You are on page 1of 57

CRIMINAL LAW

Content
S.No. Topic Page. No.

1. INTRODUCTION TO LAW 01-04

2. INDIAN PENAL CODE 05-15

3. OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE 16-25

4. MURDER 26-37

5. EXTORTION, ROBBERY AND DACOITY 38-40

6. JOINT LIABILITY 41-47

7. OFFENCES RELATING TO MARRIAGE 48-56

© Copyright reserved 2015-16.


All rights reserved. Any photocopying, publishing or reproduction of full or any part of this study material is strictly prohibited. This material belongs to only
the enrolled student of RESONANCE. Any sale/resale of this material is punishable under law. Subject to Kota Jurisdiction only.
INTRODUCTION TO LAW

1. INTRODUCTION TO LAW

 What is law ?
It is a set of rules imposed by the State, which regulate our relations with other individuals and the State, and
which are enforced by the State.

In the words of Salmond, a great Jurist, it is a set of principles applied in the administration of justice".

 Why is the knowledge of law important ?

One should know law because ignorance of law is no excuse.


Although it is not possible for a layman to be aware of every branch of law, yet he must be familiar with the
general principles of the law of the country.

For example :
If a person boards a bus and travels without a ticket, he cannot plead that he was ignorant about the
purchase of ticket.

 What are the SOURCES OF LAW ?

Our entire set of laws has been derived from various sources. Let us examine them.
IMPORTANT SOURCES OF LAW

Custom English Law Precedents Statutes

 Custom :
Custom means established pattern of behavior followed by people over generations. It is an ancient form of
source and its importance is now on the decline, with rapid growth of legislation and precedents.

For example,
The Hindu Marriage Act derives certain provisions from the Smritis and Vedas.
Custom will be valid only if it fulfills certain requirements, such as It must be in practice from time
immemorial;
 It must be certain and definite;
 It must be reasonable;
 It must have been continuously in practice ;
 It must not be opposed to public policy;

 ENGLISH LAW :
The modern Indian law is closely modeled on the lines of English law. Many Acts such as Indian Contract
Act, Negotiable Instruments Act, Partnership Act, were enacted, when India was under the British regime.

 PRECEDENT :
Precedent or case law as it is popularly known is the decision pronounced by a Court.
 The general rule of doctrine of precedent is that every Court is bound by the decisions of the Court superior
to it.

 STATUTE :
The recent legislations such as Companies Act of 1956, Information Technology Act of 2000, Trademarks
Act, 1999 are a result of legislations passed by the Parliament.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 1


INTRODUCTION TO LAW

 SUBSTANTIVE LAW :

It is a branch of law, which defines rights, duties, and obligations of persons with others or between the
States.
 What are the sub-divisions of law?

LAW

Substantive Law Procedural Law

 SUBSTANTIVE LAW :
It is a branch of law, which defines rights, duties, and obligations of persons with others or between the
States.
For example,
 Indian Contract Act, 1872 is an example of substantive law.
 Indian Penal Code 1860, which defines elaborately the various offences, is also a substantive law.

 PROCEDURAL LAW :
Procedural law on the other hand, deals with the procedural aspects of securing justice.
For example,
Civil Procedure Code outlines the jurisdiction of Courts. The Criminal Procedure Code throws light on
aspects such as filing FIR, arrest of persons, search warrants, trial procedures etc.
Thus a sound knowledge of both substantive and procedural laws is necessary to understand and appreciate
law.

Substantive Law Procedural Law

Defines the rights Lays down the procedure to secure justice

Determines the conduct and relations Regulates the conduct and relations of

of the parties inter se. courts and litigants

It is concerned with facts which constitute the wrong It is concerned with f acts, which constitute proof

Example.. Contract Act, Law of Torts, Indian Penal Code. Civil Procedure Code, Criminal Procedure Code

Important Note :
While studying substantive law, never worry about how to prove, what to prove. It can be dealt with under the
procedural law.

 What are the branches of law?

BRANCHES OF LAW

Public Law Private Law

Constitution Criminal Administrative Contracts Torts Family Law


Law Law

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 2


INTRODUCTION TO LAW

IMPORTANT LEGISLATIONS

A BRIEF OUTLINE

1. Administrative Law:
(a) It is a public law
(b) It deals with the structure, powers and functions of administrative authority.
(c) The subject matter of administrative law comprises of (1) delegated legislation (2) administrative tribunals.
(3) Judicial Review of administrative decisions et(c)

2. Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.


(a) It replaced the Arbitration Act, 1940.
(b) It deals with all aspects pertaining to arbitration and conciliation, as methods to resolve conflicts
especially in commercial transactions.
(c) The Act gives effect to the United Nations Commission on International Trade law (UNCITRAL)

3. Civil Procedure Code, 1908


(a) It is a procedural law
(b) It deals with laws relating to the procedure of the courts of civil Judicature
(c) It throws light on aspects such as
(1) Territorial and Pecuniary Jurisdiction of Courts
(2) Contents of plaint, written statement _
(3) Concepts such as Res Judicata, Sub judice.
(4) Review, Reference of cases.
(5) Decree, order and Judgment.

4. Code of Criminal Procedure :


(a) It is also a procedural law
(b) It deals with laws relating to the procedure adopted in the context criminal offences.
(c) It elucidates aspects such as
(1) Hierarchy of criminal courts and their powers.
(2) Classification of offences into cognizable and non con-cognizable offences, etc.
(3) First information report
(4) Trial procedures
(5) Reference and Revisions
(6) Imprisonment, Death sentence, etc.

5. Consumer Protection Act :


(a) It was passed in the year 1986
(b) It underwent important amendments in the year 2002.
(c) It provides for the 3 tier redressal machinery comprising of District Forum, State Commission and
National Commission.
(d) The objective of the Act is to provide speedy and economical justice to consumers.
(e) The pecuniary jurisdiction of district forum includes claims upto Rs. 20 lakhs.
(1) The pecuniary jurisdiction of state commission is 20 lakhs. - 1 crore
(2) The pecuniary jurisdiction of National Commission is claims over 1 crore.

6. The Indian Evidence Act :


(a) It is concerned with the mode of proving whether a particular person committed the offence or not.
(b) The Evidence Act provides answers to
(1) What facts may and may not be proved?
(2) How is the proof to be given?
(3) What kind of proof is to be given?
(4) Who is to give that proof ? etc.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 3


INTRODUCTION TO LAW
7. Limitation Act :
(a) It lays down the period within which a civil dispute shall be raised in a court.
(b) It applies mainly to civil laws.
(c) The rationale behind the Act is that law seeks to help the diligent and not the indolent.
(d) The law of limitation bars remedy but does not extinguish rights.
(e) It contains two schedules, which prescribe, the time period, within which action may be initiated in
the court.

For example, in the case of torts, the limitation period is one year. Generally, for most contracts, the
limitation period is three years.

8. Sale of Goods Act :


(a) It was enacted in the year 1930.
(b) Prior to that, it was a part of Indian Contract Act.
(c) It deals with sale of movable goods.

9. Transfer of Property Act :


(a) It was enacted in the year 1882.
(b) Its objective is to provide for laws relating to immovable property
(c) It includes provisions pertaining to transfer of immovable pro through
1. Sale
2. Mortgage
3. Charge
4. Lease
5. Gift

10. Negotiable Instruments Act :


(a) It deals with law pertaining to instruments of credit such as
1. Bills of exchange
2. Promissory note
3. Cheque
(b) It lays down legal rules pertaining to dishonour of cheques.

Terms used frequently in this book

Plaintiff - A person who files the suit in a court.


Defendant - The person against whom the suit is filed
Suit - A process instituted in a court for protection of rights
Damages - Monetary compensation ordered by the court for breach of Contract or tort.
Void - Nullity
Voidable - Capable of being set aside at the option of a party

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 4


Indian Penal Code , 1860

2. INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860


1. INTRODUCTION
In the words of Blackstone, "A crime is an act committed or omitted in 1 violation of a public law
forbidding or commanding it". Criminal law is a 41, branch of law, which covers offences listed under the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 or mentioned under any other law. The word "offence" under the Indian Penal
Code denotes a thing made punishable under the code or under any special or local law. The need for
criminal justice is to ensure that private vengence and violent self-help are replaced by State sanction.

 The Indian Penal Code was passed in 1860 and became operational in 1862.
 Lord Macaulay is said to have played a pivotal role in drafting IPC.
 Basically, IPC is a piece of substantive law.
 Thus, IPC merely defines various 'offences' or 'crimes' and states the maximum punishment that
can be meted out in each case.
 It does not spell out the procedure by which the accused is prosecuted and punished. The Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, addresses this procedural aspects of criminal law.
 Before we go further into the subject matter of IPC, it is important to checkout the differences
between Crime and Civil wrongs.
 What are Civil Wrongs? Civil wrongs involve a commission of an act or a omission of an act, which
infringes a person's right. It is redressed by damages and not punishment.
 Example : Breach of a contract or wrong against a person (Tort).

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CIVIL AND CRIMINAL CASES

Points of Distinction Civil Criminal


 Object To Enforce rights  To punish wrongs
 Liability  Remedial  Penal.
 Parties involved  Private Individuals  State constitutes
are litigants itself a party
 Impact  Less harmful in  More harmful in
consequences consequences
 Purpose of trial  To determine the  To determine
rights and liabilities whether accused
of the parties to the person is guilty or
suit not
 Legal  Civil proceedings  Criminal
Consequences result in judgment proceedings result
for damages, in fine,
injunction, specific imprisonment or
performance death penalty.

1.1 Basic Concepts Under Criminal Law


1.1.1 Guilty Mind: (MENS REA)
a) Penal Liability arises only, when a person has done a wrongful act coupled with a guilty mind.
b) This penal liability principle is based on the Latin maxim "actus non facit reum, nisi mens
sit rea"; which means no act is punishable under criminal law, unless such act was done
with a guilty mind.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 5


Indian Penal Code , 1860
c) Criminal liability = Wrongful act + Guilty mind.
d) However, under exceptional cases, the law may impose penal liability under the doctrine of
strict liability, where the act in itself is punishable, and guilty mind is irrelevant.

For Example : When a person deals with deadly chemicals and in the event of its escape the person is
liable under the doctrine of strict liability.

1.2 Intention : It is the purpose or design with which an act is done. It is the foreknowledge of the act, coupled
with the desire to do it.
Criminal intention means the purpose /design of doing an act which is forbidden by the law without any just
cause or excuse.
Intention = Foreknowledge + desire
1.3 Motive : While intention is the immediate desire and foreknowledge behind an act, an ulterior mental
condition is known as the motive for the act. Motive means anything that can contribute to a kind of action.
However, motive alone does not determine the criminality of the act.

Motive is relevant in the following cases :


a) Cases of Criminal attempts : Every attempt of a crime is a frustrated wrong, if the desired conse-
quences had actually followed. In such cases, where the act in itself has not taken place, to assess the
liability of the wrongdoer, it would be necessary to examine the motive with which such an attempt was
made.
b) In cases, where a particular intent forms a part of the definition of a criminal offence.

Example : In the case of forgery, making the false document is intentional, whereas the motive in making
a false document is a relevant factor in the commission of the offence of forgery.

1.4. Four stages in the commission of a crime:


Every commission of a crime has the following four stages:
a) Intention to commit the crime b) Preparation for its commission
c) Attempt to commit it d) Commission of the crime

(a) Intention : Mere intention to commit a crime, not followed by an act, does not constitute an offence.

(b) Preparation : Preparation consists in devising means for the commission of an offence. There is no
provision under IPC to punish acts done in the stage of preparation, the exceptions being:
(i) To wage war against the State;
(ii) To commit dacoity;
(c) Attempt : It is a direct movement towards the commission after the preparations is made. To constitute
the offence of attempt, there must be an act done with the intention of committing an offence and for the
purpose of committing that offence, and it must be done in attempting the commission of the offence.
(d) Commission : The last stage in the commission of a crime is that it is successfully committed and the
consequences of the crime results.

Difference between preparation and attempt : Preparation consists in devising /arranging the means
necessary for the commission of the offence. Attempt is a direct movement towards the commission after
the preparations are made.
Ex. A person buys a gun, loads it and declares his intention to shoot a person, but until some movement,
is made to use the weapon upon his intended victim, there is only preparation and not an attempt.

1.5. Negligence : Negligence refers to the absence of such care, as it was the duty of the defendant to show.
In the case of negligence, the wrongdoer is indifferent to the consequences of his act.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 6


Indian Penal Code , 1860
1.6 Two Kinds of Negligence :
1.6.1 Advertant negligence : This is referred as wilful negligence/recklessness. He who does a
dangerous act, knowing well that he is exposing others to a serious risk of harm or injury. It is an
act, which is consciously and wilfully done by a person and he is intentionally negligent.

1.6.2. Inadvertant negligence : This is kind of negligence in which the harm is neither foreseen nor
willed. It is the result of thoughtlessness or inadvertence. Thus two main principles have been laid
down in respect of negligence as a ground of liability:
(i) Basically, negligence is not blameworthy, except in those cases in which the law has
imposed a duty to be careful.
(ii) The amount of care demanded by law is what is reasonable in the circumstances of the
particular case.

Past questions from NLS and NALSAR Entrance Examination

Question-1
Principle 1 : Preparation to commit an offence is not an offence.
Principle 2 : After one has finished preparation to commit an offence, any act done towards committing
the offence with intention to commit it, is an attempt to commit the offence, which is by itself an offence.

Fact : A wants to kill B. He buys a gun and cartridges for committing the murder. He then sets out
searching B and when he sees B, he loads his gun and takes aim at B and pulls the trigger. The gun did not
fire.
Which of the answer you will feel more appropriate?
a. A is guilty of attempt to murder B from the time he sets out in search of B.
b. A is guilty of attempt to murder from the time he loads his gun.
c. A is guilty of attempt to murder from the moment he takes aim at B.

2. GENERAL EXCEPTIONS
This chapter deals with general exceptions wherein there is no criminal liability for person committing
certain acts or omissions.
2.1 Amongst number of exceptions, following are few important ones:
(A) Accident (Sec.80) : Nothing is an offence, which is done by accident or misfortune, without
criminal intent or knowledge in doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means with proper
care and caution. All these ingredients must concur to succeed in proving the defence of accident.

Example: A and B were participating in a wrestling competition, A dealt a blow upon B, there upon B fell and
was severely injured. Under the circumstances, it is a case of pure accident.

(B) Absence of criminal intent : In the following cases an act basically forbidden by criminal law is
done without any criminal intent.
1. Act done to avoid other harm (Sec. 81) : An act done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause
harm, but done in good faith, and without any criminal intention to cause harm.

Example : A huge fire engulfs a row of huts, a passer by, pulls down houses to prevent fire from
spreading. Now, he is not guilty of an offence, as he did it to avoid a major tragedy.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 7


Indian Penal Code , 1860
2. Act of child (Sec. 82) :
(i) An act of a child under seven years is no offence.
(ii) An act of a child above seven and under twelve years, who has not attained sufficient
maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequence of his conduct, is also no
offence.
(iii) An act of a child over twelve years is an offence

Example : One 10 year old boy picked up a knife and threatened to cut his uncle to pieces and did actually
kill him. In this case, it is Obvious that the by actually carried out what he intended and knew would bring
about the desired outcome. The boy was held liable.

3. Act of an insane person (Sec. 84) : Nothing is an offence, which is done by a person, who,
owing to unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing is
wrong or contrary to law.
However, the code lays down two tests of criminal responsibility.
(i) Did the offender know the nature of the act?
(ii) Did the offender know that it was contrary to law?

4. Act of an intoxicated person (Sec. 85) : Nothing is an offence which is done by a person, who
owing to intoxication, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that what he is doing is wrong
or contrary to law, provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his
knowledge or against his will.
However, Sec. 85 declares that voluntary intoxication is no excuse for the commission of a crime.
5. `Bonafide act' for another's benefit' (Sec. 92) : Nothing is an offence by reason pf any harm
which it may cause to the person for whose benefit it is done (a) in good faith, and (b) even without
that person's consent,
(i) if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent; or
(ii) if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian from whom consent can
be obtained in time.

Example : A is in a house, which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A
drops the child from the housetop knowing to be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not
intending to kill the child, and intending, in good faith, for the child's benefit. Here, even if the child
is killed by the fall, A has committed no offence.

6. Communication made in good faith: (Sec. 93) : Any communication made in good faith to a
person is no offence if such communication causes harm to the person to whom it is made, if it is
for such person's benefit.

Example : A, a surgeon in good faith, communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live.
The patient dies in consequence of the shack. A has committed no offence, though he knew it to be
likely that the communication might cause the patient's death.

7. Act done under compulsion or threat (Sec. 94) : Except murder, and offences against the state
punishable with death, nothing is an offence, which is done by a person who is compelled to do it
by threat, which causes the apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise happen.
This section gives protection to those persons who are threatened with instant death compelling
them to commit an offence. Such a person can actually plead the defence of compulsion or
coercion. However, the section states that this defence is not available where the accused in
cases, where a person is compelled to murder another or commit an offence against the state,
which is punishable.

Thus, to save one's own life, one cannot take another's life!

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 8


Indian Penal Code , 1860
8. Right of private defence (Sec. 96 -106) :
Nothing is an offence, which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. The right of
private defence is the right to protect one's own person and property against the unlawful aggres-
sion of others.
In this connection, the following points may be noted:
a) There is no right of private defence under the code against any act, which is not in itself an offence
under the code.
For Example : A attacks Z with a knife. Z in self-defence pulls out a revolver. This is not an offence
on the part of Z. A cannot say, "Z was about to shoot me, so I killed him. "It will be seen in this case
that if A had not in the first place attacked Z, nothing would have happened.
b) The right of private defence cannot be pleaded by persons who believing that they will be attacked,
actually attack the others
c) The right to private defence should not be in excess.

Past questions from NLS and NALSAR Entrance Examinations

Question-2
Principle : Self-defence is considered as a universal exception for intentionally causing harm.
Fact : The robbers, armed with knives and crowbars, broke the access door of a house and entered into it.
The owner of the house took out his gun and threatened to shoot them. The robbers and ran out of the
house and started pelting stones. The owner opened the fire. Having heard the gun shot, the police rushed
to the place and announced that the owner must stop firing. The owner, suspecting a mischief, continued to
fire and a policeman was injured by a shot. The robbers meanwhile fled away. The owner was sued for
attacking the public servant on duty.
a) The owner shall be liable for causing harm, in the excess of what is necessary for self-defence.
b) The owner shall not be liable for attacking the public servant as such, though he may be held liable
otherwise.
c) The owner's action is justified by the consideration of self-defence.
Question-3
Principles :
(i) Any person may use reasonable force in order to protect his property or person
(ii) However, the force employed must be proportionate to the apprehended danger
Fact : Ravi was walking on a lonely read. Maniyan came with a knife and said Ravi, "Your life or your
purse". Ravi pulled out his revolver. On seeing it, Maniyan ran. Ravi shot Maniyan in his legs.
a) Ravi will not be punished as there was danger to his property
b) Ravi will not be punished as the force he used was proportionate to the apprehended injury
c) Ravi will be punished as the force he used was disproportionate to the apprehended injury
d) As Maniyan ran to escape there was no longer a threat to Ravi's property. So Ravi will be punished.

Question-4
Principle : An act done by a child between 7 and 12 years of age is not an offence, if he/she is not mature
enough to understand the nature and consequences of the act.
Fact : A child of 9 years finds a gold chain in the house of his uncle and gives it to his brother B, aged 5
years asking him not tell it to anyone. The uncle reported it to the police station and police conducted a
search. During the search the gold coin falls from the pocket of B and when the police asks B, he says that
it was given to him by his brother A.
(a) Both A and B are guilty of theft. (b) A is guilty of theft but b is not
(c) Both A and B are not guilty of theft.
Because,
ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 9
Indian Penal Code , 1860
3. OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE
3.1 Homicide :
(a) Homicide means killing of a human being by a human being.
(b) Homicide is either lawful or unlawful.
(c) "Lawful homicide" includes those cases, which are covered under general exceptions.
(d) Unlawful homicide includes:

Unlawful Homicide

Murder Rash or negligent Attempt to


Culpable homicide not (S.300) homicide commit Suicide
amounting to murder
(S.304A) (5.309)
(S.299)

(i) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Sec.299)


(ii) Murder (Sec.300)
(iii) Rash/Negligent homicide (Sec. 304A)
(iv) Attempt to commit suicide (Sec. 309)

3.2. Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder : (Sec. 299)


 Culpable homicide may or may not amount to murder.
 It is a less serious offence as compared to murder.
 It is punishable with imprisonment for life.
Ingredients :
 When a person causes death by doing an act
 With the intention of causing or
 With the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death/such bodily injury as is
likely to cause death
 He commits "Culpable homicide".
Example : X urges Y to shoot at the bush, where X knows Z is hiding. Y, however does not know that fact.
Y shoots and kills Z.
In this case, Y is not guilty of any offence. But X has committed the offence of culpable homicide.

In a case, the accused, while attempting to drive away the spirit, which they believed, had possessed a girl,
subjected her to severe beating and it resulted in her death. A court held that the accused is guilty of
culpable homicide.
Culpable Homicide in a Nutshell
(1) The death of the person in question.
(2) By doing an act with
(a) the intention of causing death
or
(b) the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
or
(c) the knowledge that doing an act is likely to cause death

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 10


Indian Penal Code , 1860
3.3. Murder (Sec. 300)
3.3.1 Culpable homicide is murder : If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of
causing
(a) Death
(b) Such bodily injury
As the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused
Or
Is sufficient, in the ordinary course of nature, to cause death,
Or
If the offender knows that the act by which the death is caused is so imminently dangerous that it
must, in all probability, cause death.

CULPABLE HOMICIDE & MURDER - A COMPARISON

Sec 299 Sec 300

A person commits culpable Subject to certain exceptions culpable homicide is murder, if the
homicide if the act by which act by which the death is caused is done : -
the death is caused is done : -
1) with the intention of causing 1) with the intention of causing death;
death;
2) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender
knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the
harm is caused;
Note : "knows to be likely" in this context refers to special knowl
edge of the accused about the victim's condition.

2) with the intention of Causing 3) with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and
such bodily injury as is likely the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the
to cause death; ordinary course of nature to cause death;

3) with the knowledge that he is 4) with the knowledge that the act is so imminently dangerous
likely by such act to cause death. that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury
as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any
excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid

Explanation
(i) The first clause of 5.299 (1) and the first clause of S.300 indicated has `1' above contain the same
text. Thus whenever the death is caused with the intention of causing death, it is always a murder.
In practice there can be no conviction on the basis of S. 299 (1).

(ii) Clause (2) of section 300 is a special clause with respect to both intention and knowledge. This is
a case were the offender has the intention of causing-bodily injury, and he also knows that the
particular person is suffering from a bodily disorder, is likely to die by an injury which normally
would not cause death in a healthy person. (Hence no comparison with S. 299).

Example : A knows that B is suffering from a heart ailment and gives him a blow knowing likely that he will
die on account of the blow. (Note that the blow may not in the ordinary course of nature cause death to a
person in a sound state of health.)
(iii) Comparing clause (2) Sec. 299 and clause (3) of Sec.300, both these clauses show that the
offender must have the intention to cause bodily injury. The difference lies in the degree of
probability of death. If the probability of death is comparatively less the second clause of sec 299
ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 11
Indian Penal Code , 1860
will be applicable, if the probability is greater then the third clause of sec.300 will apply. Example: In
a case, the accused husband poured oil on his wife's body and threw a match stick on her. She
died of 95% burn injuries. In this case, conviction will be under clause 3 of Sec.300, as the
husband's act was imminently dangerous.
(iv) Comparing clause 3 Sec. 299 and clause 4 of Sec.300, the similarity is that both the clauses speak
about the knowledge element. Again, it is the probability of death, which is the difference between
Sec.299 and Sec.300. A conviction under clause 4 of S. 300 can be made when the person
commits the act causing death, knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all
probability cause death, whereas the probability is less under clause 3 of Sec. 299.

Example : The accused drove his motorbike at top speed in a crowded market place knowing fully well it is
likely to result in an accident, causing the death of passers by on the road.

3.4 Culpable homicide is not murder in the following cases


[Exceptions to Sec. 300]
(a) Culpable homicide is not murder, if the offender," causes the death of the person who gave grave
and sudden provocation to the offender.
Example : B gives grave and sudden provocation to A, A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at B, neither
intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, a passerby. A kills Z. Here, A has not committed murder,
but merely culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

(b) Culpable homicide is not murder, if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of right of private
defence, exceeds the legal limit and causes the death of the person without any pre-meditation and
without any intention of doing more harm than necessary.

Example: A, suspecting house-breaking, saw B, total stranger, coming out of A's house at night through a
hole apparently made by B. A immediately attacked B and killed him. The Court held that A was guilty of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 2 to $300.

(c) Culpable homicide is not murder, if the offender, a public servant, exceeds his legal powers and
causes death, by an act, which he believed was in good faith, lawful and necessary to discharge
his duty and without ill-will towards the person killed.

(d) Culpable homicide is not murder, if the victim consents to his/her death being caused.

Example: A patient in the last stage of cancer, suffering from excruciating pain requests her husband to
remove the life support.

3.5 Causing Death By Rash/Negligent Act (Sec. 304 A) :


1. In the case, death of a person is caused by doing any rash or negligent act, not amounting to
culpable homicide.
2. It is punishable with two years' imprisonment and fine.
3. The provisions of this section apply to cases where there is no intention to cause death and no
knowledge that the act done, in all likelihood, would cause death.

Past questions from NLS and NALSAR Entrance Examination

Question-5
Principle : A person is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder, if the act by which the death is
caused is done with in an intention of causing death.
Facts : A and B are playing hide and seek. A hides behind a bush. C, who is On a prowl to hunt for rabbits,
observing some movement near the bush and assuming a rabbit was hiding there, fires and kills A. C does
not know that A was hiding behind the bush. The police prosecute C for murder.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 12


Indian Penal Code , 1860
(a) C would not be liable for murder, as he did not have the intention to kill A.
(b) C would be liable for murder, because he should have taken care to find out the target before
shooting.

(c) C would not be liable for murder, because it would be too much to expect him to identify the target
before shooting.
Question-6
Principle : Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death commits culpable
homicide, punishable under Indian Penal Code.
Facts : Bandipur is a protected area wherein hunting is totally forbidden. Kannan, a poacher, stealthily
entered his area and he shot at a deer. He missed the target and the bullet hit the forest guard relaxing
nearby, whom Kannan had not seen. The forest guard was killed Decide whether Kannan is guilty of
culpable homicide.

Question-7
Principle : Every Person is criminally liable for negligent or rash conduct which results in death of another
person.

Facts : X, a farmer, with a view to protecting his crop, had put up a live electric wire around his farm. Z, a
friend of X, came to X's house, which was inside the farm, at around 10 P.M. to discuss some urgent
matters. While entering the field, he was electrocuted. State whether X is liable for the death of Z.

Question-8
Principle : A person is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder, if the act by which the death is
caused is done with the intention of causing death.
Facts : A was hiding behind a bush to catch some rabbits. B also came to same place for hunting with his
gun. When B noticed some movements near the bush, he thought that it was an animal and fired a shot. A
was killed by the shot. The police sought to prosecute B for murder.
a) B would not be liable for murder, because he did not have the intention to kill A.
b) B would be liable for murder because he should have taken care to find out the target-before
shooting
c) B would not be liable for murder, because it was too much to expect B to identify the target before
shooting.
Question-9
Principle : A man is guilty of culpable homicide amounting to murder, if the act by which the death is
caused is done with the intention of causing death.
Facts : A is suffering from jaundice and inflammation of the brain and B know this condition very well.
Once they had a heated argument on some issue and A slapped B in anger. B lost his self-control and dealt
a severe blow on A's head. As a result, A died. The police sought to prosecute B for murder.
a) B was liable for murder, because he knew A's delicate condition.
b) B was not liable for murder, because he acted in self-defence.
c) B was not liable for murder, because he did not have the intention to kill A.

Question-10
Principle : Section 300 of Indian Penal Code provides "Whoever kills any other person with an intention to
cause death is said to have committed murder."
Facts : A, a surgeon, while conducting a major surgery on B, failed to take a note of the latter's diabetes
problem. Asa result, some complications developed after the surgery and B died. A is accused of murder

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 13


Indian Penal Code , 1860
Question 11
Principle-1 : Preparation to commit an offence is not offence
Priniciple-2 : After one has finished preparation to commit an offence, any act done towards committing
the offence with intention to commit it, is an attempt to commit the offence, which is by itself an offence.
Facts: A wants to kill B. He buys a gun and cartridges for committing the murder. He then sets out
searching Q when he sees B, he loads his gun and takes aim at B and pulls the trigger. The gun did not fire.
Which of the answer you will feel more appropriate?
a) A is guilty of attempt to murder B from the time he sets out in search of B.
b) A is guilty of attempt to murder from the time he loads his gun.
c) A is guilty of attempt to murder from the moment he takes aim at B. Because,

Question-12
Principle : To be held guilty of an offence, one should have done the act that causes the intended result.
Facts : A with the intention to murder B stabs him repeatedly with knife. B is taken to hospital and is found
out of danger. Thereafter, due to the negligence of the doctor, B's wounds are infected and he requires
surgical intervention. During the time of operation requiring to remove his injured infected leg, B died on
account of administration of general anaesthesia.
a) A is guilty of murder of B
b) A is not guilty of murder of B but may be guilty of attempt to murder.
c) A is not guilty of murder of B but may be guilty of causing hurt.
Because,
Question-13
Principle : Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does anything towards killing himself is said to have
committed an offence.
Facts : Mr. Ashoka was dejected in his life. He had neither any interest to live nor any goals to achieve. He
was not getting proper sleep. In order to get good sleep, he used to take sleeping tablets. One day he has
consumed lot of sleeping tablets. He knew that consuming such heavy quantity of sleeping tablets could be
fatal. His family members realized the situation and admitted him to the hospital, where he was treated in the
emergency ward. Now he is alright.
(a) Mr. Ashoka needs psychiatric treatment
(b) Mr. Ashoka has not committed any offence as he has only consumed lot of sleeping tablets, which
anyway he was taking earlier.
(c) Mr. Ashoka has committed the offence of attempt to commit suicide
Mr. Ashoka should have taken the sleeping tablets under the supervision of the Doctor.

Question-14
Principle : Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety
of others is said to have committed an offence.
Facts : Mr. Mangeskar owns a Yamaha motorcycle which has very good pick up and speed. He is studying
in the IV semester of Mechanical Engineering degree course. One day it was getting late for the college as
he woke up late in the morning. He got ready and was rushing to the college so that he would not miss the
class. He was riding the motor cycle at a speed of 140 km per hour in Bangalore city which was crowded.
He was very good in riding the motorcycle. People who were using the road got annoyed / scared with the
way Mr. Mangeskar was riding the motorcycle.
a. Mr. Mangeskar has committed an act of rash and negligent driving.
b. Mr. Mangeskar is very good in driving, so there is no need for others to be panicky about his
driving.
c. Mr. Mangeskar is very studious students and he does not want to miss any class in the College.
d. The Yamaha Motor Cycle is very good and it can be driven at great speed.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 14


Indian Penal Code , 1860
4. OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY
4.1. THEFT [Sec. 378] :
A person who intends to take dishonesty :
Any movable property out of the possession of any person without the consent of that person,
moves that property in order to such taking is Said to commit theft.
Example : X finds a ring belonging to Y, on a table in Y's house. If X dishonestly removes it, X
commits theft.
Thus the ingredients of the offence of theft include.
 Dishonest intention to take property.
 It should be taken out of the possession of another person.
 The property should be taken without the consent of the owner.
 There must be some removal of the property in order to accomplish the taking of it.

4.2 Criminal Misappropriation of Property


A person commits "Criminal misappropriation" if he
(i) Dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use.
(ii) Any movable property.

Example : A and B are joint owners of a cow. A takes the cow from B while it is in the latter's possession.
A, however fails to return it to B and sells the same without B's consent and appropriates the whole
proceeds to his own use. He is guilty of an offence.

Note : The offence of criminal misappropriation takes place where the initial possession is innocent, but
the retention thereof becomes wrongful and fraudulent, by a subsequent change of intention, or from
knowledge of some new fact not previously known to the party.
4.3. Cheating [Sec. 415]
If a person
(a) Fraudulently/dishonestly induces another to deliver any property to any person
Or
To consent that any person shall retain any property
Or
(b) Intentionally induces another to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit, if
he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes damage to the latter's body,
mind, reputation or property.
Example : X goes to a railway station and gains entry to the platform pretending that he is a C.I.D officer,
without purchasing a platform ticket. X would be guilty of cheating.
4.4 Robbery [Sec 390]
Theft is robbery if
(a) in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing of the theft
(b) for that end, voluntarily causes death, hurt, wrongful restraint or fear of instant death, hurt
or wrongful restraint to any person.
4.5 Dacoity [Sec.391]
Five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery are present and aid such
commission or attempt every one of them is said to commit 'dacoity`. It is to be noted that attempt to
commit dacoity is as much punishable as the committing of dacoity itself.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 15


3. OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE
1. OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE: UNLAWFUL HOMICIDE (Ss. 299—318) :
1.1 Culpable Homicide (Ss. 299,301 and 304)
The first offence against human life is that of culpable homicide. Now, the world `homicide' comes
from Latin homa—(man) and cide—(I cut) Killing of a human being by a human being is homicide.
It will be remembered that the code has defined (in Ss. 45 and 46) `Life' and `death' as meaning
the life and death of a human being. Causing the death of an animal is not murder. It might amount
to the offence of mischief or to cruelty to animal under the cruelty of animals Act. But that, of
course, is not the same thing as murder.
Kinds of Homicide Homicide is, therefore, the killing of a human being by a human being. It is
either lawful or unlawful. `Lawful homicide' includes the cases falling under the General Exceptions,
in chapter IV, Ss. 76 to 106. It is committed says, for example, when death is caused by accident
(S. 80) or in the exercise of the right of private defence of the body (S.100), and so on.
Unlawful Homicide Unlawful homicide is dealt with in Ss. 299 to 318 of the code. Now, unlawful
homicide can be analysed as follows:

Unlawful Homicide

Culpable homicide not Murder (Sec. 300) Rash or negligent Suicide


amounting to murder homicide and (Ss. 305 and 306)
(Sec. 299) (Sec. 304A)

Figure : Unlawful Homicide


Now, culpable homicide may amount to murder, or it may not amount to murder. It is a less serious offence
than murder. It is punishable with imprisonment for life, whereas murder is punishable with death or
imprisonment for life.
S. 299 which defines culpable homicide, can be analysed as follows :

Table
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Whosoever causes death (a) with the intention of (i) death, or


by doing an act causing (ii) such bodily injury as is likely
to cause death.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OR
(b) with knowledge that he is likely, by such act, to cause death.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Commits `culpable homicide'


____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Illustrations-1
(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit with the intention of thereby causing death or with the knowledge
that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z, believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and
is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
[With reference to the above illustration one may well ask why is A guilty of culpable homicide? Is it
not a case of murder? Well though A had the intention to kill Z, the knowledge that his act is likely to
cause death, makes all the difference. If his act was certain to cause death. A would have been
guilty of murder. It is the likelihood to cause death that reduces the offence to culpable homicide
not amounting to murder.]

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 16


(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it. A, intending to cause, or knowing it to because
Z's death, induces B to fire at the hush. B fires and kills Z Here, B may be guilty of no offence; but
A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
[Here too, the likelihood of causing Z's death makes the offence that of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder].
(c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B, who is behind a bush, A not knowing
that he was there. Here although A was doing an unlawful act, he is not guilty of culpable homicide,
as he did not intend to kill B, or cause death by doing an act that he knew likely to cause death; S.
299.
Illustration-2
(a) Shows that merely because death is, so to say, accidentally caused in the commission of an
unlawful act, that, by itself, will not convert the accidental killing into murder, All killing is not necessarily
murder. In illustration (c). A's primary motive or intention was to steal and not to murder. If however,
A knew that B was behind the bush and intending to kill B had pretended to shoot at the fowl, and
shot both, the fowl and B, he would be clearly guilty of murder, his intention being to kill B under the
pretext of killing the fowl].
(d) A, intending to kidnap B's child, with a view to extorting money from B, steals the child from the
bed-room. As A is taking the child down the ladder, which he has placed against the bed-room
window, the ladder breaks, the child is thrown down violently and is killed. It will be seen that here,
A's object was not murder but extortion and kidnapping. At the most, he can be convicted of
kidnapping and extortion but not murder. The child's death's is purely accidental. When a person
engaged in the commission of an offence causes death by pure accident, he shall suffer only the
punishment of his offence, without any addition on account of such accidental death, merely
because A was engaged in an unlawful act, namely kidnapping, he cannot be held liable for the
accident which he never foresaw or expected. A is therefore guilty of kidnapping only, and not
murder.
There are three explanations to this section.
Explanation # 1.
A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity
and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have `caused' his death.
Explanation-1 simply says that the accused will be guilty of culpable homicide if he, by his act, knowingly
accelerated the victim's death who was already labouring under a disease or disorder. Of course, he must
have known about the victim's condition and then must have accelerated his death. The victim's death would
be, of course, certain, but he must have knowingly accelerated it.

Explanation # 2.
When death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have
`caused' the death, although, by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment, the death might have
been prevented.
The effect of this Explanation is that the offender cannot say—"No doubt, 1 caused an injury to the
deceased, but he did not care to dress the wound properly, nor did he go to a skilled doctor. Had he done
so, he would not have died". Such a defense is untenable by virtue of this explanation 2.
The following English case on the point may be noted:
If P causes to Q injuries likely to cause death, and as a result of such injuries, it is necessary to perform an
operation on Q the injured man, and the injured man dies as a cumulative result of the original injuries as
well as the operation, P must be deemed to have caused the death of Q, because the operation itself was
necessitated by what he had done, and therefore, he must he held to be the cause of the operation itself
and the consequential death.

Explanation # 3.
The causing of the death of a child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable
homicide to cause the death of a living child if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child
may not have breathed or been completely born.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 17


Explanation 3 requires a little elucidation. Section 10 defines `man' and 'woman'. It says that `man' denotes
a human being of any age, also `woman' denotes a female human being of any age. Therefore, causing the
death of a child just born, In law, is as serious an offence as causing the death of a full grown human being.
The life of a child, while it remains within the womb, is a part of the mother's life, and not a separate and
distinct existence. But as soon as any part of the child has been brought forth from the womb, the child is
regarded as a living human being, to cause whose death may be culpable homicide. In a given case, a
child may not have been born, still it can be killed when it is in its mother's womb. Can it be said that the
death of a human being is caused? Explanation law 3 to S. 299 therefore solves this difficulty. The English
law on this point is different. Under the English law, the child should have completely emerged ; whereas
under s 299, it is sufficient if any part (say even a finger) of the child has come out its mother's womb.

Points to be Proved—to bring home to the accused the charge of culpable homicide not amounting to
murder the following three points must be proved:
(1) The death of the person in question.
S. 46 has declared that 'death' means the death of a human being. Of course, there are various ways of
causing death-poisoning, starving, stabbing, drowning, etc. That such death was caused by the act of the
accused.
(2) Under S.32, words which refer to acts done extend also to illegal omission, and the word "illegal" is
applicable to everything which is an offence, or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a
civil action.
(3) That the accused intended by such act to cause death, or that he intended by such act to cause such
bodily injury as was likely to cause death or that he knew that such act of his would be likely to cause death.
The connection between the act and the death caused thereby must be direct and distinct; and though not
immediate, it must be too remote.

What Do You Think?


1. The accused struck his wife a blow on her head with a ploughshare which, though not shown to be a blow
likely to cause death, did in fact render her unconscious and, believing her to be dead, in order to lay the
foundation of a false defence of suicide by hanging, the accused hanged her on a beam by a rope and
thereby caused her death by strangulation.
Ans. It was held that the accused was not guilty of culpable homicide. The Court convicted him of grievous hurt.

2. In the course of a quarrel in a dark night, the accused aimed a blow at the complainant's head. To ward of
the blow, the complainant's wife, who had child on her arm, intervened between them. The blow missed its
aim, but fell on the head of the child, causing severe injuries, from the effects of which it died.
Ans. The court held it a case of accident or simple hurt.

3. A struck B on the head with a piece of firewood. B fell down bleeding from her nose and became
unconscious. A and his wife, W, thought that B was dead; `so they placed her on a wooden pyre and set
fire to it, which actually caused B's death.
Ans. They were, however, guilty under S. 304, as they had acted with gross negligence.
Causing another's death by mistake (s. 301)
Often it happens that A, intending to murder Z, kills Y either by mistake or by accident. Would it lie in A's
mouth to say - 'I should be excused. I wanted to kill Z. I never meant to kill Y'. Sec. 301 provides for cases
like this. It lays down as under;
if a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable
homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely
to cause—the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have
been if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to
cause.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 18


In other words, where a mistake is made in respect of the person, as where the offender shoots at A,
supposing that he is shooting at B, it is clear that the difference of person makes no difference in the
offence or its consequence; the crime consists in the wilful doing of a prohibited act; the act of shooting at
A was wilful, although the offender mistook him B another.
Similarly, there will be no difference where the injury intended for one falls on another by accident. If a
makes a thrust at B, meaning to kill and C throwing himself between receives the thrust and dies, A will
answer for it, as his criminal purpose had taken place on B.
A counsels B to poison his wife. B accordingly obtains poison from A and gives it to his wife in a roasted
apple. The wife gives it to a child of B, not knowing it was poison who eats it and dies. B has committed
murder, though he did not intend to kill the child.

What Do You Think?


1. A woman had been carrying on an intrigue with a man who gave her some poison to administer to her
husband. She prepared sweet-meats mixed with the poison which was eaten by her husband and four
others. Her husband and three others suffered considerably and did not die, but the fifth man died. She
intended to kill her husband and not the fifth man who died.
Ans. She was guilty of murder.

2. The accused, with intention of killing A, on whose life he had effected, insurance, gave him some poisoned
sweetmeat. A ate a portion of it and threw the rest away which was picked up by the daughter of the
accused's brother-in-law, aged eight years, without the knowledge of the accused. She ate it and gave
some to another little child. The two children died from the effects of the poison, but A eventually recovered.
Ans. The accused was guilty of murder and attempt to murder.

2. OFFENCES AGAINST THE HUMAN BODY (SS. 319-377)


We shall now deal with offences against the human body. These are :
Hurt, which may be simple or grievous: Ss. 319-338;
Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement; Ss. 339-348;
Criminal force and assault: Ss. 349-358;

 Hurt, Which may be Simple or Grievous (Ss. 319-338)


(a) Simple Hurt (Ss. 319, 321 and 338)
Whoever causes bodily pain, disease infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt: S. 319.
It is to be remembered that for any act to amount an offence, it must be committed voluntarily, not
accidentally. Hence S. 321 lays down that a person voluntarily causes hurt, if he does any act (a)
with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person, or (b) with knowledge that he is likely
thereby to cause hurt.
Where there is no intention to cause death or no knowledge that death is likely to be caused from
harm inflicted, and death is caused, the accused would be guilty of hurt only if the injury caused
was not serious.

 Judicial Precedents
1. A, on a grave and sudden provocation given by B gave B a kick on the abdomen. B had an enlarged spleen
which got punctured by the blow, and B died in consequence.
The Court held that death caused without intention or knowledge is not culpable. A's act was that of a person
who intended to cause hurt within the meaning of Ss, 319 and 321.

2. A boy of about sixteen years of age, being in love with a girl some three; or four years younger and
apparently intending, to administer to her something in the nature of a love philter, induced another boy
younger than himself to give the girl some sweetmeats. The girl and some of the other members of her
family ate the sweetmeats and all the persons who partook of them were seized with more or less violent
symptoms of poisoning, though none of them died. It was held that the boy was guilty of causing hurt.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 19


3. In the courses of an altercation between accused and the complainant on a dark night, the farmer aimed a
blow with his stick at the head of the latter. To ward of the blow, the complainant's wife, who had a child on
her arm, intervened between them. The blow missed its aim, but fell on the head of the child, causing severe
injuries, from the effects of which it died.
It was held that inasmuch as the blow, if it had reached the complainant, would have caused simple hurt, the
accused was guilty of simple hurt only.

4. A demanded ` 1000 from B which the latter owned him. B promised to pay latter. A thereupon kicked B
twice in the abdomen. B collapsed and died. Here, it cannot be said that A intended or knew that by kicking
in the abdomen as he did, he was likely to endanger life. A would, therefore, be guilty of the offence of
voluntarily causing hurt (S. 323).

(b) Grievous Hurt (Ss.320, 322 and 325) S.320 defines grievous hurt, as follows:
The following kinds of hurt are designed as `grievous':
1. Emasculation Emasculation means performing an operation by which a man is deprived if his
masculine power. (Hence, this offence cannot be committed on a woman.)
2. Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.
3. Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear. The word `permanent' is relevant. Causing
temporary blinding or, deafness amounts to hurt, but not grievous hurt.
4. Privation of any member or joint.
5. Destruction or permanent impairing of the head or face.
6. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. Cutting off an ear or nose is disfiguration, that of a
hand or leg is disablement. Disfiguration of face by throwing acid is a common instance of
grievous hurt.
7. Fracture or dislocation of bone or tooth
8. Any hurt which endangers life, or which causes the suffer to be, during the space of twenty
days, in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits(S. 320.)

 Problem
1. A assault B very severely as the result of which B remains in hospital for treatment for 19 days. On the 20th
day, he is discharged from the hospital at 3 pm. What offence has A committed?
Ans. A disability of 20 days constitutes grievous hurt but if it continues for a lesser period, then the offence is
hurt. But the mere fact that a man has been in hospital for 20 days is not sufficient, it must be proved that
during the time he was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
It, therefore any one or more of the above eight points are proved, a prima facie case of grievous hurt can
be said to be made out.

Judicial Precedents
1. A, while engaged in a verbal wrangle with B, his wife, struck her a blow on the left side with great force, as
a result of which she bled from the nose and within little more than an hour, died.
Here, A struck B a blow, which caused B's death, without any intention of causing death, or of causing such
bodily injury as was likely to cause death, or the knowledge that he was likely by such act to cause death,
but with the intention of causing grievous hurt.
A is guilty of the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, and not of the offence of murder, or of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder, or of causing death by rash act.

2. X gave a kick to Y, who had an enlarge spleen, and as result of the kick the spleen was ruptured and Y died.
The Court held that X was guilty of grievous hurt. In the ordinary course of nature, a kick would not kill a
person in a sound state of health, and even if X may intend to cause bodily injury, he is not guilty of murder,
if he did not intend to cause death or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause
death. But if X knew that Y had such an enlarge spleen as a kick on it was likely to cause his death, and
kicked him with the intention of causing bodily injury, he would be guilty of murder: see illustration (h) to S.
300.

3. A assaults B with a stick, intending to give him a severe beating, but without any intention of killing him. B is
rendered unconscious by the assault. A fearing that he is dead, drags him to a railway line and leaves him
there in order that it may appear that B is killed by a passing train. B is thus run over and killed by a train.
ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 20
It was been held that unless intention to cause death or a bodily injury sufficient to cause death has been
present, the offence of murder cannot be committed. A assaulted B intending to give him a severe beating
and not intending to cause his death and subsequently believing him dead, left him on a railway line
intending it to be believed that he was killed by a passing train. In fact the death was not caused by the
previous severe beating but by being run over by train. There fore, A was held guilty only of the offence of
voluntarily causing grievous hurt.

Q.1. A and B were not on good terms with C, on the suggestion of B, A caused grievous hurt to C as a
consequence of which he died. What are the liabilities, if any, of A and B?

Q.2. A caused hurt to B, who in consequence had to remain in hospital for seventeen days out of which B was in
danger for three days. What offence, if any, has A committed?

Q.3. A, intending or knowing himself to be likely permanently to disfigure Z's face, gives Z a blow which does not
permanently disfigure Z's face, but causes Z to suffer severe bodily pain for the space of 20 days. What
offence if any has A committed?

Q.4. There was a longstanding enmity between A and B. On account of this enmity, A inflicts knife blows on B. B
was admitted in the hospital. The doctor treats him in the hospital for 18 days and gives instructions that B
should leave the hospital. In spite of this B stays in the hospital for 4 days more. Under the aforesaid
circumstances, B stayed in the hospital for 22 days. What offence, if any, has been committed by A?

Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt -


1. By an instrument used for shooting, stabbing or cutting or which used a weapon of offence is likely
to cause death; or by fire or any heated substances or poison, or any explosive or deleterious
substances, or by means of any animal: Ss. 324 and 326.
2. To extort from the sufferer or anyone interested in him property or valuable security; or to constrain
him to do anything illegal, or to facilitate the commission of an offence: Ss. 327 and 329,
3. To extort from the sufferer or any one interested in him, a confession or any information which may
lead to the detection of an offence; or to constrain the restoration of property, or the satisfaction of
any claim Ss. 330-33].
4. To a public servant in discharge of his duty, or to prevent or deter him from so discharging it: Ss.
332-333.
5. Causing hurt by administering poison or any stupefying, intoxicating, or unwholesome drug, with
intent to commit or facilitate the commission of an offence: S. 328.

 Hurt (S. 334) or grievous hurt (S. 335) on provocation


Hurt or grievous hurt caused on grave and sudden provocation is not severely punished and a lesser
punishment is prescribed for such offence by Ss. 334 and 335.

Judicial Precedents
1. A by a single blow with a deadly weapon, killed B having arrived in dead of night finding his wife
and B sleeping in a dark room. It was held that A was guilty of causing grievous hurt on a grave and
sudden provocation under S. 335.
2. A, on a grave and sudden provocation given by B, gave a kick on the abdomen. B had enlarged
spleen, which got ruptured by the blow, and died in consequence. The Court held that A was guilty
of simple hurt only.

 Rash and negligent act causing hurt, etc. (Ss. 336-338)


Rash, or negligent acts which endanger human life or the personal safety of others are made punishable
even though no harm follows (S. 336), and if hurt or grievous hurt is caused by such acts, the punishment
will be more severe: Ss. 337-338.

Example Accused No. I administered to her husband a potion to save her from his quarrelsome tongue.
The husband took ill seriously but subsequently recovered. The potion was supplied to her by her lover

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 21


(accused No. 2) who knew it to be Dhatura, a dangerous drug.
It was held that accused No, I committed an offence under S. 337 (causing hurt by act endangering life or
personal safety of other) as she administered without care an unknown powder, but accused No. 2 her
lover, committed an offence under S. 307 (attempt to murder) read with S.109.

Problem
A hakim operated on the eye with ordinary scissors and dressed the wound with a needle, thereby causing
permanent damage to the eye of the patient. What offence has the hakim committed?
Ans. Causing grievous hurt rashly and negligently: S. 338.

2. Wrongful Restriant and Wrongful Confinement (Ss. 339-341)


 Wrongful restraint (Ss. 339-341)
Whoever:
Voluntarily obstructs any person,
So as act prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed-
is said wrongfully to restrain that person: S. 339.

An exception to what is stated above is that the obstruction of a private way over land or water which a
person, in good faith, believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning
of this section: S. 399.
Illustration
A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass, A not believing in good faith that he has a right to stop
the path. Z is thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z: S. 339,
Wrongful restrain means the keeping a man out of a place where he wishes to be and has a right to be. It
implies abridgement of the liberty of a person against his will.
The section requires two essentials -
Voluntary obstruction of a person.
The obstruction must be such as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which he has a
right to proceed.

Illustrations
1. A threatens to set a dog at Z if Z goes along a path by which Z has a right to go. The dog is not really savage,
but A causes Z to think so. Z gives up the attempt. In these circumstances, the offence of wrongful restraint
has been committed, because A has prevented Z from proceeding in a direction in which Z has a right to
go.

2. A builds a well across a path along which B has a right to pass. In this case also, the offence of wrongful
restrain is committed.

3. A, the accused, was the owner of a house. A room in that house was occupied by B, complainant, as a
tenant of A. A served a notice upon B putting an end to the tenancy and asking him to quit the room. B,
however, remained in possession of the room, and became thereby a tenant holding over. A then caused
the door of B's room to be blocked up; thus barring B from entering his room by the usual way.
A tenant holding over had possession recognized by the law, and he had a right to retrain possession of the
premises he occupied, even against the landlord himself until dispossessed in due course of law.

4. A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass. Z is thereby prevented from passing. Has A committed
any offence? If so, under what circumstance? Now, merely because A obstructs Z or Z is prevented from
passing, it cannot be said that any offence is committed. But the offence would be committed if A does not
believe in good faith that he has a right to stop the path.

5. The accused, while the complainant was absent, put up a tin projection over the complainant's compound
wall, so as to land over his paved court-yard at a height of six feet ten inches above the ground. The
complainant having prosecuted the accused for the offence of wrongful restraint.
It was held that the accused committed no offence since the projection did not prevent any one moving
below it, and that its possible obstruction to the complainant in white-washing or repairing that wall was not
tantamount to wrongful restraint contemplated by this section.
ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 22
6. The accused, one of the two joint-owners of a shop, put her lock on the shop which was let out by the other
joint-owner without her consent. The tenant charged the accused with the offence of wrongful restrain in
that he was prevented by the lock from entering into the shop. It was held that accused had committed no
offence, inasmuch as she had affixed her lock to a house of which she was joint-owner and the complainant
was no tenant of hers.

 Wrongful confinement (S. 340)


Whoever (a) wrongfully restrains any person (b) in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceed-
ing beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person: S. 340.

Illustration
(a) A causes Z to go within a walled space, and locked Z in. Z is thus prevented from proceeding in any
direction beyond the circumscribing line of wall. A wrongfully confine Z.
(b) A places men with firearms at the outlets of a building, and tells Z that they will fire at Z, if Z attempts
to leave the building. A wrongfully confines Z: S. 340.
Wrongful confinement implies a total restraint, not a partial one. If a man merely obstructs the passage of
another in a particular direction, leaving him at liberty to stay where he is or to go in any other direction if he
pleases, he cannot be said thereby to wrongfully confine him. Detention through the exercise of moral
force, without the accompaniment of physical force or actual conflict is sufficient. Malice is not an
ingredient of this offence.
Ingredients - The section requires two essentials:
1. There must be a wrongful restraint of a person.
2. Such restraint must prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits. There
must be a total restraint, not a partial one.

Judicial Precedents
1. A, a man of education and wealth in a town, where medical attendance was available, chained up his
brother, who was subject to fits of violent insanity with lucid intervals, for over three months in a cruel way.
It was held that A could not be said to have acted with due care and attention, and was guilty of an offence
under S. 344 (wrongful confinement for more than 10 days.

2. A jail doctor confined an offender, who was already undergoing imprisonment, in a cell within the jail for the
purpose of administering enema against his will. The court held that the doctor was guilty of wrongful
confinement.

3. On the night proceeding the day of an election, a candidate was prevented from coming out of his office to
canvass for votes by A, his rival candidate, and others, who were picketing his house.
It was held that A did not interfere or attempt to interfere with free exercise of an electoral right or threaten
any candidate or voter with injury; and no prima facie case under S. 171C (undue influence at election) is
made out. It is to be noted, however, that the offence committed by A may come under S. 339 (wrongful
restraint), and S. 340 (wrongful confinement).

Difference between wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement


1. Wrongful confinement is a form of `wrongful restraint'. It is the keeping a man within limits out of which he
wishes to go and has a right to go. By wrongful restraint is meant keeping a man out of a place where he
wishes to be or has a right to go.
2. In wrongful confinement, a person is restrained from proceeding in all directions beyond a certain area; in
wrongful restraint, he is restrained from proceeding in some particular direction, though free to proceed
elsewhere. The difference between them is only the distinction between obstruction in one direction and
obstruction on all sides.
3. Wrongful confinement is more serious offence than wrongful restraint.

3. CRIMINAL FORCE AND ASSAULT (SS. 349-358) FORCE (S. 349)


Criminal Force
A person is said to use force to another if he causes motions, change of motion, or cessation of motion to
that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or change of motion, or cessation of motion as
bring that substance into contact with any parts of that other's body, or with anything which that other is

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 23


wearing or carrying, or with anything so situated that such contact affect that other's sense of feeling:
Providing that the person causing the motion or change of motion, or cessation of motion, causes that
motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three ways, namely:

By his own bodily power (see illustrations (c) to (g) to S. 350), or


By disposing any substances in such a manner that the motion or change or cessation of motion takes
place without any further act on his part, or on the part of any other person (see illustration (a) to S. 350),
or
By inducing any animal to move to change its motion or to cease to move [see illustrations (a) and (f) to S.
350]: S. 349.

Using Criminal Force (S. 353) Using criminal force is not an offence, but is an ingredient in the offence of
assault. S. 350 defines `using criminal force' thus:
Table
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Whoever intentionally (a) in order to committing of any offence or injury, fear or annoyance to the
uses force to another (b) intending by the use of such force to latter
without his consent cause or
(c) knowingly it to be likely that by the use of
such force he will cause
Is said to use criminal force' to that other
_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Illustration
(a) Z is sitting in a moored boat on a river. A unfastens the moorings, and thus intentionally causes the boat to
drift down the stream. Here, A intentionally causes motion to Z, and he does this by disposing substances in
such a manner that the motion is produced without any other action on any person's part. A has therefore
intentionally used force to Z; and if he has done so without Z' s consent, in order to the committing of any
offence, or intending or knowing it to be likely, that this use of force will cause injury, fear or annoyance to
Z, A has used criminal force to Z.

(b) Z is riding in a chariot. A lashes Z's horses, and thereby causes them to quicken their pace. Here, A has
caused, change of motion to Z by inducing the animals to change their motion. A has therefore used force
to Z; and if A has done this without Z's consent, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby
injure, frighten or annoy Z, A has used criminal force to Z.

(c) Z is riding in a palanquin. A intending to rob Z, seizes the pole, and stops the palanquin. Here, A has caused
cessasion of motion to Z and he has done this by his own bodily power. A has, therefore, used force to Z
and as A has acted thus intentionally without Z' s consent in order to the commission of an offence, A has
used criminal force to Z.

(d) A intentionally pushed against Z in the street. Here, A has by his own bodily power moved his own person so
as to bring it into contact with Z. He has, therefore, intentionally used force to Z, and if he has done so
without Z's consent intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy Z, A is
said to have used criminal force to Z.

(e) A throws a stone, intending or knowing it to be likely that the stone will be thus brought into contact with Z, or
with Z' s clothes, or with something carried by Z, or that it will strike water, and dash up the water against Z's
clothes or something carried by Z. Here, if the throwing of the stone produces the effect of causing any
substance to come into contact with Z, or Z's clothes, A has used force to Z; and if he did so without Z's
consent, intending thereby to injure, frighten or annoy Z, he has used criminal force to Z.

(f) A intentionally pulls up a woman's veil. Here, A intentionally used force to her, and if he does so without her
consent, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy her, he has used
criminal force to her.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 24


(g) Z is bathing. A pours into the bath, water which he knows to be boiling. Here, A intentionally by his own
bodily power causes such motion in the boiling water as brings that water into contact with Z, or with other
water so situated that such contact must affect Z's sense of feeling. A has therefore intentionally used to
force Z; and if he has done this without Z's consent, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby
cause injury, fear or annoyance to Z, A has used criminal force.

(h) A incites a dog to spring upon Z, without Z's consent. Here, if A intends to cause injury, fear or annoyance
to Z, he uses criminal force to Z. Ingredients The section requires the following three essentials:
1. There must be an international use of force to any person.
2. Such force must have been used without that person's consent.
3. It must have been used:
(a) in order to the committing of any offence; or
(b) with the intention to cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom it is used.

 Assault and Affray


1. An assault can take place anywhere either a public place or private; an affray can be committed in a
public place only.
2. Assault is an offence against the person of an individual; affray is an offence against the public peace.
3. Assault may be committed by one or more persons. Affray must be committed by two or more.

Assault is punishable with 3 months, or Rs 500; affray is punishable with 1 month or Rs 100. It is therefore
less serious an offence than assault.
Assault and Hurt
1. Many offences which fall under the head of hurt will also fall under the head of assault.
2. Thus, flinging boiling water over a person amounts to assault, It is also an act which causes bodily hurt.
3. But it is possible to cause bodily hurt without committing assault. Thus, mixing poison with somebody's
food or digging a pit for a victim are cases of hurt though not of assault,

Table - Difference between Assault, Affray and Riot


_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Assault Affray Riot
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Place where it may be committed Must be committed in a May be committed in any place public
May by committed in any public place. or private place, public or private.
2. Number of persons required to Must be committed by Must be committed by five or more.
commit the offence May be two or more
committed by one or more
persons
3. Common object
There may or may not be any There must he a common object and it
common object. must be one of the five mentioned in Sec.
141:
4. Against what is offence
committed?
Is an offence against the Are offences against the
person of an individual public peace?
5. Punishment (ordinarily)
Three months, or ` 500 One month, or `100 or Two year, fine or both (S. 147)
or both: (S. 352) both: (S. 160)
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 25


4. MURDER (SS. 300—303)

1. Murder (Ss. 300—303)


The second offence against human life is that of murder defined in sec. 300. W hich can be
analysed–Culpable homicide is murder
Table Culpable Homicide in Murder
(a) if the act ('act' includes illegal omission (i) death, or (i) as the offender knows to be
also: S. 33) by which the death is caused (ii) such bodily injury likely to cause the death of the
is done with the intention of causing person to whom the harm is
caused.
or

(ii) to any person as is sufficient


in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death.
(b) if the offender knows that the act by which the death is caused is so
imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause
(i) death or (ii) such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, and commits such act without any excuse for
incurring the risk thereof: S. 300.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

It will be seen that all murder is (and includes) culpable homicide, but all culpable homicide is not murder.
Culpable homicide will become murder under the circumstances mentioned in clauses (a) and (b) above.

The three important illustrations to S. 300 run as follows:


Illustration
(a) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with
intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not, in ordinary
course of nature, cause the death of a person in a sound state of health. But if A not knowing that Z is
labouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as would not in the ordinary course of nature, kill a
person, A, although he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of murder if he did not intend to cause
death or such bodily injury as would ordinarily cause death.
(b) A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club wound sufficient to cause the death of a man. Z dies. A is guilty
of murder though he may not have intended to cause Z's death.
(c) A without any excuse, fires a loaded cannon into crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of
murder although he may not have had a design to kill any particular individual: S. 300.
What Do You Think?
1. The accused's cattle were doing considerable damage to the crops belonging to the complainants who
drove them to the cattle pound. While the complainants were on their way to the pound, the accused came
armed with clubs to rescues the cattle. At the command given by one of the accused, the others assaulted
the deceased and beat him, with the result that he died.
Ans. The offence of murder was committed in pursuance of the common object, and that each one of the
accused was guilty of murder under S. 302 of the Code.
Don't Forget
It is to be remembered that S. 300 lays down as to when culpable homicide amounts to murder. The term
'culpable homicide' is used as a generic term, and is subdivided into two species, namely, culpable homicide
amounting to murder (S. 300, cis. 1, 2, 3 and 4) and culpable homicide not amounting to murder (S. 299
and exceptions to S. 300). An offence cannot amount to murder unless it falls within the definition of

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 26


culpable homicide: for this section merely points out the cases in which culpable homicide amounts to
murder. But an offence may amount to culpable homicide and yet not amount to murder.
The mere fact that the dead body of the person who has been murdered is not found is not a ground for
refusing to convict a person of murder. However, in such a case, the strongest possible evidence as to the
fact of the murder should be forthcoming, before the caused is convicted of murder.
What Do You Think?
The accused intentionally put arsenic into her husband's food in order to kill him, and the husband died
sometimes afterwards inflammation of the brain. There was no evidence that the poison was even a secondary
cause of death. Will you hold her guilty of attempt to commit murder?

Problem
1. A is charged with the murder of X. The body of the deceased has not yet been found. Can the court convict
A of murder?
Ans. If it is proved that death is caused under circumstances mentioned in S. 300, A can be convicted. Ordinarily
without Corupus delicate, it is dangerous to convict.

Judicial Precedents
1. The accused professed to render people immune from the effect of snake-bike. He caused a poisonous
snake to bite, Z who died. It was held that the accused was guilty of murder.
2. The accused offered a child to a crocodile under a superstitious though bonafide belief that the child would
be returned unharmed. The child was killed. It was held the accused was guilty of murder.
3. Where a man struck another on the head with a stick, and believing him to be dead, set fire to the hut with
a view to remove all evidence of the crime, and Civil Surgeon deposed that the blow only stunned the
deceased, and the death was really caused by the injuries from the burning when accused set fire to the
hut, it was held that was guilty of an attempt to murder.
4. The accused, who had formed deliberate plan to kill a woman and who had intended to kill her, decoyed her
under pretence of taking her to a sick relation. On the way, they had struggled with a woman. She was
dragged either in an unconscious or semi-conscious condition on to a railway line, her body was put
across the railway line, in such a way that her neck lay across the rails, and she was killed by passing train.
The accused didn't put forward the case that they believe the woman to be dead when they put her body
across the railway line. It was held that the accused were guilty of murder.
5. A wanted to kill B, of whose life he had effected large insurance and to secure his object, gave B some
sweetmeat, in which he had mixed arsenic and mercury in a soluble form, to eat. B ate a portion of the
sweetmeat at the house of A's brother-in-law, but not liking its taste threw away the remainder on the spot. A
daughter of the said brother-in-law picked up the sweet meat without A's knowledge, ate a portion of it
herself and gave some to another child who also ate it. The two children who had eaten the poisonous
sweetmeat died from the effects of it, but B, the intended victim, survived after considerable suffering. The
court held that the accused was guilty of murder and attempt to murder.
6. Where a person recklessly administers dhatura to another, he is guilty, if death ensues, of the offence of
murder, and not merely of culpable homicide not amounting to murder or a grievous hurt.
7. Where dhatura was administered by a woman to her husband to save her from the quarrelsome tongue of
her husband who became ill but did not die and she did not know what it was, but it was supplied to her by
her lover, it was held that she was guilty under S. 337 as she administered without care an unknown
powder, but the lover was guilty under Ss. 307 and 109 (attempt to murder and abetment).

What Do You Think?


1. A attempts to pull Z's nose. Z in the exercise of right of private defence, lays hold of A to prevent him from
doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence and kills Z. Has A committed any
offence?
2. What offence if any has A committed in the following case : Z strikes B. B is, by this provocation excited to
violent rage. A, a by-stander intending to take advantage of B's rage and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife
into B's hand for that purpose. B stabs and kills Z.
ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 27
When Culpable Homicide is not Murder (S. 300, Exceptions 1 to 5) S. 300 then proceeds to lay down five
different circumstances under which the offence of murder is reduced to that of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder. Of course, these are all defences which an accused person has to prove if he is
charged with the offence of murder. Strictly speaking, they are not exactly defences, but they are in the
nature of extenuating circumstances, which will reduce the offence of murder to that of culpable homicide
not amounting to murder. Of course, the real defences to any charge are all laid down in the general
exceptions like insanity, accident, etc. The circumstance which reduce the offence of murder to that of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder are:
1. Provocation;
2. Right of private defence;
3. Public servant exceeding his powers;
4. Sudden fight; and lastly;
5. Consent.
It is pertinent to not that if any of these five circumstances are proved, the accused will not be entitled to an
acquittal; he will only be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, i.e., a lesser offence, and not
murder.
Culpable homicide is not murder in the following five cases:
1.1. Grave and Sudden Provocation (S. 300, Exception 1) Culpable homicide is not murder if the
offender, whilst derived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the
death of the person who gave the provocation [or of any other person by mistake or accident] :
Table
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

(a) Not sought or voluntarily provoked as an excuse for killing or doing


harm;
Provided that the provocation (b) not given by anything (i) in obedience to the law, or
is: done: (ii) by a public servant in the lawful
exercise of his powers, or
(iii) in the lawful exercise of the right of
private defence.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent an offence from amounting to
murder is a question of fact; S. 300, Explanation of Exception 1.
Illustration
(a) A, under the influence of passion excited by provocation given by Z, intentionally kills Y, Z's child.
This is murder, inasmuch as the provocation was not given by the child, and the death of the child
was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act caused by provocation.
(b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y, neither
intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z. A kills Z. Here A has not committed murder, but
merely culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
[If A makes a thrust at B, meaning to kill and C throwing himself between receives thrust and dies,
A will answer for it as if his criminal purpose had taken place on B. Hence, in illus. (b) A, due to
provocation, fires at Y. If A had killed Y, he would have been guilty of culpable homicide only. He
has, instead, killed Z. That makes no difference at all. He is equally guilty of culpable homicide not
amounting to murder}.
(c) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the arrest and
kills. Z. This is murder of a public servant in the exercise of his powers.
(d) A appears as a witness before Z, a Magistrate. Z says that he does not believe a word of A's
deposition and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these words and kills
z. This is murder.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 28


[Z, the magistrate has every right to express his opinion as he has done in illus. (d) There can he
no provocation from the exercise by a public servant of his lawful right and powers. Hence, A is
clearly guilty of murder. If it were not so, an accused person sentenced to death by a judge may
plead provocation from him, and kill him.]
(e) A attempts to pull Z's nose. Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold of A to prevent
him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills. Z. This is
murder, inasmuch as the provocation was given by a thing done in exercise of the right of private
defence.
(f) Z strikes B. B is, by the provocation, excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending to take
advantage of B's rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B's hand for that purpose. B kills
Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only culpable homicide, but A is guilty of murder.

The underlying principle which countenances the defence of provocation is that anger is a passion to which
good and had men are both subject, and mere human frailty and infirmity ought not to be punished equally
with ferocity or other evil feelings.
Regarding provocation, it is pertinent to note the following six important points
1. The act must be done whilst the person doing it is deprived of the power of self-control by grave
and sudden provocation. In other words, it must be one under the immediate impulse of provocation.
Example : The deceased was having an intrigue with the accused's] wife for a long time and used to sing
provocative songs tantamount to declaration of his intrigue with the wife of the accused. The
accused had managed to control himself on previous occasions when provoked by such songs,
but on this occasion, he lost self-control and shot the deceased. It was held that he was entitled to
the benefit of this exception.
2. The provocation must be both grave as well as sudden. If it is the one and not the other, this
exception will not apply. Its gravity will be measured by deprivation of self-control and its suddenness
by the fact that the accused acts on the spur of the moment. In other words, provocation must be
grave and sudden and of such a nature as to deprive the accused of the power of self-control.
3. The provocation must he such as will upset, not merely a hasty and hot-tempered person, but one
of ordinary sense and calmness.
4. It must be shown distinctly not only that the act was down under the influence of some feeling which
took away from the person doing it all control over his actions, but that feeling had an adequate
cause.
5. If the act is not done under the influence of the excitement, but after such an interval of time as, in
the common course of human feelings, is sufficient for reflection or with the intervention of such
circumstances as must naturally produce e reflection, the exception is inapplicable. However great
the provocation, if there is time enough for passion to subside, and for reason to interfere and
regain her dominion, the homicide will be murder.
6. The provocation is not mitigation if the accused courts provocation of merely uses it as an excuse
for killing another.
Examples
1. Thus. A called B a coward and other names in the presence of others adding "I dare you to strike
me". B then struck him. A drew a revolver from his pocket and shot B dead. Here, A is guilty of
murder. If a person by word or act provokes another to strike him in order that he may have a
colourable pretext for killing him, the subsequent killing must be ascribed to the state of mind
existing before the blow.
2. The same result follows if provocation if given by public servants and other acting lawfully in
exercise of legal duty, or by persons, exercising the right of private defence.
3. It may be remembered that the trend of recent decisions is that mere words, however pro-vocative,
do not amount to sufficient provocation so as to reduce murder to culpable homicide, the principle
being that no reasonable person can thus be induced to commit an act of violence.
K.M. Nanavati's Case Supreme Court has considered this exception and has held that "The Indian Law
relevant to the present inquiry, may be stated thus:

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 29


1. The test of `grave and sudden' provocation is whether a reasonable man, belonging to the same
class of society as the accused, placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would be
so provoked as to lose his self-control.
2. In India, words and gestures may also, under certain circumstances, cause grave and sudden
provocation to an accused so as to bring his act within the first exception to S. 300 of the Indian
Penal code.
3. The mental background created by the previous act of the victim may be taken into consideration in
ascertaining whether the subsequent act caused grave and sudden provocation for committing the
offence.
4. The fatal blow should be clearly traced to the influence of passion arising from that provocation,
and not after the passion had cooled down by lapse of time, or otherwise giving room and scope for
premeditation and calculation."
5. The question whether an act of provocation is grave and sudden enough to mitigate an offence is
always a question of fact and not of law
Adulterous Intercourse
1. Adulterous intercourse has been held in several cases, to give rise to grave and sudden provocation.
But if death of the adulterer is caused not in a fit of passion, but with subsequent deliberation, this
exception does not apply.
2. If a man finding another in the act of adultery with his wife, kills him on the spot the provocation
would ordinarily be deemed sufficient to mitigate his offence. But if he kills the adulterer deliberately
and in revenge, after a considerable time has elapsed, this would probably be held to deprive him
of benefit of the exception.
3. Thus, where the accused finding a man intriguing with his wife, beat him and after taking him to the
hank of a river, cut off his head.
4. Where the accused's concubine refused to abandon another connection and the accused after
remonstrating with the woman and leaving her, followed and killed her with a dagger which he had
purchased with the intention of killing her.
5. Where the accused, suspecting infidelity in his wife, followed her with a hatchet one night when
she stealthily left his house, and finding her talking with her paramour, there and then, killed her—
in all these cases, the offence of murder was committed, inasmuch as the acts were not committed
while the accused were deprived of the power of self-control, but were the result of cool and mature
consideration after the first excitement had passed away.
Examples
1. The accused and his wife's sister's husband. X, were sleeping on the same cot in one room, and
the accused's wife, W, was sleeping in the adjoining room. In the middle of the night, X got up, went
to W's room, and bolted the door behind him. The accused heard this noise and got up. He peeped
through a crack in the door and saw X and his wife, W, engaged in sexual intercourse. He than
returned to the cot and waited till X came out of the other room and lay down beside him. After short
time, X began to doze, whereupon the accused stabbed him several times with a knife, which was
with accused. The question before the Court in this case was whether the accused came within the
exception, having regard to the fact that there was a interval of time between the seeing of the act of
adultery and killing of X.
Ans. The court held that notwithstanding this time-gap, the accuse did act under grave and sudden
provocation, and was therefore guilty of an offence under S. 304 and not the one under S.302.

2. Pathan, P, lived with his son S, and the son's wife, W. It was discovered that W had developed a
liaison with a barber. One day, P saw the barber entering the house when W was alone inside, and
immediately called S. Both P and S entered the house to find W and the barber having sexual
intercourse, whereupon P and S killed both of them,
Ans. The Court held that they had acted under grave and sudden provocation, and therefore fell within
the ambit of this exception.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 30


Provocation not a General Defence It is to be noted that provocation cannot be pleaded as a good
defence to all offence under the Code. It is not a general exception. Thus, one cannot plead
provocation to a charge of sedition or waging war or counterfeiting coins or committing theft, etc.
Only a few offences can be committed under provocation. These are specifically provided for in
the code, viz.:
1. Wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot; S. 153;
2. Causing hurt or grievous hurt on grave and sudden provocation; Ss. 334–335;
3. Assaulting or using criminal force otherwise than on grave provocation: Ss. 352 and 355, and
4. Causing death under provocation; S. 300.
Even in these cases, provocation in not a defence in the sense that the accused will be entitled to an
acquittal; it only goes to minimize the guilt and to reduce the punishment.
1.2. Exceeding Right of Private Defence (S. 300, Exception 2) Private defence of body or properly,
if proved, is a good defence to any charge. This right extends even to the causing of death or any
other harm to the offender under circumstances mentioned in Ss. 100, 103, and 106. These
sections allow a person to cause the death of the assailant. For example, an assault with the
intention of committing rape on a girl or with the intention of kidnapping her or with the intention of
murdering her or even of causing grievous hurt to her is such a reprehensible act in the assailant,
that the victim would be justified in killing him. But exception 2 to S. 300 does not mean private
defence in this sense. It covers cases in which the right of private defence is exceeded. Exception
2 to S. 300 runs thus Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith
of right of private defence, exceeds the legal limit and causes the death of the person without pre-
meditation and without any intention of doing more harm than necessary; Exception 2 to S. 300.

Remember
For the application of this exception, it is essential that the person causing hurt in the bona fide exercise of
the right of private defence should act without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for
purpose of such defence.

Judicial Precedents
1. Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A draws out a
pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can, by no other means, prevent
himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder, but only culpable
homicide: S. 300, Exception 2. But the right of private defence should not exceed the inflicting of
injury necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.
2. A money-lender to whom A owed, some money sent two peons armed with kirpans, to A to collect
the dues. The armed persons insisted on A's accompanying them to B's place and on his refusal to
do so, dragged A along. On the way, A stabbed one of the peons in the abdomen and the peon died
the next day. The Court held that A was guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to
murder, he having exceeded the right of private defence; S. 300 (Exception 2).
3. Where a person willfully killed another whilst endeavoring to escape, after having been detected in
the act of house-breaking by night for the purpose of theft and where the accused pursued a thief,
and killed him after the house-trespass had ceased, it was held that the accused were guilty of
murder and they did not come under the exception.
4. Where the accused finding a feeble old woman stealing his crop, beat her so violently that she died
from the effect of the attack, it was held that he was guilty of murder.
5. A suspecting house-breaking, saw B a total stranger, coming out of A's house at night through a
hole apparently made by B. A immediately attacked B and killed him.
The court held that A was guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under exception
2 to S. 300. The inmates of a house have the right, in the exercise, of the right of private defence of
property, of causing even the death of an offender who commits burglary or house-breaking in
their house.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 31


6. The accused and the deceased met one day in a liquor shop, and there drank together. They
afterwards walked in company and on their way, an altercation took place in respect of deceased
having caused the death of the accused's four children by incantations. The deceased admitted
that he had so caused their death, and added that he should also bring about the death of the
accused by causing the accused to be eaten by a tiger. The accused, thereupon, killed the
deceased with several blows of a heavy stick.
It was held that the accused had no reasonable apprehension of danger to himself from the threats
of the deceased and that his case was not taken out of the category of murder by reason of this
exception. Similarly, threat of witchcraft does not justify the causing of death.
7. The accused, five in number, went out on moonlit night armed with clubs, and assaulted a man, who
was cutting rice in their field, in such a manner, that he received six distinct fractures of bones of
skull besides a number of other wounds and died on the spot. When charged with the offence of
murder the accused pleaded that they had exercised their right of defence of their property. The
Court held that the accused were guilty of murder as they had inflicted more harm than was
necessary for purpose.
1.3. Public servant exceeding his powers (S. 300, Exception 3) This third exception to S. 300
deals with a public servant exceeding his legal power, it runs thus:
Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, a public servant (or a person aiding a public
servant), exceeds his legal powers and causes death by an act believed by him, in good fifth to be
lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty and without ill-will towards the person killed
: S. 300, Exception 3.
This exception protects a public servant (or a person aiding a public servant) acting for the
advancement of public justice, if either of them exceeds the powers given to them by law and
causes death. It gives protection so long as the public servant acts in good faith: but if his act is
illegal and unauthorised by law, or if he glaringly exceeds the powers given to him by law, the
exception will not protect him.
1.4. Sudden fight (S. 300: Exception 4) Culpable homicide is not murder, if it is committed -
without premeditation,
in a sudden fight,
in the heat of passion,
upon a sudden quarrel, and
without Taking undue advantage, or
Acting in a cruel manner : Exception 4 to S. 300. This fourth exception deals with cases in which
there is a sudden fight. The Courts have held that the word fight means more than a mere verbal
quarrel. Of course, it is not necessary that any weapon should be used in a fight. Further, such a
fight must be with the person who is killed, and not with some other person.
1.5. Death caused with victim's consent (S. 300: Exception 5) The last exception deals with consent.
If the victim consents to his or her death being caused, then the offence is not that of murder, but of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder. One often comes across cases in which mothers
distressed at the death of their children, or patients suffering from severe ailment, entreat others to
kill them. Exception 5 covers such cases, and provides as follow:
Culpable homicide is not murder if the person killed (being above eighteen years of age) suffers
death (or takes the risk of death) with his own consent: S. 300 exception 5.
Illustration
A, by instigation voluntarily causes Z, a person under eighteen years of age, to commit suicide. Here on
account of Z's youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death; A has, therefore, abetted under:
S. 300, exception 5.
B, who was suffering from cancer, from which she had not hope of recovery, repeatedly requested her
husband A to take pity on her in order to relieve her of her agonies. A, therefore, killed her one night while
she was asleep. A is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, since the killing was with B's
consent.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 32


The above case is similar to the one in which accused's wife, overwhelmed with grief at the death of her
child repeatedly requested him to kill her and he did so. He was held guilty of culpable homicide, and not
murder.

Table : Murder distinguished from culpable Homicide

Culpable Homicide (S. 299) Murder (S. 300)


All murder is culpable homicide., but all culpable homicide is not murder. Culpable homicide will amount to
murder under the circumstances mentioned below. Culpable homicide 'nay amount to murder or it may not
amount o murder. It is a less serious offence than murder. It is punishable with imprisonment for life,
whereas murder is punishable with death or imprisonment for life.

A person commits culpable homicide, if the Subject to the five exceptions (discussed above), culpable
act by which the death is caused is clone: homicide is murder, if that act by which the death is
caused is done:
1. "With the intention of causing death"
It will be seen that the words `intention of causing death' run through both the columns. They are common to
both, culpable homicide and murder; therefore where there is an intention to kill the offence is always
murder.
2. "With the intention of causing such bodily injury as" —
Is likely to cause death. (a) The offender knows to he likely to cause the death of
the person to whom the harm is caused; or
Where the act is done with the intention of [Clause (a) above shows That the offence is murder, if
causing bodily injury as is likely to cause the offender knows that the particular person injured is
death, the offence is always culpable homicide likely either from peculiarity of constitution, or immature
age or other special circumstances, to be killed by an
injury which would not ordinarily cause death.'

It the injury is likely to cause death without the offender knowing anything more about the victim the offence
is one of culpable homicide only. But if the offender knew that his act was likely to cause death, the offence
is that of murder. Illus. (a) to S. 300 makes this quite clear It says—A, knowing that Z is labouring under
such disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury Z
dies. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not, in the ordinary course of nature, cause the death of
a person, here A, although he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of murder if he did not intend
to cause death or such bodily injury as would ordinarily cause death; s. 300, illus. (b).
(b) Is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause
death, or
Column (h) (on the right side above) shows that the offence is culpable homicide, if the bodily injury
intended to be inflicted is likely to cause death; it is murder if it is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature
to cause death. The offence is culpable homicide if the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is likely to
cause death. It is murder if such injury is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The
distinction is fine, hut appreciable. It is a question of degree of probability. Practically, it will generally
resolve itself into a consideration of the nature of the weapon used. A blow from the fist or a stick on a vital
part may be likely to cause death; a wound from a sword inflicted on a vital part is sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death.
Culpable Homicide (S. 299) Murder (S. 300)
3. With the knowledge that the act is -
Likely to cause death
So imminently dangerous that it most, in all probability,
cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 33


The words in italics above may be noted carefully. Clause 3 (above) applies to cases where there is no
intention to cause death or bodily injury, e.g., furious driving or firing at a mark near a public road. Whether
the offence is culpable homicide or murder depends upon the degree of risk to human life. It death is, a
likely result, it is culpable homicide: if it is the most probable result or the act is imminently dangerous to life
it is murder.
Remember
Thus, culpable homicide is the genus, of which murder is the species. An offence cannot amount to murder
unless it falls within the definition of culpable homicide; but an offence may amount to culpable homicide
without amounting to murder. It follows therefore, that all murders are culpable homicides, but all culpable
homicides are not murders.

1.6. Causing Death by Negligence (S. 304A)


The third offence against life is that of causing death by negligence. In criminal law, a negligent act
is not so severely punishable as an intentional act, but it is nevertheless punishable with a lesser
term of imprisonment. S. 304A, therefore, punishes the causing of death by negligence.
Causing the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act, not amounting to culpable
homicide, is punishable with two years' imprisonment and fine: S. 304a.
Scope—The provisions of this section apply to cases where there is not intention to cause death
and no knowledge that the act done in all probability would cause death. It only applies to such acts
are rash and negligent. It must be read with Ss. 336 to 338. All these sections are confined in their
operation to acts done without any criminal intent, apart from the rashness or negligence, which is
their essential ingredient. The section is directed at offences outside the range of Ss. 299 and 300
and obviously contemplates those in which neither intention nor knowledge exist.
Criminal rashness is hazarding a dangerous or a wanton act with the knowledge that it is so and
that it may cause injury but without any intention to cause injury, or knowledge that it will probably
be caused. Criminal negligence is the gross and culpable neglect or failure to exercise that reasonable
and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to the public generally or to an
individual in particular, which having regard to all the circumstances, it was the imperative duty of
the accused person to have adopted.
It may he noted that rashness and negligence are not the same thing. Mere negligence
cannot be construed to mean rashneSs. There are degrees of negligence and rashness,
and in order to amount to criminal rashness or criminal negligence, one must he able to
come to a conclusion that rashness has been of such a degree as to amount to taking
hazard, knowing that the hazard was of such a degree that injury was most likely to he
occasioned thereby. The criminality lies in running the risk or doing such an act with
recklessness and indifference to the consequences. Culpable rashness is acting with
consciousness that mischievous consequences are likely to follow, although the individual
may hope that such consequences may not follow. The criminality lies in not talking the
precautions to prevent the happening of the consequence is the hope that they may not
happen.

What Do You Think?


M, driving a motor-car at night entered a road which being under repairs was closed to the traffic. The
motor-car ran over and killed two coolies who were sleeping on the road with their bodies completely
covered up except for their faces. Is M guilty of any offence?

Judicial Precedents
1. A direct nexus between the death of the person and rash and negligent act of the accused must be
established to convict a person under this section. When it is proved that the accused has been driving
under a learner's license or possesses no license at all, there can be no presumption in law that such
person did not know driving and his rash negligent act caused death. A direct nexus must be established.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 34


2. "Rashness consists in hazarding a dangerous or wanton act." Where a railway level crossing protected and
manned by a gateman was left open by him, as a result of which a passenger bus collided with a goods
train, the bus driver was acquitted on the ground that he was not rash or criminally negligent.
3. The accused, a girl of seventeen, who happened to be carrying her infant daughter tied on her hack having
been exasperated at an altercation which she had with her husband, attempted to commit suicide by
jumping into a well. She was found alive in the well the next day, but her child was drowned. The trial judge
convicted the accused of an attempt to commit suicide and also of the murder of her infant child, under Ss.
309 and 302. It was held in appeal, that the offence which the accused had committed was not murder but
causing death by negligent omission, i.e., omission to put the child down before jumping into the well.
4. A compounder, in order to make up a fever mixture, took a bottle from a cupboard where non-poisonous
medicines were kept, and without reading the label of the bottle which was on its wrapper, added its full
contents to a mixture which was administered to eight persons, out of whom seven died. The bottle was
marked poison and contained strychnine hydrochloride and not quinine hydrochloride as he supposed. It
was held that the compounder was guilty under this section.
5. A administered to her husband a deadly poison believing it to be a love potion, in order to stimulate his
affection for her. The husband died from the effect of the poison. The Court held that A was guilty under S.
304A, inasmuch as she acted both rashly and negligently in dealing as a love potion, with a deadly form of
poison.
6. A registered homeopath administered 24 drops of stramonium and a leaf of Dhatura to a patient without
studying its effect. The patient dies as a result the poison administered. It was held it is rash and negligent
act to prescribe poisonous medicines without studying their probable effect. Therefore, he was held guilty
under S. 304A.

Remember
It will thus be seen that all killing is not murder. Thus A kills B. A may be guilty of (i) murder, or (ii) culpable
homicide not amounting to murder, or (iii) causing death by negligence, (iv) grievous hurt, or even (v)
simple hurt ,or A may not be guilty of any offence at all if case falls within the General Exception contained
in chapter IV of the code. It solely depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.

1.7. Abetment of Suicide (Ss. 305—306)


The fourth offence against human life is that abetment of suicide of or by certain persons mentioned
in section 305 and 306.
These are :
1. Abetting suicide committed by a person under 18 years of age, or by insane or a delirious person,
or an idiot or a person in a state of intoxication.
2. Abetting suicide committed by any other person (punishment; imprisonment for 10 years and tine)
section 306 sati is thus punishable under section 306.

1.8. Attempt to Commit Murder, or Culpable Homicide or Suicide (Ss. 307—309)


The last offence against human life is that of attempt to commit either murder or attempt to commit
culpable homicide not amounting to murder, and attempt to commit suicide.
The last section of the code, namely, S. 511 deals with attempts to commit certain offences. It
punishes attempts to commit offences (under the code) with half the term of imprisonment laid
down for the offence attempted. It may be noted that there are certain special provisions for
attempts to commit offences in the Penal Code for example, attempt to wage war or attempt to
commit dacoity, are punishable apart from S. 511.
1.9. Attempt to Commit Murder (S. 307).
If a person does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if
he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, he is punishable with imprisonment
which may extend to ten years and fine further, if hurt is caused to any such person by such an act
the offender would be liable either to imprisonment for life or imprisonment for ten years and fine.
If the offender is a person who is already undergoing life-imprisonment, he may, if hurt is caused,
ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 35
be punished under sentence: S 307.
Illustration :
(a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that if death ensued, A would be
guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under section 307.
(b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place. A
has committed the offence defined by this section though the death of the child does not ensue.
(c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it A has not yet committed the offence [As it is a
mere stage of preparation, and preparation to commit anoffence is not punishable, except preparation
to wage war or preparation to commit dacoity. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the offence
defined in this section, and if by such firing, he wounds Z, he is liable to the punishment provided
by this section.
(d) A, intending to murder Z by poison, purchases poison and mixes the same with food which remains
in A's keeping; A has not yet committed the offence defined in this Section. 307 [So long as the
poisoned food remains with X, X has not gone beyond the stage of preparation and is not guilty_
But if he puts this food on Y's table is guilty, he has gone beyond the stage of preparation is guilty
of attempt to commit murder under S. 307]
1.10. Attempt to Commit Culpable Homicide (S.308) Attempt to commit culpable homicide is penalised
by S. 308, i.e. doing any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that
if offence causes death by the act, he would be guilty of culpable the homicide not amounting to
murder.
Illustration — A, on grave and sudden provocation, fires a pistol, at Z, under such circumstances
that if he thereby caused death, he would he guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
A has committed the offence defined in this section: S. 308
1.11. Attempt to Commit Suicide (S. 309) Attempting to commit suicide and doing any act towards the
commission of the offence is punishable with simple imprisonment for one year or fine or both.
Some act towards the commission of this offence should have been done: S. 309.
S. 309 is the only section in the code which punishes an attempt to commit an offence, hut which
cannot punish the offender if the offence attempted is completed. The obvious reason for this is
that if a person succeeds in committing suicide he dies, and therefore, he cannot he punished.

2. BEING A THUG (SS. 3I0—311)


This sixth offence against life is that of being a thug section 310 defines a `thug` thus—'A thug' is a person
who has been
Table
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Habitually associated with (i) robbery By means of, or accompanied with


other for the or murder; punishment; imprisonment;
purpose of committing (ii) child stealing for life and fine; S. 311
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Habitual association with others with the intention of committing either robbery, or child stealing
accompanied with the murder, constitutes this offence. Of course, if it is proved that the thug has
committed murder, he will be punishable for murder, but if it is proved that he habitually associated
himself for the aforesaid purpose, then he is liable to imprisonment for life and fine under S. 311.
Offences relating to the birth death, exposurw etc., of children (Ss. 312-314). The last group of
offences against life are offences relating to the birth, death etc. of children they can he subdivided into-
1. Causing miscarriage; Ss. 312—314
2. Injuries to unborn children: Ss. 315—316.
3. Exposure and abandonment of infants; S. 317 and lastly.
4. Concealment of birth: S. 318.
ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 36
2.1. Causing Miscarriage (Ss. 312—314) : Offences relating to causing miscarriage are the following
two namely--
(a) Voluntarily causing a woman with child to miscarry, otherwise than in good faith the purpose
of saving the life of the woman (S. 312), and without her consent: S. 313.
(b) Causing the death of a woman by an act done with intent to cause miscarriage: S. 314.
2.2 Injuries to Unborn Children (Ss. 315—316) : Injuries to unborn persons are mainly the following
two:
Doing an act without good faith with intent to prevent a child being born or to cause it to die after
birth: S. 315.
Causing the death of a quick unborn child by an act amounting to culpable homicide: S. 316.
Illustration
A knowing that he is likely to cause the death of a pregnant woman, does an act which, if it caused the
death of the woman, would amount to culpable homicide. The woman is injured but does not die; but the
death of an unborn quick child with which she is pregnant is thereby caused. A is guilty of the offence
defined in this section: S. 316.
2.3. Exposure and Abandonment of Infants (S. 317) : Exposure and abandonment of a child under
12 years by parents or persons having care of the child with the intention of wholly abandoning it is
an offence. (Punishment: Imprisonment for seven years, or fine or both: S. 317)
If the child dies in consequence of the exposure the offender will also be guilty of murder or
culpable homicide as the case may be: (Expln. to Sec. 317).
2.4. Concealment of Birth (S. 318) Intentional concealment of (or endeavour to conceal) the birth of a
child by secretly burying or otherwise disposing of the dead body of the child whether such child
dies before or after or during the birth is an offence under S. 318. (Punishment: Imprisonment for
two years or fine or both.)

Section 299 in The Indian Penal Code :

299. Culpable homicide.- Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or
with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is
likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. Illustrations
(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge
that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and
is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely
to cause Z's death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no
offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B who is behind a bush; A not knowing that
he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable homicide,
as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause
death.

Explanation 1.-A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or
bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.

Explanation 2.-Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be
deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death
might have been prevented.

Explanation 3.-The causing of the death of child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it may amount
to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth,
though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 37


EXTORTION, ROBBERY AND DACOITY

5. EXTORTION, ROBBERY AND DACOITY

Sec. 383. Extortion.—


Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby
dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable security or
anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion”.

Illustrations
(a) A threatens to publish a defamatory libel concerning Z unless Z gives him money. He thus induces Z to give
him money. A has committed extortion.

(b) A threatens Z that he will keep Z’s child in worngful confinement, unless Z will sign and deliver to A a
promissory note binding Z to pay certain monies to A to Z sings and delivers the note. A has committed
extortion.

(c) A threatens to send club-men to plough up Z’s field unless Z will sign and deliver to B a bond binding Z under
a penalty to deliver certain produce to B, and thereby induces Z to sign and deliver the bond. A has
committed extortion.

(d) A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign or affix his seal to a blank paper and
deliver it to A. Z sings and delivers the paper to A. Here, as the paper so signed may be converted into a
valuable security A has committed extortion.

384. Punishment for extortion.


Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

390. Robbery.

In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.

When theft is robbery.


Theft is “robbery” if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or
attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or
attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt,
or of instant wrongful restraint.

When extortion is robbery.


When extortion is robbery.—Extortion is “robbery” if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is
in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant
death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so
putting in fear, induces the person, so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.

Explanation : The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of
instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.

Illustrations
(a) A holds Z down, and fraudulently takes Z’s money and jewels from Z’s clothes, without Z’s consent.
Here A has committed theft, and, in order to the committing of that theft, has voluntarily caused
wrongful restraint to Z. A has therefore committed robbery.
(b) A meets Z on the high road, shows a pistol, and demands Z’s purse. Z, in consequence, surrenders
his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z by putting him in fear of instant hurt, and being at
the time of committing the extortion in his presence. A has therefore committed robbery.
(c) A meets Z and Z’s child on the high road. A takes the child, and threatens to filing it down a
precipice, unless Z delivers his purse. Z, in consequence, delivers his purse. Here A has extorted
the purse from Z, by causing Z to be in fear of instant hurt to the child who is there present. A has
therefore committed robbery on Z.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 38


EXTORTION, ROBBERY AND DACOITY

(d) A obtains property from Z by saying-”Your child is in the hands of my gang, and will be put to
death unless you send us ten thousand rupees”. This is extortion, and punishable as such: but it
is not robbery, unless Z is put in fear of the instant death of his child.

391. Dacoity.
When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of
persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such
commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to
commit “dacoity”.

392. Punishment for robbery.


Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and
sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.

395. Punishment for dacoity.


Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with 1*[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

.
396. Dacoity with murder.
If any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing
dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], or rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

PRACTICAL QUESTIONS
1. LEGAL PRINCIPLE : When any person dishonestly takes any movable property out of the possession of
any other person without his consent, he is guilty of theft.
FACTUAL SITUATION : A comes to B’s house and takes away a book with the intention to return it.
(A) A commits theft because the book has been taken without B’s consent.
(B) A does not commit theft because he intends to return the book.
(C) A commits theft because he has taken a book which is movable property.
(D) A commits theft because he has moved the book from B’s house.

2. A finds a purse on the road and he keeps it


(A) A commits theft because the purse does not belong to him,.
(B) A commits theft because he does not try to find the owner.
(C) A does not commit theft because the purse was not taken from anybody’s possession.
(D) A commits theft because he does not report to the police.

3. A finds a diamond ring lying on B’s table. A picks up the ring with the intention of dishonestly keeping it.
(A) A commits theft because he has moved the ring from B’s table without his consent.
(B) A does not commit theft because he has still not left B’s house.
(C) A does not commit theft because B is careless with his valuables.
(D) A commits theft the moment he picks up the ring dishonestly and intended to keep it.

4. © 2. Which one of the following correctly distinguishes theft from extortion?


(A) In theft movable property must be dishonestly taken whereas in extortion there is delivery of the thing
extorted.
(B) The extortion there must be dishonest intention whereas in theft the same is not necessary.
(C) Theft requires dishonest intention whereas extortion requires fraudulent intention.
(D) Theft is an offence against movable property.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 39


EXTORTION, ROBBERY AND DACOITY
5. PRINCIPLE-Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and
thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, or valuable
security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion.
FACT- ‘A threatens B to publish a defamatory statement against B, unless B gives him Rs 10 lakhs. A
induces B to give money.
(A) A is guilty of theft.
(B) A is guilty of defamation
(C) A is guilty of Extortion.
(D) A is guilty of Robbery.

6. Principle: When five or more persons jointly commit robbery, they are said to have committed the offence
of dacoity.
Facts: Seven people decided to commit robbery in Rakesh’s home. They planned the robbery on 27th
February, 2012. Just before the agreed date, three of them refused to act. Only four of them robbed
Rakesh. Was this dacoity?
(A) Yes.
(B) No.
(C) It does not matter.
(D) Rakesh should have been careful.

ANSWER KEY

1. (b) 2. (c) 3. (d) 4. .(a) 5. (c) 6. (b)

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 40


6. JOINT LIABILITY

The law relating to 'joint liability' is contained in Sections 34-38 and Section 149 of IPC, 1860. The joint
liability is also called 'constructive liability', i.e. liability of all for the acts of one or some of them.
Section 34 : Acts Done by Several Persons in Furtherance of Common Intention
"When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of
such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone."
The section is intended to meet cases in which it may be difficult to distinguish between the acts of the
individual members of a party or to prove exactly what part was taken by each of them in furtherance of
common intention of all. The reason why all are deemed guilty in such cases is that the presence of
accomplices give encouragement, support and protection to the person actually committing an act.
1. Ingredients
Before a man can be held liable for acts done by another, under the provisions of this section, the following
conditions must be satisfied:
(i) there was common intention in the sense of a pre-arranged plan between the two, and
(ii) the person sought to be so held liable had participated in some manner in the act constituting the
offence.
'Common intention' implies a pre-arranged plan and acting in concert pursuant to the plan. It must be
proved that the criminal act was done in concert pursuant to the pre-arranged plan. The common intention
to bring about a particular result may well develop on the spot; but the plan must precede the act constituting
the offence. In Hari Om v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1993 SCW 666, four persons, three of them armed
with knives and one with a 'lathi', went to the house of a man and started abusing him in a loud voice. A 70-
year-old neighbour objected to their behaving like that when it was 11 p.m. The accused turned to him and
attacked him with knives and he died. Those coming to his rescue were also attacked. The man with the
lathi also wielded his weapon to keep off the rescuers. It was held that common intention can be formed in
the course of occurrence without prior conspiracy. All the accused including the one armed with lathi
shared the common intention to inflict injuries on the old man, they being suddenly provoked by his intervention.
Several persons can simultaneously attack a man and each can have the intention, namely the intention to
kill, and each can individually inflict a separate blow and yet none would have the common intention
required by the section because there was no prior meeting of minds to form a pre-arranged plan. In such
a case, each would be individually liable for whatever injury he caused but none would be vicariously
convicted for the act of any of the others.
In Santosh v. State of Kerala, 1990 Cr LJ 570, three accused entered a house to commit robbery and one
of them applied pressure on the face and neck of the householder woman who died of 'asphyxia. The Court
held that Section 34 could riot be applied and the one who applied force could be convicted under Section
304 Part II but not his companions.
Common intention does not mean similar intention of several persons. Case must be taken not to confuse
same or similar intention with common intention. The distinction between the two is very thin but real and
substantial, and if overlooked will result in miscarriage of justice. To constitute common intention it is
necessary that the intention of each one of them be known to the rest of them and shared by them. Similar
intention without sharing each other's intention is not enough for the purposes of Section 34, in a case like
this each will be liable for whatever injury he caused but none could be vicariously convicted for the act of
any of the others. In Rambilas Singh v. State of Bihar, AIR 1989 SC 1593, a party of farmers was cutting
their crop. The deceased took away a portion of the harvested crop. The night when he was returning 16
persons waited for him on the way. They came towards him and the convict who was carrying a knife gave
him a stab wound on the neck which proved fatal. The others did not know that he had a knife and all of them
being with bare hands, it could not be said that they had the common intention of causing death. They could
as well have thought that after surrounding the accused he would be called upon to return or pay for the
harvest taken away by him.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 41


Before an inference of common intention can be reached in a given case, the incriminating facts from
which such inference is to be drawn should be held to be firmly established. The facts should firmly and
wholly warrant the inference that more than one accused persons acted in furtherance of common intention
of all; they must be wholly incompatible with the contrary inference; and incapable of being explained on
any other reasonable hypothesis.

Besides pre-planning, actual `participation' in the crime is necessary to make case of joint liability under
Section 34. The Supreme Court in Shreekantia Ramayya v. State of Bombay, AIR 1955 SC 287, held that in
order to secure conviction of several accused persons with the aid of Section 34 there must be some sort of
preliminary planning which may or may not be at the scene of the crime and which may have taken place
long beforehand, but there must be added to it the element of physical presence at the scene of occurrence.
The presence at the scene of crime can be of a passive character such as standing by a door, provided
that it is done with the intention of assisting in furtherance of the common intention of them all and there is
a readiness to play his part in the pre-arranged plan when time comes for him to act.

The Supreme Court in Tukaram Ganpat Pandare v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1974 SC 514, held that
Section 34 lays down the rule of joint responsibility for criminal act performed by a plurality of persons and
even mere distance from the scene of crime cannot exclude the culpability of the offence." Criminal
sharing, overt or covert, by active presence or by distant direction, making out a certain measure of
jointness in the commission of the act is the essence of Section 34."
In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Pavitri Devi, (2001) 3 SCC 673, the appellants Suresh and his brother-in-law
Ramji, at the dead of night, went to the house of Ramesh (brother of appellant Suresh) and killed him and
his wife and children. Pavitri Devi, who was the wife of Suresh was
-Sections 141-149: Unlawful Assembly & Common Object
Section 141: Unlawful Assembly
An assembly of five or more persons is designated an unlawful assembly, if the common object of the
persons comprising that assembly is
First—To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Central or any State Government or
Parliament or the Legislature of any State, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such
public servant; or
Second—To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or Third—To commit any mischief or
criminal trespass, or other offence; or
Fourth—By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession
of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other
incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
Fifth—By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not
legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
Explanation.—An assembly, which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an
unlawful assembly.
Section 142—Being Member of Unlawful Assembly
Whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that
assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly.
Section 143 : Punishment
Whoever, is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

Section 149—Every Member of Unlawful Assembly Guilty of Offence Committed in Prosecution of


Common Object
"If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the common object of
that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of
that object, every person who, at the time of the committing of that offence, is a member of the same
assembly, is guilty of that offence."

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 42


Ingredients
In order to bring an offence within the ambit of Section 149 the following conditions must be satisfied -
1. Commission of an offence by any member of an unlawful assembly; and
2. Such offence must have been committed in prosecution of the common object of the assembly; or must be
such as the members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed.
'Common object' does not require prior concert and meeting of minds before an attack; and unlawful
common object may develop on the spot. Whether the object in the mind of accused when they came
together or whether it occurs to them afterwards is not material. But it is necessary that the object should be
common to the persons who compose the assembly, that is, they should all be aware of it and concur in it.
Where the common object of the unlawful assembly was to beat the men of opposite party and one of them
thrust a spear in the abdomen of a member of the opposite party and killed him and his act was unpremeditated
and not contemplated by any member of the unlawful assembly, the other members of the assembly could
not be held guilty of murder.
The phrase "in prosecution of the common object" means that the offence committed was immediately
connected with the common object. Thus, if an unlawful assembly goes with the common object of theft, and
there unknown to others, a member rapes someone, the offence of rape cannot be attributed to all five.
In Mizaji v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1959 SC 572, it was held that where the common object to commit an
offence was different from the offence which was actually committed, the member not actually committing
the offence will be liable for that offence only if knew (beforehand) that such offence was likely to be
committed in the course of the prosecution of the common object. The expression "know" does not mean a
mere possibility, such as might or might not happen it imports a high degree of probability.
In Charan Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2004) 4 SCC 205, the Supreme Court speaking through'Arijit
Pasayat, J. observed that Section 149, IPC has its foundation on constructive liability which is the sine qua
non for its operation. The emphasis is on the common object and not on common intention. Mere presence
in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person liable unless there was a common object and he was
actuated by that common object and that object is one of those set in Section 141. Where common object
of an unlawful assembly is not proved, the accused persons cannot be convicted with the help of Section
149. The crucial question to determine is whether the assembly consisted of five or more persons and
whether the said persons entertained one or more of the common objects, as specified in Section 141. It
cannot be laid down as a general proposition of law that unless an overt act is proved against a person, who
is alleged to be a member of an unlawful assembly, it cannot be said that he is a member of an assembly.
The Court further held that the common object of an assembly is to be ascertained from the acts and
language of the members composing it, and from a consideration of all the surrounding circumstances. It
may be gathered from the course of conduct adopted by the members of the assembly. What is the
common object of the unlawful assembly at a particular stage of the incident is essentially a question of fact
to be determined, keeping in view the nature of the assembly, the arms carried by the members, and the
behaviour of the members at or near the scene of the incident.
Distinction between Section 34 and Section 149
Though both Section 34 and Section 149 relate to the doctrine of constructive liability and sometimes
overlap with each other there are substantial differences between the two, viz.
(i) Section 34 does not by itself create any specific offence whereas Section 149 creates a specific
substantive offence.
(ii) Some participation, overt or covert, in the offence is necessary under Section 34 but in case of
Section 149 the liability arises by reason of mere membership of the unlawful assembly with a
common object and there may be no active participation at all in the preparation and commission of
the crime.
(iii) 'Common intention' under Section 34 is different from 'common object' under Section 149. The
former necessarily postulates a pre-arranged plan; while the latter not. 'Common object' is wider in
scope and amplitude than 'common intention'. The object of unlawful assembly might be common,
but the intention of several members might differ.
(iv) Section 34 does not fix a minimum number of persons who must share the common intention
whereas Section 149 requires that there must be atleast five persons who must have the common
object.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 43


2C—KIDNAPPING & ABDUCTION
Section 359: Kidnapping
Kidnapping is of two kinds: Kidnapping from India, and kidnapping from lawful guardianship.
Section 360: Kidnapping from India
Whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of India without the consent of that person, or of some
person legally authorized to consent on behalf of that person, is said to kidnap that person from India.
The offence under this section may be committed on a grown up person or a minor by conveying him or
her beyond the limits of India. In order to bring a conviction under Section 360 the following two conditions
must be fulfilled:
I. Conveying of any person beyond the limits of India; and
II. Such conveying must be without the consent of that person.
Section 361: Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship
Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen ears of age if a male, or under eighteen years of age if
a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person
of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful
guardianship.
Explanation : - The words "lawful guardian" in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the
care or custody of such minor or other person.
Exception : - This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself to be
the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to lawful custody of such
child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose.
The offence under this section may be committed in respect of either a minor or a person of unsound mind.
To kidnap a grown-up person of sound mind, therefore, would not amount to an offence under it.

2. Essential Ingredients
1. Taking or enticing away a minor or a person of unsound mind.
2. Such minor must be under sixteen years of age, if a male, or under eighteen years of age, if a female.
3. The taking or enticing must be out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of
unsound mind.
4. Such taking or enticing must be without the consent of such guardian.

3. Takes or Entices any Minor


The word "takes" means to cause to go, to escort or to get into the possession. The taking need not be by
force, actual or constructive or fraud.
"Enticing" is an act of the accused by which the person kidnapped is induced on his own accord to go to
the kidnapper. The word entice involves an idea of inducement or allurement by exciting hope or desire in
the other enticement need not be confined to any single form of allurement. Anything which is likely to allure
the minor girl would be sufficient. There is an essential distinction between taking and enticing. The mental
attitude of the minor is immaterial in case of taking.
In S. Vardarajan v. State of Madras, AIR 1965 SC 942, a girl of the age of 17 years and 11 months and
studying in a college was living with her father. She became friendly with the appellant whom she wanted to
marry. Their relationship was not approved of by her father who left the girl at the house of a relative.
However, on the next day, the girl telephoned the appellant asking him to meet her on a certain road in that
area and went to that place herself. The appellant was convicted under Section 363 of the IPC.
The Supreme Court held that there is a distinction between "taking" and allowing a minor to accompany a
person. Where a minor leaves her guardian's protection knowing and having capacity to know the full
import of what she is doing and voluntarily joins the accused, in such a case there is no 'taking' by the
accused. Something more has to be shown in a case of this kind, as for example, some kind of inducement
held out by the accused or an active participation by him in the formation of the intention of the minor to

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 44


leave the guardian's house. If a minor leaves her guardian's protection without the accused having played
any active part and later joins the accused and the accused helps her in her design not to return to her
guardian's house, then, though the part played by the accused can be regarded as facilitating the fiilfilment
of the intention of the minor, that part played by the accused falls short of an inducement and would not
amount to "taking".
The court acquitting the accused held that there was no evidence that the girl had left the house at the
instance or even a suggestion of the accused. The court further held that since the girl had attained the age
of discretion and was on the verge of attaining majority and was educated who had lived all her life in a city,
she was capable of thinking for herself. Further, she had herself telephoned the appellant and had herself
decided to marry him and the appellant by complying with her wishes cannot be said to have taken her out
of the keeping of her lawful guardian.

4. Out of the Keeping of Lawful Guardian


The word `keeping" means neither apprehension nor detention but rather maintenance, protection and
control, manifested not by continual action but as available on necessity arising.

5. Without the Consent of Such Guardian


The taking or enticing of the minor out of the keeping of the lawful guardian must be without his consent.
The consent of the minor is immaterial. Section 362: Abduction / Whoever by force compels, or by any
deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.
Essentials
I. Forceful compulsion or inducement by deceitful means; and
II. The object of such compulsion or inducement must be the going of a person from any place.
The offence of abduction is a continuing offence, and a person is being abducted not only when he is first
taken from any place but also when he is removed from one place to another.
Section 363: Punishment for Kidnapping
Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 364: Kidnapping or Abducting in Order to Murder
Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person in order that such person may be murdered or may be so
disposed of as to be put in danger of being murdered, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 366 : Kidnapping, Abducting or Inducing Woman to Compel her Marriage, etc. Whoever kidnaps
or abducts any woman with intent that she may be compelled, or knowing it to be likely that she will be
compelled, to marry any person against her Will or in order that she may be forced or seduced to illicit
intercourse, or knowing it to be likely that she will be forced or seduced to illicit intercourse, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also
be liable to fine; and, whoever, by means of criminal intimidation as defined in this Code or of abuse of
authority or any other method of compulsion, induces any woman to go from any place with intent that she
may be, or knowing that it is likely that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit intercourse with another
person shall be punishable as aforesaid.

Essentials
In order to bring a conviction under Section 366 the following conditions must be satisfied:
I. Kidnapping or abducting of any woman.
II. Such kidnapping or abducting must be
(a) with intent that she may be compelled or knowing it to likely that she will be compelled to
marry any person against her Will; or.
(b) in order that she may be forced or reduced to illicit intercourse, or knowing it to be likely
that she will be forced or reduced to illicit intercourse; or
(c) by means of criminal intimidation or otherwise by inducing any woman to go from any
place with intent that she may be, or knowing that she will be, forced or seduced to illicit
intercourse.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 45


It is immaterial whether the woman kidnapped is a married woman or not.

KIDNAPPING ABDUCTION
1. Kidnapping is committed only in respect of 1. Abduction is committed in respect of person
minor or a person of unsound mind. of any age.
2. In kidnapping, the person kidnapped is 2. Abduction has reference exclusively to the
removed from lawful guardianship. person abducted.
3. In kidnapping, the minor is simply taken 3. In abduction, force, compulsion, or deceitful
away. The means used may be innocent. means are employed.
4. In kidnapping, consent of the person taken 4. In abduction, consent of the person moved,
or enticed is immaterial. if freely and voluntarily given condones the
offence.
5. In kidnapping, the intent of the offender is 5. In abduction, the intent of the offender is
wholly irrelevant. very important.
6. Kidnapping is not a continuing offence. The 6. Abduction is a continuing offence. A person
offence is completed as soon as the minor is is being abducted both when he is
removed from the custody of his or her first taken from any place and also when he
guardian. is removed from one place to another.
7. Kidnapping is a substantive offence 7. Abduction is an auxiliary act, not
punishable under Section 363, IPC. punishable by itself unless accompanied with
some criminal intent (Sections 364-366).
6. Rape (Ss. 375—376)
The fifth kind of offence against human body is that of rape. S. 375 defines what rape is. Thus section can
be analysed thus:
TABLE
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
(a) Against her will, or
(b) Without her consent, or
(c) with her consent (i) Obtained by putting her in fear of
death or hurt, or
A man is said to commit (ii) When he knows that he is not her
`rape' who have sexual husband, and that her consent is
intercourse with a woman. given because she believes that
he is another man to whom she is,
or believes herself to be, lawfully
married, or
(d) with or without her consent
when she is under 16 years of
age.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Explanation - Penetration is sufficient to constitute sexual intercourse.
Exception - Sexual intercourse by a man with his own wife is not rape if the wife is above 15 years of age.
Various ingredients explained —
1. Against her will : An act is done against a woman's when she is in full possession of her senses
and reasons, is aware of what is being done and objects or resists.
2. Without her consent : This occurs when the woman is incapable of knowing the nature of the act
and thus legally unable to give a rational consent, or being aware of its nature, thinks that it is being
done under circumstances which make it an innocent act.
3. Man : A man of any age may commit the offence. Under the English law, a boy under 14 years of
age, owing to physical immaturity, is presumed to be incapable of committing this offence. But this
presumption has no application in India.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 46


4. Fear of death: This means fear of death of herself or of any other person in whom she is interested.
Thus, if a person obtains consent of a woman by putting her in fear of death of her infant, such
consent is not valid.
Fifth clause : The policy of the law is to protect a girl of immature age against sexual intercourse;
hence, connection with even a girl under 16 would be rape, even though she consents to the act.
Explanation: The degree of penetration is immaterial. But some penetration, however slight, is
essential. It is not essential that the hymen should be ruptured, or that there should be emission of
semen Without some penetration, there can be no rape though the act may amount to an attempt to
rape.
Exception : A man cannot be guilty of rape of his own wife, if she is over the age of 15 years on
account of the matrimonial consent she has given which she cannot retract. But he has no right to
enjoy her person without regard to the question of her safety.
5. Physical Incapacity : A person who, through impotency or otherwise, is physically incapable of
committing rape cannot be guilty of its attempt, but he may be found guilty under Sec. 354 of
indecent assault
6. Can a husband abet rape on his own wife?: A husband, no doubt, has a right to the person of
his wife, and he cannot be charged for forcible connection but he has no right to invite others to
ravish her if he does so, he can be said to abet the offence.

7. Rape By Husband : It should be remembered that the distinction between rape by a 'husband on his wife
and rape by a man on any other woman lies in the age of the woman. If the woman is under 15 years of
age, any man who has sexual intercourse with her, be her husband or not, and be it with her consent or not,
would be guilty of the offence of rape, under the combined effect of CI. 5 of S. 375 and the exception
thereto. For, under the exception to S. 375, a husband is not guilty of rape on his wife if she is above 15
years, but under clause 5 of that section, subject to the exception of the husband's case, a man is guilty of
rape if he has sexual intercourse with a woman who is under 16 years of age, even though the act be done
with her consent or even at the invitation of woman herself, for the policy of the law is to protect children of
such immature age against sexual intercourse.
Judicial Precedents
1. A girl of fourteen years was sent to medical man for professional advice. The latter had sexual
intercourse with her and made no resistance, as she was under a bona fide belief that he was
treating her medically. The Court held that he was guilty of rape.
2. The accused was engaged to give lessons in singing and voice production to a girl of sixteen. He
engaged in sexual intercourse with her under the pretence that her breathing was not quite normal,
and that he had to perform an operation to enable her to produce her voice properly. It was held
that the accused was guilty of rape.
3. Similarly, when the accused made a woman quite drunk, and violated her person when she was not
in her sense, it was held that the offence of rape had been committed.
'Indecent Assault' and `Attempt to Rape'—Indecent assault upon a woman does not amount to an attempt to
commit rape, unless there is a determination on the part of accused to gratify his passion at all events and
in spite of resistance.

ANCE CRIMINAL LAW - (CLAT) # 47


7. OFFENCES RELATING TO MARRIAGE
 Section 493: Cohabitation Caused by a Man Deceitfully Inducing a belief of Lawful Marriage
"Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is
lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine."
Ingredients
1. Deceit causing a false belief in the existence of a lawful marriage; and
2. Cohabitation or sexual intercourse with the person causing such belief.

 Section 496 : Marriage Ceremony Fraudulently Gone Through without Lawful Marriage
"Whoever, dishonestly or with a fraudulent intention goes through the ceremony of being married, knowing
that he is not thereby lawfully married, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine."

Ingredients
1. Dishonestly or with a fraudulent intention going through the ceremony of marriage; and
2. Knowledge on the part of the person going through the ceremony that he is not thereby lawfully
married.

 Section 494 : Marrying Again During the Life-time of Husband or Wife


"Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of
its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

 Punishment of Bigamy
"Any marriage between two Hindus solemnised after the commencement of this Act is void if at the date of
such marriage either party had a husband or wife living; and the provisions of Section 494 and 495 of the
IPC, 1860, shall apply accordingly."

 Section 497: Adultery


"Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be
the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not
amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both, In such case the
wife shall not be punishable as an abettor."
Adultery is an offence committed by a third person against a husband in respect of his wife. It is not
committed by a man who has sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman, or with a widow, or divorced
woman or even with a married woman whose husband consents to it or connives. To be guilty, the offender
should not know whose wife the woman is but he must know that she was a married woman.

In order to bring a conviction under Section 497 complaint by person aggrieved is necessary. No Court
shall take cognizance of the offence under this section except upon a complaint made by the husband of
the woman, or, in his absence, made with the leave of the Court by some person who had taken care of
such woman on his behalf at the time when such offence was committed.

Section 498 : Enticing or Taking Away or Detaining with Criminal Intent a Married Woman
"Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the
wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with

ANCE CLAT (LAW) # 48


intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such
woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years,
or with fine, or with both."

Section 498A : Husband or Relative of Husband of a Woman Subjecting her to Cruelty


Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to
fine.
Explanation - For the purposes of this section `cruelty' means
(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or
(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person
related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account
of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

 Section 498 : A has been added by Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1983 to combat the menace of dowry
deaths. The section has to be read in conjunction with Section 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which
raises a presumption regarding abetment of suicide by a married woman to the following effect:-

 Section 304B : Dowry Death


(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than
under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before
her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her
husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry
death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation, - For the purposes of this sub-section "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in Section 2
of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be
less than seven years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life.

ANCE CLAT (LAW) # 49


EXERCISE
1. Legal Principle : Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death commits
culpable homicide amounting to murder, punishable under Indian Penal Code.
Factual Situation : Bandipur is a protected area wherein hunting is totally forbidden. Kannan, a poacher,
stealthily entered this area and he shot at a deer. He missed the target and the bullet hit the forest guard
relaxing nearby, whom Kannan had not seen. The forest guard was killed. Decide what offence is
committed by Mr. Kannan, if any.
(A) He may be charged for illegal poaching under forest laws and a rash and negligent act causing
death of a human being.
(B) No, offence
(C) Yes, He is guilty of murder
(D) Yes, He is guilty of culpable on side

2. Legal Principle : Wilful rash driving is an offence.


Factual Situation : X was driving his car after consuming liquor.
The police hooked him for wilful negligent driving.
Question : Is the act of the police lawful?
(A) No, because A was not driving rashly and wilfully, though he was driving in a drunken state.
(B) No, because this is not a negligent act.
(C) Yes, because A was driving rashly.
(D) Yes, because the police has power to arrest if someone is driving rashly.

3. Factual Situation: In order to prevent the plucking of the fruits by neighbours children, Musheer guarded
his orchard with a live electric wire and put up a written warning about it at the front gate. Bala, six years old,
unaware of the electric wire or the warning, was killed by electrocution while trying to scale the wall of the
orchard from the backside. Can Musheer be convicted for causing death by rash and negligent act?
Issue: What offence, if any, has been committed?
Decision:
(a) Musheer will not be liable for anyoffence because it is his right to defend his property.
(b) Musheer will be liable inspite of a written warning about the live electric wires. Because such a
warning would be ineffective against children. Moreover, he adopted a rather drastic
measure. He should have adopted a reasonable precaution to save his orchard,
(c) He must be charged of murder.
(A) b (B) c (C) a (D) None of these

4. Factual Situation: B was brought unconscious to a private nursing home. In the absence of the surgeon,
his attendant, A, entered it as an emergency case and operated upon B’s stomach to extract undigested
poisoned food. During the operation, B died. The post-mortem report attributed B’s death to improper
handling such cases’ independently yet he carried on the experiments as B needed emergent treatment.
Discuss ’ the criminal liability of A.
Issue: What offence, if any, has committed?
Decision:
(a) A cannot be held guilty because he was just performing his duty of a doctor.
(b) He is liable for murder.
(c) A can be convicted under Section 304 A for causing B’s death by rash and negligent act.
(A) b (B) c (C) a (D) None of these

5. Factual Situation: C was engaged to be married to D. Once C saw D flirting with G, another girl. C
inquired, but D ignored. C became terribly upset. Suspecting illicit liaison between D and G, a week later, C
went to D’s flat. Peeping through the door’s chink, she was shocked to see D and G in flagrante delicto. On
D’s opening the door, C immediately took out a penknife which she habitually used to carry along claimed
where a woman was only engaged to be married or was only in love with the accused.
Issue: Whether the accused is guilty of murder?
Decision:
(a) C is guilty of murder as the reports of the doctor say that the injuries inflicted were sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. Moreover she was not a legally wedded wife.
(b) C is not guilty of murder.
(c) C is guilty of culpable homicide.
(d) C is guilty of grievous hurt.
(A) b (B) c (C) a (D) None of these
ANCE CLAT (LAW) # 50
6. Factual Situation : The accused and the deceased were relatives. On the day of the occurrence, the
deceased attended the marriage of his late brother's daughter. The accused had a grievance that the
deceased did not invite him to the marriage. After the marriage, armed with a gandhala, the accused and
his brothers emerged suddenly. There was a sudden quarrel and the accused assaulted the deceased with
the blunt side of the gandhala on the head in the heat of the moment. The doctor opined that the head injury
was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
Issue : Whether the accused is the guilty of murder.
Decision :
(A) The accused and his brother are guilty of murder.
(B) The accused and his brother are guilty of culpable homicide as the present case is covered by
Exception 4 to Section 300. Because the accused and his brother acted in the heat of the
movement and did not strike the deceased with the sharp-edged side.
(C) The accused and his brother are guilty of grievous hurt, Because they assaulted with the blunt
side.
(D) None of these

7. Factual Situation : On hearing from his wife about her intimacy with another man (his best friend) and her
plans of initiating divorce proceedings and marriage with him, the husband was completely shattered. He
bolted himself inside a room and went without food or water for over 12 hours. However, he could take it no
more when his friend was heard chatting with his wife the same evening. He dashed out of the room holding
a khukari and chased him, and finally stabbing him several times in chest region. On his prosecution for
murder can he take the plea of acting under grave and sudden provocation?
Issue : Whether the accused is the guilty of murder?
Decision:
(A) He is not guilty of murder. He can be benefited with the exception of grave and sudden provocation.
Because what ever he did, he did in a shocked state of mind.
(B) He is guilty of murder. Because he killed the deceased out of retaliation.
(C) He can be acquitted given him benefit of doubt.
(D) B and C both

8. Factual Situation : On A's reaching after a long absence, his wife confess she had developed intimacy
with his and was carrying his child in her who was shocked but did not display any external signs of his
shock. Howeverm he did neother eat nor drink anything nor talked to any one thereafter. Three hours after
the incident, A drove his wife to her mothers house and left her there. From there he went to his friends
house and on his opening the door shot him without any argument. Can A successfully plead grave and
sudden provocation mitigation.
Issue : Whether the accused is guilty of murder.
Decision:
(A) The accused is guilty of murder because he cannot plead benefit of grave and sudden provocation
because the provocation was grave but not sudden.
(B) The accused is guilty of culpable homicide.
(C) The accused is innocent.
(D) None of these

9. Factual Situation : A customer went to the shop of a jeweler and handed over gold for manufacturing a
gold ring for his wife and a week's time was fixed for delivery. After the expiry of one week, the jeweler
refused to deliver the ring as well as the gold. The jeweler was prosecuted for criminal breach of trust. The
jeweler argued that it is a, breach of contract. Decide.
Issue : What offence, if any, has been committed?
Decision :
(A) It is a case of `criminal breach of trust and not a simple case of a breach of contract. The
expression entrustment includes all cases in which property is voluntarily handed over for a
specific purpose and is dishonestly disposed of contrary to the terms on which possession has
been handed over. The expression `entrustment' carried with it the implication that the person
handing over any property to another, continues to be its owner. Thus, the jeweler, by appropriating
the gold to himself, is guilty of criminal breach of trust. If the jeweler has returned the gold failing to
make the ring, then it would have been a case of a simple breach of contract.
(B) It is a breach of contract.
(C) It is no offence because there was no contract and there was no trust so it is not breach of trust or
breach of contract.
(D) None of these

ANCE CLAT (LAW) # 51


10. Factual Situation : A railway booking clerk had in addition to selling tickets, provided for sale of `travel
packs' containing soap, oil, comb, etc. for the benefit of passengers, purely as a personal business. The
railway audit team while checking the accounts prepared by the clerk found the collections under three
heads:
(i) ` 245,765, the sale proceeds of 250 tickets;
(ii) ` 455, the excess amount paid by the customers by mistake; and
(iii) ` 1,200, the sale proceed of 25 travel packs.
The clerk had only deposited the amount under head (i) and has pocketed the rest.
Issue : What offence, if any, has been committed?
Decision :
(A) The clerk has not committed any offence.
(B) No conclusive decision can be drawn.
(C) The clerk has committed a criminal breach of trust in respect of amount under head (ii), as he
received the money on behalf of or as an agent of the government. If he had received the money
on his own behalf (e.g. by way of illegal gratification), then he would not have been guilty so. That
is why he is not guilty in respect of amount under head (iii).
(D) None of these

11. Factual Situation : X took away Y's purse from his pocket while he was asleep. On getting up, Y found the
purse in X's hand. He asked X to return it to him, whereupon X cursed him and threatened him with dire
consequences if he attempted to take the purse or to inform the police. Y struck by X's fear kept quiet.
However, some by standers reported the matter to the police.
Issue: What offence, if any, has been committed?
Decision:
(A) X is guilty of criminal intimidation.
(B) X is not guilty because merely seeing the purse in the hands of X does not amount to theft.
(C) X can be prosecuted for the offence of committing theft.
(D) None of these

12. Legal Principle : Theft occurs when a per-son dishonestly takes any movable property out of the
possession of any person without that person's consent.
Factual Situation : Keshav finds Manu's cattle roaming the streets and takes them home to prevent them
from being run over by vehicles. Manu does not find his cattle and makes a complaint to the police reporting
them to be missing.
(A) Keshav is guilty of theft as he did not inform Manu about the whereabouts of his cattle.
(B) Keshav is not guilty of theft since the cattle were not in Manu's possession.
(C) Keshav is not guilty of theft since cattle are not property.
(D) Keshav is not guilty of theft as there was no dishonest intention on his part.

13. Legal Principle : When any person dishonestly takes any movable property out of the possession of any
other person without his consent, he is guilty of theft.
Factual Situation : A comes to B's house and takes away a book with the intention to return it.
(A) A commits theft because the book has been taken without B's consent.
(B) A does not commit theft because he intends to return the book.
(C) A commits theft because he has taken a hook which is movable property.
(D) A commits theft because he has moved the book from B's house.

14. Principle : Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with the intent to commit an
offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property or having lawfully
entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with an intent to intimidate, insult or annoy any
such person, or with the intent to commit an offence commits criminal trespass.
Factual Situation : A went to Delhi Law College to participate in a competition. After participating in the
competition, A hid inside the campus so that he could steal a few books from the library.
(A) A has committed theft.
(B) A has committed criminal trespass.
(C) A has not committed criminal trespass, because he entered with permission,
(D) A has not committed any offence.

ANCE CLAT (LAW) # 52


15. The gist of the offence of criminal conspiracy is
(A) agreement is necessary between two or more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act.
(B) a legal act by illegal means followed by an overt act to be done or cause to be done according to an
agreement.
(C) both (A) and (B).
(D) none of the above.

16. Legal Principle : Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of
any person without that person's consent, moves that property, is said to commit theft. Whoever commits
theft, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.
Factual Situation : Raju sees a cell phone belonging to Ram lying on the table in Ram's house. Raju hides
the cellphone in Ram's house in such a place where Rain could not find it ever, due to the fear of immediate
search and detection. Raju did this with the intention of taking away the cell phone from the hidden place
when Ram forgets about and then sell it away.
Is Raju guilty of theft?
(A) Yes
(B) No, because he merely played a prank with the friend
(C) Yes, because Raju did not inform Ram about the place where he had hidden the cell phone.
(D) Yes, because Raju intended to take the immovable property from Rain's possession and with this
intention he moved the property.

17. Principle : Every person has a right of self-defence, if his life is under imminent threat.
Facts : Mr Prashanth threatens Mr Krishna that he will kill Mr Krishna. After saying so, Mr Prashanth goes
to his house saying that he would get his axe
(A) Mr Krishna will have to run away.
(B) Mr Krishna will have to go to the police station and file a complaint.
(C) Mr Krishna cannot exercise the right of self-defence.
(D) None of the above.

18. LEGAL PRINCIPLE: Mens rea must be present in any offence otherwise the accused is not convicted by
arty court of law.
FACTUAL SITUATION : Mr. Ravi is the neighbour of Mr. Manish and his family in a specific locality. Mr.
Akash the elder son of Mr. Manish is a drunkard and is of bad character. One night in December 2010 Mr.
Akash after drinking heavily quarreled with his father and mother and other family members inside their
house. Mr. Ravi after hearing such quarrel in midnight locked their door from front side so that other
neighbours and he himself would not be disturbed and slept in his own house. But the said quarrel turned to
death of Mr. Manish and his wife. During their quarrel other neighbours awoke and saw the door locked
outside and they thought the sound was of Television and did nothing as the sound stopped after sometime.
Next day Mr. Ravi opened the door and saw Mr. Manish and his wife were dead and Mr. Akash was in
drunkenness and other family member were laid without sense. Mr. Ravi called police on 100 number and
police alongwith other actions arrested Mr. Ravi and a case of murder was registered in his name and trial
was begun.
DECIDE:
(A) Mr. Ravi cannot be convicted as in such case mens rea is not present
(B) Mr. Ravi cannot be not convicted as he was not present during murder and did nothing in their
death
(C) Mr. Ravi shall be convicted because as per Indian Penal Code a person becomes guilty of offence
if he causes it though directly not involved in case
(D) None of the above.

19. LEGAL PRINCIPLE : Every person has a right to defend his own person, property or possession against
an immediate harm, and to that end, may use reasonable amount of force.
FACTUAL SITUATION : Mr. Ravi was passing by Mrs. Vadhera's house. At that time, Mrs. Vadhera's dog
ran out and bit Mr. Ravi's overcoat. Mr. Ravi turned around and shot at the dog. However, the dog ran away.
While the dog was far away from Mr. Ravi, Mr. Ravi shot the dog dead as he believed that the dog had bitten
other persons in the locality. Mrs. Vadhera filed a suit for damages as her dog was of a rare breed and
worth ` 5000.
DECISION :
(A) Mrs. Vadhera will succeed because Mr. Ravi killed the dog as his right of private defence has
elapsed.
(B) Mrs. Vadhera will not succeed because Mr. Ravi is justified in shooting the dog.

ANCE CLAT (LAW) # 53


(C) Mrs. Vadhera will not succeed because Mr. Ravi took the action to protect him as well as many
other members of public in future.
(D) Mrs. Vadhera will succeed because she lost her precious dog.

20. LEGAL PRINCIPLE : Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of right of private defence.
FACTUAL SITUATION : Suresh and Nitin are students staying in a Boy's Hostel. Rekha is a beautiful girl
staying in a Girl's Hostel. Suresh and Nitin both fall in love with Rekha. They both quarrel and then they start
fighting over Rekha.
One day, Suresh accompanied with some friends and armed with iron rods, reaches Nitin's room and
abuses him. On seeing many boys in an offensive mood, Nitin throws boiling tea over Suresh's face, due to
which his skin is badly burnt.
DECISION:
(A) Nitin has committed an offence and can be punished.
(B) Nitin has not committed any offence but has defended himself.
(C) Both Nitin and Suresh are guilty and can be punished.
(D) Suresh alone is guilty because he started the fight.

21. Where, in a trial before the court of session, the accused is not represented by a pleader, and where it
appears to the court that the accused has not sufficient means to engage a pleader, the court shall assign
a pleader for his defence at the expense of the state in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, under
(A) Section 302 (B) Section 303 (C) Section 304 (D) Section 404

22. A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z. B accordingly instigates C to murder Z and C commits that offence
in consequences of B' son. A is liable
(A) for no offence.
(B) for abetment and punishment under Section 299 of the I.P.C.
(C) to be punished with the punishment for murder.
(D) under Section 336 of the I.P.C.

23. To constitute a criminal conspiracy, there must be an agreement between


(A) at least two persons. (B) at least five persons.
(C) at least seven persons. (D) at least three persons.

24. Which of the following is not an offence against the state, under the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
(A) Spreading infection of diseases dangerous to life.
(B) Waging war against the Government of India.
(C) Sedition.
(D) Assaulting the governor of a state with a intent to compel him to exercise his lawful power.

25. For an assembly to be unlawful, must have a common object of the kind specified in
(A) Section 140 of the I.P.C. (B) Section 141 of the I.P.C.
(C) Section 142 of the I.P.C. (D) Section 144 of the I.P.C.

26. Rioting means use of force or violence by an assembly of five or more persons, or by a member thereof, in
prosecution of the common object of such assembly, as per
(A) Section 141 of the I.P.C. (B) Section 142 of the I.P.C.
(C) Section 146 of the 1.P.C. (D) Section 148 of the I.P.C.

27. A being an officer directed by law to take property in execution, in order to satisfy a decree pronounced in
Z's favour by a court of justice, knowingly disobeys that direction of law, with the knowledge that he is likely
to cause injury to Z. A has committed the offence defined in
(A) Section 161 of the I.P.C. (B) Section 166 of the I.P.C.
(C) Section 1 67 of the I.P.C. (D) Section 165 of the I.P.C.

28. A puts jewels into a box belonging to Z, with the intention that they may be found in that box, and that this
circumstance may cause Z to be convicted of theft. A has committed the offence
(A) of giving false evidence. (B) of fabricating false evidence.
(C) of theft. (D) of causing disappearance of evidence.

ANCE CLAT (LAW) # 54


29. Grave and sudden provocation in case of commission of offence of murder is a
(A) question of law. (B) presumption under the law.
(C) question of fact. (D) mixed question of fact and law.

30. A with the intention of killing B, gave him poisoned halwa to eat. B ate a little and threw away the rest, which
a child picked up and ate. The child died of poisoning. A is
(A) guilty of homicide. (B) guilty of no offence.
(C) guilty of murder of the child. (D) guilty of culpable homicide.

31. Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, describes the offence of
(A) causing death by negligence. (B) causing death with consent.
(C) causing miscarriage without a woman's consent. (D) dowry death.

32. The offence of grievous hurt has been defined in


(A) Section 320 of the I.P.C. (B) Section 321 of the I.P.C.
(C) Section 322 of the I.P.C. (D) Section 336 of the I.P.C.

33. A causes Z to go within a walled space and locks Z in. Z is thus prevented from proceeding in any direction
beyond the circumscribing line of wall. A has committed the offence described in
(A) Section 339 of the I.P.C. (B) Section 340 of the I.P.C.
(C) Section 341 of the I.P.C. (D) Section 342 of the I.P.C.

34. The act of use of force by one person to another, has been described in
(A) Section 349 of the I.P.C. (B) Section 350 of the I.P.C.
(C) Section 351 of the I.P.C. (D) Section 362 of the I.P.C.

35. A obtains property from Z by saying. Your child is in the hands of my gang and will be put to death unless
you send us ` 10 lakhs. A has committed the offence of
(A) robbery. (B) theft. (C) extortion. (D) dacoity.

36. The offence of `criminal breach of trust is described in


(A) Section 405 of the I.P.C. (B) Section 406 of the I.P.C.
(C) Section 378 of the I.P.G. (D) Section 379 of the I.P.C.

37. Match List-I with List-II and select the correct answer using the codes given below the lists :
A. Githa Harisharan vs Reserve Bank (i) Adoption
B. Kartar Singh through Bachan Singh vs Surjan Singh (ii) Guardianship
C. Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli (iii) Cruelty explained
D. A Jaychandra vs Aneel Kaur (iv) Irretrievable breakdown of marriage
recommended
A B C D
(A) (ii) (i) (iv) (iii)
(B) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)
(C) (ii) (i) (iv) (iii)
(D) (i) (ii) (iv) (iii)
38. In 'Bipin Chandra vs Prabhavati ', AIR 1957 SC 176, the Supreme Court explained
(A) the concept of cruelty. (B) the institution of marriage.
(C) the concept of desertion.
(D) the concept of adultery, as applicable under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
39. The draft of the I.P.C. was prepared by
(A) Dr Hari Singh Gaur (B) Lord Macaulay (C) D. F. Mulla (D) Kenny
40. A instigates B to instigate C to murder Z. B accordingly instigates C to murder Z and C commits that offence
in consequence of B's instigation. A is
(A) not guilty of any offence. (B) not guilty of abetting murder.
(C) guilty of abetment by conspiracy. (D) guilty of abetting murder.

ANCE CLAT (LAW) # 55


41. A and B who are cadets in the Indian Air Force take out from the Jodhpur Aerodrome an aircraft, without
the authority of the commandant and fly it away to Pakistan. What offence has been committed by them?
(A) Theft (B) Criminal breach of trust
(C) Criminal misappropriation (D) Sedition

42. A workman throws snow from a roof giving warning. A passerby is killed. The workman is
(A) guilty of murder.
(B) guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
(C) not guilty since death was accidental.
(D) guilty of causing death by negligence.

43. Which of the following sections of the I.P.C. deals with vicarious liability?
(A) Section 120A (B) Section 121C (C) Section 154 (D) Section 159

44. Common intention' means


(A) similar intention. (B) same intention.
(C) sharing of intention by all persons. (D) common plans.

45. Which one of the following is not an essential ingredient of the offence of 'kidnapping' under the Indian
Penal Code?
(A) minor child. (B) intention of the accused.
(C) without the consent of a lawful guardian. (D) out of the keeping of the lawful guardian.

46. A cheats by pretending to be B, a person who is deceased. A is liable to be punished under


(A) Section 420 of the I.P.C. (B) Section 419 of the I.P.C.
(C) Section 418 of the I.P.C. (D) Section 417 of the I.P.C.

47. Nothing is an `offence' which is done by a child under


(A) 8 years (B) 10 years (C) 7 years (D) 12 years

48. The word `good faith' is defined in the I.P.C. under


(A) Section 44 (B) Section 51 (C) Section 52 (D) Section 52A

49. Minimum number of persons required to commit an `affray' is


(A) 5 (B) 2 (C) 10 (D) 11

50. How many kinds of kidnappings are there in the Indian Penal Code?
(A) One (B) Two (C) Three (D) Four

ANSWER KEY
1. A 2. A 3. A 4. B 5. C 6. B 7. A 8. A 9. A 10. C 11. C 12. D 13. B 14. B

15. A 16. A 17. B 18. C 19. A 20. B 21. C 22. C 23. A 24. A 25. B 26. C 27. B 28. B

29. C 30. C 31. D 32. A 33. B 34. A 35. C 36. A 37. C 38. C 39. B 40. D 41. A 42. B

43. C 44. C 45. B 46. B 47. C 48. C 49. B 50. B

ANCE CLAT (LAW) # 56