LAW OF CRIMES

1. Section 80: Rangaswami v State of AP (1952) Naj 93

 On the lookout for hyena, he heard a sound and fired. It was a man and he was
prosecuted for murder.
 Issue: can he get protection u/s 80 considering that his gun is not licensed? Or does
using unlicensed gun make offence illegal?
 Held, when using unlicensed gun will not preclude any person from taking defence
u/s 80. However, this act is wrong and must be prosecuted under Arms Act
 Therefore, all acts must be in accordance with IPC – Section 5: IPC will not interfere
with other statutes including Arms Act
 Therefore using unlawful gun is an offence but not under IPC

2. Rajaram v State 1977 CrLJ 85 (All)

 A person assaulted B and attempted to kill B by firing gun, but in the process X was
injured and Y died.
 Issue: can he get protection u/s 80?
 Held, he was not doing lawful act so he cannot get protection u/s 80 despite the fact
that all other elements are fulfilled.
 Basant Kumar v State of MP: Hakka method of hunting animals by diverting
animal to a particular direction and then killing it, man killed another human by
mistake and got protection u/s 80.
 State of Orissa v Khora Ghasee 1978 CrLJ 1308

Absence of Criminal Intention (81-86, 92-94)

 Good faith – Section 52, IPC (due care and attention)

 There was a great fire in vicinity of many houses, which was spreading. A, with the
intention to prevent further conflagration, intentionally pulled down house of B, so
that fire has no medium to spread. He proved that he did in good faith, without
intention but with knowledge that it will kill someone.
 Section 81 consists of two maxims: Doctrine of Necessity and Doctrine of Self
Preservation
  Necessity: when there is sudden and urgent necessity to commit any act, and the
person commits it, though wrongful, this act is not an offence (borrowed from law of
Tort) Carter v Shark, Mouse case
 Carter v Sharp
 Doctrine of self preservation: there may be many circumstances when a person needs
to ‘preserve’ himself eg. Person is very hungry and he steals bread, this is because he
needs to preserve his body, and this meagre wrong can be excused
 A instigates B to kill C: Section 94 – nothing is an offence done under threat or
control of someone else (except, murder and offences against state, they cannot take
defence of self preservation)

3. R v Dudley and Stephens

 Three persons, A, B and a 17 year old boy were sailing on a ship, trying to find land,
but they could not
 Therefore, even after 7 days they were unable to find food or land and hadn’t eaten in
5 days. So two persons decided to kill the 17 year old and eat his flesh and drink his
blood.
 Were saved in the next 4 days and subsequently arrested for murder: took the defence
of self preservation
 Held, doctrine of self preservation guarantees only the doing of small wrongs, since
killing is huge, they have to be held liable for murder
 In this judgment, judge has given many examples that are relevant:
 Due to wrecking of ship, A and B were swimming and trying to save their life. B
caught a log (couldn’t carry capacity of two) and started swimming away. A went
there with intention to save himself and hit B, so as to get the log. Subsequently, B
dies. In such a situation, since intention of A was not to kill B but to save
himself, and also that B had other means to save his life, A cannot necessarily
be held liable. There is no criminally established intention of A.

4. Commonwealth v. Emperor (exception to this doctrine)

 During massacre, and overburden, captain realised that the ship is going to sink. He
saved 60 persons, but killed 11, and was hence prosecuted.
  Held, he was to be prosecuted because even though he didn’t intend to kill someone,
he still committed the physical act of killing 11 people. So he was given 6 months
punishment as a concession.
 Dabji v State

Act of Child:

 Below 7 years of age: Section 82, IPC

 Makul Shah v. Emperor: Child (6 years of age) sold clothes valued at Rs.
15. However, someone purchased it from him for Rs. 1. When both were
prosecuted, child was given total immunity u/s 82 and other man was
prosecuted.
 Other man was prosecuted u/s 411 because he knew of stolen nature of clothes
 Therefore, this section gives total immunity to children.

 Above 7 years but below 12 years: Section 83, IPC

 Nothing is an offence done by child between 7 – 12 years and not having
sufficient maturity to understand crime while committing it
 This is further divided into: Having sufficient maturity and understanding of
crime, Not having sufficient maturity
 Therefore, children having sufficient maturity are governed by Section 83
 Those who don’t, have total immunity under law.
 How to determine consequences/maturity: circumstances of case + personal
interview with child by judge in his own chambers

i. Ulla Mahapatra v. Emperor: Child (aged 11) told someone that he was very bad
and killed them. Took plea that he didn’t have maturity – Court held that due to
circumstances, he knew the nature of act and therefore was held to be liable for
murder.

 Above 12 years but below 18 years: Juvenile Justice Act, 2015

 Above 18 years of age:
Section 84: Act of a person of unsound mind [Parapazha Thamban Alias Jacob v. State
of Kerala, 25th January 1989 1989 CriLJ 1372]

 Jacob, while arguing with his wife about how he cannot go to work, slit his child and
his wife’s throat. When prosecuted, he took the defence of unsoundness of mind. Lots
of PW, including police.
 Bhikari v. State of Uttar Pradesh: Legal insanity and medical insanity are different.
 Here, person is clearly medically insane because he had had a urinal problem a really
long time ago. But, held that he was not entitled to protection u/s 84 and would be
prosecuted u/s 302. This is because that urinal problem was a long time ago and
cannot be a valid defence. He was not unsound while committing the incident as he
went to the hospital to treat mental illness much later.
 Issues:
i. What is insanity?
 Not defined in IPC but in common law of England. There, 4 kinds of
persons can take defence of insanity: idiot, person who suffered mental
illness due to prolonged illness, persons under hallucination, drunkard
 Important English case: Mc Naughtan v. Emperor
 Mc Naughtan was suffering from hallucination and when he was suffering,
he became of the view that some person backed by England’s PM is behind
him and is restraining his job. So, he thought that someone else is always
coming before me and restraining my job opportunity. One day, in that
mindset, he saw someone else waling behind him and assumed that that
person was coming to restrain his job. In anger, he shot him with pistol.
 He took plea of insanity. Privy Council asked for this case to be taken v
seriously due to involvement of PM – therefore, insanity is described in
detail.
 Held, he was totally insane and cannot be declared guilty of murder.
 There are two kinds of insanity: Medical (when any person is certified by
registered practitioner of medicine to be insane and unknowing of
consequences) and Legal (despite absence of certificate, accused is able to
prove insanity at the time of commission of act)
 Burden is on person who wants to take the defence.
 Unsoundness of mind: when, at the time of commission of act, you are incapable of
knowing whether the act is wrong (it is not mere insanity or madness)

5. Lakshman Dagdu v. State: He killed his children and took defence of unsoundness,
which was not granted
 Every person will first take defence under general exceptions, if not, special
exceptions
 He could not get defence u./s 84 because he could not prove that he didn’t know the
nature of crime he was committing
 Test for Section 84: determining cognitive abilities
 Ramji Valad v. State: Person, under the influence/intoxication of Ganja, demands a
glass of water from his wife. But, there was delay, which got him irritated and he
killed his wife. Court held that he did possess sufficient knowledge of kind of act he
was committing, and thus he was liable for murder.
 Nivruti v. State: Man was suffering from hallucination (mental disease) and so he
thought that his 2 month old baby was a devil and threat to family/society. So, he
killed his baby and made a pulp out of his body by cutting profusely. In this case,
Court granted him relief because he certainly did not know nature of the act;
otherwise there wouldn’t have been so much brutality.

Difference b/w insanity in India and UK:

 In India, drunkenness is not a part of insanity, it is present u/s 85

 Sections 85 and 86: intoxication
 Intoxication is a defence only if you can prove that it was involuntary and without
your consent

6. Basudev v. State of Pepsu AIR 1956 SC 488

 Basudev, under the influence of alcohol, was in a wedding. He asked Makhar Singh, a
child, to get up but he refused. Due to this he removed his pistol and killed Makhar
Singh.
 Held, Basdev is liable because circumstantial evidences dictate that he is capable of
knowing consequences of his actions.
  Knowledge cannot be a defence in any case of intoxication, only defence of intention
can be given. This is because you can gather intention factually.
 Held, Section 302 requires specific intention
 Rex v. Meakin: appellant is liable for murder because the fact that he removed such a
dangerous weapon is reflective of intention, using a stick would have shown that there
was absence of intention but here he used knife. If he used stick, intention would be to
merely injure, but if there is knife you can infer that intention to kill
 Regina v. Cruse and Mary: Instrument doesn’t determine intention solely; you must
also look at the facts of the case.
 Director of Public Prosecution v. Beard: three criterion to determine “drunkenness”
as a defence
i. When there is doubt regarding intention and knowledge, you cannot give
defence of knowledge but only of intention
 In involuntary intoxication, intention is not relevant to determine whether he is not
liable or no. He is liable anyway; the intention establishes the quantum of punishment
that is to be awarded to accused.
 Motive = main reason to commit an offence
 Knowledge = (in this case, there was no relaxation of knowledge because it was
held that knowledge of sane man = insane man)
 Intention = thinking to enforce the motive (here, there was no actual motive but
intention was there because boy was not giving his seat)

Section 95

 De minimis non curat lex

 Act causing slight harm
 Rupam Bajaj v. KPS Gill
i.

7. Vishwanath v State of UP AIR 1960 SC 67

(missed two classes)

Right of Private Defence

 Olivia case
  Mukul bhaobi case
 Tushinath case

Abetment (Sections 107-120)

 Similar to law of accessories in England

 107-108A: Conceptual clarification
 109-114: concepts + punishments
 115-120: punishments
 Law in England, before, at and after the facts

ABETMENT IS AN INCHOATE OFFENCE

 Also called ‘preliminary/immature’ offence eg. Attempt to murder/rape

 Offences which have not been completed but are still offences
 It is inchoate because it is not necessary that the act is completed/executed, therefore
you are still liable under Section 107 of the IPC

Section 107: Abetment of a thing

 Can be done through instigation, conspiracy, or by intentional aiding

 There can be abetment of abetment, and abetment of a criminal conspiracy: because
abetment is both a process and an offence
 Instigation: to excite/procure any person to commit a particular act. This can be verbal
or written – Shiv Dayamal v. State (person wrote a letter to instigate someone to
commit a crime)
 Conspiracy: most important, read with Section 120B (here it is mode of offence, there
it is an offence in itself)
 To punish someone for abetment by conspiracy, there must be an act in furtherance of
the conspiracy (agreement to commit act + doing of any act in pursuance of that
agreement)

Section 120A

 Emergence in British times (

 Bhagwan Das v. Emperor
 (missed notes)
  S 306: Abetment for suicide
 S 109
 Section 110: A abets B to kill Z but his intention is not to kill, just to check whether
he can shoot with gun. Even though his intention is different, he is still liable for
abetment u/s 110
 IMP (Section 111): A abets B to kill Z (for any reason) but B only causes grievous
hurt. B will be liable for grievous hurt but A will be liable for murder, because that is
what he intended before commission of the act
 A abets C, a child, to mix poison in the meal of Z. But, by mistake, child mixes
poison in Y’s drink and Y dies. Here, A’s intention is not completed/fulfilled. Here,
even though a different act has been committed, the abettor will be liable for that act
assuming that A has abetted to kill Y.
 A abets B to cause fire in Z’s house. Before fire, B also steals stuff of Z. Therefore, A
is not liable for theft.
 But, in previous case, if Z dies, A is liable for both abetting fire and death. This is
because death is a probable consequence of the fire.
 Section 113: A abets B to cause grievous hurt only, but there is death due to this
grievous hurt. So, to ascertain A’s liability, we use Section 113 which states that

Sedition:

 Kedarnath v State of Bihar – constitutional validity

 Purpose of this chapter is to maintain peace in society – “Offences against public
tranquillity”
 Offences against public tranquillity:
i. Unlawful assembly (141, 142, 143)
ii. Riot (146, 147)
iii. Promoting enmity between different classes (S 153 A and B)
iv. Affray (Section 159, 160)
 What is the difference between riot and affray – IMP

Unlawful Assembly

8. Mohan Singh v State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 174

  Unlawful assembly: gathering at a place for a common purpose, when the purpose is
unlawful/when there are specific number of people over 5, i becomes unlawful
assembly
 Unlawful assembly needs 5 or more than 5 + common object – they all agree to
perform that act or omission
 141 – definition
 143- punishment for being member of unlawful assembly
 142 – if a person knows that there is an unlawful assembly and chooses to be a part of
it, he will also be held liable (definition of “member”)

Common object (149) v common intention (34)

 here, common object must be of all without having prior consent of person
 149 – liability of person of unlawful assembly, when offence is committed by any one
person of this assembly, all are liable by virtue of being a member due to
constructive liability
 Section 34 – two or more persons with common intention. Common intention needs
pre meeting of mind.
 Section 149 – five or more than five in assembly with common object in unlawful
assembly
 eg. Whole class wants to murder G. But only P murders G. So entire class is liable for
common intention
 when common object is to stop any public servant from doing their job, and one of us
does that, then we all are an unlawful assembly and liable for common intention
 in common intention, participation is not must but in object it is.

Miscellanneous

 Riot = unlawful assembly + force/violence

 Affray = when two or more people while fighting disturb the public place
 Riots need 5, affray needs 2
 Riot can be in both public and private place but affray is only in public place
 Riot is more serious than affray
 Riot doesn’t necessarily need violence but affray does
Offences affecting the human body (IMP)

 Divided into two:

i. Offences affecting life (Section 299-218) eg. Death
 Culpable homicide and murder – Section 299, 300
 Death by negligent act – Section 304A
 Abetment to suicide – Section 305, 306
 Attempts – Section 307-309
 Thugs – Section 310-311
 Offences relating to birth of the child
ii. Offences affecting human body (there is no death but grave threat to the body)
– Section 319-377
 Hurt and grievous hurt – 319-338
 Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement 339-348
 Criminal force and assault 349-358
 Kidnapping and abduction 359-369
 Slavery and forced labour 370-374
 Sexual offences 375-377

Culpable homicide and murder – important because Section 299 has two offences

 The word homicide = homo (human) + cido (cut down)

 Homicide is divided into: lawful homicide and unlawful homicide
 Eg. Of Lawful homicide: when it arises out of necessity, self defence u/s 100,
homicide b/w 76-106 are “lawful”, judicial intent, absence of intention, insanity,
intoxication, etc.
 Unlawful homicide (Section 299) is divided into: culpable homicide not amounting to
murder (Section 299, punishment in Section 304) and culpable homicide amounting to
murder (Section 300, 302 – defined as murder only)
  Section 46 – definition of death of human beings
 Section 32 – definition of “act” (act can include illegal omission)
 When is someone held liable for omission – when you have a legal responsibility of
someone but you don’t obey it. Eg. Parents not feeding child

Section 300

 Jaswant Singh v State: A intended to teach B a lesson, so he first threatened him,

then put a tape on his mouth, and then threw him in gutter. B died. Here, though he
intended to teach him a lesson, he was guilty of murder.
 Na Ga Ba Tu v. Emperor: A was a snake charmer and was selling medicine: if
someone is bit by a snake my medicine will relieve you. In that process, B voluntarily
got himself bit by a snake and A attempted to save him. But B died, so A was held
guilty of murder because he knew it was so imminently dangerous that in all
probabilities it would cause death. Court said that even if it wasn’t your intention you
are guilty of murder
 Reg v. Govinda 1876:
i. Ashok Sehgal v State

DIFFERENCE B/W CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER

9. Reg v. Govinda (IMP)

Section 299: Whoever, causes death, with the intention to cause death,

A. With the intention to cause death

B. With the intention to cause bodily injury likely to cause death
C. With the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death

Section 300: Except the exceptions, whoever causes death or an act leading to death,

I. With the intention to cause bodily injury

II. Intention to cause bodily injury and offender knows that this will cause death
III. Intention to cause bodily injury and can cause death in the ordinary course of events
IV. With the knowledge that the act he is about to commit is so imminently dangerous
that in all probabilities it will cause death eg. Na Ga Ba Tu v. Emperor
Distinction:

 Take A of Section 299 and I of Section 300 = MURDER

 Take II of Section 300 = MURDER
 Take B of Section 299 and II of Section 300 =
 Justice Melwyn agreed that this is most difficult distinction, so he took an
example – if iI hit with fist on vital part, it is less likely to kill than when I am
using sword
 He said this distinction can be assessed by looking at instrument and number
of people involved
 Take C of Section 299 and IV of Section 300
 Shooting in stranded road = likely to cause death but not in all probabilities =
Section 304
 Shooting in crowded road = in all probabilities will cause death = Section
302
 Ganesh Dhule v. Emperor (there were “ifs” and “buts” and not clear if it will cause
death in all probabilities, so it was only culpable homicide
 Difference b/w point 3 and 4: 3 is about bodily injury but 4 is about knowledge (there
are two types of probabilities – in terms of knowledge and injury. Reg v. Govinda was
about probability of injury)
 This case was considered precedent in State of AP v. Punmayya
 Birsa Singh v. Emperor

Exceptions to murder (Section 300)

I. Grave and sudden provocation

II. Exceeding right of private defence
III. Excedding the power by public servant
IV. Sudden fight
V. Death by consent

 K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra: based on first exception

 These examples are basically culpable homicide not amounting to murder
  Exceptions are circumstances which mitigate punishments

Grave and sudden provocation:

 “grave” = provocation should not be normal but based on more serious grounds
 “sudden” = it should not be pre arranged, pre meditated or pre thought (there should
be no planning)
 According to Section 111 of the Evidence Act, burden of proof here is on defendant
who wants to use this as defence
 Examples:
I. (IMP) A was going to kill B, but B’s wife came in between with her child C,
and in anger A throws C to the ground and kills C: He was held liable
because the child did not gravely provoke the child, B did. So he
intentionally took the child and threw it to the ground

 EXCEPTIONS TO THIS EXCEPTION:

I. Involuntary: If someone proves that yes he was provoked, but this
provocation was planned voluntarily, then the defendant cannot use this as
defence
II. Right of private defence: When a person exercises this right, this cannot be
used as exception
III. Public servant using power: You cannot say that because public servant is
using his power, so you got provoked, and then you killed him. Eg. Officer
comes with warrant to your house, you get provoked because you are being
humiliated, and then you kill him. You cannot say you have been provoked
- All cases related to these exceptions have been referred in K.M. Nanavati

10. K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra 1962 AIR 605

 Issues: whether decision of jury is correct, whether Nanavati was gravely and
suddenly provoked or there was premeditation?
 Not given as a defence to someone who has sufficient time to cool down

11. Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 465

 There must be fourth test to understand:
 I. You must see what act has been committedf
II. See the nature of the injury (serious/simple)
III. Whether the injury can sufficiently cause death in the ordinary course of
events

12. Tholan v. State of Tamil Nadu