Toolkit - IPC Summary
Toolkit - IPC Summary
LAW OF CRIME– 2
INDIAN PENAL CODE
Homicide
Section What is it Explanation Punishment
Justifiable homicide applies when
death is caused by Person believing to No
be bound by law, makes mistakes of punishment.
Justifiable Homicide fact, Judge acting in good faith in Law will set
discharge of his judicial capacity, the accused
Person acting in pursuance of a free
judgment
Culpable Homicide sets in when a
person causes death: (i) With the
intention of causing death, (ii) With
304: SI/RI upto
299 Culpable Homicide the intention of causing such bodily
10 years, fine
injury as is likely to cause death, (iii)
With the knowledge that he is likely,
by such act, to cause death
Same
punishment as
that of murder
Culpable homicide by causing death
or culpable
301 Transferred Malice of person other than person whose
homicide not
death was intended
amounting to
murder, as
applicable
Culpable homicide amounting Culpable homicide will become Death or life
300
to murder murder in any one of the following imprisonment
situations 1. intention to cause death. (Sn 302)
Eg: If A shoots Z with intention of
killing him, Z dies in consequence, A
commits murder. 2. Intention to cause
bodily injury with the knowledge such
injury will likely cause death (eg:
striking on the head a person resting
after head surgery) 3. Intention to
cause bodily injury, which in ordinary
cause of nature will cause death (eg:
A intentionally gives Z a sword cut
sufficient to cause the death of a man
in the ordinary course of nature. Z
dies in consequences. Here A is guilty
of murder although he may not have
intended to cause Z‟s death.) 4.
Knowledge the injury is so
imminently dangerous to the person,
and in all probability, the person will
die. Eg: „ A‟ without any excuse fires
a loaded cannon in to a crowd of
persons and kills one of them. A is
guilty of murder although he may not
have had a pre- meditated design to
kill any particular individual.
Known as manslaughter in US; five
Sn 304: Life
exception to Sn 300 : (i) Grave and
Culpable homicide not imprisonment
300 sudden provocation, (ii) sudden fight,
amounting to murder OR 10 years
(iii) private defense exceed (iv) lawful
SI/RI + fine
authority, (v) death by consent
Death caused by rash and negligent Two years
304A Death by negligence
act. imprisonment
7 years SI/Ri to
Death of women caused by burns or
life
bodily injury outside normal
304B Dowry death imprisonment,
circumstances, within 7 years of
even relatives
marriage
punihable
The use of force, words, conduct,
wilful omission or deeds; or even
silence, to annoy or irritate the 10 years SI/RI
306 Abetment of suicide
deceased and cause the latter to take + fine
steps to put an end to one‟s life.
Intimidation is not required.
Simple
Latest SC position is right to die does
309 Attempt to commit suicide imprisonment
not come under right to life
up to 1 year
312, 3 to 10 years
Causing miscarriage
313, SI/Ri and fine
314
SI/RI up to 10
315,316 Infanticide
years
1. Attempt to
murder = 10
Years + Fine;
2. If such act
causes hurt to
any person =
Any act which fits the definition of
Imprisonment
murder. Eg: If A shoots B with
for Life or 10
307 Attempted Murder intention to kill, A will be punished
Years + Fine;
regardless of whether B dies or not.
These are Non-
Intention is all important.
Bailable,
Cognizable
offence and
triable by
Court of
Session
Any act which comes under Sn 299, 3 years SI/RI,
308 Attempted Culpable Homicide
even if such act fails. fine
All sexual offences other than rape
2 years SI/RI,
354 Outraging modesty of women covered in Sn 375 (fingering, bottom
fine
clapping etc)
Derived from Latin term rapio, which
mean „to seize‟. Rape is the
“ravishment of a woman without her
consent, by force, fear, or fraud” or
Sn 376: RI
“violation with violence of the private
between 7
person of a woman.” In old definition
years and life,
penetration of penis into vagina was
fine. Minimum
essential to constitute rape, and that
punishment is
too under six circumstances 1.Against
10 years RI for
her will. 2. Without her consent.
those in
3.With her consent, when consent is
authority (eg:
obtained by putting her or any person
375 Rape police officer,
in whom she is interested in fear of
armed forces,
death or of hurt. 4. With her consent,
wardens etc).
when she mistakes the man for her
Not physically
husband (and the man knows he is not
resisting the act
her husband) 5. Consent under
of penetration
forceful intoxication 6. Under six
shall not be
years of age, regardless of the
implied as
circumstances (even with consent); …
consent.
After amendment, a man is said to
commit “rape” if 1.he penetrates his
penis, any other body part, or any
other object, to any extent, into the
vagina, mouth, urethra or anus of a
woman; 2. applies his mouth to the
vagina, anus, urethra of a woman; 3.
makes her to do any of these acts
(1&2) with any other person; 4.
manipulates a women‟s body to
subject her to any of these acts 1&2).
The six categories still apply, and an
additional 7th category is added: 7.
When she is unable to communicate
consent. Consent means unequivocal
voluntary agreement by words,
gestures or any form of verbal or non-
verbal communication.
Homosexuality
and lesbianism
is now no
Homesexuality, bestiality, sodomy, longer a crime
377 Unnatural Offences
lesbianism Only bestiality
is a crime with
10 years SI/RI,
fine
CLUPABLE HOMICIDE
Homicide means the killing of a man by man.
Culpable Homicide is divided into
Culpable Homicide amounting to murder
* Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
Case Laws:
Vasant v State of Maharashtra: The accused ran his jeep over the victim and claimed
accident. There was previous enmity between the two. SC rejected the contention of accident
because of the existence of previous enmity and also because the road was wide and deserted,
with no reason to run the jeep in the wrong direction.
Willi Stanley v State of Madhya Pradesh (1956): Accused was in love with the deceased‟s
sister. The sister‟s brother and the accused had exchanged heated words, culminating with the
accused striking the sister‟s brother with a hockey stick. SC held the act of striking the head
with the hockey stick is only LIKELY to cause death. For charges of murder (Sn 300) to
apply, there should be definite knowledge that the action should lead to murder. Hence the
accused was charged only with culpable homicide (Sn 299) and not murder (Sn 300)
Virsa Singh v State of Punjab (1958): SAC laid down conditions to bring case under
Clause 3 (sufficient cause) of Sn 300
o There should be bodily injury
o Nature of injury should be sufficient to cause death in ordinary cause of nature
o Intention to cause such bodily injury should be present
Dulal Hazara V/s State (1987): The accused tied the mouth and throat and hands of the
deceased causing her death by asphyxiation due to throttling, he was held guilty of murder.
He knew that his act was so imminently dangerous as to cause death probability.
Sridharan Sathesan V/s State of Kerala (1995): There was a dispute between the accused
and the deceased regarding the payment of money. The accused who was a driver caused
serious injuries by his mini bus and hit the deceased with great speed in he middle portion of
the body. Tyre marks were also found on the thighs of the deceased. It was held that it was an
intentional killing and accused charged with murder Sec.300 (1).
Riva Ram v State of MP (1978): Riva attempted murdering his wife, who sustained multiple
injuries. Doctors performed operation. Post operation, she encountered high temperature, and
died. Post mortem established death was not due to multiple injuries, but owing to infirmity
owing to operation. But since operation was due to multiple injuries, Riva was held liable.
Sarabjeet Singh v State (1994): The accused did not have good relation with complainant on
account of sale transaction of piece of land. He went to the house and assaulted the
complainant and his wife. He also picked up the infant child of the complainant and threw
him down on the ground with force as a result of which the child died some time later. The
accused was held guilty.
Ghansham v State of Maharashtra (1996): The accused husband stabbed his wife on chest
resulting in her death on her refusal to have sexual intercourse with him. It was held that the
act was done in sheer frustration and anger and so his liability was based on sec. 299(2) of
IPC.
The time between the action and the knowledge is critical to determine provocation.
The fight should occur in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel. It must be committed
without the offender‟s having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. It
is immaterial in such cases where party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Ajit Singh v/s State (l991): Accused found his wife and a neighbours in a compromising
position and shot both of them dead. It was held that he was acting under provocation and is
liable for sudden provocation.
KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra (Rustom case) – defence pleaded grave and sudden
provocation. Jury decided on facts of the case, the court decided on the law. Both Bombay
HC and SC held there was no grave and sudden provocation, as there was planning. Nanavati
had gone to cinema hall to plead an alibi. SC sentenced Nanavati to life imprisonment.
State of Madhya Pradesh v Ram Prasad: Following a quarrel with his wife, accused
burned her with kerosene. Wife died on way to hospital. Court charged with him with
culpable homicide not amounting to murder on account of no intention, but only provocation,
and also because there was no knowledge that the act would lead to murder.
State v/s Jodha Singh (1989): A quarrel between accused and the deceased parties changed
in to a sudden fight in which weapon were used by both parties resulting in injuries on both
sides and death of the deceased. This exception was held to be applicable.
Nathan v State of Madras (1973): land taken on leased for cultivation resulted
in rent arrears. Tenant occupied attempts at forceful eviction, and in the altercation, Nathan
killed the landlord. Nathan successfully claimed private defence.
Mohinder Pal Jolly v State of Punjab: Deceased was worker in factory of the accused.
Wage dispute arose. Workers resorted to vandalism, which damaged property. MP Jolly fired
from balcony of the office, killing the worker. SC disallowed claim of private defence.
Death must be caused when public servant does an act which he, in good faith, believes to be
lawful & necessary for discharge of his duty. The public servant must have exceeded the
power given to him by law. There should be no malafide intention either.
Dasarath Paswan v State of Bihar (1958): If death is with the VOLUNTARY consent of
the death, it becomes culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The deceased should be
above 18 years to give consent.
Cherubin Gregory v State of Bihar (1964): Occupier of land has no reasonable obligation
to protect trespassers, but at same time they have nbo right to trap trespassers with nigh
voltage naked wire. So, Gregory was convicted under Sn
304A
Sulaiman Rahman Mulam v State of Maharastra (1968): Victim died when jeep struck
him, The driver-accused only had learners license. However, this doesn‟t prove rash and
negligent driving. There should be direct nexus between death and the negligence/rashness.
Abatement of Suicide
• Gurbachan Singh v Satpal Singh ((1990): Newly wedded burned for dowry. Accused had
ill-treated her, so convicted for abatement
• ThankaPandhan v State (1998): Petty quarrel between husband and wife resulted in wife
committing suicide. Madras HC said petty quarrel cannot be taken as abatement to suicide.
• Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh: „instigation‟ may be inferred from a series of acts
on the part of accused that led to creation of such circumstances where the deceased had no
other option left with him or her than committing suicide.
Hunger strike does not come under attempted suicide. Attempted Suicide
Emperor v Dhirajia (1940): Jumping into well to escape from husband, and later coming out
of well herself is not attempted suicide,
P Rathinam V Union of India (1994): SC struck down article 309 as unconstitutional and held
right to life meant right to die also. However SC reversed its stance later in Gian Kaur v State
of Punjab (1996)
ABDUCTION
Abduction = kidnapping +force
KIDNAPPING ABDUCTION
The use of force is irrelevant Force is an essential ingredient
All instances. Removal from
Kidnapping is removal from lawful guardian
guardian is irrelevant
Consent will condone the offence
Consent of the kidnapped is immaterial
of abduction
Intent is irrelevant Intention of abductor is relevant
Kidnapping is not a continuous offence. Offence is Abduction is a continuous
complete when person goes with the kidnapper offence
No specific area applicable for
Kidnapping is geographically defined
abduction
State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chottey Lal: SC held expression „against her will‟ would
ordinarily mean that the intercourse was done by a man with a woman despite her resistance
and opposition.
State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh: Young girl below 16 years abducted from school by three
accused and threatened with death if she raised an alarm. Despite her refusal she was made to
drink liquor and raped in turn. The additional judge, Ludhiana acquitted all the accused on
abduction and rape because of delay in FIR. SC however held accused liable and also laid
down the following guidelines for trial in such cases:
• Delay in lodging FIR is not material when properly explained.
• Testimony of victim in cases of sexual assault is vital and unless there are compelling
reasons which necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement.
• Trial of sexual offences should be in camera and invariably by a lady judge whenever
available.
• Court must restrain making observations that probably the prosecutrix is a girl of loose
moral character.
• Court is under an obligation to see that prosecutrix is not unnecessarily harassed and
humiliated in cross-examination in case of rape trial.
Moti Ram and Linekar: If a woman were willing to have sexual intercourse for monetary
consideration, the fact that the consideration was found to be fictitious would not vitiate the
consent. .
Rao Harnam Singh, Sheoji Singh v. State: Kalu Ram, tenant of the accused was required to
provide his wife to satisfy the carnal lust of the accused and his guests on the eve of an
entertainment party. The girl protested vehemently, but under pressure of her husband
submitted. Three accused persons ravished her during the night and she died almost
immediately. The High Court held the accused liable and distinguished between „consent‟
and „submission‟.
Harpal Singh v State: Court held even if the girl of 14 is a willing party and invited the
accused to have sexual intercourse with her, the accused would be liable for rape
Charanjit Singh Chadda v Mehra (2001); Bank has the right to take away vehicle which is
in default, as the bank is the real owner. However, notice is mandatory.
Theft between husband and wife: In Indian law, there is no presumption husband and wife is
one. But English common law regards husband and wife as one.
Theft, cheating, criminal misappropriation, and criminal breach of trust may overlap each
other in certain occasions. In no occasion, extortion can overlap with theft, cheating, criminal
misappropriation, criminal breach of trust, etc. Extortion is nothing but black-mailing coupled
with force. Sometimes it also takes the help of wrongful confinement to fulfil its demands.
DACOITY
Ram Shankar Singh v UP (1956): six persons charged with dacoity, but three of them were
acquitted. The charges of dacoity do not hold for the remaining three. However, charges will
hold if there are other unknown persons
ShyamBihari v State of UP: Offence of dacoity ends when dacoits flee with the booty.
When an accused shot dead a villager while crossing the ditch when fleeting after a
dacoity, it is a separate transaction. The accused was charged with Sn 302 (murder)
and not dacoity+murder
ROBBERY DACOITY
Robbery is aggravated form of either theft or extortion Dacoity is more serious
and heinous form of
robbery
When robbery is
No minimum number of participants is prescribed in Robbery. committed by five or
Robbery may be committed by one person to four persons. more people, it becomes
dacoity
In dacoity, every
member of the gang of
dacoity is punished,
whether he takes active
part or not. If one of the
Only the person who actually commits the crime is punished participants( either
active or passive)
commits wrong defined
under this section, all the
members are liable for
punishment.
Every member of
dacoity group need not
appear before the victim.
In a circumstance, where
one is watching at the
centre, another at the
For punishment under robbery, the offender of robbery should be door of the house, equal
present before the victim, and should create fear of death. terror is created in the
mind of the owner and
thus, all the members are
held liable, including
those who are not
present at the very spot
of offence.
BREACH OF TRUST
State of UP v Badu Ram (1961): Money siphoned after inspection is criminal breach of trust.
STOLEN PROPERTY
MoorgaChetty‟s case (1881): Bill of exchange stolen from Marutis and sold to an India. It
was not theft as per IPC. Subsequently definition of stolen property was amended to add
“within or outside India.”
Haughton v Smith
SSBBB v State of Andhra Pradesh (1999): Swamy claimed divine healing power. Victim
filed cheating case, and SC held there is cheating case.
CRIMINAL TRESPASS
Dhananjay v Provat Chandra Biswas (1934): Person leased out boat to ferry passengers.
Another person took the boat to ferry passengers. Court decreed this as criminal trespass.
Punjab National Bank v All India PNB Employees Federation (1960): Employee federation
conducts strike. They entered the bank and did pen-down strike, refusing to vacate the
premises. Employees entry to premises is lawful only to do their job. If entry is not to do the
job, it is unlawful entry. However, SC held it is difficult to ascertain mala-fide intention, so
no charges of criminal trespass. Knowledge and intention are two guiding factors to
determine criminal trespass.
State of Maharastra v Thanba Sadradhi Kumbi (1964): Parent, who was also member of
the school committed, entered the school to assault a teacher who had punished his ward.
Court held entry of parent is lawful, but remaining there had mala-fide intention. So Sn 441
applies.
FORGERY
Daniel Hailey Walcott v State of Madras (1968): Madras HC defined main elements of
forgery as
1. Document or part of document must be false
2. It must have been made dishonestly or fraudulently, with intention specified in Sn 463
3. Any matter affixed in or anysubstance by means of figures, letters, or mark.
SLK Sidhappa v Lalithamma (1954): Making documents through mechanical means fall
within the definition of forgery
C O Vargehse v M K Singh (1997) : Bank alleged employee forged bill of exchange.
Employee had authorization. If person writes document in his own name, he cannot
be accused of forgery
Bharat Heeralal Seth v Jaysingh Amar SainghSampath (1997): Court address the
question forgery can exist when there is no loss.
GS Bansal v Delhi Administration (1963): Person resorted to forgery to get ration deposit
back. Court held he could have followed proper procedure to get it back. SC held there was
non-economic advantage, so it is still forgery.
State of UP v Ranjit Singh (1999): Steno of Allahabad HC issued bail order by himself. HC
says he only made the document, and did not execute it. SC however dismissed this
contention, saying no sign is necessary for forgery to have taken place.
COUNTERFEITING
Roshan Singh v Emperor (Allahabad HC): 501 Bar soap counterfeited as 301 bar soap.
Court held Trade Mark, though not identical, was similar and there is every likelihood
ordinary person will be deceived. The test for trademark violation is whether an ordinary
person will be deceived.
Mamooty v State of Karnataka: Since there was no evidence he was in possession of notes,
court acquitted him. It must be shown the counterfeit notes should be of such nature that an
average intelligent person should be able to ascertain it is counterfeit.
ZamirHussain v Crown: Mere fact wife knows that certain instruments to counterfeit
currency were in possession of husband does not make her liable.
There is no specific provision for treason and terrorism under IPC. These crimes are covered
under Sn 121 and 124A. Acts such as TADA, POTA etc were meant to fill the void.
Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 and Maharastra Control o Organised Crimes Act,
1999 deals with crimes such as treason and terrorism.
SEDITION
Offence of conspiracy takes place as soon as two more persons agree to do an illegal act.
Aravindan v State of Kerala (1983): A mere slogan that government can be changed by
armed revolution does not prove existence of conspiracy.
Reg v Alexander Martin Sullivan (1873) defines sedition as crime against society, nearly
allied to that of treason. It frequently precedes treason by a short interval.
Objective of treason is to induce discontent and insurrection.
The essential ingredients of sedition are:
1. Words, signs and visual representations (any forms of communication, including drama,
mime)
2. Publication and circulation of seditious material (established by Raghubir Singh v
State of Bihar 1987)
In common law, words and action needn‟t bring in actual hatred, mere intent is enough. First
case of sedition in India was Queen Emperor vJagendraChander Bose (1891)
Sn 124A is much narrower in scope than common law principles applicable to sedition.
In ND Majmudar v King Emperor (1942), court held mere abusive words are not enough
for sedition charges to stick. The words must incite public disorder or cause reasonable
anticipation of public disorder.
Constitutional validity of Sn 124A was put to test in Tara Chand Gopinath v State (1951),
with petitioners alleging 124A was in contravention of Art 19(1) (a). The court initially
accepted this view and regarded 124A as ultra-vires.
Balwant Singh v State of Punjab (1955) : SC has held merely raising of casual slogans does
not attempt to excite hatred against the state. Case upheld the view expressed in ND
Majmudar v King Emperor.
However, the first amendment added the world “in the public interest” to overcome this.
Accordingly, in KedarNath case (1962) the court upheld 124A. Sedition is now regarded as
„reasonable restriction on right to free speech‟.
In KedarNath v State of Bihar (1962), court defined “excite dissatisfaction.” The case
pertained to a speech where the CID was called “dogs” and Congress as “goondas banking
upon American dollars and imposing various kinds of taxes.” Court held mere abuse is not
enough, but words should incite public disorder or hatred. Here, the words did incite public
order,so KedarNath was charged with edition.
Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v State of AP (1997): Kashmiri distributed leaflet alleging atrocities by
the Indian army. Charged with 124A, but SC quashed it.
Mahatma Gandhi, serving as editor of Young India was arrested and tried under charges of
sedition in 1922.During his trial Gandhi stated, “Section 124 A, under which I am happily
charged, is perhaps the prince among the political sections of the Indian Penal Code designed
to suppress the liberty of the citizen”.
In 2010, writer Arundhati Roy was sought to be charged with sedition for her comments on
Kashmir and Maoists. However, there is nothing wrong in having an opinion as long as it
doesn‟t incite hatred or violence
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY
Mohan Singh v Punjab (1963): 5 charged and 3 later acquitted. Remaining cannot be
charged with S 149. But if there are unidentified people, charges will stick.
Joseph Bain d’Souza v Maharashtra: Merely inciting the feelings of one community
without referring to any other community does not come under Sn 153A
CRIMINAL DEFAMATION
Section What is it Explanation Punishment
Harming or intending to harm a person‟s
reputation by (i)spoken or written words (ii) by Sn 500: Simple
499 Defamation signs (iii) visible representations, or (iv) imprisonment for up to
publishing any imputation concerning any two years, and /or fine
person
Section 499 gives the right to any person whose reputation has been damaged (or was
intended to be damaged) by the material in question to sue for defamation.
The definition of Sn 499 is all encompassing. However, the IPC lists ten exceptions
1. Truth published for public good, in good faith, exercise due care and caution
Guru sankara Narashima Bharathi Case (1897): Head of one sect made one person outcast.
The sect was exposed for public good, so that others came to know. So no defamation
5. Criticism of merits of case and conduct of witness in a fair manner. This is a qualified
privilege
6. Literary criticism: Expressing any opinion on any performance which author had submitted
to judgment for public
• Author must implicitly or explicitly invite public criticism. Publishing is implied invitation
• Criticism must relate to merit of the performance and not the individual
• Criticism should be in good faith
Sn 499 and 500 has been criticised, as it violates the right to freedom of speech and
expression provided under Article 19 of the Indian Constitution. AS per Sn 499, even truth is
not a defence. Even if a person has spoken the truth, he can be prosecuted for defamation.
Truth will only be a defence if the statement was made for the public good, which is a
question of fact to be assessed by the court.
However, Section 199(1) the CrPC safeguards the freedom of speech by placing the burden
on the complainant to pursue the criminal complaint without involving state machinery
Perjury: In India, there is no perjury, only false evidence. This applies if a person lawfully
sworn as witness makes statement known to be false or not true. In India, this can happen
outside court proceedings also.
FALSE EVIDENCE
Babulal v State of UP: The court defined the key elements of false evidence in:
1. Forcing any circumstance or making false entry in book of record, or any other document
2. Intention to make it appear as evidence in judicial proceedings
3. Aim to cause erroneous decisions
Afzal v State of Haryana: Police, on the search of one Rahim Khan for forgery caught his
children instead. HabeasCorpus filed, and court issued show cause to Police SP. SP forged a
statement which became false evidence. He was given one year RI.
OFFENCE AGAINST MARRIAGE
Section What is it Explanation Punishment
Mock and
496 Fraudulent marriage ceremonies 7 years imprisonment, fine
invalid marriage
Taking a second spouse when
first one is alive, not legally
494 Bigamy 7 years SI/RI, fine
separated, or not missing for 7
years; Not for Muslims
Sexual intercourse with wife of
DECRIMINALIZED BY
another man, without that man‟s
497 Adultery SUPREME COURT in 2018
consent or connivance. Only
(previously 5 years SI/RI, fine)
man is charged, not women.
Husband or Any wilful conduct of
relative perpetuators which may commit
498A subjecting women to commit suicide or 3 years imprisonment, fine
women to injure herself, harassment for
cruelty dowry or property.
Baburao Lokahnde case: Mere keeping of mistress does not attract charge of Sn 494
Rima Aggrawal case: 2ndwife subject to cruelty. Question is whether husband attracts 498A
John Idiculla case: Question of dowry. Kerala HC opined existence of strictlylegal marriage
is not a license to harass.
Pawan Kumar v State of Haryana: Only wilful conduct which drives women to commit
suicide attracts 498A