Definition of Crime and

Its Essential Elements –

Indian Penal Code

CRIMINAL LAW - I
 An action committed or omitted, which constitutes an offence and is
punishable by law, is a crime. Crime is an unlawful act that is forbidden
and punished by the State or the law.

 In other words, anything which is injurious to public welfare is a crime.

 Generally speaking, crime is a human conduct that society generally

disapproves of. But in the modern sense, crime is any act that is
prohibited by the penal law in force, and the result of this is punishment
.
 Blackstone has defined crime in his “Commentaries on The Laws of England.” He defined it
as “an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law either forbidding or
commanding it.” He also defined crime as “violation of the public rights and duties due to
the whole community, considered as a community, in its social aggregate capacity.” The
editor of Blackstone, Stephen, has made slight changes in the definition and presented it
as “a crime is a violation of a right, considered in reference to the evil tendency of such
violation as regards the community at large.

 According to Bentham, “offences are whatever the legislature has prohibited for good or
for bad reasons.
 Difference between Crime and Tort
 Elements of Crime:
 The main criminal laws in India include the Indian Penal Code, Indian Evidence Act and
Criminal Procedure Code. People often refer to these three as general laws. Apart from
these three laws, we also have other laws that relate to specific kinds of offences.

 For example, the Prevention of Money Laundering Act deals with particular financial crimes
. Even other laws that do not specifically regulate crimes, like the Companies Act, contain
some offences and penalties.

 The most important thing common in all these laws is that they contain certain basic
elements. The four basic elements of crime are
1. Accused person
2. Mens rea
3. Actus reus
4. Injury
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. In order to constitute a crime, it is important for somebody to commit it. The law should
always be able to pinpoint the person who is responsible for committing an offence.
 The term accused “person” does not suggest that only a human being can
commit offences. According to Section 11 of IPC, the term “person” also
includes a company and an association or body of persons. Therefore, even a
trust, an NGO and a public company can commit offences.
 Furthermore, certain offences can implicate more than one person for the same crime. In
such cases, all persons will face trial and may have to face punishment together.
 2. Mens rea
 A mere person will never commit a crime unless he possesses some intention to commit it. The law generally
refers to this intention as mens rea, which means “guilty mind” in Latin.
 The term mens rea has been derived from a famous Latin maxim: Actus non factit reum nesi
mens sit rea. This basically means that an act cannot be guilty if it does not accompany a guilty
mind.
 The element of mens rea itself comprises of certain inherent elements. These include intention,
motive or knowledge. Which of these elements must exist in order to constitute an offence
generally depends on the relevant provision.
 For example, Section 300 of IPC contains various kinds of acts which amount to the offence of murder. These
acts may include an act done with the “intention” of causing bodily injury sufficient to cause death.
 Furthermore, it also includes an act of which the offender has “knowledge” of it being imminently dangerous.
Therefore. we need to look at the relevant provisions to understand what kind of intention is necessary.
 Crimes in the absence of mens rea
 Although mens rea is an essential element of crime, some
offences can occur without it. For example, Section 304-A
of IPC makes death by negligence a criminal offence. In
such cases, a “negligent act” would not include the
intention to cause death. However, negligence or mistake
itself is sufficient to constitute a crime.
 Mens rea, a fundamental concept in criminal law, is derived from the Latin
term “guilty mind”. It pertains to a person’s mental state or intention while
committing a crime. Let’s delve into the details:
1. Origin and Development:
1. In the 17th century, the concept of mens rea emerged, accompanied by the Latin maxim “actus
reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”, which translates to “there can be no crime without a
guilty mind”.
2. This maxim resolved the issue that a crime could only be defined as an activity carried out with
the purpose of committing an offense.
3. During British rule, the element of mens
rea was borrowed from English law and incorporated into Indian criminal laws 12.
2. Definition and Significance:
1. Mens rea refers to the mental component present alongside the prohibited act (actus reus).
2. It represents the intent or state of mind behind the illegal conduct.
3. Criminal liability arises when an act is done intentionally, as prohibited by law.
4. A crime is not committed if the individual performing the act has an innocent mind.
5. The familiar maxim “act does not render one guilty unless the thought is also guilty” encapsulat
es this principle
1
.
3. Types of Mens Rea:
1. Purpose/Intent: Deliberate intention to commit the offense.
2. Knowledge: Awareness that the act is likely to cause a prohibited consequence.
1. Instances Where Mens Rea Is Not Considered:
1.Strict Liability: Certain offenses do not require proof of intent.
2. However,in most cases, mens
rea remains crucial for criminal accountability1.
2. Case Laws:
1.Brend v. Wood (1946): Clarified the importance of mens rea in criminal
liability.
2.Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895): Emphasized the need for a guilty mind.
3.State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George (1964): Highlighted the
interplay of actus reus and mens rea.
4.Prabhat Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar (2021): Addressed the mental
state required for an offense.
5.Subhash Shamrao Pachunde v. State of Maharashtra (2005):
Further explored mens rea.
6.Debeswar Bhuyan v. State Of Assam (2005)
: Considered the mental element in criminal cases1
3. Actus reus
 Merely possessing a guilty mind and thinking of committing a crime is not enough. The
accused person must also act on that intention and do something in its furtherance. Actus
reus basically refers to an act or omission which leads to the completion of an offence.
Both mens rea, as well as actus reus, together are important to create an offence.
 Actus reus can be a positive act, such as stabbing a person to cause his death. It can also
be an omission (failure) to perform an action. For example, driving a vehicle without a
driving license is an omission.
4. Injury
 The last of the basic elements of crime is an injury. There can be no crime if no person
faces some kind of an injury. According to Section 44 of IPC, “injury” means any harm
caused to a person illegally either in mind, body, reputation or property.
 However, there can be some crimes which might not require injuries to anybody. For
example, driving without a driving license is a crime even if it may not harm anybody.
 Stages of Crime

Whenever a crime happens and that too

intentionally, there is a full-fledged process or
stages behind it. In case of every crime, Firstly
there is an intention to commit it, Secondly,
preparation to commit it, Thirdly, attempt to
commit it and Lastly the accomplishment.
 Intention
 The intention is the first stage of any offense and is known as the mental or psycho stage.
In this stage, the offender decides the motive and decides his course or direction towards
the offense. The ironical fact about this stage is that the law cannot punish the person just
for having an intention to do any illegal act.
 Moreover, being the mental concept, it is very difficult to judge if a person possesses any
such intention. Just by having an intention will not constitute an offense.

 Mere intention shall not constitute a crime, as it is almost impossible to know the intentions of a person. As
the famous saying goes “the devil himself knoweth not the intention of a man”. Since it is hard to know the
intentions of a man, a criminal liability at this stage cannot be drawn.

 Mens rea
 Mens rea literally means guilty mind. This basically implies that a person committing the
crime is mindful of his/her actions and knows that accomplishment of that act would result
in a crime. To simplify, the intention of the person committing a crime should be mala fide.
Further, mens rea can be further divided into four levels depending upon the degree of
intent of committing the crime. These four levels are:
1. Negligence: This is the least and in fact the mildest form of mens rea where the person is negligent of his/her
actions and does not ensure reasonable care in his/her act/omission.
2. Recklessness: This is of a slightly higher amplitude than negligence where the person can anticipate the crime
which may arise out of the act/omission but did not expect or intended the same and acts negligently.
3. Knowledge: The third level is knowledge where the person is associated with the risks that may occur on his
act/omission and still continues with such act/omission. Here, he/she is not negligent.
4. Intent: This is of the highest amplitude where the person intentionally carries out an act or omits something in
order to commit the crime.

 Preparation
 Preparation is the second stage amongst the stages of crime. It means to arrange the
necessary resources for the execution of the intentional criminal act. Intention and
preparation alone are not enough to constitute a crime. Preparation is not
punishable because in many cases the prosecution fails to prove that the preparations in
the question are for the execution of the particular crime.
 Reasons why preparation is not punishable
 The general rule under the law is that the preparation of a crime shall not be punishable. The reason behind the
general rule is that it is nearly impossible to prove that the accused made the preparation to execute the crime.
Apart from this, the test of locus poenitentiae is applied in cases where the culpability of preparation is in
question. The test provides that a person has an opportunity to withdraw from his act before he actually commits
the intended crime.
 Exceptions:
 Preparation to wage a war against the Government of India – Section 122
 Counterfeiting coins – Section 233, Section 234, and Section 235
 Counterfeiting Government stamps – Section 255
 Preparation to commit a dacoity – Section 399
 Possession of forged documents – Section 474
 The prime difference between the two is the fact that whether the act that has
already been finished during the stages of crime, has an impact on the victim. If
it has an impact, it is considered to be an attempt, otherwise, it is considered to
be mere preparation
A case is related to cow slaughter which attracts criminal liability
as per UP Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955. The petitioner,
in this case, was found to be holding a knife, 38cm in length, and to
be sitting on the top of a cow with all of its legs tied. The instant
petition was filed for quashing an FIR registered under Section 3
and Section 8 of the impugned Act
 the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that preparation had been
done by the petitioner and he would have moved to the third stage
i.e. attempt had he not been stopped. Resultantly, he had criminal
liability as attempt and accomplishment of crime would have
attracted liability under the said Act.
 Nasim v. Senior Superintendent of Police (2002)
 3. Attempt
 An attempt is a direct movement towards the execution of a crime after the preparation
of the plan. According to law, a person is guilty of an attempt to commit an offense if
he/she does an act which is more than simply preparatory to the commission of the
offense. Moreover, a person is guilty of attempting to commit an offense even though the
facts are such that the execution of the offense seems to be impossible.
 courts in course of time to evolve certain tests to determine whether the act in
question amounts to attempt:
1. Proximity Test: The Proximity Rule states that the act or a series of
act, in order to be designated as an attempt to commit an offence,
must be sufficiently proximate to the accomplishment of the
intended substantive offence. Proximity is a linkage between time
and action or to the intention. It is applied in the cases third stage
that is of attempt. It primarily focuses on whether a person is
'dangerously close' to complete the crime or 'so near' to the result
that the danger of success is very high.
 Locus-Poenitentiae:
This is a doctrine used to determine when an act is merely preparation rather than when
can an act be an attempt. Hence, the doctrine of Locus Poenitentiae says that when an act
is such that there is ample time with the accused to choose whether to commit such crime
or not; and is within the control of that person. The intender may change his path or may
fear the consequences, if the act is in control of the intender to not to commit the offence,
then it is said to be mere preparation and not an attempt. Hence, it is not punishable
under penal law.
 Equivocality-Test:
This test is a combination of the above two tests. This test requires the unequivocal intention through the act done
which is considered to be fulfilled beyond a reasonable doubt that the end is towards the crime intended.
Illustration: Z received an order on buying diesel of good quality and they asked the customer to come the
next day. That night Z was seen mixing the diesel with kerosene and were charged with the offence by the
next day. He claimed that what they did was mere preparation. On this the court observed that when Z
knew that the customer was going to come the next day and in furtherance, the accused tried to add diesel
and kerosene night itself so that they are not caught or seen by the customer. And he did so to act in a way
to cheat that diesel was of good quality.
 Example of Locus-Poenitentiae

 Imagine a person, John, who decides to rob a bank. He goes as far as purchasing a ski
mask, a gun, and a getaway car. On the day of the planned robbery, he drives to the bank,
parks his car nearby, and sits in the car contemplating his next move. However, he starts
to feel nervous and begins to reconsider his decision. After several minutes, he decides not
to go through with the robbery and drives back home.

 In this scenario, according to the doctrine of Locus Poenitentiae, John's actions would be
considered mere preparation rather than an attempt to rob the bank. He had ample time
to reconsider his actions and ultimately decided not to commit the crime while it was still
within his control to do so. Therefore, his conduct would not be punishable under penal law
as an attempt to commit robbery, because he never actually took a step that made the
crime imminent and unavoidable.
 Example of Equivocality-Test:

 Imagine Sarah decides to poison her neighbor, Mark. She buys a bottle of poison
and pours it into a cup of coffee. She then walks over to Mark's house and hands
him the poisoned coffee, saying, "Here, I made this especially for you."

 In this scenario, Sarah's actions clearly demonstrate her unequivocal intention

to poison Mark. The combination of purchasing the poison, mixing it into the
coffee, and then giving it to Mark makes it beyond a reasonable doubt that her
end goal is to poison him. This act goes beyond mere preparation and indicates
a direct step towards committing the crime, satisfying the unequivocal intention
test.
 Probable Desistance Test:
The probable desistance test examines how far the defendant has progressed with
commission of the crime, rather than analyzing how much the defendant has left to
accomplish. In accordance with this test, a defendant commits attempt when he/she has
crossed a line beyond which it is probable he/she will not desist unless there is an
interruption from some outside source, law enforcement, or circumstances beyond his/her
control.

 Commission
The final stage of an offence is where the crime is completed, that is, commission or
accomplishment. The crime, generally becomes punishable only after the crime has been
committed. If the accused guilty of committing the crime succeeds in his attempt, he is
said to be liable of the complete offence. But if his attempt is unsuccessful, he will only be
guilty of the attempt he made. Commission is always considered when it has met the
desired intend and therefore caused injury to another person and therefore which the
accused will be held liable.
 Example of probable desistance test

 Imagine David plans to rob a jewelry store. He enters the store with a gun, points it at the
cashier, and demands that she hand over all the money and valuable items. At this point,
David has progressed significantly in the commission of the crime. He has crossed a line
where it is probable he will not desist from the robbery unless there is an interruption from
an outside source, such as law enforcement arriving at the scene or an alarm going off
that startles him.

 In this scenario, David’s actions demonstrate that he has moved beyond mere preparation.
He is in the process of executing the crime and is unlikely to stop on his own accord. His
conduct fits the probable desistance test, as it is probable that he will complete the
robbery unless interrupted by external factors.
4. Accomplishment
 There exists a very thin line of distinction between the preparation of a crime and an attempt to commit the
same. It may be defined as an action in furtherance of the intention and preparation of a person to commit
a crime. Thus, an attempt to commit a crime is often termed “preliminary crime”. An attempt to commit a
crime is punishable under the Code. It has been provided under various provisions for specific crimes.
However, in case of the absence of punishment for an attempt to commit a particular crime, Section 511 of
the Code comes into the picture. Some of the specific provisions of the Code under which an attempt to
commit a crime have been enumerated hereunder:
Question: Give examples of ‘Preparation’ and ‘Accomplishment’ as a stage of crime.
 Answer: Example for Preparation: If Ram buys a gun and keeps the same in his pocket
fully loaded in order to kill his enemy Rahim, but does nothing more. Ram has not
committed any offense because he is at the stage of preparation and it will be impossible
for the prosecution to prove that Ram is carrying the pistol in his pocket for the purpose
of killing Rahim.
 Example for Accomplishment: A fires at B with the intention to kill him, if B dies, A will be
guilty of committing the offense of murder and if B is only injured, it will be a case of
attempt to murder
Harrison and Fletcher, along with Carter and Morgan (the victim), were cast away
at sea without weeks of food and water except for some turnips and a turtle. After
twenty days, Harrison and Fletcher proposed that one person should sacrifice
himself in order to save the rest. Carter dissented, while Harrison and Fletcher
decided to kill Morgan since he was the weakest and youngest. On the 25th of July,
seeing no rescue in sight, the two men killed Morgan and the three men feasted
on his body. Four days later, a vessel rescued them, and Harrison and Fletcher
were charged with murder.

Whether the killing was murder considering the circumstances of this case?
 concept of causation in Criminal Law

 To make the defendant liable for an offence, the Prosecution has to prove that the defendant’s actions caused the
harm. In other words, it has to be established that the accused conduct was the “causation factor” in resulting
harm. In Conduct based crime, causation is not a relevant factor. However, in Result based crimes, causation is
relevant to be proved.
 Conduct-based crimes: These are crimes where the illegal act itself is the focus, regardless of the outcome. For
example, driving over the speed limit is illegal simply because the act of speeding is prohibited. Here, causation is
not relevant because it doesn’t matter whether the speeding causes any harm; the crime is the act of speeding
itself.
 Result-based crimes: These are crimes where the outcome of an action is what makes the act illegal. A good
example is manslaughter, where the death of a person must be directly caused by someone else's actions. In
these cases, causation is crucial because you must prove that the action directly led to the harmful result. If
you push someone, and they fall and get seriously injured, the causation between your push and their injury
needs to be established to prove it as a crime.
 So, in conduct-based crimes, the focus is on what you did (the conduct), whereas in result-based crimes, the focus
is on what your action resulted in (the outcome), and proving the connection between the action and the outcome
is essential.
 TWO TYPES OF CAUSATION-FACTUAL AND LEGAL

 The concept you're referring to, known as "but for" causation, is a way to determine whether a specific action was
the necessary cause of a particular result. To put it simply, you ask the question: "But for the accused's action,
would the harm have occurred?" If the answer is "no," meaning the harm would not have happened without the
accused's action, then the action is considered a cause of the harm.
 Here’s a simple example: Imagine someone forgot to shut off the water in a bathtub, leading to an overflow
that damaged the floor. To use the "but for" test here, you would ask: "But for the person not turning off
the water, would the floor have been damaged?" If no other factors caused the overflow and subsequent
damage (like a pipe bursting on its own at the same time), then the answer would be "no" – the damage
would not have occurred if they had turned off the water. Therefore, their action (not turning off the water)
is the cause of the damage.
 Factual Causation
 Factual causation, also known as "but-for" causation, asks whether the consequence would have
occurred "but for" the defendant's conduct. In other words, it establishes a direct link between
the act and the effect.
 Example of Factual Causation
 A person, Raj, pushes another person, Ravi, into a river, and Ravi drowns. Here, Ravi's drowning
would not have occurred but for Raj's push. Therefore, Raj's action is the factual cause of Ravi's
death.
 Legal Causation
 Legal causation, also known as "proximate" or "remoteness" causation, considers whether the
consequence is sufficiently connected to the defendant’s act to hold them legally responsible. It
ensures that the result is a foreseeable and direct outcome of the action, not caused by an
extraordinary or unforeseeable event.
 Example of Legal Causation
 Using the same example: Raj pushes Ravi into a river, and Ravi is struggling but does not drown
immediately. While struggling, lightning strikes and kills Ravi. Although Raj's push was a factual
cause of Ravi being in the river, the lightning strike is an extraordinary and unforeseeable event
that actually caused Ravi's death. Thus, Raj may not be legally considered the cause of Ravi's
death due to the intervention of the lightning strike, which breaks the chain of legal causation.
 In summary, factual causation is about establishing a direct cause-and-effect relationship,
while legal causation involves determining whether it is fair and reasonable to hold the
defendant legally accountable for the consequence, considering any intervening events.
Legal Causation: "legal causation," which is a bit more complex than just establishing a
factual link (the "but for" test) between an action and an outcome. Legal causation considers
whether the action not only caused an outcome but whether it should be considered
responsible for it in a legal sense.

Substantial Cause: The action taken must be a major contributing factor to the harm. It
can't just be a minor or trivial contribution. For example, if a driver's reckless driving was a
major factor in causing a crash that led to someone's death, even if other factors were also
involved (like another driver's small mistake), the reckless driver could still be held
responsible if their contribution was substantial.
 Blameworthiness: Imagine a person (the defendant) seriously injures another person
(the victim) on the head. The head injuries themselves aren't deadly, but because of
these injuries, doctors couldn't perform a necessary surgery on the victim's stomach
ulcer. If the doctors had been able to operate, the victim might have survived. However,
due to the complications from the head injuries, the surgery couldn't be done, and the
victim later died.

 In this situation, even though the head injuries alone didn't kill the victim, the court
decided that the person who caused the injuries is still responsible for the victim's death.
This is because the head injuries played a major role in preventing the victim from
getting the life-saving treatment they needed. So, the actions of the defendant are
directly linked to the outcome — the victim's death.
 Eggshell Skull Rule

 In the case of R v Blaue, the defendant stabbed a woman who

was a Jehovah's Witness. Because of her religious beliefs, she
refused a blood transfusion that could have saved her life. The
court said the defendant was still responsible for her death
because her religious beliefs were a part of who she was, and
they couldn't be ignored as if she could have just chosen
differently. So, the defendant couldn't escape responsibility just
because the victim's refusal of treatment was due to her beliefs.
 Break the chain of causation?
 JOINT LIABILITY
 COMMON
INTENTION
 COMMON OBJECT
 several offences which determine the liability of a person when he commits an act in
combination with others. In such cases, a joint liability is created against all of the
offenders, since the intention or objective of the offenders was one and the same. The
Indian Penal Code lays emphasis on the manner in which one person becomes connected
to the other offenders, in order to determine liability. Generally, a person may become a
participant in the commission of a crime in the following ways:
• If he commits the crime himself
• If he commits the crime with someone else
• If he, in order to commit the crime, puts a third agency at work, which would commit the
crime on his behalf
• If he helps or aids the offender once the offender commits the crime, in screening him
from justice
 The latter two points are offences of abetment, and the
first point calls only for the liability of the offender
himself, since there is no association with anyone else.

 The second point forms the basis of joint liability, and in

such offences, it becomes difficult to determine the
liability of every single person involved in the act,
especially when the offenders are a group of people or
have committed the crime through big or small acts,
each attracting different extents of liability.
 Sections 34 to 38, and 149, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 talk about joint criminal liability.

 Where section 34 states the common intention of the offenders,

 149 states the common object of the offenders.

 It is important to note that there is a significant difference between common intention and
common object, and that is why they have been incorporated under different sections. To
ascertain the distinction between the two, it is vital to study them in isolation with each
other first, and then moving on to the differences.
 Section 34 states that when an offence is committed by several persons in furtherance of
a common intention, i.e. the intention of all of them, every such person is liable for the
offence in the same way as if he had committed the offence alone.

1. Robbery by a Group: Let's say a group of people plans to rob a bank together. They all
agree on the plan, gather weapons, and execute the robbery. Even if only one person
physically commits the robbery by holding up the bank teller at gunpoint, according to
Section 34, all the members of the group who were involved in planning and executing the
robbery are equally liable for the offense of robbery.
2. Assault by a Gang: Imagine a group of individuals who have a common intention to harm
someone. They corner an individual and start assaulting them together. Even if only one
person delivers the most significant blows, all the individuals involved in the assault, due
to their common intention to harm, are equally liable for the offense of assault under
Section 34.
The following requirements must be met:
1. A criminal act must be done
2. The criminal act must be done by more than one person
3. The criminal act must be done in furtherance of a common intention of such persons
4. The common intention must exist due to a pre-arranged plan between such persons
5. Such persons must participate in some manner so as to constitute the offence
6. Physical presence of such persons in some manner may be required in certain offences.
General Exceptions
If someone attacks you, it's natural to defend
yourself. If, in the process of defending yourself,
you accidentally hurt the attacker,
you're not guilty of causing harm to them. It's
considered self-defense, and you have the right to
protect yourself from harm.

Sections 76 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code outline

the rights of individuals to protect themselves and
others. These sections explain when and how
people can defend themselves or others from
Exceptions to criminal acts fall into two
categories: excusable and justifiable. When
someone commits a crime, it usually involves
both intent (mens rea) and action (actus
reus). However, there are situations where the
crime may be excused or justified.
Excusable exceptions are when there are
understandable reasons for the action,
justifiable exceptions occur when the
action is deemed necessary or acceptable
under the circumstances.
 here are examples of excusable and justifiable exceptions:
 Excusable Exception:
• A person who commits a crime while suffering from a mental illness may be considered
excusable because they did not fully understand their actions due to their condition.
• If someone accidentally causes harm to another person while trying to help them in an
emergency situation, such as performing CPR, their actions may be excused because they
were trying to assist in good faith.
 Justifiable Exception:
• Self-defense: If someone uses force to protect themselves from an immediate threat of
harm, their actions may be considered justifiable.
• Defense of others: Similarly, if someone uses force to protect another person from being
harmed by an attacker, their actions may be justified.
• Necessity: In cases of extreme emergency where there is no other option to prevent
greater harm, certain actions that would otherwise be considered criminal may be
justified. For example, breaking into a building to rescue someone trapped inside during a
fire.
Therefore Excusable exceptions:

Those exceptions from which the bad character or bad

intention of the person committing the crime cannot be
inferred are said to be excusable exception to the crime.
They include:
• Mistake of fact;
• Infancy;
• Accident;
• Insanity;
• Intoxication.
 Justifiable exceptions are situations where actions that would normally be considered
wrong are seen as acceptable because of specific circumstances. Examples include:
• Judicial act: Actions done under the authority of the court or legal system.
• Necessity: When a person commits a crime to prevent greater harm or danger.
• Consent: When someone agrees to an action being taken against them.
• Duress: When a person commits a crime because they're forced to by someone else.
• Communication: Sharing information that might otherwise be considered illegal, like
revealing a secret to prevent harm.
• Trifles: Very minor offenses that are not considered serious crimes.
• Private defense: Using reasonable force to protect oneself or others from harm.
 Mistake of Fact:

 Sections 76 and 79 of the Indian Penal Code discuss the

defense of mistake of fact. This means if a person didn't
know they were committing a crime because they
genuinely didn't understand the situation, they might
not be found guilty. It's like saying they didn't mean to
do it. This defense applies when knowing the facts could
have stopped the person from committing the crime. It's
used when proving intent isn't necessary.

 ignorantia facti excusat"

 Example : where a woman remarried believing her husband to be dead. The accused
woman was convicted of bigamy. But the court held that a bona fide belief was made on
reasonable grounds that her husband is dead after desertion for seven years.
 Acts Done by Persons Bound by Law or Justified by Law

 Section 76 of the Indian Penal Code says that if someone

genuinely believes, in good faith, that they are required by law to
do something, even if it turns out to be wrong, they might not be
guilty of a crime. For example, if a servant mistakenly kills his
master, thinking the master is a burglar, the servant might
not be guilty because he thought he was protecting the
house as required by law.
 Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code says that if someone
genuinely believes, in good faith, that they are allowed by law to do
something, even if it turns out to be wrong, they might not be guilty
of a crime. For example, if someone tries to stop a person
from hurting another, believing they are acting within their
legal rights, they might not be guilty if it turns out they
 Acts done under Order of a Superior Authority
 Imagine you're working for someone, like a boss or a supervisor. They tell you to do
something, like maybe they tell you to deliver a package to a certain address. Now, if that
task is totally okay and legal, and you didn't know any better, you're protected. But if they
tell you to do something illegal, like stealing or hurting someone, you can't just say, "Oh, I
didn't know it was wrong because my boss told me to do it."
 So, the basic idea is, if your boss tells you to do something wrong, you can't use the
excuse of "my boss told me to" to get out of trouble. But if what your boss tells you to do is
legal and you didn't know any better, then you're in the clear. It's all about whether the
order is lawful or not.

 RESPONDENT SUPERIOR WILL NOT WORK HERE……

 State of West Bengal v. Shew Mangal Singh 1981
 An act of State is an act done by any representative of the Government’s authority, civil
or military, either sanctioned or ratified by the Government. To claim protection under this
section, one has to establish:
• The accused had authority to act on behalf of the state.
 Difference between Section 79, Indian Penal Code 1860 and Section 197, Code of
Criminal Procedure 1973
 Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for prosecution of public
servants or judges for the acts done while discharging official duties. It is not
necessary that a public servant can claim exception of mistake under Section 79
when he is acting or purporting to act with the sanction of the government
 Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure deals with
prosecuting public servants, like government officials or
judges, for things they do while carrying out their official
duties.

 1. Just because a public servant says they were acting with the government's permission doesn't
automatically mean they're protected from being prosecuted.

 2. They can only be protected if they honestly thought they had permission from the government to do
what they did, and they made a mistake about that permission.
 But there's a catch—they have to be doing something that falls within their official duties.

 3. For example, if a judge takes bribes while giving judgments, that's not part of their official duties. So, they can't
say, "I was just acting as a judge when I took the bribe." That doesn't fly.

 So, in simple terms, if a public servant messes up while doing

their job, they might be protected from prosecution if they
honestly thought they had the government's okay to do it, and
 there's a government official named Tom who works in a
department responsible for approving building permits. Tom
receives an application for a permit, but he mistakenly thinks
it's been approved by his supervisor, so he signs off on it.

 Now, if it turns out later that the permit wasn't actually

approved by the supervisor and it was against the rules to issue
it, Tom might say, "Hey, I thought I had the green light from my
boss, so I approved it."

 IfTom honestly believed he had permission from his supervisor

and he made a mistake about it, he might be protected from
prosecution under Section 197. But if he approved the permit
knowing it was against the rules or without checking properly,
 Judicial Acts (section 77 and 78 of the Indian Penal Code)
 Judicial acts are those acts which are derived from normal exercise of judicial power within proper
jurisdiction. They can also be called as “Act of a judge”. The section 77 and 78 of the Indian Penal
Code exempts a judge in cases where he proceeds irregularly in the exercise of powers which the
law bestows on him as well as where he, in good faith, exceeds his jurisdiction and has no lawful
powers.

 Judges need to make decisions based on the law, not because

someone wants a certain outcome. That's why their judgments
usually can't be questioned, even if someone doesn't like the
decision. Instead, there's something called "judicial review"
where higher courts can check if a judge made a mistake.
 But if a judge's actions are challenged, like if they're accused
of doing something wrong or illegal, then they have to follow
the rules, just like anyone else. They can't say, "Well, I'm a
judge, so I can do whatever I want." They're still accountable
for their actions.
 Acting Judicially
 The phrase “acting judicially” is an essential ingredient
for the offence to attract the particular exception to
immune the acts of a judge while acting under judicial
capacity. When the act done or ordered is in a judicial
capacity, his protection is absolute and no enquiry can
be entertained against him even if the act done was
erroneously or illegally done…..

 Exercise of Power Believed in Good Faith to be Given by Law (jurisdiction 78)

 the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 protects judicial acts from civil suits if
the act done was in good faith that the court had competent authority as well as
jurisdiction while doing that act.
 Acts Done Pursuant to Judgment or Order of Court
 So, Section 78 of the General Exceptions in the Indian
Penal Code says that if someone does something
because a court ordered them to, they're protected from
being punished for it.
 Now, in the case Kapur Chand v. State of Himachal Pradesh,, a search
warrant was issued for a married minor girl, and the
court decided she should go with her husband. If her
husband and his friends try to take her away, even if she
doesn't want to go, they won't be breaking the law.
Why? Because they're just following the court's order,
and Section 78 protects them from being punished for it.
 In simpler terms, if a court says you can do something,
General exceptions under BNS (Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita)

 Section 14 of BNS: Act done by a person bound by law or mistaken belief:

 Section 14 shields individuals who, in good faith, believe they are bound by law to
perform a certain act.
 For instance, a soldier following orders to disperse a mob or an officer arresting some
people under the mistaken belief that they are the perpetrators of crime. Such a soldier
or officer has committed no offense due to the operations of this provision.
 Section 15 of BNS: Act of Judge when acting judicially
 Judges acting within their judicial capacity are immune under Section 15 of BNS.
 For example, a judge making a decision to punish someone in good faith, here, even if
the court lacked jurisdiction, the judge, will be protected under Section 15 of BNS
 Section 16 of BNS: Act done pursuant to judgment or order of Court

 Actions taken in line with a court judgment or order are protected under this section.
 For example, even if the court lacked jurisdiction, as long as the person executing the
orders of court believes in good faith that the court had jurisdiction, the action of the
concerned person is not an offense.
 Section 17 of BNS: Act done by a person justified, or by mistake of fact believing
himself, justified, by law
 This section exempts individuals justified by law or acting under a genuine mistake of fact,
not law, from offenses.
 For instance, a person apprehending a murderer based on a mistaken belief that a crime
has been occurred by him will be protected under this section.
Let's consider a situation where Jack sees a person violently
attacking someone on the street. Without hesitation, Jack
intervenes to stop the attack, firmly restraining the attacker until
the police arrive. Later, it's revealed that the person being
attacked was actually an undercover police officer who was
conducting a simulated training exercise.

In this case, Jack acted out of a genuine belief that he was justified
in stopping what he perceived to be a violent crime. However, his
belief was based on a mistake of fact, as he was unaware that it
was a training exercise. Section 17 of the BNS would protect Jack
from any legal repercussions for his actions, as he genuinely
 Section 18 of BNS: Accident in doing a lawful act
 Accidental harm caused while engaging in lawful activities is excusable under Section 18.
 For example, if a person, while responsibly using a tool, causes harm unintentionally, it is
not considered an offense if proper caution was exercised by him.
 A situation where Sarah is driving her car within the speed limit on a highway. Suddenly, a
small animal darts across the road, causing Sarah to swerve to avoid it. In the process, her
car grazes another vehicle in the adjacent lane, causing minor damage.
 Here, Sarah was engaged in a lawful activity (driving within the speed limit), but an
unexpected event (the animal crossing the road) led to an accident. Section 18 of the BNS
(hypothetical law) would protect Sarah from being held criminally liable for the minor
damage caused to the other vehicle, as the accident occurred while she was lawfully
driving and trying to avoid harm to the animal.
 Section 19 of BNS: Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent,
and to prevent other harm
 This section addresses situations where an act is likely to cause harm but is done without
criminal intent to prevent or avoid other harm.
 John sees a child running towards a busy road, oblivious to the oncoming traffic. In a split-
second decision, John grabs the child and pulls them back onto the sidewalk. However, in
the process, John accidentally bumps into an elderly person walking nearby, causing them
to stumble and fall, resulting in minor injuries.
 In this scenario, John's action of grabbing the child was done without any criminal intent;
he acted solely to prevent harm to the child by getting them away from the busy road.
However, his action of inadvertently bumping into the elderly person caused harm. This
situation would fall under the provision described, where an act likely to cause harm
(bumping into the elderly person) was done without criminal intent (John's sole intention
was to prevent harm to the child) and to prevent or avoid other harm (preventing the child
from running into traffic).
Section 20 of BNS: Act of a child under seven years of
age
This section recognizes the innocence and lack of culpability
in children under seven.
For instance, if a child under seven accidentally causes
harm to another person while playing, it is not considered
an offense.
Section 21 of BNS: Act of a child above seven and
under twelve of immature understanding
If a child between the ages of seven and twelve commits an
offence, he will not be punished if he had immature
understanding of the events and the consequences of the
events.
 By legal presumption, infants are deemed doli incapax, meaning they cannot
understand right from wrong,
 if a 9-year-old child steals a gold necklace and sells it to someone for a meagre amount,
the child would be liable if it can be proven that they had sufficient maturity of
understanding. The maxim “malitia supplet aetatem” (malice supplies defect of years)
applies to Section 83 of IPC. The circumstances of a case may reveal a level of malice that
justifies the application of this maxim.
 Let's
consider a scenario where a child between the ages of seven
and twelve, let's call him Sam, accidentally takes a neighbor's bicycle
without asking. Sam sees the bike unlocked in the neighbor's
driveway and, without fully understanding the concept of ownership
or the consequences of taking something without permission,
decides to ride it around the block.
 Later,when the neighbor realizes their bike is missing, they find Sam
riding it nearby. Sam returns the bike when asked but doesn't fully
comprehend the seriousness of what he did. His understanding of
property rights and the consequences of taking something without
permission is still developing.
 Inthis case, even though Sam technically committed an offense by
taking the bike without permission, his immature understanding of
the events and their consequences means he would not be punished
under the law. Instead, the focus might be on educating Sam about
respecting others' property and the importance of asking for
 Section 22 of BNS Act of a person of unsound mind
 This section protects individuals who, due to unsoundness of mind, cannot comprehend
the nature of their actions or discern right from wrong.
 An example would be a person with severe mental illness committing an offence without
understanding its consequences; such a person will not be criminally liable as per Section
22 of BNS.
 GROSSERY SHOP CASE…..
 Section 23 of BNS: Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of
intoxication caused against his will
 If a person is intoxicated against his will or without his knowledge, and commits an act
while under the influence, then Section 23 exempts such a person from criminal liability.

 For instance, if someone unknowingly consumes a spiked drink and engages in disorderly
conduct, he will be protected under this section.
 "Arun, a farmer, finds his crops being destroyed by a group of wild elephants that
frequently stray into his fields from the nearby forest reserve. Frustrated and fearing for
his livelihood, Arun decides to set up electric fencing around his fields to deter the
elephants. However, he fails to properly install warning signs indicating the presence of
the electric fence. One night, a young boy from a neighboring village, unaware of the
fence, attempts to retrieve a lost ball from Arun's field and suffers a severe electric
shock, resulting in serious injuries.
 Discuss whether Arun's actions are excusable or justifiable under the Indian Penal Code,
considering the harm caused to the young boy."
 This question raises issues related to the defense of property rights, the duty of care
owed to others, and the balance between protecting one's property and preventing harm
to others. It requires an analysis of whether Arun's actions, though aimed at protecting
his crops, were reasonable and whether he took sufficient precautions to prevent harm
to others

The 7 general exceptions in IPC:
Mistake of fact (Sections 76, 79).
• Judicial acts (Sections 77-78).
• Accident (Section 80).
• Absence of criminal intention (Sections 81-86, 92-94).
• An act is done by consent (Sections 87-91).
• Trifling Act (Section 95).
• Private defence (Sections 96-106).
 Section 84: Act of an Insane Person
• Insane individuals cannot be held culpable as they lack free will (Furiosi nulla voluntas
est). The term “unsoundness of mind” encompasses various types of individuals,
including:
• Idiot: Someone rendered non-compos mentis due to illness, which may be a temporary
failure.
• Lunatic or madman: A person with a mental disorder.
• Unconscious person, if proven: This can include cases of sleepwalking or
somnambulism.
• Intoxicated person
 In the case of A. Ahmed v. King (AIR 1949 Cal 182), the accused killed his 5-year-
old son by thrusting a knife into his throat under the delusion and belief that he
had received a command to do so from someone in paradise in his dream. He
was held to be protected under Section 84.
 McNaughten’s case (1843).
 a father and his relatives sacrificed their 4-year-old son to propitiate a deity, the Supreme
Court held that this act alone does not prove insanity (Paras Ram v. State of Punjab,
1981).
 When acts of violence are committed by a person without any apparent motive, especially
towards their close relatives with whom they had previously been affectionate, and when
there is a history of lunacy, the benefit of the doubt may favour the accused.
 Individuals who are occasionally possessed by spirits or experience visions/images during
fits of delirium can benefit from Section 84. However, in cases of delirium tremens (a type
of madness caused by habitual excessive alcohol consumption or illness), they
would be criminally liable if the patient is aware of their actions.
 Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the defense of insanity. It says that if
someone commits a crime but, at the time, they couldn't understand what they were
doing or that it was wrong because of a mental illness or defect, they might not be held
criminally responsible.
 But here's the catch: this defense only works if their cognitive faculties, meaning their
ability to understand things, are impaired because of a mental illness or defect. It doesn't
cover situations where someone simply has wrong beliefs, uncontrollable impulses, moral
insanity (where they know what they're doing is wrong but can't stop themselves), weak
intellect, or just behaves strangely.
 So, if someone's mind is working fine in terms of understanding right and wrong, but they
have wild impulses or emotions, that's not going to excuse them from committing a crime.
They'd still be held responsible for their actions.
 If the capacity to distinguish between right and wrong is still present, the
individual cannot be protected under Section 84 (Lakshmi v. State AIR 1959 All
534).
 Sections 85-86: Act of an Intoxicated Person
 Drunkenness is considered a form of voluntary madness for which the individual is
responsible. If a person chooses to get drunk, it is their own voluntary act, distinct from
the madness not caused by any voluntary action.
 The Latin maxim “Qui Pecat Ebrius Luat Sobrius” means “Let him who sins
when drunk be punished when sober.” However, Sections 85 and 86 protect an
intoxicated person if they became intoxicated by mistake (e.g., taking the wrong
medicine) or against their will through fraud or force.
Section 80: Accident
The third general exception deals with acts
committed by accident. According to Section 80,
no offence is committed when an act is done
unintentionally or by misfortune:
• Without criminal intention or knowledge.
• In the process of carrying out a lawful act using
lawful means in a lawful manner.
• With the exercise of proper care and caution.
 An accident is something that occurs unexpectedly, outside the normal course of events. It
involves the idea of something fortuitous and unforeseen. An injury is considered to be
caused accidentally when it is neither intentional nor due to negligence.
 For example, during a game of cricket, if a ball strikes a person’s head resulting in their
death, it is considered an accidental death. Similarly, if two wrestlers engage in a bout and
during it, one of them falls and breaks their skull, it is also considered an accidental
occurrence.
 Some other illustrations include:
• A playfully points a gun at B without checking whether it is loaded and accidentally pulls
the trigger, causing B’s death. In this case, the death is not considered accidental due to
the lack of proper care and caution. However, if A had reason to believe the gun was not
loaded, the death would be considered accidental.
• If A shoots at a bird in B’s house with the intention to steal it but accidentally kills B in the
process, A would be held liable as their act of stealing is not a lawful act.
 Test of Drunkenness
 Imagine someone gets accused of a crime, but they were drunk at
the time. Now, the focus shifts to whether they were able to intend to
do that crime while drunk.
 Usually, the law assumes that people mean to do what their
actions naturally lead to. But if someone is drunk, that
assumption can change.
 So, the test for drunkenness in legal terms is about whether
the person was so drunk that they couldn't really mean to do
the crime. This means they either didn't realize their actions
were risky, or they couldn't specifically plan to commit that
crime because they were too intoxicated.
 In simpler terms, it's like saying, "Yeah, they did something
wrong, but they were so drunk they didn't really know what
they were doing or couldn't plan it properly."
 When someone commits a crime, there are two important things
to consider: intention and knowing what they're doing.
 For drunkenness, the main question is whether the person was
able to actually intend to do the crime while they were
drunk.
 But for insanity, it's about whether the person knew what
they were doing when they committed the crime.
 Now, if someone is insane because they were drunk,
that's where Section 84 comes in. It basically says, "Hey, if
the insanity was caused by being drunk, that can be a defense."
 So, in really simple terms, it's like saying, "Were they too drunk
to mean to do the crime? And if they were, then being drunk can
be a defense against the insanity part too."
 Section 92: Bona fide Act for Another’s Benefit
 an act is not considered an offence if it causes harm to a person for whose
benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person’s consent, under
emergent circumstances. This provision protects individuals who act in the
best interests of others in urgent and life-threatening situations.

 Example of a Tiger
 Example of a doctor/surgeon
 Example of a Child and fire

Section 93: Communication Made in Good

Faith
Example : Information given by a doctor
Section 94: Act Done under Compulsion or
Threat
 if a person commits an offence under compulsion or threat, they may be excused if the
threat is to cause instant death. However, there are certain limitations to this provision.
The person under threat cannot commit murder or an offence against the State that is
punishable by death, such as treason, to avail themselves of the benefit of Section 94.
Additionally, the person must not have voluntarily or reasonably placed themselves under
such constraint due to a fear of harm short of instant death.

 For example, if someone threatens another person with a stick to harm someone else, the
person threatened cannot plead the defence under Section 94. However, if the threat
involves a loaded revolver or a dagger held at the person’s throat, causing them to believe
they would be instantly killed if they did not commit the offence, this would be a valid
defence under Section 94.
 Section 95: Trifling Acts/ Acts Causing
Slight Harm
Sections 96-106: Right of Private Defence
 nothing is an offence when it is done in the exercise of the right of private
defence. (96)

 The right of private defence can be exercised when there

is a real and immediate threat and reasonable
apprehension. Future or hypothetical threats do not
justify the use of this right.

 The force used in self-defence must be proportionate to

the danger faced and should not exceed the necessary
limits. However, in situations of imminent danger, a
 Private Defence of Body (MENTAL CONDITION OF ATTACKER)
 Imagine there's a situation where the police arrest someone, but they don't
have the legal right to do so. In response, some villagers try to help the person
being arrested, and things escalate when a police officer fires at them.

 Now, whether the villagers' actions are considered okay or not depends on a few things. If
the police did something totally illegal, like arresting someone without any valid reason,
then the villagers might have the right to defend themselves because they felt threatened
by the police firing at them.

 But if the police officer was just doing their job in good faith, even if they made a mistake
in arresting someone, then that person being arrested can't fight back against the officer.
In simpler terms, if the police are acting within their authority, even if they make a
mistake, you can't defend yourself against them.
 Absence of Right of Defence When Time for Recourse to Public Authorities
Exists

 Limitation on Inflicting Harm

 BUT SECTION 100 AND SECTION 101 (CAUSE HARM OTHER THAN DEATH)

 Commencement and Continuation of Right of Self-

Defence

Private Defence of Property

 What is Homicide?
• Homicide: This is when one person kills another person. The word comes from Latin:
"homo" means human, and "cida" means to kill. So, homicide simply means the act of
killing a human being.
 Types of Homicide
 Not all homicides are the same. They can be divided into different categories, and one of
the main categories is culpable homicide.
 Culpable Homicide (Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860)
• Culpable Homicide: This term is used to describe a situation where one person kills
another person, but it is not necessarily murder. It is a type of killing that is blameworthy
or involves some degree of fault, but it does not meet the criteria to be considered murder.
 Understanding Section 299
 Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) explains what culpable homicide is. Let's break
it down:
1. Intention: The person has the intention to cause death.
2. Knowledge: The person knows that their actions are likely to cause death.
3. Act: The person commits an act that causes death, but it was not planned as murder.
 Examples to Clarify
• Culpable Homicide: A person hits someone in a fight without intending to kill them, but
the other person dies as a result. Here, there was an intention to harm, and the person
knew their actions could be dangerous, but there was no premeditated plan to kill.
• Murder: A person plans and deliberately kills another person with the clear intention of
causing death.
 Key Differences
• Culpable Homicide can occur without the intention to kill, but with the knowledge that
the act could result in death.
• Murder involves a clear intention to cause death and often includes premeditation.
 Summary
• Homicide means the killing of one human by another.
• Culpable Homicide (under Section 299 IPC) means a killing that involves blame or fault
but is not planned as murder.
• Murder is a more severe form of killing with a clear intention to kill.
• RAM KUMAR VS STATE OF CHATTISGRH
• In this case the defendant was given punishment under section
302 for murder by the district court for his offence of hitting his
sister in law on her head because he did not want her to marry,
the girl directly went to police station after being hit by the man
but after then she died, court considered that FIR as her
dying declaration, deeming everything she lodged to be true and
sentenced the man with section 302 i.e., punishment for murder
• But the man then appealed to the high court and the high court
observed that the girl could have directly moved to the hospital
instead of approaching the police station after being hit. This
delay is the reason of her death and hitting on her head was not
certain to cause her death and hence the high court sentenced
him under section 304 of IPC which was second degree
punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
 BHAGWAN SINGH VS STATE OF UTTRAKHAND[7]
• In this case the accused had fired bullets pointing towards the
roof in a dwelling house while celebrating an event. Those
bullets deflected back from the roof and injured 5 people out
which 2 people died.
• The accused pleaded not guilty claiming that he did not have
any intention to kill someone, the bullets were fired just for
celebration.
• The court observed that these events are taking place very
widely now and as this is extremely dangerous to fire bullets
towards a roof that too when there are so many people
surrounding it was somewhere negligent on the accused’s behalf
to do such an act which could have been foreseen, so the court
held him guilty under section 302 part 1 i.e., the second-degree
punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Culpable homicide
 Lawful homicide
 Unlawful homicide-
 i. culpable homicide
 ii. Murder
 iii. Rash and Negligent Act
 Iv. Suicide

 Culpable Homicide: a. Amounting to Murder

 b. Not Amounting to Murder
 Example of Sharp and Blunt Knife
 Degree of Probability of causing death
 Degree of Intention.

 ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
….
 Causing Death of Human ( CULPABLE HOMICIDE /MURDER)
 INTENTION OF CAUSING DEATH ( CULPABLE HOMICIDE /MURDER) (Degree of Intention)
 Causing Bodily Injury as offender knows likely to cause death ( CULPABLE HOMICIDE
/MURDER (Degree of Probability of causing death)
 Knowledge that act done is sufficiently dangerous to cause death (Murder)
 Knowledge of the act which likely to cause death (CULPABLE HOMICIDE

 ALL MURDERS ARE CULPABLE HOMICIDE BUT ALL CULPABLE HOMICIDE ARE NOT
MURDER
 Exceptions of murder
 All are related to culpable homicide
 Provocation
 Right of Private defence
 Public servant acting in good faith
 No premeditation

 Section 301 Doctrine of transfer malice

Ravi and Suraj had a severe disagreement. Ravi
decided to end the conflict by killing Suraj. One
evening, Ravi planned an attack and, hiding in a dark
alley, he fired a shot at Suraj as he passed by. However,
Suraj managed to duck just in time, and the bullet
missed him. The bullet then struck and killed Meera, a
stranger who happened to be walking behind Suraj.
Suraj, witnessing the incident, chased Ravi and tried to
apprehend him. In the ensuing struggle, Suraj managed
to snatch Ravi's gun and shot at Ravi, but the bullet
accidentally hit and killed Nisha, another passerby. The
police arrived at the scene and arrested both Ravi and
Suraj.
•Is Ravi liable for the death of Meera? Under which section of the IPC can he be
prosecuted, and how does the Doctrine of Transfer of Malice apply to his actions?
•Is Suraj liable for the death of Nisha? Can the Doctrine of Transfer of Malice be
applied to Suraj’s actions? If not, under which legal principles and sections of the
IPC could Suraj be prosecuted?
•Discuss the difference in culpability between Ravi and Suraj, considering their
intentions and the outcomes of their actions.
•If it is found that Ravi did not intend to kill Suraj but only to scare him, how would
this affect his liability under the Doctrine of Transfer of Malice for Meera’s death?
•Evaluate the role of 'mens rea' in this scenario for both Ravi and Suraj. How does
the presence or absence of 'mens rea' impact their respective liabilities?
 Ravi's Liability for Meera's Death:
 Suraj's Liability for Nisha's Death:
 Difference in Culpability:
 Ravi's Intention to Scare:
 Role of Mens Rea:
 INCHOHATE CRIME (INCOMPLETE OFFENCE)
 Inchoate offences are crimes that are punishable even
if the crime wasn't fully carried out. Examples include
attempting to commit murder, planning a crime with
others (conspiracy), trying to commit suicide, or
encouraging someone else to commit a crime
(abetment). The idea behind punishing these
incomplete crimes is to prevent harm before it
happens. The law aims to stop crimes from occurring
in the first place, believing that it's better to prevent
crime than to punish it after the fact.

 Prevention of crime is better than the punishment of crime”

In inchoate offences, a person is punished for
the steps they take to commit a crime, not for
the main crime itself. These actions are
considered illegal and are punished to prevent
the crime from happening. However, these acts
are seen as less serious than the actual crime,
so the punishment is not as severe. For
example, the punishment for murder (under IPC
Section 302) is more severe than the
punishment for attempting to murder someone
 Inchoate offences are also linked to serious crimes and
can't be looked at separately. They usually fall into three
categories: attempt, abetment, and conspiracy.
 Forexample, trying to kill someone (attempt to murder),
encouraging someone to commit suicide (abetment to
suicide), or planning a crime with others (criminal
conspiracy). These are steps toward committing a serious
crime and are punished to stop the crime from
happening.
  I
 NCHOHATE OFFENCES

 Inchoate offences are crimes that are not fully carried out but are still
punishable by law. These include actions like attempting to commit a crime,
planning a crime with others (conspiracy), or helping someone commit a crime
(abetment). The idea behind punishing inchoate offences is to prevent crimes
before they happen, based on the principle that "prevention is better than
punishment." Examples include attempting to murder someone, planning a
robbery, or helping someone plan a theft. Even though the crime wasn't
completed, the law recognizes the seriousness of these actions and punishes
them to stop potential harm early on.
 Inchoate offences are "incomplete offences." The term
"inchoate" means "unfinished" or "not fully developed."
These offences occur when someone takes steps toward
committing a crime but doesn't actually complete it.
There are two key parts to any crime: mens rea, which is
the intention to commit a crime, and actus reus, which is
the actual act of committing the crime. Inchoate offences
only involve the intention (mens rea) without completing
the action (actus reus). For example, planning a robbery
or trying to commit murder without succeeding are
considered inchoate offences.
 Ininchoate offences, the person isn't punished for the
main crime but for the steps taken to commit it. These
steps are considered illegal and are punished. However,
these actions aren't seen as serious as the completed
crime, so the punishment is usually less severe. For
example, under Indian law, the punishment for murder
(Section 302) is stricter than the punishment for
attempting to murder (Section 307). This is because
actually committing the crime is considered more serious
than just trying and failing to commit it.
Inchoate offences are linked to serious
crimes and can't be considered on their
own. They usually involve attempts to
commit a crime, helping someone commit a
crime (abetment), or planning a crime with
others (conspiracy). Examples include
attempting to murder, encouraging
someone to commit suicide, or planning a
crime with others. These offences fall into
three main categories: attempt, abetment,
 The list of inchoate crimes we have today is a relatively recent
addition to the legal system. Initially, it was widely believed that
any crime automatically included liability for attempting it.
However, by the 16th century in England, there was a need to
address threats to peace and law more strictly. English jurists
decided to prosecute not only completed crimes but also attempts
to commit crimes, to prevent lawlessness. In the 18th century, more
types of inchoate crimes, beyond just attempts, were included.

 In the 19th century, with cases like R v. Higgins, the importance of

intention in inchoate crimes was recognized, expanding the scope
of these offences. Conspiracies, which date back to the 14th
century, were formally recognized as inchoate crimes in the 19th
century through the writings of legal scholars like Hawkins and
Blackstone. The case of R v. Journeymen Tailors further established
conspiracy as a prosecutable inchoate crime, even for actions not
 ABATEMENT ( Sections 45, 46 of
BNS)
 Abetment occurs when someone doesn't commit a
crime themselves but encourages or helps
another person to commit it. This is covered in
Chapter V of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860,
specifically in Sections 107 and 108. According to
these sections, a person abets a crime if they
instigate, engage in, or aid in the commission of
the crime. For example, if A helps B murder C,
then A is guilty of abetment.
 One may argue that the act of abetment does not really have
an actus reus and therefore should not constitute an
offence as the very essence of every criminal law is that
there needs to be a merger of mens rea and actus reus
for there to be a crime. In abetment, the statement or
command or incitement given from the abettor to the
committer of the crime is to be considered as the actus
reus in this case and the intention to induce the person
to commit the act for one’s self is the mens rea in such
a case.
 Therefore, with the merger of actus reus and mens rea,
abetment becomes an offence. It is to be noted that the actus
reus in case of abetment requires the statement to convey a
proper intention on behalf of the author to convince another to
commit the criminal act. Therefore, a mere statement in passing
is not sufficient to convict a person of abetment.
In criminal law, there are four stages to the
commission of any crime
(i) Formation of mental element or mens rea.
(ii) Preparation for the commission of the
crime
(iii) Acting on the basis of such preparations
(iv)Commission of the act resulting in an
event proscribed by law
 Ina hypothetical situation, if A tells B as a joke that he wishes to kill
X, the statement does not amount to abetment.

 If
the statement is said to B with a specific intent to convince B to
murder X, A will be liable for the offence of abetment by incitement.

 If A assistsB in the murder of Z unintentionally, then A is not liable for

the offence of abetment.

 If A however has some knowledge that his act could possibly result in
the murder of Z, then A is liable for abetment
 The Privy Council in the Barendra Kumar Ghosh v.
King Emperor held that the the presence of a
person at the scene of occurrence does amount to
abetment if it is intended to encourage the
commission of the offence. Mere proof that the
crime committed could not be committed without
the intervention of the abettor is not enough
 Furthermore, there are a few cases wherein the
conviction for the act thus committed does not require
the proving of an individual’s mens rea.

 Strict Liability…..
 ……The Supreme Court while considering the validity of the
Terrorist and Disruptive Activities Act (Prevention Act), 1987,
concurred with the Bombay High Court decision…in State of
Maharashtra v. Abdul Aziz AIR 1962 Bom 243, (1962) 64 BOMLR 16
…. that when no mens rea is necessary in the substantive offence,
the same is also not necessary in the abetment thereof.

 Abetment is not a substantive offence on its own. It requires the act of

aiding, instigating or conspiring to commit the offence. Criminal conspiracy
is considered a substantive offence, where the mere agreement to commit
an offence is punishable, even if the offence is not actually committed.
 Section 107: Abetment of a Crime
 - Agreement + Act : For an offence under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), two things are
necessary:
 1. Agreement: There must be an agreement or plan to commit a crime.
 2. Act: There must be some act done to help or support this crime. This act should be in furtherance of the
crime, meaning it should contribute towards the crime being committed.

 So, just agreeing to commit a crime is not enough under Section 107. There must also be some action taken
to support or advance the crime.

 Section 120A: Criminal Conspiracy

 - Mere Agreement : For an offence under Section 120A of the IPC, only one thing is necessary:
 1. Agreement: There must be an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime.

 Here, just the agreement or plan to commit a crime is enough. No further action or step needs to be taken to
support the crime. The crime of conspiracy is complete the moment the agreement is made.

 In Summary
 Section 107: Requires both an agreement to commit a crime **and** some act done in support of the crime.
 Section 120A : Requires only an agreement to commit a crime, with no need for any further action.

 This means Section 107 needs more evidence (both the agreement and the act), while Section 120A requires
only the agreement itself to be considered an offence.
 Criminal Conspiracy vs. Abetment by Conspiracy

 1. Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120A)

 - When it's a crime: The moment people agree to commit a crime.
 - What you need: Just an agreement between two or more people to commit an
offence. No need for any further action.

 2. Abetment by Conspiracy (Section 107) - When it's a crime: After the agreed
crime is actually committed.
 - What you need:
 1. Agreement: People plan or agree to commit a crime.
 2. Act: Some action must be taken to help or support the crime.
 How it Works Together
 - Before the Crime Happens:
 - As soon as people agree to commit a crime, they are guilty of **criminal conspiracy** (under Section
120A).
 - This means even if they haven't done anything yet to make the crime happen, the agreement itself is a
crime.

 - After the Crime Happens:

 - Once the crime is actually committed, those same people are also guilty of **abetment by conspiracy**
(under Section 107).
 - This means they not only agreed to commit the crime but also did something to help make it happen.

 Example
 - Before: Alice, Bob, and Charlie agree to rob a bank. This agreement makes them guilty of **criminal
conspiracy**.
 - After : They go ahead and rob the bank. Now, they are also guilty of **abetment by conspiracy** because
they committed the crime they planned and took actions to support it.

 - Criminal Conspiracy: Just agreeing to commit a crime makes you guilty (before the crime happens).
 -Abetment by Conspiracy: Actually committing the crime after agreeing to it and doing something to support
it makes you guilty (after the crime happens).

 So, someone can be guilty of conspiracy (just for agreeing) and later also guilty of abetment by conspiracy
 Proof of Conspiracy
 The crime is inherently psychological in nature. The proof of such
an act is also difficult. It can be ascertained by the fact that some
act was kept a secret. However, this does not constitute an
essential element of the conspiracy. It can be done through:
 Direct Evidence or;
 Circumstantial Evidence
 It was held in the case of Quinn v. Leathern, that inference is
generally deduced from the acts of the parties in pursuance of the
predetermined acts. In such a crime, circumstantial evidence and
direct evidence turn out to be the same because there has not
been an act, yet. The act is only being conspired.
 The Doctrine of Agency also comes into play in this scenario. The
fact that there was an agency in the conspiracy may prove that
there was involvement of this person in the act. This was held in
Bhagwan Swaroop Lai Bishan Lai v. State of Maharashtra.
 Section 110 deals with a situation where one person (the abettor) encourages another
person (the abetted) to commit a crime. However, the person who actually commits the
crime (the abetted) does so with a different intention or knowledge than what the abettor
had in mind.

 Key Points:
 1. Abettor and Abetted:
 -Abettor**: The person who encourages or helps someone to commit a crime.
 - Abetted**: The person who actually commits the crime.

 2. Different Intention or Knowledge:

 - If the abetted person commits the crime but with a different intention or knowledge
than what the abettor had, it does not matter.

 3. Punishment
 - The abetted person will be punished as if they had the same intention and knowledge
as the abettor.
 - They cannot use the excuse that their intention or knowledge was different to escape
 Types of Offences:
 - The rules about whether the crime is serious (cognizable), not so serious (non-
cognizable), if the person can be released on bail (bailable or non-bailable), which court
will try the case, and if the crime can be settled without going to court (compoundable
or non-compoundable) will apply based on the original offence intended by the abettor.

 Example:
 Imagine Person A (the abettor) tells Person B (the abetted) to steal a specific item from
a store. Person B goes to the store but instead of stealing the specific item, they steal
something else or commit the theft in a different way.

 - Person B will be punished as if they stole the specific item Person A told them to steal,
regardless of the difference in what they actually did.
 - They cannot claim a different intention or knowledge to avoid punishment.

 Summary:
 In essence, Section 110 ensures that the person who commits the crime cannot escape
punishment by saying they had a different intention or knowledge from the person who
encouraged them to commit the crime. The law treats them as equally responsible.
 Section 109 of the Penal Code explains that if someone helps or encourages another
person to commit a crime (this is called abetment), they will receive the same
punishment as the person who actually commits the crime (the principal perpetrator).

 Key Points:
 1. Abettor and Principal Perpetrator:
 - Abettor: The person who helps, encourages, or induces someone to commit a
crime.
 - Principal Perpetrator: The person who actually commits the crime.

 2. Actus Reus - This is the actual act of committing the crime.

 - If the crime happens as a result of the abettor's encouragement or help, both are
treated equally under the law.

 3. Same Punishment: - The abettor gets the same punishment as the person who
committed the crime.
 - It doesn’t matter if they didn’t actually do the crime themselves; their
 4. Section 109 Application:
 - This section applies when there isn't a specific law outlining punishment for the
abetment of that particular crime.
 - It serves as a general rule to ensure abettors are punished appropriately.

 Example:
 Imagine Person A encourages Person B to rob a bank. Person B goes and robs the
bank.

 - Even though Person A didn't actually rob the bank, they will receive the same
punishment as Person B because their encouragement led to the crime.
 - Section 109 ensures that Person A cannot escape punishment just because they
didn't do the robbery themselves.
 Summary:

 Section 109 ensures that anyone who helps or encourages another person to
commit a crime is punished just like the person who actually commits the crime.
 Section 108A of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC):
 Section 108A of the IPC addresses cases where a person in India
helps or encourages someone to commit a crime outside India. This
section is important because it ensures that individuals who assist
in crimes that happen beyond Indian borders can still be held
accountable under Indian law. In other words, even if the crime
takes place in another country, the person in India who played a
part in making it happen cannot avoid punishment. This helps in
maintaining justice and ensures that cross-border criminals face
legal consequences.
Before we dive into the intricacies of Section 108A
IPC, let’s briefly touch upon the essential elements
of abetment in Indian law. Abetment involves
actively encouraging, assisting, or instigating
someone to commit a crime. It is categorized into
various degrees, such as abetment by instigation
and abetment by conspiracy.
Section 108A IPC applies when:
The offender is within India’s jurisdiction.
The offence occurs outside India.
The offender abets the crime happening beyond
Indian borders.
This section has significant implications for
extradition, cooperation with international law
enforcement agencies, and the prosecution of
individuals involved in transnational criminal
activities.
 Jurisdiction And Challenges
 One of the primary challenges in applying Section 108A
IPC is determining the extent of jurisdiction. India cannot
claim universal jurisdiction over all crimes committed
abroad, and extradition can be a complex process.
However, when the crime affects Indian interests or
when there is a specific extradition treaty in place,
Section 108A IPC can be invoked.
 HURT AND GREVIOUS HURT
 What is Simple Hurt?
 Hurt Definition: Hurt means causing bodily pain, illness, or disease to someone else.
 Legal Reference: This is defined in Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860.
 Important Points:
 Bodily Pain: Any pain caused by physical contact.
 Disorder: Any physical condition that disrupts normal body function.
 Disease: Any illness passed on to someone.
 Assault and Hurt: There's no big difference between assault and hurt. Both involve
causing physical pain or injury.
 Focus of Section 319: This section only defines what hurt means. It doesn't explain the
specific situations in which hurt is caused.
 In summary, Section 319 of the IPC explains that hurt includes causing any kind of physical
pain, disorder, or disease to someone, but it doesn't specify the exact circumstances of
how it happens.
 To constitute any one or more of essentials of simple hurt must be present:
 Bodily Pain
 Infirmity to another
 Disease
 BODILY PAIN : Sure, let's make it simple:

 What is Hurt According to Section 319 of the IPC?

 - Definition: Hurt means causing bodily pain, illness, or disease to someone.

 - Physical Pain: The pain must be physical, not mental or emotional. So, hurting someone's
feelings or causing emotional distress doesn't count as hurt under this section.
 - No Visible Injury Needed: You don't need to see any injury for it to be considered hurt. As
long as there is physical pain, it counts.
 - Severity and Duration: It doesn't matter how severe the pain is or how long it lasts. Any
amount of physical pain qualifies.

 - Example: Pulling someone's hair and causing pain is considered hurt.

 In summary, Section 319 of the IPC focuses on causing physical pain, illness, or disease,
and it doesn't matter if there are no visible injuries or if the pain is minor or brief. Any
physical pain counts as hurt.
 Infirmity to another
 Infirmity denotes the bad state of frame of mind and a state of transient intellectual
impairment or hysteria or terror would constitute disease inside the meaning of this
expression inside the section. It is an incapability of an organ to carry out its everyday
function, whether temporarily or completely. It may be delivered through the
administration of a toxic or poisonous substance or by means of taking alcohol
administered by way of any other person.
 Disease:
 When a disease or illness is spread from one person to another through contact,
it is considered hurt. However, this idea becomes unclear when it involves
sexually transmitted diseases (STDs).
 For example, if a prostitute has sex with someone and gives them syphilis, they
can be held responsible under Section 269 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for
spreading the infection. This is because the time between the sexual act and the
appearance of the disease is too long to be considered as causing hurt under
Section 319 of the IPC.
 In summary, spreading a disease through contact is hurt, but when it comes to
STDs, the person is usually charged with spreading infection, not causing hurt,
due to the delay between the act and the disease showing up
 Intention or Knowledge

 1. Intention or Knowledge: To cause hurt, a person must have the intention or knowledge
that their actions will cause pain or harm.

 2. Example: If someone intentionally tries to shock a person with a weak heart and
succeeds, they have caused hurt.

 3. Drug Administration: Causing physical pain by giving someone drugs also counts as
hurt.

 4. Severity and Intent:

 - If the harm isn't severe and there's no intention to cause death or serious injury, the
person is only guilty of causing hurt.
 - Even if the victim dies, if the intention was only to cause minor harm, the charge
remains as causing hurt.

 In summary, causing hurt requires intention or knowledge of potential harm. This includes
causing pain through drugs or shock. If the harm isn't severe and there's no intent to
 In Marana Goundan v. R [AIR 1941 Mad. 560] the accused demanded money
from the deceased which the latter owed him. The deceased promised to pay
later. Thereafter the accused kicked him at the abdomen and the deceased
collapsed and died. The accused changed into held guilty of causing hurt as it
couldn’t be stated that he meant or knew that kicking at the abdomen become
in all likelihood to hazard existence.
 Grievous Injury List
 Thereare eight cases of grievous hurt in IPC. The
grievous injury list is as follows:
 1. Emasculation
2. Injury to Eyesight
3. Deprivation of hearing
4. Loss of Limb or Joint
5. Impairing of Limb
6. Permanent disfiguration of head or face
7. Fracture or dislocation of bone or tooth
8. Endangering life, severe bodily pain, etc.
 Emasculation refers to depriving a man of his masculine power
or role, often impacting his sexual capacity. This can happen
through castration, injury to the sexual organs, or damage to the
spinal cord or testicles. A man is not considered emasculated if
he can still penetrate sexually. According to legal definitions, for
an injury to be considered emasculation, it must cause a loss of
masculine power. Before accusing someone of causing such
injury, it's essential to confirm that the victim was not already
impotent. Legal terminology can sometimes make it challenging
to differentiate between severe (grievous) and minor (simple)
injuries.
 Privationmeans losing essential things needed for living, like
eyesight. Permanent loss of eyesight caused by severe injuries,
such as chemical exposure or poking, is considered a grievous
injury. However, temporary blindness does not count as grievous
hurt; the loss must be permanent. This includes not just
complete blindness but also significant loss of vision quality. The
law doesn't specify how much vision loss qualifies. Doctors must
carefully examine the injury and patient history to avoid being
misled by those pretending to be more injured than they are.
Therefore, doctors should wait until the injury has fully healed
before giving their opinion.
Permanent hearing loss is also classified as
grievous hurt. Although it doesn't disfigure a
person, it is still a serious injury because it deprives
someone of their sense of hearing. To determine if
the injury is simple or grievous, the extent of
hearing loss is considered. For it to be classified as
grievous, the deafness must be permanent. This
type of injury can occur from a blow to the head or
ears, inserting objects into the ear, or other similar
actions. Accurate medical assessment of hearing
loss can be challenging without knowing the
victim's hearing ability before the injury, increasing
When a person permanently loses the use of
any limb or joint, it leaves them defenseless
and crippled. This includes the loss of even a
small part, like a finger, as it reduces the
person's overall ability. Grievous hurt is
defined as any permanent decrease in the
victim's physical utility. The law does not
specify the exact punishment for causing
such injuries, leaving it to the discretion of
the presiding officer. Currently, there are no
case laws that clearly outline the different
 Permanent disfiguration of the face or head is considered
grievous hurt. "Disfigure" means causing an external
injury that alters appearance. If the face or head is
permanently deformed or cosmetically damaged, it
qualifies as grievous hurt, even if the injury does not
affect the part's function. Examples include tearing ears,
cutting the nose, or branding cheeks with hot iron.
Temporary disfigurement does not count; the change
must be permanent.