CRIMINAL LAW – 1

OMISSION AS AN ACTUS REUS

Research paper submitted in fulfilment of the course Criminal Law -1 for the requirement of the
degree B.A.LL.B.(Hons.) for the academic session 2019-20.

Submitted by

Kumari Shailesh Nehra

Roll No.: 1932

B.A. LL.B. (H)

Supervised by

Dr. Fr. Peter Ladis F

Assistant Professor of Law

September 2019

3rd semester

CHANAKYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NYAYA NAGAR, MITHAPUR,

PATNA- 800001.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to thank my faculty, Dr. Fr. Peter Ladis F whose assignment of such a relevant topic
made me work towards knowing the subject with a greater interest and enthusiasm and moreover
he guided me throughout the project.

I owe the present accomplishment of my project to my friends, who helped me immensely with
sources of research materials throughout the project and without whom I couldn’t have
completed it in the present way.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to my parents and all those unseen hands who helped me
out at every stage of my project. And to best of my understanding, the project is free from any
plagiarism issue.

THANK YOU!

Name : Kumari Shailesh Nehra

Roll no. : 1932

Semester : 3rd (B.A. L.LB.)

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the work reported in this project report titled “Omission as an actus reus”
submitted at Chanakya National Law University, Patna is an outcome of my work carried out
under the supervision of Dr. Fr. Peter Ladis F. I have duly acknowledged all the sources from
which the ideas and extracts have been taken. To the best of my understanding, the project is free
from any plagiarism issue.

Signature 0f student

Name of student – Kumari Shailesh Nehra

Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 5

2. NATURE AND SCOPE OF ACTUS REUS .......................................................................... 9

2.1 CAUSATION...................................................................................................................... 13

3. OMISSION AS AN ACTUS REUS ...................................................................................... 15

4. LANDMARK JUDGMENTS ON ACTUS REUS ............................................................... 20

5. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION .................................................................................. 23

 1. INTRODUCTION
The researcher through this study will attempt to understand the concept of Actus Reus, the role
of legal fault therein and omission as an actus reus. This study is an attempt to understand the
fundamental concept of Actus Reus in the Criminal Law.

In the study of crimes and criminal liability, it is fundamental to understand the definition of a
crime. However, Law is concerned with relationships between individuals, rather than with the
individual excellence of their characters and therefore it is difficult to have a precise definition of
crime. Nevertheless, a few scholars, from time to time focusing on one or the other dimension of
a prohibited act have defined crime. William Blackstone in his book on English law,
Commentaries of the laws of England defined crime as an act committed or omitted in the
violation of public law forbidding or commanding it1.

A crime constitutes two elements namely Actus Reus and mens rea and it is fundamentally
necessary that each of them constitute in an act for that act to be called as crime. A mere
intention not followed by an act cannot constitute a crime and similarly, mere Actus Reus ceases
to be a crime as it lacks the mens rea. Traditionally conceived, the law relating to criminal
culpability operates on the maxim ‘Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’ or that an illegal or
proscribed act (Actus Reus) must concur with a guilty state of mind (mens rea) in order to
establish that a crime has been committed. In the juristic aspect Actus Reus represents the
physical aspect of the crime and the term ‘Actus Reus’ is, per Kenny, “such result of human
conduct as the law seeks to prevent”2 and refers to the extrinsic, physical and objective elements
of the offence, while ‘mens rea’ is the mental, intrinsic and subjective element that underlies the
commission of the forbidden act and which constitutes a species of the term ‘legal
fault’3.Necessarily then, on the classical analysis, blameworthiness or fault is imputed into the
very construction of our notions of crime.

Actus Reus is the external element or the objective element of a crime. Etymologically, the term
is Latin term for "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination

1
Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, vol 4, 17th edn, 1830, p.5
2
As cited in BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (B.A.Garner ed.,1999) “Actus reus”
3
Glanville Williams BOOK OF CRIMINAL LAW (2003) at CHAPTER 3
with the mens rea, or "guilty mind", produces criminal liability. In order for an act to have been
criminal, there must have been Actus Reus.

One of the widest definitions of Actus Reus had been given by Glanville Williams and according
to him, “When we use the technical term Actus reus we include all the external circumstances
and consequences specified in the rule of law as constitution the forbidding situation. Reus must
be taken as indicating the situation specified in the Actus Reus as on that, given any necessary
mental element, is forbidden by the law. In other words, Actus Reus means the whole definition
of the crime with the exception of the mental element and it even includes a mental element in so
far as that is contained in the definition of an act. This meaning of Actus Reus follows inevitably
from the proposition that all the constituents if a crime are either Actus Reus or mens rea4.

The general basis for imposing liability in criminal law is that the defendant must be proved to
have committed a guilty act whilst having had a guilty state of mind. The physical elements are
collectively called the Actus Reus and the accompanied mental state is called the mens rea. It is
the fundamental duty of the prosecution to prove both of these elements of the offence to the
satisfaction of the judge or jury beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of such proof the
defendant will be acquitted.

An Actus Reus consists of more than just an act. It also consists of whatever circumstances and
consequences are recognized for liability and this includes all the elements of an offence other
than the mental element. For instance, section 399 of the Indian penal code makes preparation to
commit dacoity an offence as preparation itself constitutes the Actus Reus5.

A crime can be divided into two types. There are conduct crimes where the Actus Reus is the
prohibited conduct itself. For example, the Actus Reus of the offence of dangerous driving is
simply where no harm or consequence of that dangerous driving need be established6. The
second type is known as result crimes where the Actus Reus of the offence requires proof that
the conduct caused a prohibited result or consequence. Here, the Actus Reus of the offence of

4
Glanville Williams, BOOK OF CRIMINAL LAW, Criminal law: The general part, second edition, p 18
5
PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law, 10th Edn, p. 42.
6
S.2 Road Traffic Act, 1988 (United Stated of America).
criminal damage is that property belonging to another must be destroyed or damaged7. There are
two legal maxims related to the actus reus : actus me invitio non est mens actus which means
“an act done by me against my will is not my act” and actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea
which means “an act done without any having guilty mind is not punishable”.

According to Section-32 of the IPC the term ‘act’ includes illegal omission also. Thus actus is
constituted when a person does something that he is not supposed to do under law or omits to do
something that he is legally obliged to do. For example, if A’s neighbor dies of starvation he is
not liable for failure to feed him, but if he lets his wife or child who is totally dependent on him
to die of starvation, he will be held liable for non-performance of his legal duty to provide for
their sustenance.

Under Section-33 of the IPC, the term ‘act’ includes a single act as well as a series of acts and
the term ‘omission’ includes a single omission as well as a series of omissions. For example, the
act of slow poisoning would require a series of acts providing poison in small and measured
doses in order to arrive at the desired object. In such cases, even a single act out of the series of
acts out of the series of the acts would entail the same liability as the completed act.

Another very important factor that is related to Actus Reus is that it must be voluntary.
Fundamentally, an act can only become criminal when the conduct of accused is "voluntary" or
"freely willed". An involuntary act can occur for a variety of reasons including automatism
where the defendant performs a physical act but is unaware of what he is doing, or is not in
control of his actions, because of some external factor or reflex actions where sometimes people
can respond to something with a spontaneous reflex action over which they have no control.
Although slightly different, this is sometimes classed as a form of automatism and a classic
example for this is observed in given in Hill v Baxter8, of someone being stung by a swarm of
bees while driving, and losing control of the car. Another exception may also be physical force
where the conduct may be involuntary in that it is physically forced by someone else, in which
case there will be no Actus Reus.

7
S.1(1), Criminal Damage Act 1971, United States of America.
8
R v Quick [1973] 3 All ER 347.
1.1 AIMS AND OBJECTIVE
(i) The researcher aims to analyze the essential element of crime under IPC, 1860.
(ii) The researcher aims to understand omission as actus reus.
(iii) The researcher tends to analyze exceptions to the maxim actus reus.

1.2 HYPOTHESES
(i) For the commission of a crime actus reus (guilty act of human conduct) is must.
(ii) Actus reus includes not only acts but illegal omissions also.
(iii) An offence can be committed without the presence of mens rea in certain exceptional
cases.
1.3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

For the purpose of completion of this research paper the researcher has employed doctrinal
research methodology.

1.4 SOURCES OF DATA

(i) Primary sources
 Legislative materials (bare acts, judgment of the higher courts)
 Juristic writings (the opinions expressed by the imminent jurists and
different commissions)
 Law Amendments.
(ii) Secondary sources
 Journals
 Books
 Websites
1.5 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
The researcher has faced time constraint in completion of this research paper. Also, the
researcher is only a student who does not have enough knowledge of law. There is
paucity of monetary compulsions also.
1.6 REVIEW OF LITERATURE
1.7 NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY
1.8
 2. NATURE AND SCOPE OF ACTUS REUS
Actus reus means an include all external circumstances and consequences specified in the rule of
law as constituting consequences or situation. In other words actus reus means the whole
definition of crime with exception of mental element and it even includes a mental element in so
far as that is contained in the definition of an act. The requirements of actus reus varies
depending on the definitions of the crime. Actus reus may be with reference to place, fact, time,
person, consent, the state of mind of the victim, possession or mere preparation.

PLACE:

In the offence of criminal trespass, house breaking or in the aggravated forms thereof, the actus
reus is in respect of place (ss 441-462, IPC)

TIME:

In the offence of lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night in order to commit offence or

after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint etc (ss 456-458, IPC), the actus reus is in
respect of both place and time.

PERSON:

In offence of abduction and kidnapping, procuring of a minor girl etc., the actus reus is in the
respect of person (ss359-374, IPC).

CONSENT:

In the offences like rape, consent will be consider as an actus reus. Section 87, 88, 89 of IPC
deals with various aspects of actus reus done with consent which, but for the consent given,
would amount to offences.

In Bishambhar vs. Roomal9 , a complainant molested a dalit girl. About 200 people armed with
lathis were determined to punish him. At the same time the three of the locality members
interfered and tried to bring out some settlement. They along with the others, who were the
relatives of the girl, assembled before the panchayat. The complainant consented to submit to the

9
AIR 1951 All 500.
decision of the panchayat. In order to avoid other harm to the complainant, the panchayat
decided to take him on the round of the village by blackned his face and by beating with the
shoes. The decision of the panchayat having being carried out in the way that three person who
intervened with the family of that girl was prosecuted under section 323 and 503 of IPC.
The Allahabad court held that the accused were entitled to the benefit under section 81 and 87 of
IPC. It observed that in case like this when the accused person acted bona fied, without any
criminal intent in order to save the complainant from the serious consequences resulting from his
own indecent behaviour, with his concent, obtained in writing and for his benefit, then it may not
amount to an offence.

In Tunda vs. Rex10 Tunda, aged twenty-four years, a resident of village Jaoli, district Mathura,
was sent up by the police under Section 304, Penal code for having caused the death of one
Munshi. Session judge acquitted from this charge but convicted him under section 304A of IPC,
for rashly caused the death of Munshi. The prosecution case was that the appellant and Munshi
were fond of wrestling and on the morning of 13th May 1947, the appellant invited Munshi to
the akhara in Kanhaiya's bagicha for a wrestling bout. They wrestled there. While playing
wrestling match Munshi got injured accidently on his skull, which caused him death. In this case
court held that no foul play could be attributed to the accused and hence, he was not liable for
any offence.

In R v George Pappajohn,11 George Pappajohn put his house up for sale through a real-estate
company. He met with a female real-estate agent from the company at a bar. They had lunch
together, including drinks, over the course of approximately three hours, after which the two
went to Pappajohn's house where they engaged in sexual intercourse. After the event the woman
was seen running out the house naked, wearing a bow-tie, with her hands bound. The agent
claimed that she was raped, however, Pappajohn claims that short of a few coy objections she
had consented. Pappajohn was convicted at trial which he appealed as the judge refused to put to
the jury whether Pappajohn should be able to claim that he mistakenly believed that she had
consented. His appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal and was appealed to the Supreme

10
AIR (1950) All 95.
11
[1980] 2 SCR 120.
Court. In this case the issue was raised was that - Is actus reus a pertinent factor in this case ?
Appeal Dismissed by the supreme court.

McIntyre, writing for the majority, first discussed the question of when a defence should not be
put to a jury. He held that a defence should be used when there is "some evidence which would
convey a sense of reality in the submission." On the facts, he found that there was no evidence,
other than the statement of the accused, that if believed, would have allowed for the possibility
of consent. Accordingly, the lower court ruling was upheld. Dickson concurred, and stated that
the defence was derived from the mens rea requirement which is an objective standard, and
consequently the mistaken belief did not need to be reasonable, it just needed to exist.

STATE OF MIND OF THE VICTIM:

In offences relating to religion (ss 295-298,IPC), or where rape is committed when consent has
been obtained by putting the victim in fear of death or of hurt (s375, thirdly, IPC) or with any
misconception , the actus reus is with reference to the state of mind of the victim.

POSSESSION:

Some special "act" such as possession can be actus reus. For Example, possession of drug is a
serious crime in many countries around the world. If there is cocaine in a bag and with the
voluntary aspect then possession of that bag will be consider as an actus reus. An act cannot
satisfy the actus reus requirement unless it is voluntary.

PREPARATION:

Sometimes preparation of any act is also said to be an actus reus. For example- preparation to
commit daocity is an offence under section 399 of the IPC, preparation of war against state under
section 121, printing of fake currency etc.

CONDUCT:

The conduct of any act may also be an actus reus. For example- if any person conducts of lying
under oath represents the actus reus of perjury. It does not matter that weather lies effect the
outcome of any situation/case, the actus reus of the crime is complete upon the conduct.
Examples of conduct crimes are Perjury, theft, making off without payment, rape, possession of
drugs or a firearm.

RESULT:

Sometimes the conduct itself may not be criminal but the result of the result of the conduct may
be criminal. For example- it is not a crime to throw a stone, but if it hits a person or smashes a
window it could amount to be a crime.(causation must be there). Examples of result crimes are
assault, battery, murder & Manslaughter and criminal damage.

Section 399– Making preparation to commit dacoity - Whoever makes, any preparation for
committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend
to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Ingredients

 The act of accused person amounted preparation;

 The presence of five or more persons making preparation

 The preparation was to commit robbery 12

Section 122 of IPC - Whoever collects men, arms or ammunition or otherwise prepares to wage
war with the intention of either waging or being prepared to wage war against the Government of
India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or imprisonment of either description for a
term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860, states the punishment for attempting to
commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonments.

“Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with [imprisonment for life]
or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act
towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code
for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with [imprisonment of any description provided
for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the

12
Akshita Piplani, Dacoity and its punishment, Law Times Journal
case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence], or with
such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.”13

This section, therefore, punishes a person for attempting to commit an offence which is not
punishable under the provisions of the Code, thereby treating the attempt to commit an offence,
as an offence in itself. The key term to be not here is the attempt to commit the offence.
Moreover, this section punishes only the attempt to commit such offences for which the
punishments either in the form of imprisonment or with a fine has been specifically mentioned
under the Code. The punishment granted for attempting to commit such an offence shall not
exceed one half of the life imprisonment or one half of the longest term which can be passed for
committing the offence, or with a fine or both. The attempt to commit the offence has the same
cognizance of the offence when committed. An attempt is a step forward of preparation. When a
preparation is done without doing anything in order to put the preparation into use, then the same
cannot be considered as an offence.

2.1 CAUSATION
From the concept of Actus Reus arise two branches namely Causation and Omission. In a crime,
an event of the result of a number of factors and a man is criminally liable only for the
consequences of his conduct as he fore saw. Therefore, a man is said to have cause the Actus
Reus of a crime if that acts would not have occurred without his participation in what was done.
Generally, when the facts are direct, establishing the causal nexus between the act and the effect
may not be difficult. However a causation can also occur without any direct physical act like for
instance If the victim asks his way on a dark night and the accused with the intention of causing
his death, directs him to a path that he knows will bring him to a cliff edge and the victim falls
and dies, this would be murder though the accused doesn’t have a role other than utter a few
words. The problem of causation can be explained in the illustration given by Harris in Criminal
Law wherein “A, intending to kill be shoots at B but only wounds him slightly. A clearly has the
requisite mens rea for murder, that is, he foresees and desires B’s death, Now let us assume that
on his being taken to the hospital in an ambulance, a piece of masonry falls from a building on
the ambulance and kills B, or , alternative, that B has rare blood disease which prevents his blood
from coagulation so that the slight wound leads to his death or which it would not have done if

13
The Indian Penal Code, 1860, section 511.
he had not been suffering from, this disease or, alternatively, that B refuses to have the wound
treated and dies if blood poisoning which would not have occurred if B had the wound treated .
In all these cases, a problem of causation arise, i.e., did A cause ‘s death for the purposes of the
criminal law so that he can be convicted of murder?”14

Thus, there may not be any criminal liability if the result is too remote and accidental in its
occurrence. In any case, when the definition of an actus Reus requires the occurrence of certain
consequences, the prosecution must prove that it was the defendant's conduct which caused those
consequences to occur. For instance, in murder the prosecution must prove that the victim died.

There are two types of causations namely Causation in Fact, for which the "But For" Test is used
as seen in the case law R v White and Causation in Law, for which, for example in homicide
cases, the defendant's act must be the "operating and substantial cause of death" which is seen in
R v Smith. Causation as a concept is also closely linked to negligence and where it has to be
proved firstly that the conduct of the person was negligent and secondly, that but for the
negligent act of the accused, the accident would not have occurred. Simply explained, “Actus
Reus should be casually connected to the act, which should be proved to be negligent”.
Therefore in the case law Suleiman Rahiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, the accused who
was driving a jeep struck the deceased, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. The
accused put the injured person in the jeep to get the medical treatment but the person died. So to
convict the accused, there must be proof that the accused drove in such rash and negligent
manner and the death was the direct consequence of such rash as negligent driving. However in
the absence of such evidence, no offence under section 304A of the Indian Penal Code was made
out and the accused was acquitted of his charges.

Another interesting aspect of causation is the concept of Minimal Causation, wherein when the
death of a person is caused after medical treatment, it cannot be said that the treatment was
inadequate or improper. The fundamental concept behind this is that the intervention of the
doctor is in the nature of minimum causation and his intervention would have played only a
minor part, if any, in death

14
Harris’s Criminal Law, Ian Mclean & Peter Morrish, 1973 p.22.
 3. OMISSION AS AN ACTUS REUS
In the course of study of the concept of Actus Reus a question arises as to whether a person can
be held criminally responsible for a failure to act. Here the general rule is that there can be no
liability for failing to act, unless at the time of the failure to act the defendant was under a legal
duty to take positive action and quoted from R v Miller "Unless a statute specifically so provides,
or … the common law imposes a duty upon a person to act in a particular way towards another
… a mere omission to act [cannot lead to criminal liability]."15

By definition, omission involves a failure to engage in a necessary bodily movement resulting in

injury. Similar to commission acts, omission acts can also be reasoned causally using the ‘but
for’ approach. As a general principle the outlines specified for criminal omissions may include

1. The omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or
2. A duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law.

So if legislation specifically criminalizes an omission through statute; or a duty that would

normally be expected was omitted and caused injury, an actus Reus has occurred.

However, there must also be a distinction between omissions and positive acts and this was
highlighted in the Bland case16, where the House of Lords held that euthanasia by means of
positive steps to end a patient's life, such as administering a drug to bring about his death, is
unlawful. However, withdrawing medical treatment, including artificial feeding, from an
insensate patient with no hope of recovery when it was known that the result would be that the
patient would soon die, is lawful if it was in the patient's best interests not to prolong his life. A
positive duty to act exists in various circumstances.

1. Duty arising from Statute

In this case, the Liability for failing to act will be imposed where the defendant can be shown to
have been under a statutory duty to take positive action. For instance, by simply failing to

15
R v Miller [1983] 1 All ER 978.
16
[1993] 1 All ER 821 (UK).
provide food for the child, or failing to obtain appropriate medical care, a parent could be held
criminally liable for any harm that results.

2. Duty arising from a contract

This is where a person is under a positive duty to act because of his obligations under a contract
where his failure to perform the contractual duty in question can form the basis of criminal
liability.

3. Public Duty

A person in a public office may be under a public duty to care for others.

4. Voluntary assumption of responsibility/reliance

In common law there exists duty of care where there is a relationship of reliance between
defendant and victim. Thus if someone voluntarily assumes responsibility for another person
then they also assume the positive duty to act for the general welfare of that person and may be
liable for omissions which prove fatal.

5. Duty due to defendant's prior conduct

If the defendant accidentally commits an act that causes harm, and subsequently becomes aware
of the danger he has created, there arises a duty to act reasonably to avert that danger.

Section 33 of the IPC states that The word “act” denotes as well a series of acts as a single act:
the word “omission” denotes as well as series of omissions as a single omission.

An omission is sometimes called a negative act, but this seems dangerous practice, for it to easily
permits an omission to be substituted for an act without requiring the special requirement for
omission liability such as legal duty and the physical capacity to perform the act. Criminal
liability for an omission is also well accepted where the actor has a legal duty and capacity to
act. It is said that this rather fundamental exception to the act requirement is permitted because
an actor’s failure to perform a legal duty of which he is capable, satisfies the purpose of the
 (1) Act: meaning and scope – in common language, the term ‘an act’ means a positive act,
i.e., something done voluntarily by a human being. For instance, speaking, walking,
writing or doing anything that amounts to an act. If the ‘act’ is involuntary and against
the will of the doer, it is not an act of a person. It will be termed as an act done under
coercion or threat for which the person may not be liable as specified in section 94 of the
Penal Codes discussed in chapter iv.
(2) Act includes illegal omissions – the scope of an act is widened to include even ‘illegal
omissions’ as stated in the section. For example, the law imposes an obligation on the
part of a father, or a husband to provide food, clothing, shelter and medical aid to his
children, aged parents and wife respectively. If he omits to fulfill the statutory obligation
as laid down in section 12517 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, he is liable in law.
This is based on the principle that omission to discharge statutory obligation is
actionable. An important feature of section 125 CrPC is that it costs duty on the part of
both son and daughter alike to maintain parents(father and mother) if they are not able to
maintain themselves. In Vijay Manohar,18 rejecting the appellant’s contention that only
“son” and not “daughter” is burdened with the obligation to maintain his parents, the
apex court said:
“section 125(1)(d) has imposed a liability on both the son and daughter to maintain their
father or mother who is unable to maintain himself or herself.

Maintenance of Wife and Children under section 125 CrPC Section 125 of Cr.P.C. provides for
maintenance ofwives, children and parents. It states as under: (1) If any person having sufficient
means neglects or refuses to maintain- (a) His wife, unable to maintain herself, or (b) His
legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or (c)
His legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority,
where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to
maintain itself, or (d) His father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, A Magistrate
of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly

17
Criminal Procedure Code(1973), chapter IX, sections 125 to 128 provide for maintenance of wife, children and
parents.
18
Vijay Manohar v Kashi Rao Raja Rao , AIR 1987 SC 1100: (1987) Cr LJ 977 (SC).
allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate16
as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time
to time direct.

Section 175. Omission to produce 1[document or electronic record] to public servant by person
legally bound to produce it.—Whoever, being legally bound to produce or deliver up any
1[document or electronic record] of any public servant, as such, intentionally omits so to produce
or deliver up the same, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend
to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both, or, if the
1[document or electronic record] is to be produced or delivered up to a Court of Justice, with
simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend
to one thousand rupees, or with both. Illustration A, being legally bound to produce a document
before a [District Court], intentionally omits to produce the same. A has committed the offence
defined in this section.

Section 176. Omission to give notice or information to public servant by person legally bound to
give it.—Whoever, being legally bound to give any notice or to furnish information on any
subject to any public servant, as such, intentionally omits to give such notice or to furnish such
information in the manner and at the time required by law, shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five
hundred rupees, or with both; or, if the notice or information required to be given respects the
commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an
offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with
both; [or, if the notice or information required to be given is required by an order passed under
sub-section

(1) of section 565 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898) with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to
one thousand rupees, or with both.]
Section 177. Furnishing false information.—Whoever, being legally bound to furnish
information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the
subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false, shall be punished with simple
imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one
thousand rupees, or with both; or, if the information which he is legally bound to give respects
the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an
offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Illustrations

(a) A, a landholder, knowing of the commission of a murder within the limits of his estate,
wilfully misinforms the Magistrate of the district that the death has occurred by accident in
consequence of the bite of a snake. A is guilty of the offence defined in this section.

(b) A, a village watchman, knowing that a considerable body of strangers has passed through his
village in order to commit a dacoity in the house of Z, a wealthy merchant residing in a
neighbouring place, and being bound under clause, 5, section VII, 1[Regulation III, 1821], of the
Bengal Code, to give early and punctual information of the above fact to the officer of the
nearest police station, wilfully misinforms the police officer that a body of suspicious characters
passed through the village with a view to commit dacoity in a certain distant place in a different
direction. Here A is guilty of the offence defined in the later part of this section.
2[Explanation.—In section 176 and in this section the word “offence” includes any act
committed at any place out of 3[India], which, if committed in 3[India], would be punishable
under any of the following sections, namely, 302, 304, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398,
399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458, 459 and 460; and the word “offender” includes any
person who is alleged to have been guilty of any such act.]
 4. LANDMARK JUDGMENTS ON ACTUS REUS
Om Prakash v State Of Punjab19

In this case the victim bimla devi was ill-treated, deliberately straved (hungry) and confined
inside the room for several months by her husband. One day fortunately her room was unlocked
and she escaped and somehow manage to reach to the civil hospital, where the doctors treated
her for malnutrition and blood transfusion. The lady doctor sent a letter/note to the police station
saying “My patient Bimla Devi is actually ill, she may give up from her life at any moment”.
Bimla Devi’s statement was recorded by a magistrate in the hospital. Challenging her convection
under section 307 the accused argued : It is not the duty of the husband to spoon feed his wife
and he was only duty bound to provide funds and food.Even if Bimla Devi had been deprived of
food for a certain period, the act of so depriving her doses not come under section 307 of the IPC
as that could not, by itself, have caused her death, it being necessary for the period of starvation
to continue for a longer period to cause death.

The court held guilty upholding his convection and rejecting his arguments the court held that
in view of Bimla Devi’s confinement in pursuance of a scheme of regularly starving her in order
to accelerate her end, the responsibility of the appellant for the condition to which she was
brought in clear. The findings really go against any suggestion that the appellant had actually
provided food and funds for his wife. Rejecting the second argument court clarified that the word
“act” does not mean only any particular, specific, instantaneous act of a person but denotes,
according to section 33 of the IPC, as well, a series of act. The course of conduct adopted by the
appellant in regularly starving Bimlas Devi comprised a series of acts and therefore acts falling
short of completing the series, and would therefore come within the purview of section 307 of
the code.

Rewaram v. State of Madhya Pradesh20

In this case the accused had caused multiple injuries with a knife to his wife Gyanvatibai. She
was operated in the hospital by the doctors. Thereafter, she developed ‘hyperpyrexia’ ie, high
temperature, as a result of which she died. This ‘hyperpyrexia’ was a result of atmospheric

19
(AIR 1961 SC 1782).
20
(1978) Cr LJ 858 (MP).
temperature on weak, weakened individuals, who already had some temperature. The doctor who
performed the post mortem, said that the death was not the result of multiple injuries, but
because of hyperpyrexia.

Madhya Pradesh high court relied on explanation 2 to section 299, IPC and observed that if
the supervening causes are attributed to the injuries caused, then the person inflicting the injuries
is liable for causing death, even if the death was not the direct result of the injuries. In this case it
was told by the doctor that the death was caused by the high temperature of her debilitated
condition. Gyanvatibati fell into deliberate condition because of multiple injuries which she had
sustained, the operation which she had to undergo and the post-operative starvation, which was
necessary for his recovery. Thus her death was a direct consequence of the injuries inflicted on
her. Supervening cause was the direct result of the multiple injuries and was not independent or
unconnected with the serious injuries sustained by her. As a result, it was held that the accused
‘had caused’ her death and therefore his conviction for murder was upheld.

Suleman Rahiman Mulani v. State Of Maharashtra,21

In this case Suleman Rahiman Mulani who was accused struck a man, while driving his jeep,
which resulted to the serious injuries to the deceased. The accused put that injured person in his
jeep and took him to the hospital for his medical treatment, but he died. Thereafter the accused
cremated the body. The accused was charged for the negligent act and for the act of
disappearance of evidence of offence under sections 304A and 201 of the IPC. As per section
304A of the IPC ther must be a direct nexus between the death of a person and rash and
negligent act of the accused that caused the death of the deceased. 22 Arguments raised in the
court of law was that the accused had possessed only the learner’s licence, hence was guilty of
causing the death of the deceased.

Court held that there was no presumption in law that a person who posses only a learner’s
licence or possesses no licence at all, does not know driving. A person could for various reason
including sheer indifference might not have taken a regular license. There was evidence which
clearly shows that the accused know the driving well. So before the accused convicted for above

21
AIR 1968 SC 829.
22
However a driver is expected to anticipate reasonable foreseeable negligent act to road users as contributory
negligence has no application in Criminal Law. See Pyarejan v State (1972) Cr LJ 404 Mys.
stated sections , it is necessary to prove in the court of law that that accused had driven the car
rashly and negligently. In this case there was no such absolute evidence hence accused was
acquitted of the charges by the court.

Ambalal D Bhutt v. State Of Gujarat23

In this case Ambalal D Bhutt the accused was a chemist in charge of the injection department of
Sanitax Chemicals Industries Ltd, Baroda. The company prepared glucose in normal saline,a
solution containing dextrose, distilled water and solution of sodium chloride. The sodium
chloride sometimes contains quantities of led nitrate within a permissible limit, five parts in a
million. The saline solution which was supplied by this company was found to have lead nitrate,
very much over the permissible limit and therefore was dangerous to human life. The bottles
were purchased by many hospitals, nursing homes etc. and were administrated to several patients
to whom twelve patients died. As per the Drugs Act 1940, and the rules made there under, a
chemist of a chemical co. has to give a batch no. to every lot of bottles containing preparation of
glucose in normal saline. The accused who was responsible for giving the batch numbers failed
to do so. He gave a single batch no. to four lots of saline containing preparation of glucose in
normal saline. It was the contention of the prosecution that had the appellant given separate
batch no. to each lot and the lot which contain heavy deposits of led nitrate would have been
rejected. As the accused had been negligent in confirming the rules, the deaths were the direct
consequence of his negligence.

The Supreme Court held that for an offence under s 304A, the mere fact that an accused
contravened certain rules or regulations in the doing of an act which cause death of another, does
not established that the death was held because of rash and negligent act or that any such act was
the proximate and efficient cause of death. It was established in evidence that it was the general
practice prevalent in the company of giving one batch no. to different lots manufactured in one
day. The practice was in the knowledge of the drugs inspector, who did nothing to prohibit the
practice and instead turned a blind eye to a serious contravention of the drug rules. To hold the
accused responsible for the contravention of the drug rules, would be to make an attempt to
somehow find the scapegoat for the death of twelve persons. Accordingly, the conviction of the
accused under s 304A was set aside.

23
AIR 1972 SC 1150.
5. CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
REFERENCES

 Batuk Lal, Commentaries on the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Orient Publishing Company
 Black’s law dictionary
 Glanville williams, TEXTBOOK of criminal law
 K D Gaur, Textbook on Indian Penal Code , Universal Law Publishing, 6th edition (2016)
 KIV vibhute, PSA PILLAI’s Criminal Law, lexis Nexis , 13th edition (2017)
 Prof. S. N. Misra, Indian Penal Code, Central Law Publication 20th edition (2017)
 Ratan Lal & Dhiraj Lal, the Indian Penal Code, Lexis Nexis 35th edition.