LESSON PLANS

MODULES 1 , 2
 LESSON PLAN-Module 1
TOPIC SUB-TOPICS TO BE DISCUSSED NO. OF HRS.
10 Hours
Fundamental 1. Liability of Human Being
Elements of 2. concept of mens rea and actus reus
Criminal 3. latin maxim actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea;
Liability ;
4. mens rea under IPC, 1860;
5. mens rea under statutory offences;
6. difference between intention and motive;
7. exclusion of mens rea: strict liability offences
8. Injury: Interpretation of definition under section 44
of IPC, 1860.
Referred Cases
1. Om Prakash v State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1782
2. Basdev v State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488
3. Ranjit D Udeshi v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1965
SC 881
4. State of Maharashtra v Mayer Hans George, AIR
1965 SC 722.
5. State of M.P. v. Narayan Singh, (1989) 3 SCC 596
6. Kartar Singh vs State Of Punjab, 1994 SCC (3)
569
7. Paul v. State of Kerala, (2020) 3 SCC 115
Classroom Exercises:
1. Discussion on illustrations and case laws
2. Weekly assignment on Problem - based questions
3. Random Presentation call at the end of each
lecture
4. Weekend Multiple Choice Questions through
google form.
Cursory Reading:
1. Definitions under IPC
2. Facts, issues and judgment of Paul v. State of
Kerala, (2020) 3 SCC 115

Stages in 1. Intention,Preparation,Attempt ,Accomplishment.

Commission of 2. Distinction between Preparation and Attempt on the
Crime basis of tests:-
(i) Locus Poentintentiae Test
(ii) Proximity Test
(iii) Mens rea Test
(iv) Social Alarm Test
2. Impossible Attempt
 Cases Involved
(i) R v. Taylor (1895 I F & F 511)
(ii) Noorbibi V/s State (AIR 1952 J and K 55)
(iii) Bashir Bhai Mohammad Bhai v. State of
Bombay (1960 SCR (3) 554)
(iv) Satvir Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 2001
SC 2828
(v) CommonWealth v. Kennedy (170 Mass. I8,
21, 48 N. E. 770, 771 (1897))
Mode of Teaching and Exercises:-
(i) Discussion through illustrations and case laws.
(ii) Audio-visual mode to clarify differences
(iii) Weekend Summarisation of the class content by
the student specified at the starting of the week
(iv) Class Test :- Quizzes through Moodle or Google
Form
Additional Reading by the Student :-
(i) Difference between Intention and motive.
(ii) THE EFFECT OF IMPOSSIBILITY ON
CRIMINAL ATTEMPTS, JOHN S.
STRAHORN, JR. Can be accessed at
https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent
.cgi?article=8419&context=penn_law_review
(iii) CRIMINAL ATTEMPT; can be accessed at
http://14.139.60.114:8080/jspui/bitstream/123456
789/742/17/Criminal%20Attempt.pdf
(iv) Additional Cases, which the student may
deem relevant .

Personality Who can commit a Crime in the Eyes of Law? :

Characterizatio Natural Person , Element of Imputability, Diminished
n of a capacity, Voluntary Action, Legal Insanity.
Criminal :- Mode of Teaching and Exercises:-
Who can be (i)Discussion through illustrations and case laws.
Punished ? (ii)Audio-visual mode to clarify differences
(iii)Weekend Summarisation of the class content
by the student specified at the starting of the week
(iv)Class Test :- Quizzes through Moodle or
Google Form
Additional readings
(i) Outlines of criminal law, Kenny, Courtney
Stanhope, 1847-1930, Pages 4-78
(ii) Thoroughly Modern: Sir James Fitzjames Stephen
on Criminal Responsibility; Stephen J. Morse , Pg -
513- 521 ; can be accessed at :
 https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/73668/OSJC
L_V5N2_505.pdf
Principles of 1. Section 34 : Acts done by several persons in
Group Liability furtherance of common intention.
2. Section 141: Unlawful Assembly
3. Section 149: principle of Joint/Group Liability of
the members of Unlawful Assembly.
Referred Cases
 Barendra Kumar Ghaosh v King Emperor, 1924-
25 LR 40 PC: AIR 1925 PC 1.
 Parichhat v State of Madhya Pradesh, (1972) 4
SCC 694 : AIR 1972 SC 535.
 Ram Vilas Singh v State of Bihar (1964) 1CrLJ
572(SC)
 Kartar Singh vs State Of Punjab, AIR 1961
SC1787
 Bhimrao v State of Maharastra, AIR 2003 SC
1493
 Umesh Singh v State of Bihar, 2000, 6 SCC 89
Online Classroom Exercises:
 Discussion on relevant illustrations and case laws
 Weekly assignment on Problem - based questions
 Random Presentation call at the end of each
lecture
 Weekend Multiple Choice Questions through
google form.
Cursory Reading:
Provisions of Rioting(Section 146)
Sample Exercise Problem -Based Questions -
 A, shoot at B. While shooting, A knowingly holds
the gun, places his finger on the trigger and pulls
the trigger, as a consequence of which the bullet
leaves the gun. Further, the bullet enters B's body
and thereby causes his death. Find out the mens
rea and actus reus in the present problem.
 A’ buys a knife for the purpose of killing ‘B’ but
after some time, his intention to kill ‘B’ has
changed and he used that knife in the kitchen.
Identify the Stage of Crime?
 If ‘A’ tries to pick the pocket of ‘Z’ by inserting
his hand into Z’s pocket. ‘A’ fails by the reason of
Z’s having nothing in his pocket. Identify whether
there is an attempt or accomplishment of the
Crime ? Justify
 A and B were going to through the field of C to
their own farm land. C along with his 2 brothers
attacked A and B and on which they eluded but
 were chased and attacked again. Analyze the
applicability of the object of Common Intention to
the aforementioned incident.

Multiple- Choice Questions -

 If actus non facit reum nisi means sit rea is a
cardinal principle of criminal law, then which one
of the following statements correctly reflects the
above principle?
(a) Mens rea is an essential element of a crime and
there cannot be a crime without means rea.
(b) Criminal liability under Indian Law always
implies mens rea
(c) To constitute a crime there must be actus rues and
mens rea
(d) Actus reus is not always necessary to constitute a
crime.
 Locus poenitentiae test is applied to trace
which one of the following?
(i)Criminal misappropriation (ii)Attempt
(iii)conspiracy (iv)Sedition
 Choose the correct element for the explanation of
the statement:
The word assembly under section 141 implies the
meeting of ______ persons in pursuance of _______.
(a)Five or more/common unlawful object.
(b)Five or more/ common lawful object
(c)Five or more/ different unlawful object
(d)Several persons/common unlawful object

LESSON PLAN-Module 2
TOPIC SUB-TOPICS TO BE DISCUSSED TOTAL NO.
OF HRS.
(18 HOURS )
Unlawful 1. Explanation of Culpable Homicide (Section 299)
Homicide 2. Culpable Homicide amounting to murder(Section
300) and Punishment(Section 302)
3. Culpable Homicide Not amounting to Murder
(Section 300, exception 1 to 5)
4. Causing Death by Negligence(Section 304A)
5. Suicide

Referred Cases:
 Behari v State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1953 All 203 10 hours
 Camila Vaz v State of Goa, AIR 2000 SC 1374
 Reg v Govinda, 1876 ILR Bom 342
 K.M. Nanavati v State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962
SC 605
 Cherubin Gregory v State of Bihar, AIR 1965 SC
205
 Bachan Singh v State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898
 Kurban Hussain Mohammedelli Bangwalla v State
of Maharashtra AIR 1965 SC 1616
Online Classroom Exercises:
1. Discussion on illustrations and case laws
2. Weekly assignment on Problem - based questions
3. Random Presentation call at the end of each
lecture
4. Weekend Multiple Choice Questions through
google form.

Hurt, Grievous 1. Interpretation of Section 319, 320 and 326 A 3 hours

Hurt, Acid 2. Meaning of the term ‘Voluntarily’
Attack 3. Punishments
4. Causing grievous hurt on provocation
5. Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013.

Referred Cases:
1. Anis Beg v Emperor AIR 1924 All 2
2. Jashanmal Jhamatmal v Brahmanand Sarupanand,
AIR 1944 Sind 19
3. Mathai v State of Kerala AIR 2005 SC 710
4. Laxmi v Union of India (2013) 9 SCALE 291
5. Parivartan Kendra v Union of India (2016) 3 SCC
571
6. Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, 2018 SCC
OnLine SC 2772
 Online Classroom Exercises:
 Discussion on illustrations and case laws
 Weekly assignment on Problem - based questions
 Random Presentation call at the end of each
lecture
 Weekend Multiple Choice Questions through
google form.

KIDNAPPING 1. Kidnapping SECTION- 359-361 ,INDIAN 3 hours

AND PENAL CODE
ABDUCTION (i) Kidnapping from India
(ii) Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship:-
Taking,Enticing,Lawful Guardianship, Age of
Minor under the provision.
(iii) Kidnapping for Ransom
2. Abduction SECTION 362 , INDIAN PENAL
CODE
Taking by force, Deceitful means, go from one
place to another.

Cases to be referred
(i) Abboo vs State Of U.P, CRIMINAL APPEAL
No. - 410 of 1997
(ii) S.Vardarajan v. state of Madras, AIR 1965 SC
942
(iii) State of Haryana v. Raja Ram , AIR1973
SC819
(iv) Vishwanath v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR
1960 SC 67
(v) Somasundaram @ Somu vs The State ,
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 403 OF 2010 (2020)

Mode of Teaching and Class Exercises

(i)Discussion through illustrations and case laws.
(ii)Audio-visual mode to clarify differences
(iii)Weekend Summarisation of the class content by
the student specified at the starting of the week
(iv)Class Test :- Quizzes through Moodle or Google
Form.

Additional Readings by the Students:-

 Section 363A, 364,365, 366
 Meaning Of ‘Guardianship’ under Law
 Kidnapping and Abduction in Criminal Law: A
course by MHRD ; can be accessed at
 http://epgp.inflibnet.ac.in/epgpdata/uploads/epgp_
content/S000020LA/P001795/M025758/ET/15137
7036714etext.pdf
Sexual Unnatural Offences: SECTION 377 IPC
Offences: i. Ingredients of Section 377, Indian Penal Code.
ii. Contribution by British Colonialism to
Criminalising Homosexuality
iii. Decriminalsing Homosexuality: From Naz 2 hours
Foundation to Navtej Singh Johar.

Cases to be referred
i. Naz Foundation v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
160 Delhi Law Times 277
ii. Navtej Singh Johar vs Union Of India
Ministry Of Law and Justice W. P. (Crl.)
No. 76 of 2016
iii. K.S. Puttaswamy and another v. Union of
India and others; WRIT PETITION
(CIVIL) NO 494 OF 2012

Mode of Teaching and Class Exercises

(i)Discussion through illustrations and case
laws.
(ii)Audio-visual mode to clarify differences
(iii)Weekend Summarisation of the class
content by the student specified at the
starting of the week
(iv)Class Test :- Quizzes through Moodle or
Google Form.

Additional Readings By Students :-

1. Anglo saxon contribution to
Criminalisation of Homosexuality
2. Wolfenden Report, UK ,1957
3. Vibhute, K I. “CONSENSUAL
HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE INDIAN
PENAL CODE: SOME REFLECTIONS ON
INTERPLAY OF LAW AND
MORALITY.” Journal of the Indian Law
Institute, vol. 51, no. 1, 2009, pp. 3–
31. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/43953422.
4. Misra, G. (2009). Decriminalising
homosexuality in India. Reproductive
Health Matters, 17(34), 20-28.
 www.jstor.org/stable/40647442
5. Gupta, Alok. "Section 377 and the Dignity of
Indian Homosexuals." Economic and Political
Weekly 41, no. 46 (2006): 4815-823.
www.jstor.org/stable/4418926
Sample Problem -Based/Analytical Questions -
Exercise  A strikes B thereby by provoking B to get excited
to a violent rage. Z, a by stander , intending to take
advantage of B’s rage and to cause him to kill A
puts a knife in B’s hand for that purpose. B kills A
with the knife.
 Discuss the liability of B and Z.
 The accused struck a woman, carrying an infant in
her arms violently over her head and shoulders.
One of the blows fell on the child’s head causing
death. Of what offence is the accused guilty?
Decide with reasons.
 Reshma, a 16 year old girl, fed up with her step-
mother’s ill treatment and her father’s stand of
neutrality, writes a letter to her school principal
complaining against the atrocities and requesting
him to provide her shelter in his house. The
principal assures her that he will talk to her
parents, but in the meantime, Reshma leaves her
house and goes to the principal’s house and begs
him to allow her to stay there and promises to do
domestic work in return for the favour. A week
later Reshma is recovered from the Principal’s
house. He is charged under Section 363 for
kidnapping from lawful guardianship. Discuss his
liability.
 Critically analyze the judgment taken by the Delhi
High Court in reference to Section 377.
 Jigar and Abhisek (both are major) were studying
in same college. They both fell in love and decided
to get married. While they were about to get
married in a temple, the police arrested them ,
charging them under Section 377 of Indian Penal
Code. Discuss the liability of both wrt the new
position of Section 377 after Navtej Johar v.
Union of India

Multiple- Choice Questions -

 A without any excuse fires a loaded gun into a
crowd of people. Although he did ot have any
premeditated design to kill any particular
 individual, the shot killed B. A is guilty of
(a) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder
(b) Murder
(c) Negligence
(d) None of the above
 With an intention to cause bodily injury, A hit B
with a lathi. He gave six blows, one of which hit B
on his head as a result of which B died after 20
days. A is guilty of:
(a) Murder
(b) Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
(c) Grievous hurt
(d) Causing death by rash or negligent act.
 X enticed a minor girl G of age 17 years 11 month
out of lawful guardianship and kept her with him
in a hotel in another city and later on deserted her.
While G was loitering on the streets of that city, M
took her with him and to his village to look tor her
parents. G was finally recovered from his house by
the police
(a) Only M is guilty of kidnapping
(b) Only X is guilty of kidnapping
(c) Both X and M are guilty of kidnapping '
(d) None of the above
 Which year did section 377, which criminalises
homosexuality, come into force in India?Drafted
by Thomas Babington Macaulay, then head of the
Law Commission, it is based on Britain’s own
former anti-sodomy laws.
a) 1947
b) 1950
c) 1862
d) 2010