TEAM SFI LAWCOZ

LAW OF CRIME– 2
INDIAN PENAL CODE

OFFENSES AGAINST HUMAN BODY

Section

What is it Explanation Punishment

Simple Hurt is causing simple pain,

319, disease or infirmity. To be punishable,
one year imprisonment and/or Rs
321, Hurt infliction of such hurt should be
1000 fine
323 voluntary from the part of the
perpetuator.
Sn 324: Voluntarily causing hurt by
dangerous weapons: 3 years SI/RI +
There are eight types of grievous hurt
fine Sn 326: Causing grievous hurt
1.Emasculation: making a person
by dangerous weapon: Life
impotent 2.Permanent privation of
imprisonment + fine. Sn 325 defines
either eye 3.Permanent privation of
dangerous weapon. Normally, Sn
hearing of either ear 4.Privation of any
326 is triable my magistrate, and
Grievous member or joint 5.Destruction or
320 max punishment is 3 years SI/RI.
Hurt permanent impairment of power of any
However, SC held life imprisonment
member of joint 6.Disfiguration of face
can also be given, and magistrate
or head 7.Causing fracture, dislocation,
may transfer case to a higher court. *
or bone or tooth 8.Any hurt causing
EK Chandrasenan v State of Kerala
severe body pain, or victim not able to
(Vypin Hooch Tragedy case): SC
follow ordinary pursuit for 20 days
imposed life imprisonment based on
Sn 326
Blocking in a specific direction.
Wrongful Accused should voluntarily restraint
339 SI of 1 month +/or Rs 500 fine
Restraint person from going in direction he has
the right to go. Eg: obstructing a path
Wrongful Restraining within four walls. Eg:
340 SI/RI of 1 year +/or Rs 1000 fine
Confinement locking up a person
Any gesture or preparation which
351 Assault causes apprehension of criminal force Sn 352: SI/RI for 3 months, fine
to the victim
Kidnapping is the unlawful asportation Sn 363: Kidnapping from India or
and confinement of a person against his from lawful guardian: 7 years
359
or her will. Thus, it is a composite SI/RI+fine; Sn 363A: Kidnapping
to Kidnapping
crime. It can be equated with false for begging: Life imprisonment, fine;
362
imprisonment. IPC distinguishes 363: Kidnapping for murder: Life
kidnapping from India and Kidnapping Imprisonment, 2/10 years SI/RI,
 outside India. Kidnapping of minors fine; Sn 364A: Kidnapping for
attracts conviction under absolute ransom: Life imprisonment + fine;
liability. There is no need for intention. Sn 367: Kidnapping for grevious
hurt/slavery: upto 10 years SI/RI,
fine
Abduction = Kidnapping + Forcei)
Forcefully compulsion or inducement Upto 10 years SI/RI, fine.
Sn by deceitful means. ii) The object of Punishment depends on the intention
Abduction
362 such compulsion or inducement must or outcome of abduction eg: murder,
be the moving of a person from a grevious hurt etc.
particular place
A person is said to use force to another
if he causes motion, change of motion,
Punishment for assault and criminal
or cessation of motion to another
force * With grave and sudden
person. Criminal force sets in when: *
349, Criminal provocation: 1 month imprisonment
There is force as per Sn 349 * The
350 Force + fine * Without grave and sudden
intention of applying such force is to
provocation: 3 months imprisonment
cause hurt * The force should be used
+ fine
against a human being * The
application of force is without consent.

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

Exception to What constitutes Rape

1 .A medical procedure or intervention shall not constitute rape.
2. Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife is not rape
3. Sn 375 specified :”man.” Women cannot be charged under this section. Lesbian rape falls
under Sn 354 or 377

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

Culpable Homicide amounting to murder (Sn 300)

Intentionally causing death of a person is both culpable homicide and murder. Whether an
action is culpable homicide or murder is decided by
• Each action of the accused
• Nature of the injury

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.

Culpable homicide not amounting to murder

(Exceptions to Sn 300)
A murder would be regarded as culpable homicide not amounting to murder in the following
exceptional situations:

1. Grave and sudden Provocation:

If the offender is deprived of power of self- control, by grave provocation; as long as
provocation is not sought, or provocation is against public officer implementing law. There
should not be a specific intention or mens-rea to commit the murder. For murder to apply
there should be both intention and knowledge.

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.

2. Death caused by sudden fight.

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.

3. If the offender exceeds act of private defence, in good faith.

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.

4. Offence done by public servant in official capacity, in good faith.

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.

5. Death caused with consent:

Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused being above the age
of eighteen years suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.

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.

Jacob Mathew v Punjab: doctor negligence case

6. Death caused by negligence (Sn 304).

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.

Culpable Homicide v Murder

All murders are culpable homicide but all culpable homicide is not murder.
The difference between culpable homicide amounting to murder and not amounting to
murder does not lie in quality. It rather lies in the quantity or degree of criminality of the act.
In murder there is greater intention or knowledge than in culpable homicide not amounting to
murder.

PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER (Sn 302)

As per Sn302, punishment for murder is CAPITAL PUNISHMENT or LIFE
IMPRISONMENT. Capital punishment has always been a contentious issue.

• Jagmohan v State of UP: Capital punishment is constitutionally valid

• Rajendra Prasad v State of UP: Court reaffirmed the same status
• Bandhan Singh v State of Punjab: JusticeBagwathi opined capital punishment violates
Article 21, and may be awarded only in the “rarest of rare” cases. Some “rarest of rare cases”
include rape with murder, murder in a brutal way, multiplemurder, and so on.
• In Ranjit Bhat Nathu Bhai v State, court held deliberate and cold-blooded murder of wife
comes under rarest of rare case.
• Likewise, in Deoman Upendra v State of UP, burutal murder of a defenceless person is also
brought under rarest of rare case.
• In Dena v State of UP, court brought pre-planned murder under ambit of rarest of rare case.
• Kuljeet Singh v India: Murder of innocent children by professional killers is a rarest of rare
case.
• ParasYadav v State of Bihar: Collector killed by bomb
• Nalani v Tamil Nadu: Rajiv Gandhi case. Nalani escaped the noose as awarding death
sentence to a pregnant lady is not valid.
• DhananjayChatterjee v State of West Bengal (1994): Death penalty confirmed for raping
and murdering school girl. Confirmed as a rarest of rare case.
• Auto Shankar Case: Serial killer Gowri Shankar put to death.
• Swamy Sadhananda v Karnataka (2008): Clod blooded murder for lust and property
confirmed as fit for capital punishment.
SUICIDE(Sn 305, 306,309)
Is attempted suicide a punishable offence?
• MS Dubbal v Maharastra (1987): Bombay HC held attempt to commit suicide isaa not an
offence. Right tro life4 under Article 21 also includes right to die.
• Jagadeeshwar v State of Andhra Pradesh (1988): Court reversed decision and said right to
life does not mean right to die
• Rathnam v Union of India (1994): Court again held right to life includes right to die.
• GujanKaur v State of Punjab (1996): Accused contented that by helping person to commit
suicide, he was indulging in a legal act. SC reversed Ratnam‟s case and held right to life does
not mean right to life. This is the present position.

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)

KIDNAPPING (Sn 359)

• R v Prince: 16 year old claimed to be 19 year old and eloped with Prince. Prince was
convicted.
• VaradaRajan v State of Madras: Girl on the verge of attaining majority eloped and
registered to marry. SC held it is not kidnapping.
• Force or fraud is not a necessary ingredient in kidnapping. State of Kariyana v Raja Ram
(1973): 14 year old girl fell in love with 32 year old. A messenger, send to induce the girl to
elope. When the girl left with him, he committed rape. The 32 year old was convicted for
kidnapping. SC held force or fraud is not necessary. Persuasion is enough.
• Chandrakala v VipinMenon (1993): The natural guardian (estranged parent) taking away
the child is not kidnapping.
• Netrapal v State of Delhi (2001): Kidnapper arrested before ransom letter delivered.
Delhi HC did not convict under kidnapping for ransom.
• Chajju Ram vs State of Punjab (1968), a minor girl was taken away out of the house for
only about 20 – 30 yards. it was held that it was kidnapping because distance is immaterial.

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

Outraging modest of women (Sn 354):

• State of Punjab v Major Singh: SC defines the modesty of a women is her sex
• Punishment is 2 years SI/RI and/or fine
• RupenDeol Bajaj v KPS Gill: At a party, KPS Gill, the DGP called Bajaj, the then finance
secretary and hit her buttocks. KPS Gill was ultimately punished.
• Raju P Mohalay v State of Maharashtra: Women forced to consume liquor, and later her
nude photos was taken. SCF opined this shocks the sense and decency of women.
• Veluyadhan v State of Kerala (2004): SC held a careful approach has to be taken by the
courts in Sn 354 cases, as the chances of false cases are very high.

RAPE (Sn 375, 376)

Sakshi v. Union of India and Ors: Sn 375 was limited to forcible penile/vaginal penetration
only. Sakshi, an NGO, petitioned for a wider interpretation, to include all forms of forcible
penetration, such as finger penetration, object penetration etc as rape. The Court upheld the
existing definition of rape as forcible penile/vaginal penetration only. Following this verdict,
govt amended Sn 375 in 2003, to include all forms of sexual assault on the vagina in Sn 375.

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‟.

Tukaram v. State of Maharashtra (Mathura rape case): Mathura, an 18-year-old Harijan

orphan girl was called to the police station on an abduction report filed by her brother. When
they were about to leave the police station, Mathura was kept back at the police station, taken
to a toilet and raped. After him, another constable Tukaram tried to rape her but being too
heavily drunk, did not succeed. None of the two accused were held guilty for the following
reasons:
• There were no marks of injury on her person which show that the whole affair was a
peaceful one and that the story of stiff resistance having been put up by the girl is all false.
• The girl was not subject to any fear that must have led her to submit to the act.
• The girl was not alone when Ganpat ordered her to stay and she could have resisted and
appealed to her brother. Her conduct in meekly following Ganpat and allowing him to have
his way with her to the extent of satisfying his lust in full, made them feel that the consent in
question was not a consent which could be brushed aside as passive submission.
The judgment of the Supreme Court was widely criticised both inside and outside the
Parliament as a disgrace on women under the law and the Constitution.

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

OFFENSE AGAINST PROPERTY

Section What is it Explanation Punishment
Punishment for theft: 3 years
SI/RI and/or fine Theft in
dwelling home / vessel:
Imprisonment upto 7 years
Taking any movable property
and/or fine. Theft by clerk
from another person‟s possession,
378 Theft and servant of property of
without consent, and by dishonest
master: Imprisonment up to 7
means
years and/or finer. Schedule I
and II of Sn 320 of CrPC lists
out instances of bailable and
non-bailable theft.
Extortion is theft + Some Aggravated forms of extortion
383 Extortion
additional clauses. Intentionally (threat of death or grievous
 putting any person in fear of any hurt): 10 years and/or fine
injury to induces the person to Threat of capital punishment:
deliver to any person, property, or punishable with imprisonment
valuable security for life
There is either theft or extortion in
all robbery. Theft becomes
robbery when Offender
voluntarily cause or attempt to
cause death, hurt, wrongful
restraint; or fear of the same.
Extortion becomes robbery when
victim is put in fear of death,
Punishment for robbery: 10
wrongful restraint Essential
years RI +fine (Sn 392); 14
ingredients of the offence of
years RI+fine for highway
Robbery are as follows: i)
robbery; Attempt to commit
390 Robbery Committed theft as defined in
robbery: 7 years RI, fine;
Section 378 ii) Offender caused or
Causing hurt during robbery:
attempted to cause to some
Life imprisonment or 10 years
persons: a. fear of death, or hurt or
RI+fine (Sn 394)
wrongful restraint; b. fear of
instant death, or of instant hurt or
of instant wrongful restraint. iii)
Offender did such act either a. in
order to the committing of the
theft b. while committing the theft
c. in carrying away or attempting
to carry away the property.
Five or more persons conjointly
commit or attempt to commit a
robbery. For dacoity to apply Punishment for dacoity:Life
1.there should be five or more imprisonment or 10 years
persons involved. 2. All such RI+fine (Sn 395); Murder in
persons should act conjointly (the course of dacoity: Death, or
act should be in furtherance of a life imprisonment or 10 years
391 Dacoity
common object) In contrast Sn 34 RI + fine for all; Preparation
requires only common intention to Commit dacoity: 10 years
Joint liability arises only if any of imprisonment +fine Assembly
the following sections are to commit dacoity: 7 years
involved: Sn 134 common imprisonment + fine
intention, Sn 149 common object,
Sn120B (conspiracy)
Intentional Misappropriation of
any movable property. Taking
Dishonest
403, property in good faith, under
Misappropriation 2 years SI/RI, fine
404 assumption of consent is
of Property
excusable until the time matter
becomes evident.
Dealing with Stolen property is property whose 411:Ordinary punishment:
410
stolen property possession is transferred by 1. SI/RI for 3 years, fine; 412:
 theft, extortion, robbery, dacoity Stolen property in connection
2. criminal breach of trust 3. with dacoity: 10 years SI/RI+
misappropriation fine; 413: Habitual dealing in
stolen property: Life
imprisonment or 10 years RI
+fine; 414: Assisting in
concealing stolen property: 3
years Si/Ri+fine
Causing or intending to cause
wrongful loss or damage to the
public or to any person by
425 Mischief Sn 426: 3 months SI/RI, fine
destruction or property, or any act
which diminishes value of
property
Entering into property in
possession of another, with
intention to intimidate, or
insult…. and with mala-fide
intention to commit an offence.
Punishment: Ingredients of
criminal trespass: Prosecution
should prove 1.Entry into property
in possession of another 2. If entry
3 months imprisonment + or
441 Criminal Trespass is lawful, remaining there should
fine upto Rs 500/-
be unlawful 3. There should be
intention to commit an offence.
The difference between tort of
trespass and criminal trespass is
male-fide intention. If there is no
mala-fide intention, trespass is a
tort. If there it mala-fide intention,
it attracts provisions of Sn 441
and becomes a crime.
If house trespass is for
offence which attracts death
sentence, RI for 10 years or
life imprisonment, and or fine
Aggravated forms Trespass to house and places of If house trespass is for
442
of trespass worship: offences punishable up to 1
year  10 years simple
imprisonment and/or fine For
other offences: 2 years
imprisonment and/or fine
House trespass sets in the six
following ways 1. If trespasser Three years SI/RI +/or fine.
445 House Breaking enters or leaves by passage made House breaking by night
by himself; 2. Enters or quits carries the same punishment.
through passage not intended for
 human entrance. Or by scaling
walls /buildings; 3. Opening place
not intended to be open by
occupier; 4.Opening any lock; 5.
Making entry or departure by
using criminal force; 6. Enters or
quits by passage unfastened.

463 TO477A Forgery

Making of false documents to
cause damage to another person,
with criminal intention. 464:
Making false document or
electronic records; Making, Making false document in name
signing, sealing or executing of fictitious person or dead
document or part of document person: 2 years of imprisonment
with dishonest intention A man‟s +fine. Aggravated forms of
signature in his own name may forgery: Forgery of record of
463 Forgery amount to forgery. *Essential court: 7 years imprisonment +
Ingredients*: 1.Making false fine (Sn 466); Forgery of valuable
document or electronic record, or security or will: 10 years+ fine;
part of it; 2.Intention to cause False document for cheating: 7
damage or injury to the public, or years + fine To harm reputation: 3
any person.; 3.To support any years+fine
claim as title for property; 4. to
enter into any expressed or
implied contract; 5. to commit
fraud
Counterfeiting is causing one SI/RI for 7 years +fine Practicing
thing to resemble another thing, to deception to cause genuine coin
482, practice deception. appear as different coin
Counterfeiting
484 To attract punishment under IPC, Counterfeiting Indian coin: Life
it is not necessary the imitation imprisonment or Si/Ri for 10
should be exact. years +fine
Imprisonment for life or up to 10
years+fine Trading in forged
counterfeit notes with knowledge:
10 years SI/RI + fine; Possession
Offences related Mere act of preparation of of forged or counterfeit notes: 7
489A to currency and committing the offence is years imprisonment Instrument or
bank notes punishable. materials for forging; Making or
using documents resembling
currency notes: Rs 100;
Counterfeiting govt. stamp: Life
imprisonment
Larceny and Theft
GovindaMahji v ArobindaKaur (1950): Accused caught fish from a river licensed to the
complainant. Orissa HC held he was not guilty of theft as fish is movable, and not confined to
one place. Such fish is a natural resource and cannot be claimed as private property.
Bull dedicated to God left at temple becomes the property of trustees of temple. Taking it is
theft. However, bull left abandoned in accordance with religious usage does not belong to
anyone, and if someone takes it, it is not theft.

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.

EXTORTION (Sn 383)

Ram Chandra v State of UP (1957): Kidnapping for ransom falls under Sn 386 or
aggravated form of extortion.

THEFT (Sn 378) EXTORTION (Sn 383)

In Theft the accused takes the In Extortion the consent is obtained by the
CONSENT
property without any consent accused wrongfully.
Theft can be committed only of a In an extortion, property can be movable,
PROPERTY
movable property. immovable and even document.
FACTOR OF No fear factor arises. Theft takes Fear exist in extortion.Force is used
FEAR place by stealth initiating a fear of injury
No delivery by the victim is There is a delivery by the victim
DELIVERY
made in a Theft. (Complainant).

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

CHEATING (415 to 420 of IPC)

SwamyDheerendreaBhramachari v ShylandraBhushan (1995): Yoga class claiming to be
approved by GoI, but no such recognition. Delhi HC says there is cheating s per Sn
415 of IPC, as there was misleading deception.
Malaiswamy v State of Tamil Nadu (1994): Lover makes GF pregnant, but later withdraws
from promise to marry. Madras HC says all ingredients of 417 (cheating) is there.

Ravichgandran v Maraimal: Inducement leading to delivery of property /doing an act or

omission

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.

State of Kerala v Mathai Varghese (1987): counterfeiting currency of foreign currencies is

also an offence under 489A

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.

Ponnuswamy v State (1997): Purchased paddy field by paying counterfeit notes.

Police found more counterfeit notes with him on search, so SC convicted him.

ZamirHussain v Crown: Mere fact wife knows that certain instruments to counterfeit
currency were in possession of husband does not make her liable.

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE

Section What is it Explanation Punishment
Conduct or speech
inciting rebellion against
the authority of a state.
Sedition is inciting
Life imprisonment + fine, or 3
124A Sedition persons and inflaming
years
feelings of hatred through
Spoken or written words,
visible representation or
otherwise.
Mere speeches
threatening to wage war is
not sedition. When
Waging war or incitement is translated to
121 attempting to wage action it becomes act of Death or life imprisonment+fine
war against the state waging war. For these
offences, abatement,
attempt and actual war are
treated as same
Participating in
conspiracy or Imprisonment for life or 10 years,
121A:
offences related to Sn fine
121:
125: War against Asiatic Life imprisonment +fine
 powers:
Depredation or
preparation to commit
depredation: 7 years
+fine + forfeiture of
126: property used to
commit such
depredation, or
acquired by such
depredation.
Assaulting president,
124: 7 years SI/RI +fine
governor and others :
128: Allowing prisoner to escape
voluntarily:10 years
Punishment sets in when
imprisonment; 129: allowing
there is intentionally
prisoner to escape negligently: 3
128 to Abetting Escape of aiding prisoner to escape.
years imprisonment; 130:aiding
130 Prisoner Parole prisoners straying
escape, rescue or harbouring
beyond set limits is
escaped prisoners: Life
constructed as escape.
imprisonment, or 10 years
imprisonment + fine

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.

WAGING WAR AGAINST THE STATE

Nazir Khan v Delhi (2001): Expression “waging war” means waging war in a manner usual
in war

KunjuKhadir v Emperor (1922): Deliberate and organized attack on government officers

attracts Sn 121

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

In 2012, AseemTrivedi, a political cartoonist, was sent to judicial custody on charges of

sedition over a series of cartoons against corruption. His actions did not incite any violence
and the act was misused to suppress criticism.Court rejected sedition charges against
Mr.Trivedi, reiterating that the charge of sedition under Section 124 A of the IPC could not
be invoked to penalize criticism
OFFENCE AGAINST PUBLIC
TRANQUILITY (Sn 140 to 160)
Section What is it Explanation Punishment
Assembly off five or more people with
common object to: 1.Overcome the state by
criminal force 2.Resist execution of any law
or to commit trespass 3.Commit mischief or
criminal trespass 4.Take or abet taking
possession of any property unlawfully
Unlawful SI/RI for 6 months,
141 5.Compel a person by force to do things he is
assembly fine
not legally bound to do, or refrain from doing
something he is legally bound to do. Key
Ingredients: 1.5 or more people 2.Common
object 3.The common object should be
charged by all members of the assembly
4.Any of the reasons specified above
Belonging to an assembly of five or more 6 months
151 Rioting
people even after being ordered to disperse imprisonment+fine
When two or more person disturb public One month
159 Affray
peace by fighting in a public place. imprisonment +/or fine
Promoting
3 years SI/RI: 5 years
enmity
153A if crime takes place in
between
place of worship.
classes
Any act
prejudicial to
153-B 5 years imprisonment
national
integration

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.

RIOTING (Sn 151)

KommaNeelakandaReddy v State of AP: If police doesn‟t give command to disperse, Sn
151 will not stand. Only common object may stand, depending on the merits of the case.

ASSAULT AFFRAY RIOT

Any place, both private and
Only in public place Private or public place
public place
Committed by one or more Committed by minimum two or 5 or more members needed
members more members for unlawful assembly
May or may not have May or may not have common There must be a common
common object object object
Against a person or an Causing disturbance or public Offence against the public
individual peace order
May be sudden (no pre- May be sudden (not pre-
Generally pre-meditated
meditation required) planned)
Punishment in 3 months Sn 500 Imprisonment of one Imprisonment of 2 years
imprisonment and/or fine month and or fine Rs 100/- and/or fine

Promoting enmity between classes

Lalai Singh v State of UP (1971): Perfect legitimate criticism if Hinduism, for the purpose
of ending caste discrimination is not an offence under Sn 153A

BabuRao Patel v Delhi Administration (1980); Alleged Muslims as violent community.

SC held the thesis created feelings of hatred and ill-will in guise of historic thesis

Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v State of AP (1997):” Distributing pamphlet alleging atrocity by

Indian army was charged under 153-A

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

2. Criticism of public servant in fair manner, including court functions

3. Fair comment on public conduct of public servant
Deodar Singh v Shoba Gupta (1998): Criticised school and accused headmistress of inaction
against ills. Investigation found allegation is false and bogus. Thus there was no good faith
when filing defamation case

4. Report of proceeding in court of justice or similar proceedings

Clement v Levis: Heading was defamatory as it had no relation to the text, which was
accurate reporting of court proceedings

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

7. Censure by an authority, conferred by law or arising out of contract

8. Complaint or making accusation against any person to authority

Eg: filing case against a person does not count6 as defamation, but malicious prosecution
may count as defamation. Nawab Rajendran was declared as vexatious litigant.

9. Imputation made in good faith for the protection of others interest

10. Caution intended for public good

Randhir v GiridhariLal: Accused senior officer of Indian Bureau of Mines regarding

bribes. Court accepted it and found it true. The accused who made the allegation was
acquitted
ChamanLal v state of Punjab (1970):Municipal Commissioner made allegation of loose
character against nurse, but could not prove it, hence made liable for defamation.
KanwarLal v State of Punjab: Accused, a police officer made allegation against
neighbouring women in district panchayath. He didn‟t act with due care and caution, and
hence was punished by SC.
Rama Rao v VenkatRao (1977): Accused, the regional manager of Andhra bank
issued a circular against a person to all his branches, warning against giving him loan. Couirt
held there was due care and caution, and statement was without malice. So it was for public
good, and not defamation.
KM Mathew v State of Kerala: SC held chief editor not liable. Only correspondent or
editor, directly connected with the news, becomes liable for defamation.

Defamation of wife by husband is possible

MukundChilnis v MadhuriChilnes (1992): Husband suspected chastity of wife, and made

allegations. He also made complaint of theft against wife. Wife charged for defamation, but
husband acquitted by trial court. Bombay HC however senthusband to two months
imprisonment. SC validated HC decision, with reduced sentence.
A person may file either a civil case or a criminal case for defamation. For criminal cases (Sn
499) the defamation should be proved beyond a shadow of doubt.

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

FALSE EVIDENCE AND OFFENCE

AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE
Section What is it Explanation Punishment
Intention is a key ingredient. 191: 193: Giving false evidence:
Giving or
191 to general intention suffice, 192: 7 years SI/RI, fine;
fabricating
200 Fabricating false evidence: Specific Fabricating false evidence:
false evidence
intention is required. 3 years SI/RI, fine
Sn 201: causing disappearance of
evidence applies to everyone, as it is
204: destruction of public
not self-incriminatory
record: minimum 7 years
Sn 202: Intentional omission to give
201 to Offence against SI/RI, can extend to life
information: exempts self-
229 A public justice 202: 6 months, fine
incrimination by the accused, as it is
203: 2 years SI/RI, fine
against Article 20(3) of the
204: 2 years SI/RI, fine
Constitution.
203: giving false information

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