The word homicide has been derived from the latin word homo which means a man and

caedere which
means to cut or kill. Thus homicide means the killing of a human being. All cases of homicide are not
culpable meaning punishable as law does diinguish between lawful and unlawful homicide. For instance,
killing in self defence or in pursuance of a lawful authority or by reason of mistake or fact, is not
culpable. Likewise, if death is caused by accident or misfortunr, or while doing an act in good faith and
without any criminal intention for the benefit of the person killed the man is excused from criminal
responsibility for homicide.

The crime of culpable homicide has been defined as :

Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death or with the intenion of
causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely, by such act
to cause deat, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

The reason for this explanation is that it is not always possible that proper remedies and treatment are
within the reach of wounded man.

The law does not directly define murder but define it by laying down the situations when culpable
homicide is murder that means situations when culpable homicide becomes murder.

If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention causing death

If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended
to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause deat

If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability
cause death or such bodil 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.

Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender whils deprived of the pwer of self control by grave and
sudden provocation causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of
any other person by mistake or accident.

Culpable homicide is not murer if the offender in the exercise in good faith believed right of private
defence of person or property exceeds the power given to hom by law to the death of the person
against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention
doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defencce.

Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender being a public sevant or aiding a public servant acting
for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to hum by and causes death by doing
an act which he, good faith believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such
public servant and without ill will towards the person whose death is cause.
Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is cause being at the age of eighteen
years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent

The crime of wrongful restraint has been defined in IPC as

Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person pform proceedings in and
direction in shich that person has a right to proceed is said wrongfully to restrain that person.

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,

The crime of wrongful confinement has been described in IPC as whoever wrongfully restrains any
person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits
is said wrongfully to confine that person.

The following are certain deifferences betwwn the two terms as following:

Wrongful restraint is preventing from proceeding insuch direction which that person has a right to
proceed whereas wrongful confinement is keeping a person wihin certain prescribed limits out of ehich
he has right and wishes to get out.

Wrongful Restraint is partial suspension of a person liberty and person is free to move anywhere other
than that particular direction whereas wrongful Confinement is total suspension of liberty beyond
certain prescribed limits.

The corme of cheating has been defined I nIPC as

Whoever by deceiving any person fraudulently or dishonestly induces to person so deceived to deliver
any property to any person or to consent that nay person shall retain any property or intentionally
induces the person so deceive to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit of he were
not so deceived and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in
body, mind, reputation or property, is said to cheat.

Thus to hold a person guilty of cheating it is necessary to prove that a dishonest or fraudulent intention
existed in the mind of the deceiver at the time of making the representation that indeuced the
deceived person tod o or omit to do something. There is no cheating unless fraudulent or dishones
intention is shown right at the beginning of the trasaction and there is harm to deceived person, which
may be physical or mental harm.
The crime of theft has been dealt with in IPC as:

WHOsoever intendinf to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person
without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft.

The crime of mischief has been defined under IPC as

Whoever with intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public
or to an person cause the destruction of any property or any such change in any property or in the
situation thereof as destroys or diminished its valur or utility, or affecs it imjuriously, commits mischief.

Criminal trespass has been defined in IPC as

Whoever enter into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or
to intimidate, insult or annoy ay person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into
upon such property unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate insult or annoy any such
person or with intent to commit an offence is said to commit criminal trespass.

To fall within the purview of this section it is necessary that the property must be in the actual
possession of some person other than the trespasser not necessarily physical possession the person may
be absent from the property and still continure to be in possession of it.

The crime of counterfeiting has been covered by the IPC under various sections. These sections not only
penalize participation in the pocess of counterfeiting but also the possession or use of currency which a
person knows or has reason tobelieve is counterfeit..

Whoever sells to or buys or receives from any other person or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine
any forged or counterfeit currency not knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or
counterfeit shall be punished.

The crime of sedition has been covered under IPC as

Whoever by words, either spoken or written or signs or by visible representation or otherwise, brings or
attemps to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the
government, established by law in India shall be punished.

In it not only the writer or speaker bu all who publishes seditious article are also responsible.
The intention of a speaker writer or publisher may be inferred form the particular speech article or
letter.

Bringing or attempting to bring into hatred or contempt orexcitingor attempting to exice the disaffection
towards, the GPvernment on Idndia.

Such act or attempt mau be done by words, either spoken or written; or by signs; visible representation.

The crime defamation has been defined in IPC as

Whoever by words wiher spoken or intended to be rread or by signs or by bisible representations makes
or publishes any imputation concerning ae person intending to harm or knowin or having reason to
believe that such imputation will har, the reputation of such person is said to defame that person

The ingredients of the offence of defamation are as follows

Making or publishing an imputation concering any person,

Imputation mde by:

Words, spoken or intended to be read

By signs.

By visible representation.

With the intention of the same will harm the reputation of the person concerned.

Yes the exception to defamation are

An imputation of truth

And opinion in good faith regardinf the conduct of a pulic servant in discharge of her his public functions
or such persons character or a person of Courts of justice or their results.

AN opoinion in good faith regardin the merits of a case decided by an Court or regarding the conduct of
an of the parties invlived in the same and their character as appears from their conduct or public
performance or regarding the character of the the author as it appeas from such performance.

A censure passed in good faith by a person having lawful atuhoity over another on the conduct of the
other in a matter to which the lawful authority relates.

To make an accusation against another in good faith to a person who has lawful authority over the
person complained of.
AN imputation in good faith made to protect the interests of the person making it or of an other person
or for the public good.

A caution coveyed to another in good faith agains a thid person in order to protect the interess of the
person to whom it is conveyed.

So far we have only studied illustration and facts where only person is guilty of the commission of the
crime but sometime there more than one accused wherby joint liablilty of all the accused come into
picture.

When a criminal act is done by several persons,in furtherance of the commin intention of all each of
such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it was done by him alone.

The reason why all are deemed guilty in such cases is that the presence of accomplices gives
encouragement, support and protection to the person actually committing an act.

But if the criminal act was a fgresh and independent act springing wholly from the mind of the doer the
other are not liable merely because when it was done they were intending to be partakers with the doer
in a different criminal act.

The Indian Evidence act specifies provisions related to adducing evidence in any legal proceedings
including in criminal trial the provisions in the Act strice to maintain a balance between certain
requirements of invstigating authorities for establishing th case as well as the rights of the accuses
persons.

It is a well known fact that the police sometime employee violent method in order to extract a
confesionfrom an accused person in order to end such a possibility and in order to ensure that basic
right of accused person are also protected, the legislature has enacted certain provisions related to
confession.

Confession to police officer not be proved.

No confession made to polic officer or int the custody of a polic officer shall be proved as against a
person accused of an offence unless its made in the immediate presence of a magistrate shall be proved
as against such person

It has been decided in a large number of cases that the term police officer should not be interpreted in a
narrow manner though it is important also remember that every person on whom certain power are
conferred need not be a police officer withing the meaing of these section.

Any confession made to anybody while the person making it is in in police custody is not provable in
court of law. The section will come into play when the person inpolice sutody is in conversation with any
person other than a police officer and confesss to his guilt.

Police custody means police control even if it be exercised in a hpme on an open place or in the course
of a journer and not necessarily in the walls of a prison. All circumstances in which the accused remains
in the custody of the police while inquiries are made by them have been considered to fall within the
purview of the police custody.

The confession will be valid if the accused confesses while in police custody but in the immediate
presence of a magistrate. The presence of a Magistrate ends the possibility of torture by police thereby
making the confession free, voluntary and reliable.