginal sexual acts.
 Convictions under Section 377 could lead to imprisonment and other legal penalties.
 This law was widely criticized for its discriminatory nature and its impact on the LGBTQ+
community in India.
After 2018:
 In a landmark judgment on September 6, 2018, the Supreme Court of India, in the case of Navtej
Singh Johar v. Union of India, partially struck down Section 377.
 The Supreme Court held that consensual sexual acts between adults, regardless of their gender
or sexual orientation, were no longer criminalized under Section 377.
 The court declared that the law's previous stance on homosexuality violated individuals'
fundamental rights, including the right to equality and non-discrimination, privacy, and personal
liberty.
 The judgment decriminalized homosexuality in India and was celebrated as a significant step
toward LGBTQ+ rights and equality

However, Sec.377 is not completely struck down but some parts of it have been read down. It is still
applicable in the cases of :

 Non-consensual carnal intercourse

 Bestiality against the order of nature

MODULE 10

Sec.494: Bigamy (Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife).

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 explains bigamy under Section 494. The said provision states that any
person who already has a wife or husband living, further proceeds to marry another person while
being lawfully wedded to such wife or husband shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Moreover,
such marriage shall be considered void in whatsoever case.

There are certain exceptions to the aforementioned provision wherein the person who marries
another individual shall not be liable for bigamy. The exceptions are as follows –

1. The said provision does not extend to any individual whose marriage with their partner from the
prior marriage has been declared void by a court of competent jurisdiction.
2. The said provision does not extend to any individual who contracts a marriage during the lifetime
of their former partner wherein such partner at the time of such individual’s second marriage
was not heard of for a period of seven years or wherein there is no information of them being
alive. By virtue of presumption provided under Section 108 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it
may be concluded that a person who has been missing for more than seven years is presumed to
be dead and that when the individual contracts a second marriage, it shall be understood that no
husband or wife is living at the time of the second marriage and thus, the offence of bigamy is
not constituted. The condition that is inclusive of this exception is that the individual contracting
the second marriage must, before the second marriage takes place, inform the person they are
about to marry about the facts to the best of their knowledge regarding their previous partner.

Essentials of bigamy

20
1. Existence of a Prior Lawful Marriage: Bigamy involves a person already being in a lawful marriage
when attempting to enter into a subsequent marriage. The mere existence of a prior valid
marriage is a crucial element, as it signifies the presence of a living spouse from the first
marriage. If the prior marriage is not legally valid, the subsequent marriage may not constitute
bigamy.

2. Validity of Subsequent Marriage: In addition to the prior marriage being lawful, the subsequent
marriage must also meet the legal requirements and rituals specified by the personal law
governing the marriage. Failure to adhere to these necessary formalities can render the
subsequent marriage void, which, in turn, prevents the offense of bigamy from being
established.
3. Existence of the Partner from Prior Lawful Marriage: The primary reason for declaring the
subsequent marriage void is the continued existence of the spouse from the prior lawful
marriage. The husband or wife from the first marriage must be alive at the time of the
subsequent marriage to declare it void and establish a case of bigamy. However, it's important to
note that this element may not apply to cases where subsequent marriages are permitted by
certain personal laws, such as the Sharia law, which may allow for multiple marriages under
specific circumstances.

Sec.495: Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent
marriage is contracted.

Section 495 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 further talks about the offence of bigamy but with the
addition of the vice of concealment. When an individual does the act of bigamy by concealing the
fact of their former marriage from the person with whom they contract their second marriage then
such individual shall be liable under Section 495. Such individuals shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend up to ten years and shall be liable
to fine or both. In addition to this, a complaint about cheating can be filed under Section 415 of IPC
in case the individual conceals the fact of first marriage.

Sec.497: Adultery.

Adultery, under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), was a criminal offense until a significant legal change in
September 2018. The offense of adultery was governed by Section 497 of the IPC, which defined and
regulated it. However, this section has been rendered unconstitutional by a landmark judgment of
the Supreme Court of India.

Section 497 IPC (before the legal change): Section 497 of the IPC defined adultery as follows:
"Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows 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 the offense of rape, is guilty of the offense of adultery, and shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with
fine, or with both."

 wife will not be punished as the abettor.

Legal Change: In September 2018, the Supreme Court of India, in a landmark judgment of Joseph
Shine v. Union of India declared Section 497 of the IPC unconstitutional. The court held that the
provision violated the principles of gender equality and discriminated against women by treating
them as the property of their husbands. The court also noted that it did not provide for the

21
prosecution of women who engaged in adulterous relationships. Therefore, it was deemed
discriminatory and was struck down.

As a result of this judgment, adultery is no longer a criminal offense in India under the IPC. However,
civil consequences, such as divorce proceedings, may still be applicable in cases of adultery,[ Hindu
Marriage Act] but individuals involved in such cases will not be subject to criminal prosecution under
the IPC.

22