1

1. Explain ‘Crime’ with suitable examples . How many parties of crime are there? What
are the different stages of crime ? Discuss in detail.
2. Explain the doctrine of ‘Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea'.
3. What do you understand by Culpable Homicide? In what circumstances Culpable Homicide
does not amount to Murder? What are those exceptions when Culpable Homicide does not
amount to Murder?
4. What are the main ingredients of the offence of Grievous hurt? Distinguish between Hurt
and Grievous Hurt.
5. Specify the offences against which the right to private defence can be executed. Indicate the
limits within which the right to private defence should be exercised.
6. Provisions of General Exceptions.
7. Ingredients of theft. How does it differ from extortion, robbery and dishonest
misappropriation of property?
8. Abatement
9. What is defamation? What defences are available to a person who is charged with the
offence of defamation?

10.
 2

Law of Crimes -I
First Paper

1. Explain ‘Crime’ with suitable examples. How many parties of crime are there? What are the
different stages of crime? Discuss in detail.

Crime may be defined as an act or omission, which the society has of thought fit to punish or otherwise
deal with under its laws for the time being in force. The different acts and or omissions so
punishable under the law are known as crimes. Since there is no satisfactory definition of Crime, the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 uses the word 'Offence' in place of Crime. Section 40 of the IPC defines Offence
as an act punishable by the Code. An Offence takes place in two ways, either by commission of an act or
by omission of an act.

When a Crime is done, any member of the public can institute proceedings against the person accused
of the offence. Only in certain exceptional cases, the persons concerned alone can institute the criminal
proceedings. Example of such crimes include Matrimonial cases, dowry cases, defamation etc
The society therefore takes steps for its prevention by prescribing specific punishments for each crime.
The legal definition of crime is that it is behaviour or an activity in violation of the legal code. Paul
Tappan (1960) has defined crime as "an intentional act or omission in violation of criminal law
committed without defence or justification and sanctioned by the state for punishment as a felony or
a misdemeanor".

Six elements as under are important in this definition:

1. The act should be actually committed or it should be an omission of a legal duty (as different
from moral duty), i.e., a person cannot be punished for his/ her thoughts. In some cases,
however, even words m a y be considered as acts, as in treason or in aiding or abetting another
person to commit a crime. In such cases, it is reasonably argued that some action has taken place.
The omission of a legal duty is also a crime. For example: Suppose a person has a visitor and this
visitor suddenly has a heart attack. As the host fails to call a doctor, his friend dies. In this situation,
the host cannot be convicted for omission of a duty because he was not legally obliged to try to save
his visitor's life. Moral duty will not suffice for prosecution. Now, suppose a person is running a
creche. A child in the creche gets injured, but, the person fails to call a doctor and the child dies. The
owner of the creche can be convicted for omission of his legal duty to save the child's life.
2. The act must be voluntary and committed when the actor has control over his actions. Suppose a
person has a dog and he always keeps it chained. A neighbour's child approaches the dog, teases it
and throws stones at it. The dog breaks the chain and bites the child. The dog-owner cannot be
prosecuted. The case would be different, however, if the man does not chain his dog, knowing
well that it is in the habit of biting people. A visitor, if is bitten by the dog, can file a case against
him.
3. The act should be intentional, whether the intent is general or specific. A person may not have
specific intent to shoot another person and kill him, but he is expected to know that his action might
result in injury or death of others. Thus, if he shoots a person even when having no specific intent to
kill him, he commits a crime because he knows well that his action might injure or cause the death of
a person.
4. The act should be a violation of a criminal law, as distinct from a non-criminal law or civil
 3

and administrative law. This is necessary so that the state can take action against the accused.
Non-criminal laws refer to laws which regulate the rights between individuals and organisations; for
example, divorce laws, contract laws, laws regulating property rights, etc. We can differentiate
between criminal wrongs and non-criminal or civil wrongs. In a criminal wrong, the state brings an
action against the accused wrong-doer, while a non-criminal wrong is a wrong against a particular
individual (and not the state) and it is this individual (against whom the wrong is done) who has to
take action against the wrong-doer.
Some acts, however, may be both criminal and non-criminal and could invite action on the basis of
both criminal and non-criminal laws. For example, a person who assaults another person can be
prosecuted by the state as well as the assaulted person for damages.
5. The act should be committed without defence or justification. Thus, if the act is proved to be in
self- defence or to have been committed in insanity, it will not be considered a crime even if it
causes harm or injury to others. Ignorance of law is usually no defence.
6. The act should be sanctioned by the state as a felony or a misdemeanor. Persons can be
punished only for those acts that may be considered to be socially harmful and for which society has
provided punishment. A child of four who has killed his mother cannot be convicted for crime because
the state has provided no penalty for a child of this age, even if the act is socially harmful.

Elements of Crime
1. Human Being- The first element requires that the wrongful act must be committed by a human
being. In ancient times, when criminal law was largely dominated by the idea of retribution,
punishments were inflicted on animals also for the injury caused by them, for example, a pig was
burnt in Paris for having devoured a child, a horse was killed for having kicked a man. But now, if an
animal causes an injury we hold not the animal liable but its owner liable for such injury. So the first
element of crime is a human being who must be under the legal obligation to act in a particular
manner and should be a fit subject for awarding appropriate punishment. Section 11 of the Indian
Penal Code provides that word ‘person’ includes a company or association or body of persons
whether incorporated or not. The word ‘person’ includes artificial or juridical persons.
2. Mens Rea- The second important essential element of a crime is mens rea or evil intent or guilty
mind. There can be no crime of any nature without mens rea or an evil mind. Every crime requires a
mental element and that is considered as the fundamental principle of criminal liability. The basic
requirement of the principle mens rea is that the accused must have been aware of those
elements in his act which make the crime with which he is charged.
There is a well known maxim in this regard, i.e. “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” which
means that, the guilty intention and guilty act together constitute a crime. It comes from the maxim
that no person can be punished in a proceeding of criminal nature unless it can be showed that he
had a guilty mind.
3. Actus Reus [Guilty Act Or Omission] - The third essential element of a crime is actus reus. In
other words, some overt act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of the guilty intention.
Actus reus is the manifestation of mens rea in the external world. Prof. Kenny was the first writer to
use the term ‘actus reus’. He has defined the term thus- “such result of human conduct as the law
seeks to prevent”.
4. Injury- The fourth requirement of a crime is injury to another person or to the society at large.
The injury should be illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property as according
to Section 44 of IPC, 1860 the injury denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in
body, mind, reputation or property.
 4

Stages Of A Crime
If a person commits a crime voluntarily or after preparation the doing of it involves four different
stages. In every crime, there is first intention to commit it, secondly, preparation to commit it,
thirdly, attempt to commit it and fourthly the accomplishment. The stages can be explained as
under-
1. Intention- Intention is the first stage in the commission of an offence and known as mental stage.
Intention is the direction of conduct towards the object chosen upon considering the motives
which suggest the choice. But the law does not take notice of an intention, mere intention to
commit an offence not followed by any act, cannot constitute an offence. The obvious reason
for not prosecuting the accused at this stage is that it is very difficult for the prosecution to
prove the guilty mind of a person.
2. Preparation- Preparation is the second stage in the commission of a crime. It means to arrange
the necessary measures for the commission of the intended criminal act. Intention alone or the
intention followed by a preparation is not enough to constitute the crime. Preparation has not
been made punishable because in most of the cases the prosecution has failed to prove that
the preparations in the question were made for the commission of the particular crime.
If A purchases a pistol and keeps the same in his pocket duly loaded in order to kill his bitter
enemy B, but does nothing more. A has not committed any offence as still he is at the stage of
preparation and it will be impossible for the prosecution to prove that A was carrying the loaded
pistol only for the purpose of killing B.
3. Attempt- Attempt is the direct movement towards the commission of a crime after the
preparation is made. According to English law, a person may be guilty of an attempt to commit
an offence if he does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the
offence; and a person will be guilty of attempting to commit an offence even though the facts
are such that the commission of the offence is impossible. There are three essentials of an
attempt:-
· Guilty intention to commit an offence;
· Some act done towards the commission of the offence;
· The act must fall short of the completed offence.
4. Accomplishment or Completion- The last stage in the commission of an offence is its
accomplishment or completion. If the accused succeeds in his attempt to commit the crime, he
will be guilty of the complete offence and if his attempt is unsuccessful, he will be guilty of an
attempt only. For example, A fires at B with the intention to kill him, if B dies, A will be guilty for
committing the offence of murder and if B is only injured, it will be a case of attempt to murder.

2. Explain the doctrine of ‘Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea'.
This maxim is important for the determination of criminality of an act or omission. It means that act
does not make a man guilty unless his intention is so. The maxim contains a good deal of truth, as
there could be no crime without the presence of the guilty mind. It has been observed that, “the
maxim is bedrock of the English Common Law of crimes and it amounts to no more and no less than
that all crime is characterized by and necessarily involves, some form of culpable intentionality”.
Or according to Stephen as observed in R. V Sheppard, it means “no more than that the definition of
all or nearly all crimes contains not only an outward and visible element, but a mental element
 5

varying according to the different crimes”. It may be said that the two important elements of crime
examined from the view point of the offender are—
(i) Conduct on his part or act or action which constitutes the physical act which is objective; and
(ii) A guilty state of mind or a mind which is blame-worthy, which is the subjective element usually
inferred from either—
(a) The facts and circumstances of the case; or
(b)On the basis of the proposition that a man intends the natural consequences of his act.

3. What do you understand by Culpable Homicide? In what circumstances Culpable Homicide does
not amount to Murder? What are those exceptions when Culpable Homicide does not amount to
Murder?

The word homicide is derived from two Latin words - homo and cido. Homo means human and cido
means killing by a human. Homicide means killing of a human being by another human being. A
homicide can be lawful or unlawful. Lawful homicide includes situations where a person who has
caused the death of another cannot be blamed for his death. For example, in exercising the right of
private defense or in other situations explained in Chapter IV of IPC covering General Exceptions.
Unlawful homicide means where the killing of another human is not approved or justified by law.
Culpable Homicide is in this category. Culpable means blame worthy. Thus, Culpable Homicide means
killing of a human being by another human being in a blameworthy or criminal manner.
Section 299 of IPC defines Culpable Homicide as follows -
Section 299 - Who ever causes death by doing an act with 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.
Illustrations -
1. A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the
knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z believing the ground to be firm, treads on
it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of Culpable Homicide.
2. A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it. A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be
likely to cause Z's death, induces B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has
committed the offence of Culpable Homicide.
3. A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B who is behind a bush; A not
knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not guilty of
Culpable Homicide, as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an act that he knew
was likely to cause death.
Explanation 1 - A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder,
disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to
have caused his death.
Explanation 2 - Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily
injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and
skillful treatment the death might have been prevented.
Explanation 3 - The causing of the death of child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it
may
amount to Culpable Homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been
brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.
 6

Based upon the above definition, the following are the essential elements of Culpable Homicide -
1. Death of a human being is caused - It is required that the death of a human being is caused.
However, it does not include the death of an unborn child unless any part of that child is
brought forth.
2. By doing an act - Death may be caused by any act for example, by poisoning or by hurting with a
weapon. Here act includes even on omission of an act for which one is obligated by law to do.
For example, if a doctor has a required injection in his hand and he still does not give it to the
dying patient and if the patient dies, the doctor is responsible.
3. Intention or Knowledge - There must be an intention of any of the following -
1. Intention of causing death - The doer of the act must have intended to cause death. As
seen in Illustration 1, the doer wanted or expected someone to die. It is important to note
that intention of causing death does not necessarily mean intention of causing death
of the person who actually died. If a person does an act with an intention of killing B but A
is killed instead, he is still considered to have the intention.
2. Intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death - The intention of the
offender may not have been to cause death but only an injury that is likely to cause the
death of the injured. For example, A might intended only to hit on the skull of a person
so as to make him unconscious, but the person dies. In this case, the intention of the
person was only to cause an injury but the injury is such that it is likely to cause death of
the person. Thus, he is guilty of Culpable Homicide. However, if A hits B with a broken
glass. A did not know that B was haemophilic. B bleeds to death. A is not guilty of Culpable
Homicide but only of grievous hurt because he neither had an intention to kill B nor he
had any intention to cause any bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
Or the act must have been done with the knowledge that such an act may cause death -
When a person does an act which he knows that it has a high probability to cause death,
he is responsible for the death which is caused as a result of the act. For example, A knows
that loosening the brakes of a vehicle has a high probability of causing death of someone.
If B rides such a bike and if he dies, A will be responsible for B's death. In Jamaluddin's
case 1892, the accused, while exorcising a spirit from the body of a girl beat her so much
that she died. They were held guilty of Culpable Homicide.
Negligence - Sometimes even negligence is considered as knowledge. In Kangla 1898, the
accused struck a man whom he believed was not a human being but something
supernatural. However, he did not take any steps to satisfy himself that the person was
not a human being and was thus grossly negligent and was held guilty of Culpable
Homicide.

Murder (When Culpable Homicide amounts to Murder)

Murder is a type of Culpable Homicide where culpability of the accused is quite more than in a
mere Culpable Homicide. Section 300, says that Culpable Homicide is Murder if the act by which
the death is caused is done
1. with the intention of causing death
2. or with an intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause
the death of the person,
3. or with an intention of causing such bodily injury as is sufficient in ordinary course of nature
to cause death.
 7

4. It is also Murder if the person committing the act knows that the act is so dangerous that it
will cause death or such injury as is likely to cause death in all probability and he has no valid
reason for doing that act.
Illustrations -
A shoots Z with an intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits Murder.
A intentionally gives Z a sword cut that sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Z
dies because of the cut. A commits Murder even though he had no intention to kill Z.
A without any excuse fires a loaded canon on a crowd. One person dies because of it. A
commits Murder even though he had no intention to kill that person.
Thus, it can be seen that Murder is very similar to Culpable Homicide and many a times it is
difficult to differentiate between them. J Melvill in the case of R vs Govinda 1876 Bom.
analyzed both in the following table –
Culpable Homicide Murder
A person commits Culpable Homicide if A person commits Murder if the act by which death
the act by which death is caused is done - is caused is done -

1. with the intention of causing death. 1. with the intention of causing death.

2.with an intention to cause such bodily injury as

the offender knows to be likely to cause death of the
2. with an intention to cause such bodily person to whom the harm is caused.
injury as is likely to cause death. 3. with an intention of causing bodily injury to any
person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted
is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause
death.

3. with the knowledge that such an act is 4. With the knowledge that the act is so imminently
likely to cause death. dangerous that it must in all probability cause
death.

Based on this table, he pointed out the difference - when death is caused due to bodily injury, it is the
probability of death due to that injury that determines whether it is Culpable Homicide or Murder. If
death is only likely it is Culpable Homicide, if death is highly probable, it is Murder.
In Augustine Saldanha vs State of Karnataka LJ 2003, SC deliberated on the difference of Culpable
Homicide and Murder. SC observed that in the scheme of the IPC Culpable Homicide is genus and
Murder its specie. All 'Murder' is 'Culpable Homicide' but not vice-versa.

Situations where Culpable Homicide does not amount to Murder: Section 300 also specifies certain
situations when the Murder is considered as Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder. These are -
1. If the offender does an act that causes death because of grave and sudden provocation by the
other. (Exception I) - Culpable Homicide is not Murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of
self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the
provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. The
above exception is subject to the following provisos -
 8

1. That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for
killing or doing harm to any person.
2. That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public
servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
3. That the provocations not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private
defence.
Explanation-Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from
amounting to Murder is a question of fact.
Illustrations
1. A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills,
Y, Z's child. This is Murder, in as much as the provocation was not given by the child,
and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act
caused by the provocation.
2. Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y,
neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of
sight. A kills Z. Here A has not committed Murder, but merely Culpable Homicide.
3. A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the
arrest, and kills Z. This Murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing
done by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.
4. A appears as a witness before Z, a Magistrate, Z says that he does not believe a word of
A's deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these
words, and kills Z. This is Murder.
5. A attempts to pull Z's nose, Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold of
a to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in
consequence, and kills Z. This is Murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a
thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
6. Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending to
take advantage of B's rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B's hand for
that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only Culpable
Homicide, but A is guilty of Murder.

2. If the offender causes death while exceeding the right to private defense in good faith.
(Exception 2) - Culpable Homicide is not Murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the
right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes
the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without
premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose
of such defence. Illustration – Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause
grievous hurt to A. draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he
can by no other means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not
committed Murder, but only Culpable Homicide.

3. If the offender is a public servant and does an act that he, in good faith, believes to be lawful.
(Exception 3)- Culpable Homicide is not Murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a
public servant acting or the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by
law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary
for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person
 9

whose death is caused.

4. If the act happens in a sudden fight in the heat of passion.(Exception 4) - Culpable Homicide is
not Murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a
sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or
unusual manner.
Explanation-It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first
assault.
In a very recent case of Byvarapu Raju vs State of AP 2007, SC held that in a Murder case, there
cannot be any general rule to specify whether the quarrel between the accused and the deceased
was due to a sudden provocation or was premeditated. "It is a question of fact and whether a
quarrel is sudden or not, must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case," a bench of
judges Arijit Pasayat and D K Jain observed while reducing to 10 years the life imprisonment of a
man accused of killing his father. The bench passed the ruling while upholding an appeal filed by
one Byvarapu Raju who challenged the life sentence imposed on him by a session's court and later
affirmed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court for killing his 'drunkard' father.

5. If the deceased is above 18 and the death is caused by his own consent.(Exception 5)-
Culpable Homicide is not Murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of
eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
Illustration - A, by instigation, voluntarily causes, Z, a person under eighteen years of age to
commit suicide. Here, on account of Z's youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own
death; A has therefore abetted Murder.

4. What are the main ingredients of the offence of Grievous hurt? Distinguish
between Hurt and Grievous Hurt.

Hurt generally means injury on the body of a person. It is such an injury which causes bodily pain or
disease or infirmity or fracture or disfigurement of face etc.
There are two kinds of Hurt:-
1. Simple Hurt :- simple hurt is defined under section 319 of IPC whereas the grievous hurt has been
defined under section 320. Simple hurt causes simple injury with simple bodily pain, while grievous
hurt causes serious injury and serious pain in the body too.
DEFINITION OF SIMPLE HURT: Section 319 says that,” whoever causes bodily injury or pain or disease
or infirmity by an act to any other person, such act is called simple hurt. Section 319 contains the
following ingredients:-
a) Bodily Pain:- The words show that there must be some pain in the body of a person. It means
mental paid does not come under bodily pain. Any such injury which causes pain on any external
part of body comes under simple hurt.
b) Disease : Disease means any illness. By such act which creates weakness and if a man comes into
contract of any disease then it will come under simple hurt.
c) Infirmity:- Infirmity means by illness. By such act which creates weakness in the body, comes
under simple hurt.
d) To any other Person : The hurt must be caused to any other person not to himself. In this way, in
a simple hurt there is no need of physical contact. A hurt may be caused by any mean or method.
 10

Such hurt must cause bodily pain or disease or infirmity. Such hurt must be caused to another
person and not to himself.
e) Section 319 does not show that there must be direct physical contact with another person for
committing simple hurt.

Example 1
A, a person beats B with a stick in order to get his work done. Here A is causing hurt
to B by giving him bodily pain.
In the State vs Ramesh Dass on 22 May 2015 In a hospital, passing through the
corridor, in the new surgical block location, an unknown public individual came from
the front and attacked the woman. That individual pulled her hair and threw her to
the ground. He hit her on her head together with his hand. Accused was convicted for
the offences under Section 341 and 323 of the IPC and acquitted for the offence
under Section 354 of the IPC.

Example 2
A, a person suffering from communicable disease deliberately comes in contact
with another person B to make him infected. Here A is causing hurt to B.
In Raka vs. Emperor, the accused was a prostitute and she inflicted syphilis to her
customers. It was held that accused, the prostitute was liable under Section 269 of
IPC- negligent act likely to spread infection of any disease dangerous to the life of
another person

Example 3
A knows that B has a weak heart. He deliberately goes to B in the early morning and
gives him news that his son has committed suicide. And B, in consequence of this
shock, faces heart attack. A has caused hurt.
Jashanmal Jhamatmal vs Brahmanand Swarupanand [AIR 1944 Sind 19]: In this
situation, the respondent has been evicted with the aid of the owner. He attempts to
get revenge via vacating others from that constructing too. Respondent later
confronted with A’s spouse with a pistol in his hand.

Grievous Hurt : There are various kinds of grievous hurt which have been defined in section 320 in
IPC. Thus a hurt is more than a slightly causing harm as defined in section 95 of IPC and less the
culpable homicide. If the hurt results into death and fulfils the conditions of section 299 then it
becomes culpable homicide, otherwise it grievous hurt.
The grievous hurt can be classified/designated as under :-
a. Emasculation : The destruction of private organ of a human being is known as
emasculation. Any injury which makes a person incapable for functioning of the private
organ, person comes under grievous hurt.
b. Permanent privation of the sight of either eye: if there is privation or separation or
destruction either eye of a person, is grievous hurt.
c. Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear: Similarly the destruction or separation of
either ear is grievous hurt. Here the power of hearing must be affected. The eye and ears are
the main functional organs of a human being. They have is an important role in the life.
d. Privation of any member or joint: Privation of any member or joint also comes under
grievous hurt.
e. Destruction or permanent loss of the power of any member or joint:- If there is destruction
of any member of joint of the body then it is also a grievous hurt or if any member or joint
fails to work properly then also it will comes under grievous hurt.
 11

f. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face :- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face
means to cause such an injury on the head or face that they look bad or head becomes
crucial.
g. Fracture or dislocation of Bone or tooth:- When any bone or tooth is dislocated it means
they loss their original place. Fracture of any bones comes under grievous hurt.
h. When there is such hurt which endangers to life or which causes pain continuously for a
period of 20 days. Endanger to life means there must be death from such hurt. If the death
is caused by grievous then it will not be culpable homicide or murder because there is no
intention to cause death. So any hurt to create danger to life is also called grievous hurt.
In the case of Palani Goudon v/s Emperor Madras. It was held by a full bench of the
Madras High Court that the accused was guilty of either murder or culpable homicide
not amounting to murder. However Their Lordship held that on the facts found the accused
could not be convicted either of murder or culpable homicide, he could of course be
punished both of his original assault on his wife and for his attempt to create false evidence
by hanging her. He was convicted under section 326 Of IPC.
PUNISHMENT FOR SIMPLE & GRIEVOUS HURT:
Section 323 : Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt is one year or fine or with both.
Section 325: For voluntarily causing grievous hurt, the punishment is 7 years with fine.
Section 326: Whoever except the case provided for by sec. 335 voluntarily causes grievous hurt by
means or any instrument for shooting or cut or any instrument which is used as a weapon of offence
is likely to cause death or by means of fire. Punishment imprisonment of life, it is ten years with fine.

Difference between hurt and Grievous Hurt

1. Section 319 defines Hurt.
Section 320 explains the eight categories of grievous hurt.
2. Simple hurt does not endanger to life. It is not serious. Grievous Hurt may cause
endanger to life.
3. Simple hurt includes bodily pain, disease and infirmity. It may also include mental shock.
Grievous hurt is serious in its nature.
4. Hurt is punishable, when it is accompanied with other offences, such as voluntarily
causing hurt, etc.
Grievous hurt itself is punishable offence. Punishment increases depending upon the
nature of the Grievous Hurt.
5. Injuries caused with burning fire wood do not endanger life, and therefore, do not fall
within the injuries specified in Sec. 320. Emasculation, permanent privation of sight of
either eye, or hearing of either ear, etc. are Grievous hurts.
6. Where the knife injury though was on the vital part of the body, but the depth of the
injury was not given. X-ray reports also did not show any bone cut. The injury was held
simple. The Court convicted the accused u/s. 324.
The accused fired on the neck of the victim. It resulted in bleeding for three hours. It
is a Grievous hurt. The accused is punishable u/s 326.
7. An injury, which cannot be endangering to life, is not a grievous hurt, but is a simple
hurt. An injury, if it endangers life, is a Grievous hurt.
8. The accused stabbed with a sharp-edged weapon on abdomen of victim. The doctor said
that the injury touched interior surface of the stomach, but did not touch any important
organ or structure. He also stated that it could not endanger life. The injury was treated
 12

as a simple hurt.
The accused trusted a lathi into anus of the victim. The Court treated it as a Grievous hurt.

Conclusion
As observed above, ‘Hurt’ is mischief, injuring, torment, irritation, throbbing,
inconvenience, hurting, stinging, throbbing, aches. In every single criminal court,
the greater part of the cases is ‘deliberately causing hurt’ cases. When there is a
neighbourly settlement between the gatherings in non-compoundable hurt cases like
324 and 326 IPC, it is apparent from the decisions of our legal executive and judiciary
that tolerant view is being taken. The Law Commission in its 237th report prescribes
that Section 324 IPC ought to be inducted into the ambit of Section 320 CrPC and it
ought to hold its unique situation in Table 2 attached to sub-section (2) thereof.
Medicinal narrative confirmations like medico-legal reports on harms arranged by
the restorative specialists are significant for the courts in making their lawful
decisions. The kind of wounds and weapons, lawful classes of damages and their
ages must be explicitly noted in the damage reports: Medicolegal preparing and
encounters fortify the capacities of the restorative master observers.

5. Specify the offences against which the right to private defence can be executed.
Indicate the limits within which the right to private defence should be exercised.

It is said that the law of self defence is not written but is born with us. We do not learn it or acquire it
somehow but it is in our nature to defend and protect ourselves from any kind of harm. When one is
attacked by robbers, one cannot wait for law to protect oneself. Bentham has said that fear of law
can never restrain bad men as much as the fear of individual resistance and if you take away this right
then you become accomplice of all bad men.
IPC incorporates this principle in section 96, which says, Nothing is an offence which is done in the
exercise of the right of private defence.
It makes the acts, which are otherwise criminal, justifiable if they are done while exercising the right
of private defence. Normally, it is the accused who takes the plea of self defence but the court is
also bound to take cognizance of the fact that the accused acted in self defence, if such evidence
exists.
In Section 97 through 106, IPC defines the characteristics and scope of private defence in various
situations.
Section 97 - Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to
defend - first - his own body or body of any other person against any offence affecting the human
body. second - the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person,
against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal
trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.
This allows a person to defend his or anybody else's body or property from being unlawfully harmed.
Under English law, the right to defend the person and property against unlawful aggression was
limited to the person himself or kindred relations or to those having community of interest e.g. parent
and child, husband and wife, landlord and tenant, etc. However, this section allows this right to
defend an unrelated person's body or property as well. Thus, it is apt to call it as right to private
defence instead of right to self defence.
 13

It is important to note that the right exists only against an act that is an offence. There is no right to
defend against something that is not an offence. For example, a policeman has the right to handcuff
a person on his belief that the person is a thief and so his act of handcuffing is not an offence and
thus the person does not have any right under this section.
Similarly, an aggressor does not have this right. An aggressor himself is doing an offence and even if
the person being aggressed upon gets the better of the aggressor in the exercise of his right to self
defence, the aggressor cannot claim the right of self defence. As held by SC in Mannu vs State of UP
AIR 1979, when the deceased was way laid and attacked by the accused with dangerous weapons the
question of self defence by the accused did not arise.
The right to private defence of the body exists against any offence towards human body, the right to
private defence of the property exists only against an act that is either theft, robbery, mischief, or
criminal trespass or is an attempt to do the same.
Restrictions on right to private defence : As with any right, the right to private defence is not an
absolute right and is neither unlimited. It is limited by the following restrictions imposed by section
99 -
Section 99 - There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the
apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant
acting in good faith under colour of his office though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law.
There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the
apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a
public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office though that direction may not be
strictly justifiable by law.
There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the
protection of the public authorities.
Extent to which the right may be exercised - The right of private defence in no case extends to the
inflicting of more harm that it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.

Upon carefully examining this section, we can see that the right to private defence is not available
in the following conditions -
1. when an act is done by a public servant or upon his direction and the act
I. is done under colour of his office - an off duty police officer does not have the right to
search a house and right to private defence is available against him. A police officer carrying
out a search without a written authority, cannot be said to be acting under colour of his
office. If the act of a public servant is ultra vires, the right of private defence may be
exercised against him.
II. the act does not cause the apprehension of death or grievous hurt - for example, a police
man beating a person senselessly can cause apprehension of grievous hurt and the
person has the right of private defence against the policeman.
III. is done under good faith - there must be a reasonable cause of action on part of the public
servant. For example, a policeman cannot just pick anybody randomly and put him in jail as
a suspect for a theft. There must be some valid ground upon which he bases his suspicion.
IV. the act is not wholly unjustified - The section clearly says that the act may not be strictly
justified by law, which takes care of the border line cases where it is not easy to determine
whether an act is justified by law. It clearly excludes the acts that are completely
unjustified. For example, if a policeman is beating a person on the street on mere suspicion
of theft, his act is clearly unjustified and the person has the right to defend himself.
 14

However, this right is curtailed only if the person knows or has reasons to believe that the
act is being done by a public servant. For example, if A tries to forcibly evict B from an
illegally occupied premises, and if B does not know and neither does he have any reason to
believe that A is a public servant or that A is acting of the direction of an authorized
public servant, B has the right to private defence. In Kanwar Singh's case 1965, a
team organized by the municipal corporation was trying to round up stray cattle and was
attacked by the accused. It was held that the accused had no right of private
defence against the team.

Right to private defence of body up to causing death

Section 100 of IPC specifies six situations in which the right of private defence of body extends even to
causing death.
Section 100- The right of private defence of the body extends under the restrictions mentioned in
section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant if the offence which
occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions here in after enumerated, namely -
First - such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the
consequence of such assault.
Second - such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise
be the consequence of such assault.
Third - An assault with the intention of committing rape.
Fourth - An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust.
Fifth - As assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting.
Sixth - An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person under circumstances which
may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public
authorities for his release.
Even though this section authorizes a person to cause death of another in certain situation, it is also
subject to the same restrictions as given in section 99. Thus, a person cannot apply more force than
necessary and must contact the authorities if there is an opportunity.
Duration of the right of private defence of body: Section 102 specifies the duration of the right
of private defence of the body as follows -
Section 102- The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable
apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence, though
the offence may not have been committed and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to
the body continues.
The right to defend the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body
arises and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.
Right to private defence of property up to causing death
Section 103 of IPC specifies four situations in which the right of private defence of property
extends even to causing death.
Section 103 - The right of private defence of property extends, under the restriction mentioned in
section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the wrong doer, if the offence,
the committing of which, or attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right, be an
offence of any of the descriptions here in after enumerated, namely -
First - Robbery
Secondly - House breaking by night.
Third - Mischief by fire committed on any building, tent, or vessel, which building tent or vessel is
 15

used as a human dwelling or as a place for custody of property.

Fourth - Theft, mischief or house trespass under such circumstances as may reasonably cause
apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the consequence if such right of private defence is
not exercised.
Duration of the right of private defence of property: Section 105 specifies the duration of the right of
private defence of the property as follows -
Section 105- The right of private defence of the property commences as soon as a reasonable
apprehension of danger to the property commences. It continues -
In case of theft - till the offender has affected his retreat with the property or either the assistance
of the public authorities is obtained or the property has been recovered.
In case of robbery- as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or
wrongful restraint or as long as the fear of instant death or of instance hurt or of instance personal
restraint continues.
In case of criminal trespass- as long as the offender continues in the commision of criminal trespass or
mischief.
In case of house breaking by night- as long as the house, trespass which has been begun by such
house breaking, continues.
The case of Amjad Khan vs State AIR 1952, is important. In this case, a criminal riot broke out in the
city. A crowd of one community surrounded the shop of A, belonging to other community. The crowd
started beating the doors of A with lathis. A then fired a shot which killed B, a member of the crowd.
Here, SC held that A had the right of private defence which extended to causing of death because the
accused had reasonable ground to apprehend that death or grievous hurt would be caused to his
family

6. Provisions of General Exceptions.

General Exceptions under IPC
The criminal law covers various punishments which vary from case to case but it is
not always necessary that the person gets punished for a crime which he/she had
committed. The IPC recognises defence in chapter 4 of the Indian penal code under
General exceptions from section 76- section 106 which covers these defences for the
presumption that a person is not liable for the committed offence. These defences
depend upon the circumstances prevailing at that point of time, mens rea of person
and reason of actions that accused.

Introduction:
Every offence is not absolute, they have certain exceptions. When IPC was drafted, it
was assumed that there were no exceptions in criminal cases which was a major
loophole. So a separate chapter 4 was introduced by the maker of the IPC.
In short, the main objective of Chapter IV includes:
Exceptional circumstances in which an individual can escape his or her liability.
Making Code construction simpler by removing the repetition of criminal law
exceptions.

Burden of proof:
A Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused.
Before the enforcement of the Indian Evidence Act 1882, the prosecution had to
 16

prove that the case does not fall under any exception, but section 105 of
Evidence act shifted the burden on the claimant.
But in exceptions, as per section 105 of evidence Act 1882, a claimant has to prove
the existence of general exception in crimes.
The general exceptions are divided into two categories:
Excusable Acts
Judicially Justifiable Acts

Excusable Acts: An Excusable Act is the one in which the harm should be caused by a
person yet that person should be excused because he cannot be blamed for the act.
For example, if a person of unsound mind or insane commits a crime, he can’t be
held responsible for that because he was not having men rea. Same goes for
involuntary intoxication, insanity, infancy or honest mistake of fact.

Section76: Mistake of Facts: Under Section 76: Act done by a person bound by or by
mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law is included. Nothing is an
offence which is done by a person who is or by reason of a mistake of fact, not done
by a mistake of law in good faith believes himself, to be, bound by law to do such act.
It is derived from the legal maxim “ignorantia facti doth excusat, ignorantia juris non
excusat”. Example: If a soldier firing on a mob by the order of his officer in
conformity or through command of the law then he will not be liable for his act.

Under Section 79: Act done by a person justified or by a mistake of facts believing,
himself justified, by law is included. Nothing is an offence which is done by any
person who is justified by in the court of law or who by reason of mistake of fact and
not mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing that
particular act. Case law for Section 79, In Kiran Bedi vs state of inquiry, petitioner
refused to deposed to the beginning of the inquiry as she believed that she could
depose only at the end of an inquiry.

Accident under section 80: An accident committed while doing a lawful act is not an
offence which is done by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention or
knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with
proper care and caution. Case law for section 80: King Emperor vs Timmappa, a
division bench held that shooting with an unlicensed gun does not debar an accused
from claiming defence of his or her crime under Section 81 of IPC.

Section 82 and 83: Infancy

Section 82: It includes an act of a child below seven years of age is not an
offence. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.

Section 83: It includes an act of a child above seven and below twelve of age who
is immature. Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of
age and under twelve, who has not yet attained sufficient maturity of understanding
to judge the nature and repercussions of his conduct during that occasion when
crime had performed. In Krishna Bhagwan Vs State of Bihar, Patna High Court
upheld that if a child who is accused of an offence during the trial, has attained the
age of seven years can be convicted if he has the understanding and the knowledge
of the offence committed by him.

Section 84 Insanity – Act of a person of unsound mind is not is an offence which is

done by a person who at that time is going to perform it, by reason of
unsoundness of mind and is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is
 17

doing what is either wrong or against the law. Case law of section 84: In
Ashiruddin Ahmed vs. State, the accused Ashiruddin was ordered by someone in
paradise to sacrifice his own son who was of 4 years of age. Next morning he took his
son to a Mosque and killed him and then went straight to his uncle, but finding a
chowkidar, took the uncle nearby a tank and told him the story. Supreme court said
that accused can claim a defence because he knew the nature of act but did not
know what was wrong.

Intoxication: Section 85 and 86

Section 85: Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication which
is caused against his will is not an offence which is done by a person who at the
time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the
act, or that person is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law, provided that
the thing which intoxicated that person was administered involuntarily without
that person’s will or knowledge.

Section 86: Offence requiring a particular intention or knowledge committed by one

who is intoxicated. This applies to cases where an act done is not an offence unless
done with a particular knowledge or intention, a person who does the act in state of
intoxication, shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he
would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated hin
was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will but if it will be
intentionally then the person is not liable to take this defence. Case law for section
86: In Babu Sadashiv Jadhav case, the accused was drunk and fought with the wife. He
poured kerosene and set her on fire and started extinguishing the fire. The court
held that he intended to cause bodily injury which was likely to cause death under
section 299 (sentenced her under section 304, Part I of code).

Justifiable Acts:
A justified act is one which would have been wrongful under normal condition but
circumstances under which the act was committed makes it acceptable.

Section 77 and 78:

Section77: Act of the judge when acting judicially then there is nothing an offence
which is done by a judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power
which is in good faith, he believes to be and given to him by law. Example: Giving
Capital Punishment to Ajmal Kasab was done under the judicial powers of judges
which is given to him by law.

Section 78: Act done pursuant to the Judgement or order of the court is not an
offence, which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by the judgment or
order of, a court of justice, if done whilst such judgment or order remains in force, is
an offence and the court may have no jurisdiction to pass such judgment or order,
provided the person doing the act in good faith believes that the court had such
jurisdiction.

Necessity: Section 81 Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intentions,
and to prevent other harm is not an offence merely by reason of its being done with
the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm if it is done without any criminal
intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding
other harm to person or property.
Case law for section 81: In Bishambher Vs Roomal, 1950, the complainant
Bishambhara had molested a girl Nathia. Khacheru, Mansukh, and Nathu were
 18

accused related to father of the girl. The Chamars were agitated and determined
to punish Bhishambher. Rumal Singh, Fateh Singh, and Balwant Singh intervened
and tried to bring a settlement. They collected a panchayat and the complainant’s
written and given shoe beating to them. It was found by the court that accused had
intervened in good faith but the panchayat was having no authority to take such a
step against him.

Consent under Section 87-89 and Section 92:

Section 87: Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous
hurt, done by consent. It is not an offence which is not intended to cause death,
or grievous hurt, and which is not known by the person who has committed and
which is likely to cause death or grievous hurt, is an offence by reason of any harm
which it may cause, or to be intended by the doer to cause, to any person, above 18
years of age, who has given consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that
harm; or by reason of any harm which it may be known by the person to be likely to
cause to any harm who has consented the risk. Case law: Poonai Fattemah vs
Emperor.

Section 88: Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for
person’s benefit. Case law: RP Dhanda Vs Bhurelal, the operation performed by a doctor
for an eye with the consent of the patient and the operation resulted in the loss of
eyesight. The doctor has protected under this section as he acted in good faith.

Section 89: Act done in good faith for the benefit of child or insane person by consent
of the guardian is not an offence and a person can take this defence.

Section 90: Consent known to be given under fear or misconception is not a consent
under this section. Consent of an insane person is not a valid consent. Consent
given in intoxication or given in unsoundness of mind is not a valid consent. Case
law: Jakir Ali vs State of Assam.

Section 92: Act done in good faith for the benefit of a person in a good faith.Nothing
is an offence by reason of any harm which may causes to a person for whose benefit
is done in good faith.

Communication under section 93: Communication made in good faith. Any

communication made in good faith is not an offence by reason of any harm to the
person to whom it is made if it is made for the benefit of that person.

Duress under Section 94: Act to which a person is compelled by threats. Except
murder, and offences against the state punishable with death, nothing is an offence
which done by a person compelled to do it under threats, which, at the time of
doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person will
otherwise be the consequence, provided the person doing the act did not of his
own accord, or from reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant
death, place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint.

Trifles under Section 95: Act causing slight harm is included under this section. It is
not an offence if by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is
known to be likely to cause, any harm if that harm is so slight that no person of
ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.

Private Defence under section 96-106:

 19

Section 96: Things done in private defence. Nothing is an offence in which person
harms another person in the exercise of another person.

Section 97: Right of private defence of body and property. Every person has right to
private defence with some restrictions:
Protecting his or her body or protecting others body against any offence in which
there is a danger to life.
Protecting his or her personal property and another’s property of movable and
immovable nature against theft, robbery mischief or trespass.
Case law: Akonti Bara vs State of Assam, the Gauhati high court held that exercising
the right of private defence of property the act of throwing out a trespasser right to
throw away the material object also with which the trespass has been committed.

Section 98: Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind.

Section 99: Acts against which there is no right of private defence.

 There is no right of private defence against the act which does not
reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt , if done.
 Attempted to be done by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of
his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law.
 There is no right of private defence in cases where there is time to have
recourse to the protection of public authorities.
 The harm caused should be proportional to that if imminent danger or
attack. Case law: Puran Singh Vs State of Punjab

Section 100: When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing injury.
i. Assault causing reasonable apprehension of death. ii. Reasonable apprehension
of grievous hurt iii. Committing rape iv. Unnatural lust v. Kidnapping or abducting
vi. Wrongfully confining a person in which a person is not been able to contact
public authority. vii. Act of throwing or attempting to throw acid.

Rights extending to causing any harm other than death: Section 101: If the offence
be not of any If the offence be not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last
preceding section, the right of private defence of the body does not extend to the
voluntarily causing of death, but does extends under the restrictions mentioned in
section 99.

Commencement and continuance the right if private defence of the body: Section
102 The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable
apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or a threat to commit
the offence though the offence may not have been committed if it continues as long
as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.

Section 103: When right if private defence of the property extends to causing death:
Robbery
House breaking in night
Mischief by fire committed on any building
Theft, house trespass or mischief under such circumstances as may reasonably
cause apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be consequences if right of
private defence is not performed.

Section 104: When such rights extend to causing harm other than hurt: If the offence,
the committing or the attempting to commit which occasions the exercise of the right
 20

of private defence, be theft, mischief, or criminal trespass, not of any of the

descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section, that right does not extend
to the voluntary causing of death, but does extend, subject to the restrictions
mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing to the wrong-doer of any harm
other than death.

Section 105: Commencement and continuous of the right of private defence of

property: The right of private defence of the property commences when:
A reasonable apprehension of the commencement of the danger to the property.
The right of private defences of the property against theft continues until the
offender has affected his retreat with the property.
Either the assistance of the public authority is obtained.
Or, the property has been recovered.
The right of the private defence of the property against robbery continues as long as
the offender causes or attempt to cause to any person death or hurt.
As long as the fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant personal restrain
continues.  The right of private defence of the property against criminal trespass or
mischief continues.

Section 106: Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is a risk of
harm to innocent person: If the exercise of exercise of private defence against an
assault, a person causes apprehension of death, which defender has no choice
but harming an innocent person his right will extend to that running of risk.

Conclusion:
So these are the general exceptions Section 76 to 106 are available for the accused
to escape liability or save themselves from the offence committed. It may extend to
harm the innocent person or death of that person depending upon the
circumstances. These exceptions are provided so as to represent oneself to the court
of law.

7. Ingredients of theft. How does it differ from extortion, robbery and dishonest
misappropriation of property?

Ans.: -
Property is mainly divided into two parts, namely movable and immovable. Any
offence which is committed in regard to any property whether it is movable or
immovable is punishable under the provisions of the law of Crimes or the Indian
Penal Code [IPC]. These offences and the punishments relating to them are explained
in details in sections 378 to 460 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. XLV of
1860).
The offences which are mainly recognized in the IPC are ten in number
Theft.
Extortion.
Robbery and dacoity.
Criminal misappropriation of property.
Criminal breach of trust.
Receiving stolen property
Cheating.
Fraudulent deed and disposition of property.
 21

Mischief.
Criminal trespass

Sec. 378: Theft

Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the
possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in
order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

Explanation 1 - A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable

property, is not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of
theft as soon as it is severed from the earth.

Explanation 2 - A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle

which prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as
by actually moving it.

Explanation 3 - A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to

move that animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so
caused, is moved by that animal.

Explanation 4 - The consent mentioned in the definition may be expressed or implied,

and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for
that purpose authority either express or implied.

Essential Ingredients of Theft

The absence of the persons consent at the time of moving and the presence of
dishonest intention in so taking at the time, are the essential ingredients of the
offence of theft (K.N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1957 SC 369).
Intending to take dishonestly - Dishonest intention exists when the person so taking
the property intends to cause wrongful gain (even temporary) to himself or wrongful
loss to theother; either is sufficient. This intention is known as animus furandi
(intention to steal) and without it the offence of theft is not complete. Thus, where
a respectable person just pinches the cycle of another person, as his own cycle at
the time was missing and brings it back, it was held that no theft was committed by
him.

Theft by wife: Where a wife removes the property of her husband left in her custody
from his house with dishonest intention, she commits theft. However, a Hindu woman
does not commit theft by removing her stridhan out of the custody of her husband.

Theft by servant: A servant is not guilty of theft when what he does is at his masters
bidding, unless he participates in his masters knowledge of the dishonest nature
of the acts.
Any movable property - A boat, valuable security, a Hindu idol, stones or sand or
minerals when severed from earth is movable property. There is no theft of wild
animals, birds, etc. at large, but there is a theft of tamed animals. A human body,
whether living or dead, cannot be the subject of theft.
Taking out of the possession of another person - It does not matter for the
purposes of theft that the person from whose possession the property is taken is not
the true owner or has an apparent and not real title to the property. Possession and
not ownership is the essential element in the offence. A theft is a theft. Thus, where a
person steals a thing from a thief he is guilty of theft.
Removing ornaments from a dead body cannot be taking property out of possession
 22

of a person and thus not a theft, but it is a criminal misappropriation, as also in

the case of picking up a lost property. Where the owner removes a property
which has been attached by the court, he has committed a theft.
Taking out of possession of another person may not be permanent or with the
intention to appropriate things. In Pyare Lai v. State (AIR 1963 SC 1094) held that it
would satisfy the definition of theft if he took away any movable property out of
possession of another person though he intends to return it later on. However, under
the English law, the property must be taken to deprive another permanently. In the
above case, the appellant was a Superintendent in a Government office.
He removed a file to his house and made it available to an outsider who
tampered with the documents. The appellant returned the file to the office. Held,
that a temporary period of deprivation or dispossession of the property of
another causes loss to the other. In K.N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1957 SC 369),
the accused took out an LAF plane for an unauthorised flight, even temporarily, was
held guilty.

Taking without consent - Consent obtained by false representation which leads to a

misconception of facts will not be a valid consent.
Moving property in order to such taking - Till the property is moved, no offence of
theft can be committed even if the alleged offender had intended to take dishonestly
the property out of the possession of any person without his consent.
Aggravated Forms of Theft
Theft in any building, tent or vessel used as human dwelling or for the custody of
property: Sec. 380.
Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of his master: Sec. 381.
Theft after preparation made for causing death, or hurt or restraint or fear of death,
etc. to any person in order to the committing of such theft, or the effecting of escape
afterwards or the retaining of property taken by such theft: Sec. 382.

Difference between Theft and Extortion

As to consent
In extortion, consent is obtained by putting the person in possession of property in
fear of injury to himself or any other person. In theft, the offender’s intention is to
take the property without the owner’s consent.
Element of force
There is element of force in the offence of extortion as the property is obtained by
putting a person in fear of injury to that person or any other. There is no element of
force in theft. Scope
Extortion is wider in scope as it covers any kind of property, valuable security or
anything that maybe converted into valuable security. Theft covers only the cases of
moveable property.
Property
In extortion, both moveable and immovable property may be the subject of the
offence. In theft it is limited only to moveable property.
Effect
In extortion, the property is delivered. In theft, there is dishonest removal of
property.
Taking of Property
In extortion, threat may be by one person and the property may be received by
another person. In theft, property must be move by a person in order to such taking.

Difference between Theft and Robbery

“Theft” and “robbery” are common terms that refer to taking money or personal
 23

property without permission, but they don’t mean the same thing. The crimes of theft
and robbery can easily be confused because both involve taking someone else’s
money or property. However, while theft and robbery share some characteristics, the
offences are quite different.
Robbery differs from theft primarily in that it involves force or intimidation to take
property from another person. It is the use of force that makes robbery, in most
cases, the more serious crime.
Like theft, robbery involves taking money or property without permission. However,
the crime of robbery also involves force or the threat of force. The typical elements
of robbery are someone taking money or property:
with the intent to keep the property permanently
without the property owner’s consent
by the use of force or intimidation.
Presence of Victim
Someone can commit theft even by taking unattended property. A couple examples
are taking cash left on a restaurant table and stealing a parked car.

Robbery, unlike theft, entails taking property directly from a person. For instance,
suppose two men armed with guns enter a bank, demand money from a teller,
and flee with the cash. Because they had intent to steal, used the threat of force,
and took money directly from a person, the two men have committed robbery.

Difference between Theft and dishonest misappropriation of Property

The Offences of Theft and Criminal Misappropriation are given under the head of
crime against property in IPC. Theft can be defined as an act of taking any movable
property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent,
moves that property for taking its possession. Whereas, Criminal
Misappropriation can be defined as an act of converting or misappropriating any
movable property with dishonest intention for his own use. Both the offences deal
with the movable property.

Basis Theft Criminal Misappropriation

Provision Offence of theft is defined Offence of Criminal Misappropriation is

under IPC under section 378 of Indian defined under section 403 of Indian
Penal Code, 1860 Penal Code, 1860
Intention In Theft, the initial taking of In Criminal Misappropriation, the initial
the property is always step of taking property may be innocent
unlawful. The intention and lawful. Dishonest intention
behind such act is develops
always dishonest. subsequently.
Consent In theft, property is moved In Criminal Misappropriation, the owner
without the consent or might have come into possession of the
knowledge of the owner. property with the express consent of
the
owner or by some casualty.
Commissio In theft, the moving of In Criminal Misappropriation, the
n of offence property is itself an offence. offence is said to be committed when
the property is converted or
misappropriated with dishonest
intention for offender’s own use. Mere
moving of property not constitute the
 24

offence.
Right of In theft, the right of the Un Criminal Misappropriation, the there
Possession possession is violated by the is no such infringement of right of
wrongdoer. possession as the offender is already in
the possession
of the property.

Punishmen Offence of theft is Offence of Criminal Misappropriation is

t punishable with punishable with imprisonment of either
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent
description for a term which to 2 years or with fine, or with both
may extent to 3 years or (Sec.403,IPC)
with
fine,or with both (Sec.379,IPC)

8. What is defamation? What defences are available to a person who is

charged with the offence of defamation?
Defamation
The term defamation is derived from the Latin word “Diffamare’ which means
‘spreading evil or bad information about someone. As per the Black law
dictionary, defamation is an offence wherein a person’s character, fame, or
reputation is injured by false and malicious statements. In simple terms, under
defamation, one person publicizes or issues a statement that is derogatory or untrue
in nature with the sole objective of destroying the image of that person in the
society, workplace, etc.
Example: Rahul posted a comment on Vivek’s post that he had been in prison for 5
years in a murder case. Now, if any person reads this comment on the post, then
he will definitely think that Vivek is a criminal and he spent 5 years in jail. This can
totally tarnish the image of Vivek because no one will give him respect and start
avoiding him. If this statement is untrue, then it will be called a defamatory
statement and this offence is known as defamation.
In the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the offence of defamation is provided under Section
499. As per this section, if some words, signs or visible representation is published or
spoken with the sole intention of causing harm to the reputation of a person or it has
a reason to believe that this will destroy the reputation of that concerned individual,
then the offence of defamation is committed. The punishment for defamation is
provided under Section 500 of the IPC which is generally of 2 years with or
without a fine. The defamation comes under criminal as well as a civil wrong. A
person who has been defamed can sue for damage to the person who defamed
him.

Types of defamation
There are essentially two types of defamation:
Libel
Slender

Libel defamation
It refers to that defamation that harms the reputation of an individual, business
group etc. by making a false representation in the form of writing, picture, movie
 25

etc. This type of defamation is generally of permanent nature and invites more
stringent punishment. This defamation occurs while publishing an article in the
newspaper, making a comment on a social media platform, etc.

For example- A newspaper named “Z” publishes that Mr X has become bankrupt but
in reality, Mr X is not. So, this is a false statement made in a written form, thereby it
is called libel defamation.

Slender defamation
It refers to that defamation wherein a falsified statement is made by spoken words or
by some other transitory forms, whether visible or audible, such as a sign, gesture,
hissing, etc. This type of defamation generally attracts civil punishments and it is
actionable only in proof of actual damage.
For example – In an ongoing TV interview, Mr X questioned the chastity of Z and
made some alluring remarks through his eyes in front of the camera. Now, the
defamatory statement is made verbally and with the help of gestures, it is called
slander.
It becomes clear before the aforesaid definitions that the fundamental distinction
between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is
published. However, In Indian jurisprudence, unlike British law, both libel and slander
are treated equally and both are considered as an offence under Section 499 of the
IPC. In the case of Hirabai Jehangir v. Dinshawdulji, the Bombay high court both
stated that no distinction shall be made between treating libel and slander as
criminal offences.

Essential Ingredients of Defamation

Section 499 obliges three essential ingredients for the offence of defamation under
IPC.
An imputation or allegation must be made to harm the person against whom it is
made.
Such an imputation or allegation must be made by:
words, either spoken or written; or
signs; or
visible representations.
Publishing such imputation or allegation.
Exceptions of Defamation
Along with the definition of defamation, section 499 also contains some
circumstances under which the false statement made against another person do
not amount to defamation. The following circumstances are exceptions to
defamation:

Imputation of Truth Which Public Good Requires to Be Made or Published

If a true imputation or allegation is made related to a person, it does not amount to
defamation. But, it must be made for the good of the public.

Public Conduct of a Public Servant

When any opinion is expressed in good faith respecting the conduct of the public
servants in the discharge of their public functions, it does not amount to defamation.

Conduct of Any Person Approaching Any Public Question

When any opinion is expressed in good faith respecting the conduct of any
person approaching the public question or who discharges public functions, it does
not amount to defamation.
 26

For example, the act of publicists who take part in politics or other matters related to
the public in good faith does not amount to defamation.

Publication of Reports of Proceedings of Courts

Publishing a substantially authentic report of the proceedings of any Court of
Justice or result of any such proceedings does not amount to defamation.

Merits of a Case Decided in Court or Conduct of Witnesses and Other Related to

the Case
An unrestricted statement on the judgements of the courts, the jury’s verdict, the act
of parties and witnesses is necessary. And therefore, if any opinion is expressed
relating to the merits of any case decided by a court of justice or conduct of
parties and witnesses does not amount to defamation.

Merits of Public Performance

This exception covers criticisms of the book published on literature, art, singing, etc.
It is not defamation to express any opinion in good faith regarding the qualities of
any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public.

Censure Passed in Good Faith by a Person Having Lawful Authority Over

Another
When a person who has authority over another person either by law or arising
out of a valid contract condemns in good faith the conduct of that person, it does not
amount to defamation.

Accusation Desired in Good Faith to Authorised Person

When a person who has lawful authority over another person accuses him, he will not
be liable for defamation. However, the complaint must be bona fide.
Further, accusation in newspapers is not covered under this section.

Imputation Made in Good Faith by a Person for the Protection of His or Others
Interests
This exception is applied when a defamatory statement is made against any
person in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person who made it.

Caution Intended for the Good of a Person to Whom Conveyed or the Public Good
Any caution or warning conveyed in good faith from one person to another or for the
good of the public does not amount to defamation.
Defences against defamation
The offence of defamation is not absolute and certain exceptions have been carved
out for the same. These include –
Justification of truth
The truth is an absolute defence of the offence of defamation. It means that if a
statement is true, irrespective of the fact whether it is derogatory or cheap, the
offence of defamation can never take place. In civil defamation, it is well-settled law
that if the statement is proved true, then the charge of defamation automatically
gets removed because the law can’t punish an individual for speaking the truth.

However, under criminal law merely proving the truth will not solve the purpose and
besides this, the person needs to show that the statement was made in a bona fide
manner. In the case of Radheyshyam Tiwari v. Eknath, the court held that if the
defendant can’t prove the validity of the statement, then it will be presumed that the
intention was malice.
 27

Making Fair comment

The term fair comment involves making or putting one’s opinion in matters relating
to our national interest. This is a valid defence against the offence of defamation. For
taking this exception, one needs to prove the following things –
It must be a comment. In other words, it means that it shall be an expression of
opinion rather than an assertion of fact.
The comment must be fair and it should not be based upon untrue facts.
The matter commented upon must relate to the public interest. Matters like
administration of government departments, courts, ministers, public meetings,
textbooks, etc. falls under the ambit of public interest.

Privilege
The word privilege means giving a special status. This special status is generally
accorded when the law feels that the right of free speech overweighs the right
against defamation. These privileges are generally of 2 types.
(1). Absolute privileges – In these matters, complete immunity is given to a person
speaking and no action for defamation can lie against him. It includes the occasion of
Parliamentary proceedings– As per Article 105(2) of the Indian constitution, the
parliamentarians can speak anything during the course of business of parliament
and no action of defamation would lie against them.
Judicial proceedings– This protection has been accorded to judges, counsels,
witnesses, and parties to a suit under the Judicial Officers Protection Act of 1850.
(2.) Qualified privilege – In this type of privilege, though the immunity is given to the
speaker it is not absolute in nature. For availing of this defence, the impugned
person needs to prove that the statement has been made without an element of
Malice.

Getting Apology from the Aggrieved Party

If the person who has passed the defamatory statement asks for an apology by the
defamed person and the defamed person accepts the apology, then also it will not be
considered defamation.
In the recent case of Arun Jaitley v Arvind Kejriwal, the court held that though the
statement said by Arvind Kejriwal and his 5 other leaders appears to be defamatory
but the matter needs to be completely disclosed as all the defendants apologized for
their actions and apology is granted to them.

Communication between husband and wife

As per Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 it is believed that the
communication between husband and the wife is considered as “privileged
communication” and it is outside the purview of defamation. The law believes that
husband and wife are the lifelong partners with whom we share our all sentiments
thus there cannot be any publication and consequently no defamation. Thus, the
communication between husband and wife will be considered as an exception of
section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In the case of T.J. Ponnen v. M.C Verghese, the court held that a letter from the
husband to his wife containing some defamatory matter in relation to his father-
in-law will not amount to defamation. This letter will be covered within the ambit of
privileged communication as provided under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872.

Punishment for Defamation as Per Section 500 IPC

Punishment for the offence of defamation is contained under section 500 of the
 28

Indian Penal Code. As per this section, the punishment for defamation is simple
imprisonment, the term of which may extend to two years, or fine, or both.
Conclusion
Defamation is an offence that involves injury to the reputation of an individual in
society. It is provided under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The
essential ingredients of this offence involve that it must be a false statement with
the objective of hampering the reputation. Defamation is generally of 2 types namely
Libel and slander. In India, defamation is civil as well as criminal. However, this
offence is not absolute and certain exceptions have been provided and the chief
defence against this offence is proving that the statement is being “true”. The
judiciary has also evolved its scope in recent times.

9.Acid Attack

INTRODUCTION :-
Acid Attack also refers to throwing acid which is a form of violent assault which is defined as throwing
acid intentionally on the body of another to disfigure, maim, torture or kill. Acid attack is a cruel,
violent, immoral, form of crime in the society. Mostly women are the victims of acid attack.
Mostly Sulphuric and hydrochloric acid are used in these attacks. The long-term consequence of these
attacks is that it blinds people and leaves permanent scars on the face and body. 78% of acid attacks
are due to refusing to proposal or refusing to marry.
The National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) recorded 1483 cases between 2014 and 2018 in their
report, indicating a rapid growth rate. According to NCRB data, there were 150 similar instances in
2019, 105 in 2020, and 102 in 2021. Year after year, West Bengal and Uttar Pradesh account for
roughly half of all the cases in the country. In 2021, the charge sheeting rate for acid attacks was 89%
with a 20% conviction rate

Motive:
When these kinds of attacks are committed, the motive of the offender is not to kill the victim but to
disfigure the body of the victim and put the victim in immense pain, and the recovery might be very
difficult.
An acid attack is legally defined under Section 326A IPC. It provides that any person who causes injury
to the victim, either permanently or partially, by throwing acid is guilty of an acid attack. The injury due
to an acid attack is usually deformity of the victim’s body or maiming. Maiming is an injury to a body
part that is so harsh that the affected organ can no longer be used. Disfigurement, disablement, and
the burning of body parts are also some of the injuries caused by acid attacks.

CONSEQUENCES OF ACID ATTACK :-

1. Physical-Acid will erode the two layers of skin, namely the fat and muscle underneath, and
sometimes not only erode bones, but even dissolve bones. The depth of the damage depends entirely
on the strength of the acid and the duration of its contact with the skin. When splashed on a person\'s
face, the acid will quickly erode the eyes, ears, nose and mouth. The eyelids and lips can get
completely burned. Sometimes the nose will melt, close the nostrils, and the ears will shrink. Acid can
quickly damage the eyes and blind the victim. The skin and bones on the skull, forehead, cheeks, and
chin may dissolve. When acid splashes or drips on the neck, chest, back, arms or legs, it will burn
wherever it touches. For victims, the greatest immediate danger is respiratory failure.
2. Psychological-Acid attack survivors face many mental health problems after recovery. Victims of acid
violence have higher levels of anxiety and depression due to their appearance. According to the
Rosenberg Scale, these women reported that both in general and in the social sphere, their self-esteem
was reduced and their self-awareness increased.
3. Social and Economic-Acid attacks usually make victims disabled in certain ways, making them
dependent on their spouse or family members for daily activities, such as eating and running errands.
They face discrimination from society throughout their lives and become lonely. Due to impaired vision
and physical disability, many acid survivors are unable to find suitable jobs, which increases these
 29

dependencies. Therefore, divorce and husband abandonment are not uncommon in society. In addition,
acid survivors who are single at the time of attack will almost certainly be socially ostracized, effectively
destroying marriage prospects. They are embarrassed because people may stare at them or laugh at
them, and may hesitate for fear of adverse reactions from the outside world.

LEGAL EFFECTS OF ACID ATTACK :-

Essentials for acid attack

Although even an attempt to throw acid has been made punishable under the Indian Penal Code but
there are some essentials of an acid attack which are as follows-

Acid throwing/ attempting to throw/ administering the acid

 Grievous hurt caused
 Permanent or partial damage caused (maims, burns, disfigures or disablement)
 The offender had the knowledge and intent to carry out this act

SECTION 320-GRIEVOUS HURT- The following types of hurt are designated as "grievous" hurt: -
1. emasculation
2. Permanent loss of vision in both eyes
3. Permanent loss of hearing in both ears
4. Privatization of any member or association
5. The rights of members or joint names are permanently impaired
6. Permanent disfigurement of head or face
7. Fracture or dislocation of bones or teeth
8. Life-threatening injuries, or injuries that cause the patient to suffer severe physical pain within 20
days or unable to perform daily activities.

SECTION 322 - VOLUNTARILY CAUSING GRIEVOUS HURT -Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, which
intends to cause or know that the harm might cause is grievous hurt, if the hurt caused by him is
grievous hurt, it is called "voluntarily to cause grievous hurt".

SECTION 325 - PUNISHMENT FOR VOLUNTARILY CAUSING GRIEVOUS HURT- Whoever voluntarily causes
grievous hurt, except in the circumstances stipulated in section- 335 (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt
on Provocation), shall be sentenced to any form of imprisonment, which can be extended to a
maximum of 7 years, and shall be fined of.

SECTION 307 - ATTEMPT TO MURDER- Whoever does any act with this intention or knowingly, and under
such circumstances, if his act leads to death, he will be guilty of murder and shall be sentenced to any
form of imprisonment, up to ten years and shall be liable to fine.

Till 2013, the Indian Penal Code did not recognize acid attack as a separate offence. The 18th LAW
COMMISSION of India headed by Justice A.R Lakshmanan proposed a new section 326A and 326B in
Indian Penal Code and section 114B in the Evidence Act.

SECTION-326 of IPC, 1860 deals with VOLUNTARILY CAUSING GRIEVOUS HURT by dangerous weapon
but it does not include acid attack.
The definition of Section 326 is very narrow, but it does not deal with the problem of acid attack
because:
1.It does not include a variety of injuries caused due to the acid attack.
2.This section does not cover the act of managing acid attacks, i.e., planning it.
3.This section does not specify who should be awarded penalty,

In cases of acid attack a presumption is defined in Indian Evidence Act under Section 114B as
PRESUMPTION AS TO ACID ATTACK– If a person has thrown acid on to another person the court shall
presume that an has been done with an intention or knowledge that likely to cause injury defined in
Section-326A IPC.
 30

The section 326A and section 326B was added in 2013 on the recommendation of Verma Committee.

SECTION 326A-GREVIOUS HURT BY USE OF ACID – Whoever causes permanent or partial damage, burn
or disables any part of persons body or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid and with the knowledge
or intention to cause hurt or injury.
Punishment-10 years (not less than ten years but may extend to life imprisonment with fine.

Section-326B-VOLUNTARILY THROWING OR ATTEMPTING TO THROW ACID-Whoever throw or attempts

to throw acid on any person or attempts to administer acid to any person.
Punishment-5 years (may extend to seven years and also be liable to fine).

COMPENSATION FOR ACID ATTACK :-

Section 357 B has been newly inserted into CrPC, and its contents are as follows:
“The compensation paid by the state government under section 357A is in addition to the fine paid to
the victim under section 326A or section 376D of the Indian Penal Code.”

FREE MEDICAL TREATMENT

The newly added Section 357 C stipulates that all public or private hospitals must provide first aid or
medical treatment free of charge. The content is as follows:
"All public or private hospitals, whether operated by the central government, state government, local
agency, or any other person, shall immediately and free of charge subject to 326A, 376, 376A, 376B,
376C, 376D or Section 376E of the Indian Penal Code, and the police should be notified of such
incidents immediately."

CASES RELATED TO ACID ATTACK:-

1.Laxmi v. Union of India (2014 4 SCC 427)- For preventing acid attacks the Supreme Court has
completely prohibited the counter sale of chemical unless the seller maintains a recording of the
address and other details of the buyers and the quantum. Dealers can now only sell the chemical after
showed a government issued photo identity card and after specifying the purpose of purchase.
Acid Attack and Rehabilitation of Acid Attack Victims Bill, 2017 was enacted to prevent acid attacks by
regulation of sale supply and use of acids and rehabilitation of women victims of acid attacks.

2.Ravinder Singh v State of Haryana (2003 SC 3057)

An acid was thrown on woman (wife) by her husband for refusing to agree to a divorce because the
husband was involved in an extramarital affair. As a result of this attack, the victim suffered acid burns
to her face and in other parts of the body, which results in her death. The husband was charged and
convicted under section 302 of the IPC. However, victim had died but he was not sentenced to life
imprisonment.

3.Morepally Venkatasree Nagesh v. State of A.P. (2002 CriLJ 3625)

The defendant doubted his wife’s character, and poured acid into her vagina because of the failure of
the rental because of which she died. The defendant was charged and convicted under section 302 and
section 307 of the IPC.

4.Sonali Mukherjee v. UOI & Ors (2010 15 SCC 25)

Sonali Mukherjee, a woman from Dhanbad, was attacked by acid when she was 18. In 2003, three
alleged assailants, namely Tapas Mitra, Sanjay Paswan and Brahmadev Hajra, threw acid on her face
while she was sleeping on the roof of her house. She was seriously injured and his face was disfigured.
The perpetrator was sentenced to nine years in prison, but was granted bail when appealed to the High
Court.

CONCLUSION :-
 31

Number of Acid attacks are increasing day by day and are more than rape cases. Acid Attack victims
have to face mental torture and sometimes they even do not have their family support. The rape victim
can be kept in a safe place without disclosing her identity but acid attack victims have to move all
around with their bodies. There is a need of more strict legislations related to Acid Attack.

9. Abatement

Definition
The act of assisting, encouraging, or instigating someone to commit a crime is a
criminal offence under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It is a serious offence because
it involves actively facilitating the commission of a crime, and it is punishable
severely.
Sections 107 to 120 of the Indian Penal Code cover the provisions concerning
abetment (IPC). These sections define various types of abetment, such as
instigation, conspiracy, and aiding, and prescribe abetment punishment based on
the severity of the crime committed. The sections also include guidelines for
determining abettor’s liability when the crime committed differs from the one
intended or planned by the abettor.

Forms of Abetment under the IPC

Abetment, according to the IPC, can take three forms:
Instigation
Conspiracy
Aiding

Instigation
The act of urging or inciting someone to commit a crime is referred to as
instigation, whereas conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to
commit a crime. Providing material assistance or support to someone committing
a crime, such as providing weapons or transportation, is referred to as assisting.
Instigation is punishable under Section 107 of the IPC, which establishes the
general principle of abetment. Section 108 of the IPC makes specific provisions for
instigation and specifies the penalty for instigation based on the severity of the
crime committed. If the instigation results in the commission of a minor offence,
the punishment may include up to three years in prison, a fine, or both. If the
instigation results in the commission of a major offence, the punishment may
include life imprisonment or imprisonment for a term of up to ten years, as well as
a fine.

Conspiracy
Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code contains provisions relating to conspiracy.
Conspiracy is frequently regarded as a preparatory offence because it occurs
before the commission of the actual crime. It is a serious offence under the law
because it involves criminal planning and coordination among individuals,
demonstrating a high level of criminal intent and a potential threat to public
safety.

Aiding
 32

Aiding is a type of abetment in the Indian Penal Code, which refers to the act of
providing material assistance or support to someone who is committing a crime.
This means that if someone assists another person in committing a crime by
providing them with weapons, transportation, or any other type of material
support, they may be charged with aiding.
Aiding can take many forms, including any type of material assistance that assists
a person in committing a crime. Giving someone a key to a building they intend to
burglarize, giving them a getaway vehicle, or even simply offering advice or
guidance on how to commit a crime may all be considered aiding under the law.
Anyone, regardless of whether they are physically present at the scene of the
crime, can commit abetment. This means that even if a person does not
physically participate in a crime, they can still be held criminally liable if they
encourage or aid in its commission.
Elements of Abetment
There must be an obvious link between the act of the abettor and the commission
of the crime for it to be considered a criminal offence. The abettor must have a
specific intention and actively assist in the commission of the crime if he or she
intends to aid or facilitate the commission of the crime. The objective of the act of
the abettor is to assist in the commission of the crime and is directly related to
the commission of the crime. For example, the abettor of a murder must have
some knowledge of the crime and may be actively involved in helping it to be
carried out.

Relevant Case Laws

The law of abetment has undergone major changes very recently. The changes are laid out by the
landmark cases below:
 In Pramod Shriram Telgote v. State of Maharashtra , it was held that “clear mens rea to
commit the offence is a sine qua non for conviction under Section 306 IPC”.
 In Channu v. State of Chattisgarh, it was held that “merely because wife committed
suicide in matrimonial house, husband and in-laws can’t be charged for abetment to
suicide.”
 In Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab, it was held that “in order to convict a person for
abetment of suicide, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit an offence.”

Punishment for Abetment

The punishment for abetment is outlined in Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code.
This section states that if someone abets the commission of a crime and that
crime is committed in consequence of the abetment, then the abettor shall be
punished with the punishment provided for that crime.
For example, if Aman instigates Rohit to commit murder, and Rohit commits the
murder as a result of Aman’s instigation, then Aman can be punished with the
same punishment as prescribed for murder under IPC.

The penalty for abetment varies according to the gravity of the crime committed.
If the abetment results in the commission of a minor offence, the abettor faces up
to three years in prison, a fine, or both. If abetment leads to the commission of a
 33

major offence, the abettor may face life imprisonment or a term of up to ten years
in prison, as well as a fine.

Conclusion
Under the IPC, abetment is a serious offence because it involves actively
facilitating the commission of a crime. Individuals must understand the legal
implications of abetment and avoid engaging in such activities to protect
themselves and others. Law enforcement agencies take abetment very seriously,
and those found guilty of abetment can expect serious legal consequences.

Q9 Write short notes on any two of following :

Ans.: -

Criminal Conspiracy

Introduction
A Criminal Conspiracy is the agreement of two or more persons to do an illegal act, to
do a legal act by illegal means. In other words, A joint evil intent is necessary to
constitute crimes. Criminal Conspiracy is a partnership in crime, and each conspiracy
consists of a joint and mutual agency for a prosecution of a common plan. A
conspiracy being an agreement, it necessarily follows that there must be at least two
persons. One person alone can not conspire. A conspiracy being an agreement, it
necessarily follows that there must be at least two persons. One person alone can
not conspire. Section 120(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines Criminal
Conspiracy and Section 120(B) prescribes punishment for Criminal Conspiracy.

Definition of criminal conspiracy :

Section 120A of Indian Penal Code Defines Criminal Conspiracy - "When two or
more persons agree to do, or cause to be done- an
illegal act, or an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is
designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount
to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one
or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.

Explanation -
It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is
merely incidental to that object.

Example :
A and B made a plan to murder C; letters passed between them as to the movement
of C. Here both A and B are liable for indictment to a charge of criminal conspiracy
under this section since there was an agreement between A and B to do an illegal
act, i.e., to commit the murder of C.

Essential Ingredients :
 34

The ingredients of Section 120A(Criminal Conspiracy), of Indian Penal Code are as

follows:
There should be two or more persons
There should be Agreement between them
Agreement must be to to or cause to be done, an illegal act; or
The act may not be illegal but is done by illegal means.

Punishment of criminal conspiracy :

Section 120B of Indian Penal Code prescribes punishment for criminal
conspiracy

(1.) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable

with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or
upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the
punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had
abetted such offence.

(2.) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to

commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.

Proof of conspiracy
The offence of criminal conspiracy can be proved by either direct or
circumstantial evidence. A conspiracy is usually hatched in a secret and private
setting which is why it is almost impossible to produce any affirmative evidence
about the date of the formation of the criminal conspiracy, the persons involved in it
or the object of such conspiracy or how such object is to be carried out. All of this is
more or less a matter of inference.
Section 10 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act contains the principle that once a conspiracy to
commit an illegal act is proved, an act of one conspirator becomes the act of
another. Section 10 deals with the admissibility of evidence in a conspiracy case. It
provides that anything said, done or written by any one of the conspirators in respect
of their common intention is admissible against all the conspirators for proving the
existence of the conspiracy or that any such person was a party to the conspiracy.
However, the following conditions are to be satisfied before such fact can be
admitted-
There should be reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have
conspired to commit an offence or an actionable wrong.
Anything said, done or written by any one of them about their common intention
will be evidence against the others provided it is said, done or written after the time
when such intention was first formed by any one of them.

Relevant Case Law

Parveen v. State of Haryana (2021) SC
Kehar Singh and others v. State (Delhi Administration) (1988) SC
Major E.G. Barsay v. The State of Bombay (1962) SC
Ram Narain PoplI v. C.B.I. (2003) SC
Topandas v. State of Bombay (1955) SC
Leo Roy Frey V. Suppdt. Distt. Jail (1958) SC
State of Maharashtra vs Somnath Thapa, AIR 1996 SC 1744

Conclusion
 35

The offence of criminal conspiracy comes under the category of inchoate crimes as it
does not require the commission of an illegal act. Criminal conspiracy is a partnership
in crime and a joint or mutual agency exists in each conspiracy for the prosecution of
a common plan. Nowadays, it is seen that the provision of criminal conspiracy is very
loosely invoked which is not in line with the principles laid down by the Supreme
Court. Hence, it is very much required that the superior courts keep a check on the
misuse of the provision while upholding the rule of law.

Sedition

Sedition (Section 124A of IPC)

The IPC Section 124 A says, “Whoever, by words, either spoken or written, or by
signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into
hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the
Government estab- lished by law in India shall be punished with [imprisonment for
life], to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three
years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.

What does not constitute an offence under Sedition?

When comments disapprove of government measures but with a view to alter them
lawfully i.e. ‘Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the
Government with a view to obtaining their alteration by lawful means, without
exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection.’
When comments disapprove of government’s administrative actions without
exciting all feelings of enmity – Comments expressing disapprobation of the
administrative or other action of the Government without exciting or attempting to
excite hatred, contempt or disaffection.
Punishment for the Sedition Offence
It is a non-bailable offence.
Imprisonment up to three years to a life term, to which fine may be added.
The person found guilty of this offence is not eligible for any government job.

Cases Related to Sedition Law in India

Pre-Independence
Queen Empress v Jogendra Chunder Bose (1891)
Jugendra Bose wrote an article criticizing the Age of Consent Act, 1891.
His criticism was taken as disobedience towards the government.
However, later the case was dropped after he was released on bail.
Sedition Trial of Lokmanya Tilak (1897)
Bal Gangadhar Tilak has published the reports of the celebration followed by an 1894
paper on the Maratha king Shivaji by Professor R. P. Karkaria. Karkaria presented his
paper to Bombay’s Royal Asiatic Society in 1894. This paper led to the annual
celebration of the Shivaji Coronation. Later, Tilak published the celebrations’ reports.
Tilak reported these celebrations as “Shivaji’s Utterances” in his dailies – Kesari
and Mahratta.
The case was presided by Justice Arthur Strachey.
This sedition trial is historically famous as in this case, an attempt to excite feelings
of enmity against the government was also brought under the scope of Section 124A
terming it is seditious. Hence, it widened the understanding of Section 124A.
Tilak was sentenced to 18 months of rigorous imprisonment.
Sedition Trial of Lokmanya Tilak (1908)
Tilak published two Kesari articles, titled “The Country’s Misfortune” which he
published on 12th May 1908 and “These Remedies Are Not Lasting” which was
 36

published on 9th June 1908.

Under the newly drafted Section 124A, he was sentenced to six years of
imprisonment in Burma (Now, Myanmar).
Sedition Trial of Mahatma Gandhi (1922)
Mahatma Gandhi was imprisoned for six years for his articles in his newspaper,
‘Young India’.
The charges imposed on him were – “Bringing or attempting to excite disaffection
towards His Majesty’s Government established by law in British India”
Mahatma Gandhi termed Section 124A as “Prince among the political sections of the
Indian Penal Code designed to suppress the liberty of the citizen.”
Post-Independence – Supreme Court Decisions
Brij Bhushan And Another vs The State Of Delhi (1950) & Romesh Thappar vs the
State of Madras (1950)
The apex court held that a law that restricts speech on the ground that it would
disturb public order was unconstitutional. The decision of the court prompted the
‘First Constitution Amendment’, where Article 19 (2) was rewritten to replace
“undermining the security of the State” with “in the interest of public order”
Kedar Nath Singh vs State of Bihar (1962)
The constitutional validity of Section 124A was put to a test in this case.
A member of a Forward Bloc had given a speech which was charged as sedition.
The Supreme Court held:
“Speech or writing to which “subverting the government by violent means” is
implicit—including the notion of “revolution”—is seditious.”
A failed attempt to incite too is counted as sedition.
It was seditious to create public disorder.
No “unreasonable distinction” between criticism of the government’s measures
and criticism of the government itself was drawn.
Balwant Singh vs State of Punjab (1962)
Balwant Singh who was the Director of Public Instructions (DPI) in Punjab, Chandigarh
among other two, was alleged to have shouted pro-Khalistan slogans on the day of
former PM Indira Gandhi’s assassination.
The apex court held that unless there is public disorder merely sloganeering can’t
attract punishment under Section 124A.
One can also learn about important Supreme Court judgements that are important
for UPSC from the linked article.
Sedition Law : It’s importance
The law keeps a check on anti-national, secessionist and terrorist elements that can
hamper the public order and incite violence and induce enmity.
It helps in the stability of the elected government which could otherwise be
attempted to be thrown out using illegal and violent means. It is an alignment with
contempt of court. Elected Government is an important part of the executive. Hence,
contempt of the government can be checked.
Latest Context: A Supreme Court bench on 3rd February 2021 junked a petition
seeking action against former Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister (CM) Farooq
Abdullah for his comments over scrapping of Article 370 and bifurcating J&K into two
union territories. The apex court stated it is not seditious to have views that are
different from the Government’s.

10. 34 & 149-common intention and common object

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code refers to common intention. It says that when a criminal act is
 37

done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is
liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

Common object is dealt within Section 149 of IPC. If an offence is committed by any member of an
unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or such as the members of
that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at
the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same assembly, is guilty of that
offence.
• Common intention requires that the number of persons should be more than one. At least 5 persons
are necessary for common object.[Sec.141]
• Common intention does not create a specific and substantive offence. It states a rule of law which is
read with other substantive offences. No punishments can be solely based on this sections. Common
object on the other hand creates a specific and substantive offence.
• Common intention may be of any form where common object must be one of the five objects
specified in Section 141 of IPC.
• In common intention prior meeting of minds is necessary. But it is not a requirement under Common
object. The only requirement is that there must be 5 or more persons forming an unlawful assembly.
• Substantive offence under S.141 of the IPC, of unlawful assembly, is also involved in S.149. But S.34
contains only a rule of law. So while specific charge is necessary for S.149 that is not necessary in the
case of S.34.

11. Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement Section 339.

Wrongful restraint
Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any
direction in which that person has right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
Wrongful restraint means preventing a person from going to a place where he has a right to go. In
wrongful confinement, a person is kept within certain limits out of which he wishes to go and has a
right to go. In wrongful restraint, a person is prevented from proceeding in some particular direction
though free to go elsewhere. In wrongful confinement, there is restraint from proceeding in all
directions beyond a certain area. One may even be wrongfully confined in one's own country where
by a threat issued to a person prevents him from leaving the shores of his land.

Section 340. Wrongful confinement.

Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from
proceedings beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person.

No Wrongful Restraint Wrongful Confinement

1 Meaning :Wrongful restraint means Meaning :In wrongful confinement, a person is
obstructing a man from moving from one wrongfully restrained from proceeding beyond
place to another where he has the right to certain circumscribing limits.
be and wants to go.

2 Definition: Section 339 of the Indian Definition : Section 340 of Indian Penal
Penal code
 38

Code defines wrongful restraint as, defines Wrongful confinement as “Whoever

“Whoever voluntarily obstructs any wrongfully restrains any person in such a
person so as to prevent that person manner as to prevent that person from
from proceeding in any direction in which proceeding beyond certain circumscribing
that person has a right to proceed, is said limits, is said “wrongfully to confine” that
wrongfully to restrain that person.” person.”
3 Illustrations: I) A obstructs a path along Illustrations: I) A causes Z to go within a walled
which Z has a right to pass. A not believing in space, and locks Z. Z is thus prevented from
good faith that he has a right to stop the proceeding in any direction beyond the
path. Z is thereby prevented from passing. A circumscribing line of wall. A wrongfully
wrongfully restrains Z. confines Z.

II) A places men with firearms at the outlets of

a building, and tells Z that they will fire at Z if Z
attempts leave the building. A wrongfully
confines Z.

4 Seriousness: Wrongful restraint is not Seriousness: Wrongful confinement is serious

serious as wrongful confinement and hence offence and hence more punishment provided
lesser punishment is provided by the code. by the code.

5 Punishment :Whoever wrongfully restrains Punishment :Whoever wrongfully confines any

any person shall be punished with simple person shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend imprisonment of either description for a term
to one month, or with fine which may which may extend to one year, or with fine
extend to five hundred rupees, or with both. which may extend to one thousand rupees, or
with both.

12.
No. Criminal Misappropriation Criminal breach of Trust
 39

Definition : Section 403 of the Indian Definition : Section 405 of the

Penal Code defines Criminal Indian Penal Code defines Criminal breach of
misappropriation and prescribes thetrust -
punishment for the offence - “Whoever, being in any manner entrusted
“Whoever, being in any manner entrustedwith property, or with any dominion over
with property, or with any dominion overproperty, dishonestly misappropriates or
property, dishonestly misappropriates orconverts to his own use that property, or
converts to his own use that property, ordishonestly uses or disposes of that
dishonestly uses or disposes of thatproperty in violation of any direction of
property in violation of any direction oflaw prescribing the mode in which such
law prescribing the mode in which such trusttrust is to be discharged, or of any legal
is to be discharged, or of any legal contract,contract, express or implied, which he
express or implied, which he has made has made touching the discharge of such
touching the discharge of such trust, ortrust, or willfully suffers any other person
willfully suffers any other person so to do,so to do, commits “criminal breach of
commits “criminal breach of trust”. trust”.
2 Ingredients : To constitute the offence Ingredients: To constitute criminal breach
of misapropriation the following ingredientsof
must be present – trust following ingredients must be present.
i) The accused must be entrusted with
1) The accused misappropriated that propertyproperty or with dominion over property;
and converted the same to his own use
1) The person who entrusted must –
dishonestly The movable property belonged i) dishonestly misappropriate or convert to his
to that complainant. use that property or
ii) dishonestly use or dispose of that
property or willfully suffer any other
person to do so
a) in violation of any directions of law
prescribing the mode in which such property
is to be discharged \.
b) any legal contract made touching
discharge of such trust.

3 The property comes into the possession ofThe property comes into possession of the
the accused in some natural manner. accused either by an express entrustment or
by some process. There is conversion of
property held by a person in fiduciary
capacity.
4 It can be only movable property It can be of any movable as well as
immovable property.
5 There is no contractual relationship There is contractual relationship
 40

6 Non-cognizable, bailable, compoundable withNon-cognizable, bailable, non-

permission of Court and triable by anycompoundable and triable by the Magistrate
Magistrate. of the First Class.

Kidnapping from India Kidnapping from lawful guardian Abduction (Section 362)
(Section 360) (Section 361)
A person is taken out A person is taken away from the lawful person is compelled by force or induced
of the limits of India. guardian. by deception to go from any place.
Age of the personThe is person must be less than 16 yrs of age if Age of the person is immaterial.
immaterial. male, less than 18 if female, or of
unsound mind.
not a continuing offence. It is not a continuing offence. It is a continuing offence.

The person is conveyed Consent of the person kidnapped isPerson moves without his consent or
without his consent. immaterial. the consent is obtained by decietful
means.
be done without use of It can be done without use of force done
or by the use of force or deception.
force. deception.

No Riot Affray
1 Definition: Section 146 of Indian Penal CodeDefinition: The definition of affray is given
defines the offence of rioting and Section in Section 159 (IPC) –
147 prescribes the punishment for rioting.
“When two or more person, by fighting in
“Whenever force or violence is used by anda public place, disturb the public peace, they
unlawful assembly, or by any memberare said to “commit an affray”.
thereof, in prosecution of the common
object of such assembly, every member of
such assembly is guilty of the offence or
Rioting”

2 Ingredients – To constitute Rioting under Ingredients –To constitute an affray as

Section 146 the following ingredients mustdefined in Section 159 there must be -
be
present –
1). Fight between two or more person.
1). There must an unlawful assembly 2) In a public place, and
(Section.141) 3) The fight must disturb the public place.
2) The accused Must be member of such
unlawful assembly (Section 142)
3) Force or violence must be used by the said
unlawful assembly or any member thereof.
 41

3 Riot may be committed in any place publicAn affray must be committed in a public
or place.
private.
4 Riot must be committed by five or moreAn affray can be committed by two or
persons. The least number must be five. more person the least number must be two.
5 Riot is much serious than affray and isAn Affray is not so much serious like riot and
punishable with two years. is punishable with one month or fine up-to
rupees
hundred
6. In case of riot every person of the unlawful In case of affray, only those who are
assembly committing an act is punishable,actually engaged are punishable
although some of them may not have
personally used force or violence essential
for the riot.

7. Punishment -Section 147 prescribesPunishment -Section 160 of the Indian Penal

punishment for rioting, Whoever is guilty ofCode prescribes punishment for affray -
rioting, shall be punished withWhoever commits an affray, shall be
imprisonment of either description for apunished with imprisonment of either
term which may extend to two years or withdescription for a term which may extend one
fine, or with both. month, or with fine which may extend to one
hundred rupees, or
both.

Difference between assault and criminal force

1. Assault is defined in Sec. 351 I.P.C.
Criminal Force is explained in Sec. 349 and Criminal
2. There is no physical contact in an assault.
Force is explained in Sec. 350 of I.P.C. There is physical contact or fear in the mind of the
aggrieved person in the application of force/criminal force is seen.
3. It is an ‘attempt’ to commit force/criminal force. In Force/Criminal Force the action of the
wrong-doer is completed.
4. Every assault may not include force/criminal force.
But every force/criminal force must always include assault.
5. An assault is an over act indicating an immediate to commit force/criminal force coupled
with the capacity of carrying out the intention into effect.
The force/criminal force is something more in it an intentional application of force to
the person of another without lawful justification is necessary.
6. In order to constitute an assault it is also necessary that the person so assaulted must, on
reasonable grounds, believe that the person assaulting has the ability to apply the
force/criminal force so attempted by him, No such belief is needed in force/criminal force.
On the other hand, the application of even the slightest amount of force is actionable. Even a
slight touch to person or causing fear is sufficient.
 42

7. Throwing the water upon a person is an assault.

As soon as the water falls on the person, it becomes force.
8. Assault is a lesser form of offence, comparing with force/criminal force.