Law of Crimes SHORT NOTES :-Indian Penal Code important (Q&A)

www.lawtool.net
Jun 14, 2022
1 min read

Updated: Jun 16, 2022

Law of Crimes Indian Penal Code Questions With Answers

www.lawtool.net

Q.1. Explain the concept of crime

Ans. | What is Administration of Justice The administration of justice,is the maintenance of right within a political community (country) by means of the physical force of the State. It is the modern and civilized substitute for the primitive practice of private violence and violent self-help.

Its necessity - Unfortunately, it appears that human beings, who act in the position of conflicting interests, do not have one reason in them. Therefore, one power'over them becomes necessary. As Hobbs pointed out,, unless man is under “a common power to keep them ail in awe”, it is impossible for men to live together, except in the most primitive forms of society, where life would be“solitary, poor, nasty, brutish' and short". The element of force is always present in every society.

Difference between Civil and Criminal Justice -

1 Difference between crime & other wrongs. The administration of justice is civil as well as criminal. The social balance of the society is maintained through the machinery of criminal justice (as for instance, imprisonment and fine), whereas the enforcement of civil rights and liberties is done through the weapon of civil rights as for instance, damages, specific performance, injunction, restitution of conjugal rights, divorce, etc.)There has been considerable difference of opinion amongst jurists regarding the difference between civil justice and criminal justice.

(1) Seme writers are of the opinion that the object of civil proceedings is to enforce rights, while the object of criminal proceedings is to punish wrongs. In other words, whereas civil liability is mainly remedial, criminal liability is, on the whole, penal.

There is an element of truth in this view. Certainly, punishment features more in criminal proceedings than in civil proceedings, but punishment is not always present in criminal proceedings, nor always absent civil proceedings. For example, a juvenile offender maybe just warned and not punished in criminal proceedings; whereas, in an action for torts, damages may be awarded by way of punishment. Likewise, when a man disobeys an injunction of the Court, n\he may even be punished with imprisonment in civil proceedings. Therefore, this distinction cannot be accepted in

tort.

(2) Secondly, in a criminal case, the accused person is on trial for the offence, and the question is whether such a person is guilty or not In a civil case, on the other hand, the Court frames issues as to whether the civil rights cf a person are violated, and.if so, whether he is entitled to any relief.

(3) The third distinction, made by some writers, is that crimes are more harmful in their consequence than civil wrongs; it is said that crimes injure the. public at large, whereas civil wrongs injure private individuals.

According to Salmond, the distinction between crimes and civil wrongs is that crimes are public wrongs, whereas civil wrongs are priva'e wrongs. Thus, he maintains that a crime is an act deemed by law to be harmful to society in general, even though its immediate victim is an individual. He give the example of murder, which injures primarily the victim, but falls in the category of a public wrong (crime) as it shows a unashamed disregard of human life. This distinction between civil justice and criminal justice cannot be always maintained, because some acts may be considered both a scrims ^nd also as civil wrongs. Thus, defamation is both a tort (civil wrong) as well as a crime. Further, it is not always true that crimes are more harmful than civil

wrongs. For example, the negligence of a contractor which is civil wrong) which results in widespread loss of life and property may result in more harmful consequences than, say, a simple assaultor a petty theft (which are. crimes).

(4) The fourth distinction is that in a crime, the state makes itself a party to the proceedings, whereas in civil proceedings, private individuals are parties.

Conclusion - The difference between crime and other wrongs lies in the differences in the legal consequences. Civil proceedings, if successful, result in a judgment for damages, or a judgment for payment of a debt or penalty, or in an injunction, or a decree for specific restitution, or in an order for the delivery of possession of land, or any other form of relief known distinctively as civil; while criminal proceedings, if successful, result in one or a number of punishments ranging from hanging to fine, or

in binding-over to. keep the peace, or release upon probation, or any other outcome known to belong distinctively to criminal law. In other words, civil justice is administered according to one set of laws in one set of courts, and criminal justice according to another set of laws in a different set of courts. Though broadly speaking, criminal justice attempts at punishment and civil justice attempts at remedy, yet .to be accurate, the distinction is more in the nature of the form of the proceedings than in

intrinsic nature of the acts-.

Q.2. Distinguish between Tort & Crime

Both a tort and a crime resemble each other in that both are violations of rights in rem, and in both, the rights and duties are fixed by law, irrespective of the consent of parties. The following are the three points of distinction between the two :

As to nature of wrong and is a private wrong. It is an infringement of the private or

civil rights belonging to an individual 7 a-crime is an invasion of public rights and duties affecting the whole society.

(2) As to remedy available : , In tort, the Wrong-doer has to compensate the injured party; in crime, he is punish‘ed by the State.

(3) As to procedure : In tort, the action is brought by the injured party himself. In crime,

the proceedings are taken arjd conducted in the name of the State, because the party injured by a crime is the State,, which conducts the prosecution at the complaints of a private individual.

Q.3. What is Punishment ? Discuss the various kinds of Punishment.

Ans. What is punishment - Punishment, according to the dictionary, involves the infliction of. pain or forfeiture; it is infliction of a penalty, by the judicial arm of the State. But if the Sole purpose behind punishment is to cause physical pain to the wrong-doer, it serves very little purpose. However,

if punishment is such as makes the offender realize the gravity of the offence committed by him, and to repent for it (thus neutralizing the effect of his wrongful act), it may be .said to have achieved its desired effect.

KINDS (TYPES) OF PUNISHMENT

(1) Capital Punishment- In the history of punishments, capital punishment has always

occupied a very important place. In ancient times, and even in the middle ages, sentencing offenders to death was a very common kind of punishment.

Then, there arose a movement in the eighteenth century which raised its voice of protest against the inhuman nature of punishment. Bentham can be considered as the spear-head of this movement. He analysed the causes of the crime and showed how punishment was to be adequate. According to him, punishment itself was an evil, but a necessary evil. No punishment was to be inflicted unless it brought greater good.

The object of capital punishments said tg.be two-fold. By putting the offender to death, it may instill fear in the minds of others and teach them a lesson. Secondly, if the offender is an incorrigible one, by putting him to death, it prevents the repetition of the crime. But it is evident that this punishment is not based on the reformative object of punishment, in the sense that it is a step of despair. There have been many arguments for and against this kind.of punishment.

(2) Deportation Next to capital punishment, a-method of elimination of incorrigible or

dangerous offenders is the punishment of deportation. In India, it used to be called transportation. This could hardly be a solution to the problem. If a man is dangerous in one society and if he is let loose in another society, he is likely to be equally dangerous there also.

(3) Corporal Punishment - Corporal punishment included beating flogging (or whipping) and torture. This was a very common kind oT. punishment in the ancient and the medieval times. In ancient Iran and ancient India, and even in times of the Mughal Rulers and the Marathas, whipping was commonly resorted to.

The main object of this kind of punishment is.deterrence. It has been long ago realized that this kind of punishment is not only inhuman, but also ineffective. The person who undergoes this kind of punishment may become more antisocial than he was before. The criminal tendencies in him might, be hardened and reforming him might become impossible. Though whipping was one of the kinds of punishment originally provided in the Penal Code, it was abolished in 1955. However, flogging has recently been introduced as a form of punishment tn Pakistan.

(4) Imprisonment - This kind of punishment, if properly used, may serve all the three

objects of the punishment. It may be deterrent because it makes an example of the offender to others. It may be preventive because it disables the offender, at least for some time, from repeating the offence, and it might, (if properly used) given opportunities for reforming the character of the offender.

(5) Solitary Confinement - Solitary confinement is an aggravated kind of imprisonment.

This kind of punishment exploits fully the sociable nature of man, and by denying him the society of his fellow-beings, it seeks to inflict pain on him. It has been felt by many criminologists that this kind of punishment is inhuman and perverse. It is possible that this might turn a man of sound mental health into a lunatic. If used in excess, it may inflict permanent harm on the offender, though in limited cases, if used in proportion, this kind of punishment may be useful.

(6) Indeterminate Sentence - Another kind of imprisonment, which may serve the refor

mative purpose to a greater extent, and which is extensively used in the United States, is the method of awarding an indeterminate sentence. In this case, the accused is not sentenced with imprisonment for any fixed period. The period is left indeterminate at the time of the award, and when the accused shows improvement in his character, the sentence may be terminated.

(7) Fine - Some criminologists are of the opinion that the punishment of fine, in addition to serving its deterrent object, also seives three more purposes. Firstly, it may help to support the prisoners; secondly, it might provide expenses for the prosecution of the prisoners, and thirdly, It may be used for compensating the aggrieved party. This kind of punishment may b« very useful in cases of criminals who are not hardened. But care must be taken to see that heavy and excessive fines, which would almost result in forfeityure of the property of the offender, should not be inflicted; also, facilities for collecting fines must be created in such a way that leavying of fin's does not inevitably

drive the offender to the prison on account of his inability to pay the fine.

Q.4. Discuss various theories of punishment. State your opinion as to which theory is most suitable for criminal justice.

Ans, THEORIES Or PUNISHMENT

A person il said to bo punished when some pain or harm is inflicted on him. This may range from the death penalty to a nominal fine, following are various theories & purposes of punishments •

(1) Deterrent Punishment First and the most important object of criminal justice is to

deter (discourage) people from committing crimes. The idea is not to punish the wrong doer only but others should also learn a lesson that commissioning of crime is a bad bargain. Thus the first and most important aim of punishment is not revenge but terror. An exemplary punishment should be given to the criminal so that others may learn a lesson from him, According to Mann - 'Penalty keeps the people under control, penalty protects them, penalty remains awake when people are asleep, so the wise have regarded punishment as a source of truth." This theory has been basis of punishment in almost aU.systoms of law yet there Is a lot of criticism of this theory. It is said that this theory has proved ineffective in checking crime. The fear of the unknown in very great and on this ground punishment losses its horror when once a criminal is punished.

(2) Preventive Punishment It means the punishment should be preventive or disabling i.e. the offenders should be prevented from committing a crime or they should be disabled. In this theory offenders are disabled from repeating the offences (by giving them such punishments as imprisonment, death, exile or forfeiture of office). By putting a person, (who has committed a crime), behind the bars, he is prevented from committing another crime, by dismissal of a person from his office, where he has misused his office, he is deprived of the opportunity to commit a crime again, the licence of a Truck Driver is cancelled because of his negligent driving resulting in serious accident, now he is prevented from committing accident again. However critics point out that preventive punishment has the undesirable effect of hardening of the first offenders or child (juvenile) offenders by putting them in the association of hardened criminals:

(3) Reformative punishment The Central idea of this theory is that the crime should

be treated like a disease. A crlfnina! like a patient and the punishment like a medicine. Our purpose must be to mend criminals father thpn to end them. Even if an offender commits a crime, he does not cease to be a human being, He may have committed a crime under circumstances which might never occur again. Therefore an opportunity must be given to him to mend his ways. The object should be to bung about the moral reform of -he offender. Reformative punishment tries to check the commission of crimes by reforming the criminal or bringing out a change for the better in his character. Criminologists believe that criminal tendency is a disease curabie like any other disease. Just a disease can be cured in its early stages, so first or young.offenders can be cured of their tendency to commit crimes by confinement and suitable treatment in reformatories and Borstal institutions. Modern thinkers prefer that punishment should be reformative and it must wean away offenders - especially first offenders and juveniles from the path of crime by diverting their thoughts jn other channels through persons in reformatory, special schools etc.

Salmond raises his objections against the purely reformative theory as follows :

(1) It is not proper for hardened criminals - Some persons are so Vicious that crime becomes a part of their nature. The reformative theory would give up such persons in despair as incurable. Deterrent and preventive punishment would deprive such persons of liberty or even of life, and this disable them from being a menace to society. those who are prepared to commit crimes. ?

(3) Crime will become a profitable industry which will flourish exceedingly - because many persons will be tempted to commit offence in the hope of being sent to prison to be treated well there in such comforts which the wrongdoer could not afford himself.

(4) It is not practicable evemimthe case of the abnormal, degenerate or mentally unsound person. First, there is no sharp dividing tine bptween normal and abnormal human.beings and secondly, in a generality of cases, deterrent punishment cures even abnormal and degenerate person of their desire to lead a criminaf life.

However the greatest objection to the individualized treatment of criminals is the money which is required to be spend and oyr imperfect knowledge of criminology. It is also said that if this theory isadopted then commissioning of crimes wodld become a profitable industry. This theory is of no use in case of hardened and habitual criminals.

(4) Retributive Punishment :- Kant has been an important supporter of this theory.

It is said that the purpose of criminal justice.is vengeance, if one person had done something wrong then he also must be dealt with in fine same?manner. It is also said that an eye for eye, a tooth for tooth is deemed to be a complete and self sufficient rule of natural justice and the same is the idea underlying this theory. Idea of this theory is that evil should be returned for evil. Although this system of criminal justice is considered as a barbaric and outdated and the rule of private vengeance or revenge has been abolished, yet no one can deny that this theory still plays an important role in the systems of criminal justice of most of the countries because most of the countries have retained capital punishment (death penalty) which is the best form of punishment accord ing to this theory-being "life for life". According to Salmond retributive punishment gratifies the in stincts of revenge or retaliation which exists not only in the individual wronged but also (by way of ’ sympathy) in the society at large. • .

(5) The theory of compensation :- According to this theory the object of punishment

must not be only to prevent further crime, but also to compensate the victim of the crime. This theory further believes that the main-spring of criminality is greed, and if.the offender is made to return the illgotton benefits of the crime, the spring of criminality would be dried up.

Conclusion:- What should be the modern approach to the problem of criminality ?

Which theory is perfect ?

According to prof. Salmond reformative theory alone is not sufficient. The perfect system of criminal justice is based on neither the reformative nor the deterrent principle exclusively, but is the result of a compromise between them. It is therefore suggested that punishment should be reformative so far as it is possible, to reform the offender especially if he is a first offender or juvenile but deterrent preventive aspects should not be ignored as the primary object of justice is to prevent crime. Punishment may be light in orderly and law-abiding societies, but where there are signs of turbulence or of a “crime wave” deterrent and exemplary punishment should awarded. We might say that the administration of criminal justice cannot have any of the above purposes as the single standard of punishment. A perfect penal code must be a judicious combination of those various purposes of punishment. No theory of punishment is a complete answer by itself. As has rightly been said, all theories of punishment require the support of each other.

Q.5. When death sentence can be awarded in India ? What is life imprisonment ?

Ans. Death : A death sentence may be awarded under the Indian Penal Code in the following seven cases:

(i) Waging war against the State s. 121.

(iij Abetting mutiny actually committed: s. 132.

(iii) giving or fabricating false evidence upon which an innocent person suffers death: s.94.

(iv) Murder: s. 302.

(v) Abetment of suicide of an insane or an intoxicated person: s. 305.

(vi) Dacoity with murder: s. 369.

(vii) Attempt to murder by a person under a sentence of imprisonment for life, if hurt

is caused: s. 307.

It may, however, be noted that the Court is not bound to award a death sentence in the above cases, but it may do so. Irr English Law, the sentence of death is compulsory for the offence of murder; in India, the accused in a murder qase may be sentenced to death or imprisonment for life. But in India, there is one case in which sentence of death is compulsory, viz., when the murder is committed by a person who is already undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for life (s. 303).

Commutation of sentences (ss. 54-55);“To commute” means to-cut down. The power to

commute a sentence lies with Government only. Under ss. 54 and 55, the appropriate Government . may, without the consent of the offender, cornmute -

(i) a sentence of death for any other punishment, and

(ii) a sentence of imprisonment for life, (for either kind of imprisonment) for not

more than 14 years: ss. 54-55.

The appropriate Government (mentioned above) means - (i) In case of a death sentence or a sentence tor an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends - the Central Government, (ii) In a case where any sentence is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends - the Government of the State within which the offender is sentenced : s. 55A.

The Supreme Court has held in Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra, (1961 3 S. C. R. 440) that a prisoner sentenced to life imprisonment is bound to serve the remainder of his life in prison, unless the sentence is commutted by the appropriate authority. Such a sentence cannot be

equated with any fixed term.

Q.6. Give your opinion about death sentence in criminal justice system Discuss the rationale of death penalty

Ans. In the history punishment, capital punishment has always occupieda very important place. In ancient times, and even in the middle ages, sentencing offenders to death was a very common kind of punishment. Even what might be considered as minor offencesin modern criminal law attracted death penalty in those days. In England, there was a time when there were as many as 200 crimes for which the punishment was the death penalty. Even the offence of theft to property, worth more than two shillings, would incur the penalty of death. Even in the middle of the seventeenth century,.the penalty for theoffence of forgery was death.

There arose a movement in the eighteenth century which raised a voice of protest against the inhuman nature of punishment. Bentham should be considered to be the spearhead of this move ment. He analysed the causes of crime and showed how punishment was inadequate. According to him, punishment itself was an evil, but a necessary evil, no punishment was to be inflicted unless it broughtgi eater good. The objectof capital punishment can be said to be two-fold. By putting the offender to death it may create fear in the minds ot otheri and make a lesson out of it. Secondly, if the offender is an incorrigible (irreparable) one, by puttinghim to death, it preventsthe repetition of the crime. But it is evident that it is not based on the reformative object of punishment; In a sense, it is a step of despair.

There are many arguments for and againstthis kind of punsihment. Arguments againstCapital Punishment: (i) Those who denounce this kind of punishment argue that capital punishment has not served Its deterrent, objectat all. For example, in certain statesof the United States of America, where the death penalty has been abolished, there are fewer serious crimes than in those other States where capital punishment is retained. If capital punishment had the deterrent effect, it is supposed to have, crimes in the former States ought to have increased and crimes in the latter States ought to have decreased. Therefore, they argue that the statistics do not prove the deterrent effect of capital punishment. Abolition of capital punishment has been a recent experiment In England and the immediate results are indeed encouraging. The experiment is wortha trial in India also.

(ii) The punishment may be preventive, but at what cost and under what justification ? Crimes are committed very dften not by normal human beings and not under normal circumstances. It is not even certain that a’murderer would repeat the murder again. Under extraordinary circumstances, he might have committed this heinotfs crime. If lav/ were to kill that man, it can have the superficial satisfaction of having prevented a crime-which probably would not have been committed; but it must be noted that in its anxiety to prevent a crime, the State its'elf has committed the greatest crime of taking away the life of a man. As Professor Hentig puts it,"I see in capitalpunishment a means of punishment whose advantages can be obtained by other means and whose disadvantages can be prevented in no otherway than by abolishing it.

(iii) Professor.Hentig draws attention to another salientdefect of capitalpunishment - no thinking persgn cantflaim that our law of evidence and the law of procedure are foolproof and alwayslead us inevitably ro the truth. It is possible there are judicial errors, and in such cases, capital puni.shment once awarded cannot be revoked. Therefore, it is argued that this punishment is neither effective nor just.

Thus , there have been caseswhere after execution of an alleged murderer, the true murderer is caught. .But .can the mischief be remedied ? It is, therefore, better to save nine murderers from capital punishment than inflict it on one Who may be in fact innocent.

Arguments in Favdurof Capital Punishment: (i) On the other hand, others argue that there may be some offenders who are not only incorrigible but who are immensely dangerous to the society, and there is no reason why society should be harmful to human society, why not quietly remove it?

(ii) Another argument pressed in favour of capital punishment is that, it must be noted, punishment by the State is a substitute for private revenge.If a murderer is not punished with death, it is quite possible that other relatives of the victim might murder the murderer, and thus a chain of murder ers might set in. So long as human emotions are powerful, and so long the powers of vengeance prevail,capital punishment, fit is argued]is a necessaiy kind of punishment.

Conclusion: In conclusion, it should bp said that though capital punishment serves some purposes, in the present context our respect for human dignity and possibility of reforming the charac ter of the offenders, an experiment of abolishing the capital punishment might not be a very risky attempt.

Q.7. What are the different stages in the commission of an offence ? Which of those stages are punishable under the Code?

Ans. There are four stages of crime as under:

(1) Intention: Mere intention to commit a crime (not followed by an act) does not constitute an offence : Baku, 24 Bombay 287. The will is ndt to be taken for the deed unless there is some External Act which shows that progress ^haS been made in that direction or towards maturing and effecting it. This, B corner to know that A'iritends to shoot C the next day at a particular place a 8 p.m. B thereupon informsthe police about’it. The following day, A is arrested at that place a few minutes before 8 p.m. and on his being searched, is found in possession of a fully loaded revolver.Here A has not committedan offence (if he.had a, valid licencefor the revolver) so far. he had only . intended to shoot C.

(2) Preparation : Preparation consists in devising(finding out) means for the commission of an offence. The law does not punish act done in the stage of preparation. Mere preparation is punish able only in two cases namely when preparation is to wage war against the state (S. 122) or to commit dacoity (S.399).

(3) Attempt: Attempt is the direct movementtowards the commission (after the preparations are made). To complete the offence of attempt, there must be an act done with the intention of committing an offence. An attempt is possible even when a person intending to pick another’s pocket, thrusts his hand into the pocketbut finds it empty. Illustration : A intendsto .kill B and with this motive, he purchasespoison in order to mix it in B’s food. Upto this stage, A's Act is mere preparation. If A does actually mix poison in B’s food and puts it before B among his dishes, he has commit ted an attempt.

(4)Commission : The last stage in the commission of a crime is that it is successfully committed, and the consequence of the crime materializes.

Q.8. What is meant by the precolonial notion of crime? Discuss with relation to Hindu & Muslim Law Elaboratethe evolution of crime in the pre-colonial era.

Ans. Ancient Hindu Criminal Law- Before the conquest of Indian by the Muslim the penal law prevailing in India was the Hindu Criminal Law. It is now well established that in ancient India there existed a systematic and well defined criminal law. The punishment of a criminal was consider to be a sort of expiation which mover his character. Ancient Smriti writers were also fully aware of various purposes served by punishingthe criminals. Manu, Yajnavalkya and Brihaspati state that there were four methods of punishment, namely,by gentle admonition, by server reproof,by fine and by corpo real punishment and declare that these punishments shall be inflicted separately or together accord ing to the nature of offence.

The punishments served four main purposes, namely,

(1) to meet the urge of the person who had suffered

(2) revenge or retaliation

(3) as deterrent, and preventive measuresand

(4) reformation or redemption of the evil doer.

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MOHAMMEDAN LAW OF CRIMES

(a) General - According to the Muslim jurisprudence there was no clear-cut distinction be tween public law and private law. In modern State today there is a clear cut distinction between public law and private law and criminal law is considered to be a part of the public law. In modern times, a crime is treated as an offence against the State and generallythe State is the prosecutor. Only in exceptional cases, prosecution of a crime depends on the option of the victim of the offence. But the spirit of Mohammedan law crimes, (as it was of several ancient laws of crimes,) was to redressthe injured rather than to treat crime as an offence against the State and society. Nevertheless, Moham medan law of crimes classified crimes into two categories, i.e.,'Crimes against God’ and 'crimesagainst man’. In the class of .crimes against God, offences such as drunkenness and adultery were included. They were considered to be crimes against God, offences such as drunkenness and adul tery were included; They were considered to be crimes of more serious nature. crimes against man, crimes such as murder and robbery were included. These crimes were considered to be offences against the victim or his near relatives. In the case of crimes against God, the State would take the initiative and the offender would be punished. Bat in the case of crimes against man, the initiative for prosecution, d/as left to the victim or the heirs of the victim. Thus, serious crimes like murder and robbery could be punished only if the heirs cf the victim or the victim, as the case may be , lock the initiative. It was this approach to criminal law that introduced certain irrational elements into trial and punishment of crimes. These principles of criminal law evolved in a different society under altogether different circumstances were illogical and irrelevant in the 17,h and18th centuries in India.

(b)| Punishments Mohammedan law classified punishments under four different categories,

i) Kisa - Kisa meant retaliation. The victim or the relativesof the victim could demand a punishment similar to the offence itself. It was a case of a tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye or a life for life. Under this category offenceslike murder, seriousinjury to the body were included. The peculiarities of these offences were that no action could be taken unless the victim or the heirs of the victim took the initiative. It was open to them to condone the offence or to accept blood money, if they choose to do so. Further, in the case of murder, the heirs of the victim were to personally inflict punishments to the offender. For example, in a case, where the wife had murdered her husband, the children were expected to inflict the death penaltyto their mother.

The concept of Kisa led to certain other anomalies. If a person was murdered, Kisa could be claimed only by his heirs. If the heir did not come forward to prosecute the murdered, for one reason or another, the murderer had to be kept in prison till someone came forward to prosecute. Similarly, the positron was not clear as to what should happen when there were no heirs to claim Kisa though in practice the ruler claimed Kisa. Similarly, if the heirs were minors the prisoner had to be kept in prison until they attained majority. There was difference of opinion among the Muslim commentators on this question. Therefore, the judge at his discretion could either allow the adult heirs to prosecute or to keep the prisoner in prison till all the heirs attained majority. Further, if one of the several heirs pardoned the murderer by .accepting Diya (by accepting blood money) other heirs could not claim Kisa. They could only demand their share of the blood money. Thus, the conceptof Kisa was primitive, complicated, technical and obscure.

(ii) Diya - Thera were certain offenceswhere the victimof a crime was entitledto blood money on certain fixed scale. Further, in the case of Kisa, the victim or his heirs could take blood money, pardon the murderer and compound the offence. Such Diya could be accepted in case of murders, robberies and ser ous wound ng or maiming.

(iii)Hadd - Ip the-case of certain offences which were known as offences againstGod, Mohammedan law prescribed punishmentof a fixed nature, quantityand quality. In these cases the judge had no absolute discretion. The word Hadd means boundary or limit. Such limit was fixed by law and not left to the discretion of the judge. The Hadd punishments were severe and they were in the nature of death by stoning, amputation of limb or by flogging.For simple offences like accusing the married woman of adultery, tho punishment was 80 stripes of flogging; for theft, cutting off the right hand or left foot and for Zina, i.e., illicit intercourse the punishment was death. Though the punish ment appeared to have been very severe, the severity was mitigated by the rigid rules of evidence. For example, in the case of Zina, there were to be four male eye witnesses of the actual offence which would almost be impossible, to have. Further, if there was any doubt in the mind of the judge, regard ing the commission of the offence punishable with Hadd, it could be left to Tazeer.

(iv ) Tazeer -This kind of punishment included discretionary punishments. The nature and the quantity of the punishment were left entirely to the judge. Under this category were included punishments like imprisonment, exile, etc. The bulk of the offence under Muslim criminal law was to be punished under this category The offence which invited Kisa or Hadd were very few. Further, even the offence which invited Hadd or Kisa could come under Tazeer if the required standard of proof was not available and if there was a strong presumption of the offence. The doctrine to Tazeer-could be invoked both in the case of iffen^es against man and against God.

1. MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS

Q.1. The Administration of-^ustice is the maintenance of right within a political community by means of -

(a) floral pressure

(b) mutual understanding

(a) Civil

(b) Criminal

(d) Civil as well as criminal.

Q.3. Civil liability is mainly-

(a) remedial

(b) penal

(d) none. Q.4. Crimes are -

(a) Civil wrongs

(b) private wrongs

(d) public wrongs

Q.5. The state makes itself a party in ■

(a) ‘Civil cases

(b) Crime

(d) none.

Q.6. In crime, the proceedings are taken and conducted in the name of the State because the party injured by a crime is the

(a) Victim

(b) Accused

(d) State.

Q.7.Capital punishment means--'*

(a) fine

(b) imprisonment

(d) compensation in mpney: .

Q.8. Deportation-means -

(a) transportation

(b) Desh

(d) Any of the above. :

Q.9.Corporal punishment includes -

(a)’beating

(b)4 flogging

(d) all or any of the above

Q.10. A first and most important object of criminal justice is to...... people from committing crimes -

(a) educate

(b) encourage

(d) attract

Q.11. Tho first and most important aim of punishment is not revenge but -

(a) understanding

(b) terror

(d) to settle the score.

Q.12. In Preventive punishment the offenders are -

(a) encouraged to repeat the offence

(b) discouraged to repeat the offence

(d) disabled from repeating the offence.

Q.13. Crime in the stage of preparation isfnever punishable exceptin the case of -

(a') murder

(b) rape

(d) dacoity.

Q.14. A determined intention to commit a murder -

(a) is an offence

(b) maybe an offence

(d) is punishable.

Q.15. Attempt is punishable, but successfully committing of the offence is not punishable in the* case of -

(a) sexual offences

(b). .murder

(d) kidnapping.

Q16.In Muslim Criminal Law, the victim or relatives of the victim could demand a punishment similar to the offence itself. It was known as

(a) Kisa

(b)Diya

(d) Tazeer

Q.9. Write a short note on Mens rea Explain elements of criminal liability. Discuss the application of the Doctrine of mens rea in offences under the IPC. Act arid intentions go together to constitute the crime. What are the mental elements of a crime?

Ans. Mens rea means guilty mind.A mere act does not constitute a crime. /It requires a guilty mind or mens rea behind it. This Principle is based on the maxim “actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea". The doctrine needs a guilty mind to be associated with the act. A guilty mind must consist of either intention or negligence. But sometimes even knowledge of the consequences will be consid ered as a part of the guilty mind, because the mental condition of any individual can be decided only through his conduct, and it is always difficult to ascertain whether act is done intentionally or with the knowledgeof the consequences.

The following are the five important exceptional cases

•(Where mens rea is not required in Criminal Law)

(1) Where a statute imposes strict liability, the presence or absence of the guilty mind is irrel event. Several modern statutes passed in the interests of public safety and social welfare impose such strict liability e.g. matters concerning public health, food, drugs, etc. Such strict liability is imposed under the Motor Vehicle Act, the Arms Act, etc. In licensing of shop, hotels, restaurants and chemists establishments this principle is followed.

(2) In petty cases, where speedy disposal of cases becomes necessary and where the proving of mens rea is not easy, the accused may be fined even withoutany proof of mens rea.

3) The third exception to the doctrine of mens rea is in the cases of public nuisance, In the interest of public safety strict liability must be imposed and if one causes public nuisance (with a guilty mind or without a guilty mind) he must be punished.

(4) The fourth exception' to the doctrine of mens rea is to be found in those cases which are criminal in form but are ( fact) only a summary mode of enforcing a civil right,. For example cases of maintenance under Cr P.C.

(5) Another exception is related to the maxim “ignorance of the law is no excuse". If a person violates a law without the knowledge of the law, he would be liable as if he was knowing the law.

Q.10. What are the salient features of Indian Penal Code ?

Ans. The Penal Code drafted by Lord Macaulay in 1837 was revised by Sir BarnesPeacockwho was One of the members of the Second Law Commission. It was finally enacted and passed in 1860. This Code has undoubtedly proved to be the most efficient piece of legislation which continues. in force even to this day. However, consequent to the Indian Independence in 1947, the conditions have drastically changed and, therefore the Penal Code needs to be thoroughly revised. The task of reviewing the Code for changes is under progress by a Committee of Experts appointed by the Government of India for the purpose.

SALIENT FEATURES OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE-

The Indian Penal Code consists of 511 sections, some of which give very detailed definitions of certain crimes. For the sake of convenience, the Code can be divided into two parts, viz., the General Provisions, which are contained in Ss. 1 to 120, and the Special Offences, to be found in Ss. 120Ato 511. These broadheads can further be divided as follows:

(v) GENERAL PROVISIONS (Ss 1-120) The general provisions of the Code fall into the following five heads.

(1) Territorial operation of the Code (a) Intra territorial (Sec,.1 & 2) (b) Extra territorial (sec. 3 & 4)

(2) General Explanations (a) Definitions (Sec. 6-32, 36, 39-52A) (b) Group liability in Crime

(3) Punishments (Sec. 53 - 75) (a) Kinds of punishment (Sec. 53, 70, 73) (b) Rules for assessment of punishment (Sec. 71,72, 75)

(4) General Exceptions : Ch. IV; Ss. 76-106.’

(5) Abetment: Ch. V; Ss. 107-120.

(2) SPECIFIC OFFENCES (Ss. 120A to 511) '

The second part of the code deals with specific offences which are twenty in all. These are :

1. Criminal Conspiracy (Ch,‘VA^ss. 120-120B).

2. Offences Against the Stile (Ch. VI; ss. 121-130).

3. Offences relating to the Army,Navy & Air Force (Ch. VII; ss. 131-140).

4. Offences Against the PublicTranquil ty (Ch. VIII; ss. 141-160).

5. Offences By or Relating to Public Servants(Ch. IX; ss. 161-171).

6/ Offences Relating to Elections (Ch. IX-A; ss. 171A-171-I).

7. Contempt of Public Sen/anls (Ch. X; ss. 172-190).

8. Giving False Evidence &Offences Against PublicJustice (Ch. XI; ss.-191-229).

9. Offences Relating to Coin &Government Stamps (Ch. XII; ss. 230-263A).

10. Offences Relating to Weights & Measures (Ch. XIII; ss. 264-267).

11. Offences Affecting (1) Public Health;(2) Safety, Convenience, (3) Decency & Morals (Ch.XIV; ss. 268-294A).

12. Offences Relatingto Religion (Ch. XV; ss. 295-298).

13. Offences Affecting the Human Body (Ch. XVI; ss. 299-377).

14. Offences AgainstProperty (Ch. XVII; ss. 378-462).

15. Offences Relatingto Documents and to PropertyMarks (Ch. XVIII;ss. 463-489E).

16. CriminalBreach of Contract of Serv ce (Ch. XX; ss. 490-492).

17. Offences Relatingto Marriage (Ch. XX; ss. 493-498).

18. Defamation (Ch. XXI; ss. 499-502).

19. Criminal Intimidation, Insult and Annoyance (Ch. XXII; ss. 503-510).

20. Attempts to commit Offences(Ch. XXIII; ss. 511).

Q.11. Write a short note on applicability of IPC OR write a short note on Jurisdiction

Ans. Intra Territorial Operation of the Code : Section 2 of the IPC makes the code ap plicable to every person (whether foreigneror not) who commits an offence in India. Thus, offences committedon Indian Soil are punishable under this Code.An offence committed on the high seas (but within twelve miles from the coast of India) is punishable under this Code as being committed within the territorial limits of india.

Extra-Territorial Operation of the Code:(Section 3-4) an offence outside India may be tried as an offence commuted in India in the'following two cases, namely, when an offence is commit ted by (a) any citizen of India in anyplace without and beyond India (b) any person on any ship or aircraft registeredin India wherever it may be. Illustration : A, Who Is a citizen of India, commits amurder in Uganda. He can be tried and convicted of murder in any place of India in which he may be found. . - . . ’

PERSONS NOT LIABLE UNDER THE CODE : As seen above, every person is liable to punishment for an offence under the Cod'e committed in India, but criminal Courts have no jurisdiction to try certain persons Even if they haV£ trnsgres'sed the provisions of the Code. There are a few privileged classes of perSdnswho are notliable to be punished for any crime under the Code. These are: . ,

. . ’ . .

(1)The President and the Governor of a State: Under Article 361 of the Constitution of India, the President and the Governors of States are exempt from civil and criminal proceedings.

(2)Foreign sovereigns: A foreign Sovereign cannot be punished under the Code according to rules of International Law.

(3)Ambassadors: An Ambassador, being accredited as a representative of an independent Sovereign or State, is entitled to the same immunity which his Sovereign would be entitled to.

(4) Alien Enemies: In respect of acts of war, alien enemies cannot be tried by criminal Courts, and are to be dealt with by martial law./On the other hand if an alien enemy commits a crime not connected with war, as for instance, theft, he can be tried by the ordinary criminal courts.

(5) Foreign Army: The Armed forces Admitted to a foreign territory enjoy a limited, but not an absolute, immunity from the jurisdiction of the penal code.

(6) Warships: Men of War of a State in foreign waters are exempt from the jurisdiction of the State within territorial jurisdiction they are. •

Q.12. Section 10 [ “Man" “woman”:The word “man" denotes a male human being of any age, the word “woman" denotes a female human being of any age.| I.P.C.CHAPER- II GENERAL EXPLANATIONS |

Section 23 | “Wrongful gain”: “Wrongful gain" is gain of property to which the person gainingis not legally entitled.

‘ “Wrongful Loss": “Wrongful Loss” is*the loss of property to which the person losing it, is legally entitled. ‘ “Gaining Wrongfully* “Losing Wrongfully”: A person is said to gain wrongfully when such person retains wrongfully,as well as when such person acquires wrongfully. A person is said to loss wrong fully when such person is wrongfully kept out of any property as well as when such person is wrong fully deprivedof property;

Section 24 | “Dishonestly” Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful losS-to another person, is’said to do that thing “dishonestly".

| Section 27 | Property in possession of wife, clerk or servant- When property is in the possession of a person’s wife, clerk or servant, on account of that person, it is that person’s possession within the meaning of this Code. Explanation - A person employed temporarily or on a particular occasion in the capacity of a clerk or servant,is a clerk or servant,within the meaningof this section.

[section 29 ] “Document” - The word “document" denotes any matter expressed or described upon the substance by means of letters, figures or marks or by more than one of those means intended to be used, or which may be used, as evidence of that matter. Illustration : (1) A writing expressing the terms of a contract, is a document (2) A cheque upon a banker or a power of attorney is a document. (3) A map or plan (which»is intendedto be used or which may be used as evidence) is a document(4) A writing containing directions or instructions is a document.

Common Intention - Group Liability [ 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. Note - While explaining Group Liability, Section149 must be discussed in detail. Notes - Under section34 the liability is for the Criminalact actually done and not for the common intent as in itself it is not an offense.But, a joint and constructive liability is created for the crime committed in furtherance of "such common intention. (H.K. Singh v. State of Bihar, A1R1988 SC 2113). To prove common intention some overt act in the direction of commission of the crime alike or similar the-one done by the prime accused must be proved. (Ram Lal Sing v. State of Haryana. AIR 1992 SC 59).'

Q.13. Write a detailed note on General Exceptions How General Exceptions can be classified ?| CHAPTER IV GENERAL EXCEPTIONS |

Ans. Section 76 Act done by a parson bound (or by mistake of.fact believing himself bound)by law - Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is or who by reason of a mistake of fact (and not be. reason of a mistake of law) in good faith believes himself to be bound by law to do it. Illustration : (a) A, a soldier, fires on a mob by the order of his superior officer, in conformity with the commands of the law. A has committed no offence (b) A, an Officer of a Court of Justice being ordered by that Court to arrest Y and after due enquiry believing Z to be Y, arrests Z. A has committed no offeree.

Mistake of Fact & Mistake of Law: It is to ba remembered that mistake of law is no defence, but mistake of fact is. Everybody is bound to know the law of the land, and ignorance of the law is no excuse. This is based on the assumption that if a person exercisesdue care and diligence (e.g., byconsulting a lawyer), he would know ths law. Mere forgetfulness is not mistake. A mistake is a slip made by mischance, and not by design.

"Mistake of fact”distinguished from “mistake of law” -

(1) “Mistake of fact” is good defence to a crime. ''Mistake of la no defence.

(2) in civil law, mistakeof .fact is not an excuse; (there is strict civil liability for the mistake of fact.) In criminal law, absolute responsibility for a mistake of fact is exceptional.

When Mistake of Fact is No Defence: Though generally a mistake of fact is a defence, it is to be noted that it is no defence if the fact itself is illegal. One cannot do an illegal act and then plead ignorance of a fact. Thus, a person cannot by mistake of fact, shoot X and then plead in defence that he did not intend to kill X at all, but mistook him for Y whom he wanted to kill. The plea of mistake of fad cannot apply in such a case, because killing a person is itself illegal, and cannot be pleaded as a defence.

section 79 Act done by a person.justified or (by mistakeof fact) believinghimself justified, by law - Illustration : A sees Z commit what appears to A to be a murder. A, in the exercise to the best of his judgement, exerted in good faith, of the power which the law gives to all persons of apprehend ing murderer in the act seizes Z in order to bring Z before the proper authorities. A has committed no offence, though it mayturn out that Zwas acting in self dofence.

Section 80 Accident in doing a I awful act: Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution. Illustration : A Is at work witH a hatchet,the head fillies off and kills a man who is standing by. Here, if there was no want of proper caution on the part of A, his act Is excusable (and not an offence).

Section 81 Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm : Illustration A, in a great fire puds down houses in order to prevent the conflagration from spreading. He does this with the intention in good faith of saving human life or property. Here if it be found that the harm to be prevented was to such a nature and so imminent as to excuse A, as Act, A is not guilty of the offence.

Section 82 Act of a child undeu seven years of age : Nothing is an offence which is done by.a child under seven years of age.

Section 83 Act of child above seven yearsand under twelve of immature understanding: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequence of his conduct on that occasion.

Section ,84 Act of a personof unsound mind: Nothing is an offencewhich is done by a person who, at the time of doing it (by reason of unsoundness of mind) is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.

Section 85 Act of a person incapableof judgement by reason of intoxication caused against his will : Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law; provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.

Section 87 Act not intended-and not known to be likelyto cause death or grievous hurt done by consent. Illustration :. A and Z agree to fence with each other for amusement. This agreement implies the consent of each to suffer 4ny harm which, in the course of such fencing, may be caused withoutfoulplay, and if A, while playing fairlyhurts Z, A has committed no offence.

Section 88 ' Act not intended to cause deathdone by consent in good faith for person’s benefit - illustration A; a surgeon,knowing.that a particular operation is likelyto cause the death of Z, (who suffers under the painful comprint) but nofintdnding to cause Z’s death, and intending, in good faith, Z’s benefit, performsthat op^jation on Z, with Z’s consent.A has committed no offence.

Section 92 | Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent. Illustration : Z is carried off by a tiger. A fires at tiger knowing it to. be likely that the shot may kill Z, but not intendingto kill Z, and in good fa-th intending Z’s benefit. A's ball gives Z a mortal wound. A has committed no offence.

A is in a house which is.on f|re, with Z, a child-people below hold a blanket. A drops the child from the housetop,knowing it to be’likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child, and intending, in good faith,the. child’s benefit.Here even if the child is killed by the fall, A has committed no offence.’

Section 93 Communication made in good faith No communication made in goodfaith is

an offence by reason cf any harm to the person to who it is made, if it is made for the benefit of the person. Illustration : A, a Surgeon, in good faith communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The patient dieS'in Consequence of the shock. A had committed no offence though he knewit to be likelythat the communication might cause the patient’s death.

Section 94 Act to whicha person is compelled by threats : 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 threats,iWhich (at the time of doing it) reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that p'erson will otherwise be the consequence : Provided the person doing the act did not of his own accord (or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant death),place himself in’the’lsituation by which he became subjectto such constraint.

Explanation 1 : A person who, of his own accord, or by reason of a threat of being beaten, joins' a gang of dacoits, knowing their character, is not entitled to the benefit of this exception on the ground of his havingbeen compelled by the associates to do anythingthat is an offence by law.

Explanation 2 : A person seized by a gang of dacoits, and forced by threat of instant death to do a thing which is an offence by law, for example, a smith compelled to take his tools and to force open the door of a house for the dacoitsto enter and plunder it, is entitledto the benefit of this exception.

Section 95 Act causing slight harm (Trivial Acts): Nothing is an offence by reason that itcauses, or that it is kpewn to be likely to cause any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm. This is also known as "De minimis Non Curat Lex".

2,MULTIPLE CHOICE QUESTIONS

Q.1. Mensrea means -

(a) Guilty mind

(b) Constructive mind

(a) intention

(b) negligence

(d) any of the above.

Q.3. Mens rea is not required in criminal law in -

(a) cases of strictliability

(b) petty cases (c) cases of publicnuisance

(d) All of the above. Q.4. Ignorance of law -

(a) allowed in petty case

(b) is excusable

(d) is no exluso. Q.5. Indian Pehal Code was originally draftedin 1837 by -

(a) Salmond

(b) Lord Lindley (c) Lord Macaulay

(d) Lord Mountabattori. Q.6. I.P.C. was finally enactedand parsed in -

(a) 1839

(b) 1857

(d) 1875 Q.7.I.P.C. consist Qt how many sections? -

(a) 468

(b) 511

(d) 575

0.8. Section 2 of I.P.C. makes the code applicable to everywho commitsoffence in India

(a) Citizen of India

(b) Man

(d) person. Q.9. An offence committedon the high seas but withinmiles from the coast of India is punishable under this code -

(a) 10

(b) 12

(d) 15.

Q.10. According to Section 10 IPC a female human being of two years is a -

(a) infant

(b) child

(d) woman.

Q.11. According to Section 29 of IPC the word Document denotesexpressed or described upon the substance

(a) legal matter

(b) love letters

(d) contactual mptter.

Q.12. In the case of accident to get benefitof Section 80 IPC'which elementis required ? -

(a) doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner

(b) by lawful means \

(d) all the three.

Q.13. As per Section 82 IPC nothingis an offence which is done by child under years of age

(a) 5

(b) 7

(d) 10

Q.14. Section 93 IPC cfeals with -

(a) act of a person of unsound mind

(b) Communication made in good faith

(d) Act causingslight harm.

Q.15. The benefit of Section94 IPC will not be available if the offencecommitted is -

(a)Kidnapping

(b) theft

(d) forgery.

Q.14. The right Of private defence is the right to protect one's own body and property against the unlawful aggression of others. It is a right inherent in man and is based on the important principle that it is the first duty of man to help himself.| OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE

Section 96 Things done in private defence : Nothing is an offence which is done in the exerciseof thejight of private defence. Section 97 | Right of Private defence of the body and property : Every person has a right (subject to the restrictions contained in Section 99) to defend.

Firstly - His own body, and the body of any other person against any offence affectingthe human body :

Secondly • The property,(whether movable or immovable) of himsef or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definitionof theft, robbery,mischief or criminaltrespass or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery mischief or criminal trespass. Section 99 | Act against which there is no right of privatedefence (Limitations) : There is no right of private defence against act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievoushurt, if done, or attemptedto be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, thoughthat act may not be strictly justifiable by law.

There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.

Extent to which the right may be exercised “The right of private defence in no case ex tends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. Explanation 1 : A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done by a publicservant as such unless, he knows (or has reason to believe)that the person doing the act is such public servant. Explanation 2 : A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done by the direction of a public servant, unless he knows (or has reasons to believe) that the person doing the act is acting by such direction or unless such person states the authority under whichhe acts.'or if he has authority In writing, unless he producessuch authority if demanded.

Section 100 "vyhen'the right'of private defence of the body extends to causing death : The right of private defence of the body extends, (under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding (99) Section) to the voluntary causing o‘ death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely,

(1) Such an assault a,s.may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault,

(2) Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt {including the offence of grievous hurt punishable under Section 326A) will other wise be the consequence of such assault,

(3)'An assault with the intention of committing rape,

(4) An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust,

(5) An assault with the intention of kidnap ping or abducting

(6) An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person under the circum stances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the ‘ public authorities tor his release.

Section 102 Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body. Thethe body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.

Section 103 When the right of private defence;of property extends to causing death : The right of. private defenceof property extends,(under the restrictions mentioned In Section 99) to the voluntary causing death or of any other harm to the wrong doer if the offence, the committing of which or the attempting to commit which occasions the.exerciso of the right, bo an offepcp of any of tho descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely

(1) Robbery

(2) House breaking by night

(3) Mischief by fire committedon any building, ter.t or vessel which building tent or vessel,is used, as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property

(4) Theft, mischief or house-trespass, under such circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the conse quence,if such rightof private defenceis'not exercised. .

Section 105 [ Commencement and continuance of the right of privatedefence of property- The right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences.The right of private defence of property against theft continues till the offender has effected hisretreat with the property or either the assistance of the public authorities is obtained, or the property has been recovered.

Q.15. What is meant by abetmentof an offence ? ABETMENT

Ans. Section 107 Abetment of a thing: A person abets the doing of a thing, who:

Firstly -instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly - Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - Intentionally aids, by any-act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1 ; A person who, by willful misrepresentation, or by willfulconcealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures or attempt to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigatethe doing of that thing. Illustration: A, a public office, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justfce to apprehend Z. B knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, willfullyrepresents to A that O is Z, and therebyintentionally causes A to apprehendC Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.I

Explanation 2 : Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of.an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. Cases (i) Where a priest officiated at a bigamous marriage,it was held that he had Intentionally aided such a marriage (Emp. V. Uni) (ii) In Emo. V. Malan the accuse hold “antarpat” (Screen) during he performance of a marriage which he knew was a void marriage u/s 494 (Bigamy). This was held to amount to an act of intentional aid and therefore punishable.

| Section 108 | Abettor: A person abete.yan offence, who abets either the Commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention of knowledge a$ that of the abettor.

Explanation - To constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.

Illustration : (1) A instigates B to murder C. B refused to do so, A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder. (2) A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers from the wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit murder.

Q.16. What is criminal Conspiracy ?

Ans. | Section 120A Definition of Criminal Conspiracy: When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done

(1) and illegal act or

(2) an act (which is not illegal)by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy. Provided that no agreement (except an agreement to commit an offence)shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof.

Explanation: It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement or merely incidental to that object.

It is important to note that the mire agreement of commit an offence amounts to criminalcon spiracy, and is therefore an offence-. The offence consists simply in the agreement to do some act, no matterwhether such act is completedor not. Of course only intention is not enough. A might intend to rob Z. That is no offence,but if A and B agree so to do, it is an offence.Similarly suooose A and B agroe to commit forgery. This agreement alone (if proved) is sufficient to convict both of them of the offence of criminal conspiracy to commit forgery. Thus, the gist of the offence of conspiracy is the mere agreementto break the law.

Difference between Common Intention(34) and CriminalConspiracy (120A): Under 120A only an agreement to do an illegal act is an offence whereas under Section 34 a Criminal'act is actuallycommitted in furtherance of the commonintention of all.

Q.17. What are offences against public peace & tranquility ?

Ans. j Section 141 | Unlawful Assembly: An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly”, if the common object of the persons composingthe assembly is :

(1) To overawe (by criminal force or show of criminal force) the Central or any State Government or Parliament dr the Legislature of any State, or any public servant (in the exercise of the Lawful power of such public servant) or

(2) To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process, or

(3) To commit any mischief or criminal tfespass, or ether offence, or

(4) 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 parson 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

(5) 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 legallyentitled to do.

Explanation : An assembiy which was not unlawful when it assemble, may subsequently be come unlawful assembly.

section 146 Rioting: Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly (or by any member thereof) in prosecution of the common object of such assembiy, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.

INGREDIENTS OF 'RIOTING’: Riot is an unlawful assembly engaged in a particular activity. To constitute the offence of rioting, the following four points must be proved - (1) that the accused, being five or more in number, formed an unlawful assembly (2) that they were inspired by common unlawful object (3) that force or violence was used by the unlawful assembly (or any member of it) and (4) thatsuch force was used in prosecution of the commonobject.

Section 149 Everymember of unlawfulassembly guilty of offence committedin prosecution of the 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 me/nber of sameassembly, is guilty of that offence.

Notes - In order to convict persons vicariously liable under this section it is not necessary to prove that every member of the assembly had indulged in overt acts. There must be proof of the fact that overt act or acts 6f one or ifjore of the accused was or were done in prosecution of the common object of thewlawful assembly.' (Rambilas Singh v. State of Bihar,AIR’1989 S.C. 1593).

This section creates a specific and distinct offence and makes every rrjember of the unlawful assembly at the time of committingthe offence guilty of that offence. (Lalji v. State of U.P., AIR 1989 S.C. 754). Mere presenceof-a person make shim a member of an unlawfulassembly. (11S)

Constructive Liability :- Constructive Criminality or Constructive Liability in criminaljaw means the liabilityof a persofi for an offence which he has not actuallycommitted. An act committed by another person will be attributed to the accused if such act is done either in furtherance of the common intention or inprosecution of a common object.

Section 34 (common intention)

(1) Sec. 34 deals with common intention

(2) Under sec. 34, the act must be the result a pre-arranged plan.

(3) Under Sec. 34, the number of persons is immaterial. ’

(4) Sec..34 enunciates the principles of liability, without creating up the offence.

(5) The common intention, under Sec. 34 need not be on$of specified types only.

Section 149 (common object)

(1) Sec. 149 deals with common objects.

(2) No such requirement is prescribed by Sec'.149.,

(3) Under Sec. 149, five (or more) persons should have entertained the common object.

(4) Sec. 149 creates a specific offence.

(5) The common object must be one of the seven objects mentioned in Sec. 141.

AFFRAY & RIOTING DISTINGUISHED :

(1) An affray can be committed by two persons but a riot cannot be committed by less than five persons.

(2) An affray can be committed only in a public place while a riot may be committed in any place (public or private)

(3) An affray does not require a common object while a riot requires a common object,

(4) AriOt.can be committed only for five objects mentioned in Section 141 while an. affray.may ri3e from any object-, such object rnay even be an innocent object.

(5) An affray may be without any plan while in a riot is never so.

(6) In an affray only those who are actually involve&a’re punished while in a riot, every member of the unlawful assembly, (& also who instigate others to join) are punishable.

Q.18. Write a short note on “Public servant disobeying direction under law.”

Ans. | Section 166 [ Public servantdisobeying law, with intent to cause Injury to any person ; Whoever, being a public servant, knowinglydisobeys any directionsof the lav/ as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Illustration: A, being an officer directedby law to. take property in execution, in order to satisfy a decree pronounced in Z’s favour by a'Court c-f Justice, knowingly disobeys that direction of law, with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to*cause injury to Z, A has committed the offence definedin this section.

Section 165A Public servant disobeying direction under law : Whoever, be ing a publicservant, -

(a) knowingly disobeys arty direction of the law which prohibits him from requiring tha attendance at any place of any personfor the purposeof investigation into an offenceor any other matter, or

(b) knowingly disobeys, to the prejudice of any person, any other direction of the law regulating the manner in whichhephall conduct such investigation, or

(c) fails to record ahy information given to him under sub-section (1) of Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,. 1973 (2 of 1974) and in particular in relation to cognizable offence punishable under Section 354, Sectiuon 354-A, Section 354-B, Section 354-C, sub-section (2) of Section 354-D, Section 376, Section37^-A, Section 376-B,Section 376-C, Section376-D or Section376-E,shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.”

Q.19. section 191 giving false evidence Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by any express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement to which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false, or docs not believer to be true is said to give false evidence.

Explanation : A statement is within the meaning of this section, whether it is made verbally orotherwise.

Explanation : A false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the meaning ofthis section, and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a thing which he-does not believe,as well as by statingthat he knows a thing which he does not know.

Illustiation : (a) A, in support of a just claim which B has against Z for one thousand rupees, falsely swears on a trial he heard Z admit the justiceof B's claim. A has given false evidence.

(b) A, being bound by an oath to state the truth, states that ho believes a certain signature to be the handwriting of Z, when he does not believe it to be the handwriting of Z. Here A states that which he knowsto be fals^, and therefore gives false evidence.

(c) A, knowingthe general characterof Z’s handwriting, states that he believesa certain signa ture to be the handwriting of Z; A is good faith believing it to be so. Here A's statement is merely as to his belief, and is true as to h»s belief, and,therefore, although the signature may not be the handwriting cf Z, A has not given false evidence.

(d) A, being bound b/an oath to state the truth, states that he knows that Z was at a particular place on a particular day, not knowing anything upon the subject. A gives false evidence whether Z was at that place on the day named or not..

(e) A, an interpreter or translator, gives or certifies as a true interpretation or translation of a statement or document, which he is bound by oath to interpret or translate truly, that which is not and which he does not believe to be a true interpretation of translation. A has given false evidence.

Section 192 :- Fabricating false evidence - Whoever causesany circumstances to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record, or makes any document containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding, is said “to fabricate false evidence".-

Illustrations: (a) A puts jewelsinto a box belonging fo Z, with the intention that they may be found in that box, and that this.circurrstance may cause Z to be convicted of theft. A has fabricated false evidence.

(b) A makes a false entry in his shop-book for the purpose of using it as corroborative evidence in a Court of Justice. A has fabricated fa’se evidence.

(c) . A, with the intention of causing Z to be convicted of a criminal conspiracy, writes a letter in imitation of Z’s handwriting purporting to be addressed to an accomplice in such criminal conspiracy, and puts the letter in a place which he knows that the officers, of the police are likely to search. A has fabricated false evidence.

Q.20. State same of the offences affecting public health.

Ans. Section 259 Negligent act likely to spread Infection of disease dangerous toi Ife : Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or have reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with ifne, or with both.

[ Section 270 | Malignant act likely to spread infectionof disease dangerousto life : Whoever malignantly docs any act which is, and which.he knows or has reason to believeto be, likely description for alerm which may extend to two years,or with fine, or with both.

Section 271 Disobedience to quarantine rule : Whoever khowinglydiscbeys anyrule made and promulgated by the Government fo*r putting any vessel into a state of quarantine, or for regulating the intercourse of vessels in a state of quarantine with the shore or with other vessles, or for regulating the intercourse betweenplaces where an infectious diseaseprevails and other places,shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

Section272 Adulteration of food or drink.intended for sale : Whoever adulterates

any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intended to sell such article as food or drink, shallbe punished with imprisonment of either description for a term whichmay extend six months or wi^fi fine which may extend to one thousandrupees, or with both.

Section 273 Sale of noxious food or drink : Whoever sells, or offers or exposesfor

sale as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink knowingor having reason-tobelieve that the same is noxious as food or drink,shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extendto one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 274 Adulteration of drugs : Whoeveradulterates any drug or medical preparation in such a manner as to lessen the efficacy or change the operation of such drug or medical preparation, or to make it noxious, intending that it shall be sold or used for, or knowing it to be likely that it will be sold of used for any medicinal purpose, as if it had not undergone such adulteration,- shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend . to six months, or with fine which may extendto one thousand rupees, dr withboth.

[Section 275 [ Sale of adulterated drugs : Whoever, knowing any drug or medical preparation to have been adulterated in such a manner .as to lessen its efficacy, to change its opera tion,or to render it nox;ous,sells the same of offers or exposes it for sale, or issuesit from any dispensary for medicina! purposes as unadulterated, cr causes it to be used for medical purposes by any person not knowing of the adulteration, shall be punished with impriosnment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with/inewhich may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. " • '

Q.21.When culpable homicide is not amounting to murder ? Discuss with illustrations.

Section 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 tb^ause death, commits the offence of culpable homi cide. .

Illustration : (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 knew 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 ktfl 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 (maF es speedy) the death of that other, shall be . deemed to havecaused 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 skillful treatment the death miaht have haan

'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.

ree — Law of Crimes Indian Penal Code Questions With Answers

LAWtool

Law of Crimes SHORT NOTES :-Indian Penal Code important (Q&A)

Law of Crimes Indian Penal Code Questions With Answers

Related Posts

Comments