INDIAN PENAL CODE

I. Origin of criminal law

 There was no criminal law in uncivilized society. The tooth for a
tooth, an eye for an eye, a life for a life. Was the forerunner of
criminal justice.
 The criminal jurisprudence came into existence in India from the
time of mannu. Mannu has recognized assault, theft, robbery, false
evidence, slander, criminal breach of trust, cheating, adultery and
rape.

II. Development of modern criminal law in India

 After the successful trade of the portages and Dutch people, Queen
Elizabeth granted the charter in 1600 to trade around the world
include India.
 After issuing the first charter various other charters were issued to
trade which subsequently became rule and laws of the country.

III. History of IPC

 The first law commission prepared the draft of IPC, by Thomas
Macaulay in 1834.
 The draft was submitted to Governor-General of India council in
1835.
 The final draft of IPC was submitted to Governor-General of India
council in 1837, but it was again revised.
 The drafting was completed in1850 and code was presented to the
Legislative council in 1856, but it did not take its place on the stature
book of British India.
  The draft then underwent in revision to Barnes peacock (first Chief
Justice of Calcutta High Court).
 The code was passed by Legislative Council, and was became law
on 6 October 1860. The code came into operation on 1 January 1862.

IV. CRIME
 An Act punishable by law as forbidden by statutes or injunction to
the public welfare.
 Blackstone defined crime as an act committed or omitted in
violation of a public law either forbidding or commanding it.
 Anything which is injurious to public welfare is a crime.
The word crime is derived from the Greek word krimos, which means social
order. It is also derived from a Latin word meaning to accuse. Combining
the modern meaning of both the roots, crime is a most validly accusable act.

 Element of Crime
1. Human Being
2. Intention
3. Motive
4. Mens rea
5. Knowledge
6. Innocence
7. Mistake of law
8. Mistake of fact
9. Actus Reus
10.Injury
1) Human Being
 The first element requires that the wrongful act must be committed
by a human being. If an animal causes an injury we hold not the
animal liable but its owner liable for such injury.
 The act must have been done by a human being before it can
constitute a crime punishable at law.
 Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code says that word ‘person’
includes a company or association or body of persons whether
incorporated or not. The word ‘person’ includes artificial or
judicial persons.

2) Intention
 The purpose or design of doing an act forbidden by the criminal
law without just cause or excuse.
 The word intent does not mean ultimate aim and object, nor is it
used as a synonym for motive.
 If a person kills another, the intention directs the act which causes
death, the motive is object which the person has in view. E.g the
satisfaction of some desire, such as revenge etc.
 Intention is the purpose or design with which an act is done.

3) Mens Rea
 An act in order to be a crime must be committed with a guilty
mind. There can be no crime of any nature without mens rea or an
evil mind.
  The basic requirement of the principle mens rea is that the accused
must have been aware of those elements in his act which make the
crime with which he is charged.
 Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea (the guilty intention and
guilty act together constitute a crime.). No person could be
punished in a proceeding of criminal nature unless it can be shown
that he had a guilty mind
 For any criminal liability there must be a voluntary act. This was
derived from maxim actus me invite factus non est mens actus (an
act done by me against my will is not my act). No person will held
liable for an act done under fear or compulsion.

4) Actus Reus (act committed or omitted)

 A human being and an evil intent are not enough to constitute a
crime. The thought of a man is not triable.
 An omission must be in breach of a legal duty.
 Section 43 of IPC says that the word illegal is applicable to
everything which is an offence, prohibited by law.

5) Injury
 Section 44 of the IPC defines Injury as ‘any harm whatever
illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or
property.’

 Causes of crime
 Lack of education
 Poverty
 Alcoholism and Drugs
  Television
 Mental abnormality
 Religion

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Section 1 Title and extend of operation of the code.

All offences under IPC,1860 shall be investigate, inquired

into, tried and otherwise dealt with according to the
provision of CrPC,1973.1

Section 2 Punishment of offences committed within India.

 Every person shall be liable to punishment under this Code

and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the
provisions thereof, of which, he shall be guilty within India.
 Section 2 read with sec.4 of IPC
 Every person (whether foreigner or not) is made liable to
the punishment, without distinction of nation, rank, caste or
creed2 for the offence for the offence committed by them
within India. A foreigner cannot be allowed to plead that he
did not know that the act he was doing was wrong, because
of the act not being an offence in his own country.3

1
IPC,RD,36th edition,p.no.2
2
IPC,RD,36th edition,p.no.2
3
IPC, S.N. Misra, 21st edition,p.no.71
  A foreigner who commits an offence within India is guilty
and can be punished without any limitation as to his
corporeal presence in India at the time.45
 Certain person are immune to this act are:-
i. Foreign Sovereigns
ii. High dignitaries of the state (the president of India
and the governors of the state, article 361 of the
constitution provides the same)
iii. Ambassadors and diplomats { United Nations
Privileges and Immunities Act, 1947 and the
diplomatic Relations (Vienna Conventions) Act,
1972, gave certain diplomats, missions and their
members diplomatic immunity even from criminal
jurisdiction}6
iv. Alien enemies (Alien Enemies cannot be tried by the
criminal court. They only be tried for the offences
related other than the war)
v. Foreign army
vi. Warship
vii. Corporation
viii. Vicarious liability of master for the act of his servants

 Article 1 of the constitution deals with the geographical

territory and Article 297of the same deals with the maritime
territory.
Section 3 Punishment for the offences committed beyond, but which
by law may be tried within India.
4
IPC, S.N. Misra, 21st edition,p.no.71
5
Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1957 S.C 857
6
IPC,RD,36th edition,p.no.4
  Any person liable, by any Indian law to be tried for an
offence committed beyond India shall be dealt with
according to the provisions of this Code for any act
committed beyond India in the same manner as if such act
had been committed within India.
 Section 3 and 4 relates to the extraterritorial operation of the
code.
 This section provides that an act constituting an offence in
India shall also be an offence when committed outside
India.
 Example.
Section 4 Extension of the code to extra-territorial offences .
 The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence
committed by—
[(1) any citizen of India in any place without and beyond
India;
(2) any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India
wherever it may be.]
[(3) any person in any place without and beyond India
committing offence targeting a computer resource located
in India.]
 Where and offence is committed beyond the limits of India
but he offender is found within its limits, then
i. He may be given up for the trial in the country where
the offence was committed (extradition) or
ii. He may be tried in India (extraterritorial
jurisdiction)
  Extradition is the surrender by one state to another of a
person desired to be dealt with for crimes of which he has
been accused or convicted.
 Extraterritorial jurisdiction Indian courts have power to
try offences committed outside India
i. Land
ii. High Seas (Admiralty Jurisdiction)
It is founded on the principle that a ship on the high
seas is considered to be a floating island belonging
to the country whose national flag she is flying.
 Offences committed on Indian ships on the
high seas.
 Offences committed on foreign ship in Indian
territorial waters.
 Piracy.
Private ships without authorization of ship
iii. Aircraft
 Section 4 of IPC and section 188(offece committed
outside India) of CrPC will read together.

Section 5 Certain laws not to be affected by this Act

 The personnel of the Army, Navy and Air force are
governed by the provision of the Army Act,1950, The
Navy Act,1957, and The Indian Air Force Act, 1950 in
regard to offences of mutiny and desertion committed by
them7
 Provision of special or local law (section 41 and 42)

7
UOI v. Anand singh bisth, AIR 1997 SC 361 and in RD
 CHAPTER II
GENERAL EXPLANATION
(Section 6 to 52 A)

Section 21 Public Servant

 This section gives an exhaustive list of certain types of
person who are designated as public servants.
 Person are held to be public servants are given in the
book, bare act as well as RD
 Chapter 9 (Section 166 to 171) deals of offences by or
relating to public servants.
 Chapter 11 (Section 172 to 190) deals with contempt of
lawful authority of public servants.

Section 34 Act done by several person in furtherance of common

intention
 Criminal act is done by several person
 Such act is done in furtherance of the common intention of
all
 Each of such person is liable for the act in the same
manner as if it were done by him alone.8
 But it is not necessary that all such persons should be
named and identified before the liability under section 34
of the IPC can be invoked9

8
Bharendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor AIR 1925 (In this case the judicial committee dealed with the
scope ofsection 34 dealing with the acts done in furtherance of the common intention, making all equally
liable for the results of all the acts of others )
9
Killer thiayagu v. state AIR 2017 SC 612
  Physical presence at the very spot is not always a
necessary ingredient to attract the action.10
 Section 24 and 149 talks about the same
 Section 34 does not fix a min. no. of person shares the
common intention, but sec. 149 requires that there must be
at least five person who must have the same common
object.
 Mehbub shah vs. King Emperor In this case court held
that sec. 34 lays down a principle of joint liability in the
doing of a criminal act. The section does not say “the
common intention of all” nor does it say “intention
common to all”. Under the sec the essence of that liability
is to be found in the existence of a common intention
animating the accused leading to the doing of a criminal
act in furtherance of such intention.
Section 35 When such an act is criminal by reason of its being
done with a criminal knowledge or intention.

Section 40 Offence
 Offence means an act or instance of offending, commit
an illegal act and illegal means, contrary to or
forbidden by law.
 Offence means which is punishable by this code.
 Commission or omission of which is prohibited,
renders the person who commits or omits it liable for
punishment.

10
Shreelantiah ramayya v. state of Bombay AIR 1955 SC 287 (he need not be present in the actual room,
he can for instance, stand guard by a gate outside ready to warn his companion about any approach of danger
or wait in a car nearby road ready to facilitate their escape.)
 CHAPTER III
PUNISHMENT
(Section 53-75)

Section 53 Punishment
 The object of punishment
 1692358193

PUNISHMENT
(53-75)

Forfeiture of
Death Fine
Imprisonment Property
(53) (63-70)
(53)

Riforous Simple Solitory

(60) (60) (73-74)

1. Death:- Death sentence may be awarded under the IPC in the following
cases:
i. Waging war against the state (S.121)
ii. Abetting mutiny actually committed (S.132)
iii. Giving of fabricating false evidence upon which an innocent
person suffers death (S.194)
 iv. Murder (S.302)
v. Abetment of suicide of and insane person (S.305)
vi. Attempt of merder by life convicts (S.307 part 2)
vii. Kidnapping for ransom,etc. (364A)
viii. Causing death or resulting in persistent vegetative sate of rape
victim (S.376A)
ix. Repeat offenders of offences punishable under section 376 or
section 376 A or section 376 D
x. Dacoity with murder (S.369)

 It may noted that court is not compulsory bound to award a death

sentences in the above cased, but it may do so. Except S. 303.
 Supreme court in Mithu vs. State of Punjab AIR 1983 SC 473 said
the section 303 of IPC is void and unconstitutional being violative of
both Article 14 and 21 of the constitution.
 The Supreme Court Bachan Singh VS. State of Punjab a five judge
constitutional bench, has, however, laid down that the death penalty
is to be inflicted, even when so allowed by law, only in the ‘rarest of
the rare cases’.11
 Guidelines for “rarest of rare case” in Machhi Singh and others
VS. State of Punjab, as:-
 Manner of commission of murder
 Motive for commission of murder
 Anti social or socially abhorrent nature of the crime
 Magnitude of crime when the crime is enormous in proportion
 Personality of victim of murder

11
Bachan Singh VS. State of Punjab
  Section 354 (3) of CrPC mandates the Court convicting a person for
an offence punishable with death or, in the alternative with
imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of years, not to
impose the sentence of death on that person unless there are “special
reason” to be recorded for such sentences.

2. Imprisonment:- It can be of three type.

IMPRISONMENT

Simple Rigorous Solitary

 Section 54 provides ‘Commutation of sentence of death’, where

the appropriate govt. can commute the death senctence into other
punishment provided under this act.
 Cases where death sentences was modified are as follows:-
i. Subhash chander vs. krishnlal
ii. Shri Bhagwan vs. State of Rajasthan
iii. Bajendra singh vs. state of MP
 Section 55 provides ‘Commutation of imprisonment for life’,
where the appropriate govt. can commute the imprisonment of life
to a term not exceeding 14 years.
 Section 57 provides ‘fraction of terms of punishment’, which
means fraction of terms of life imprisonment shall be reckoned as
equivalent for 20 years. However it does not in any way limits the
punishment of imprisonment of life to a term of 20 years.
  Section 60 offences punishable with imprisonment may be wholly
rigorous, wholly simple, some part is rigorous and rest is simple.
 Solitary confinement means keeping a prisoner thoroughly
isolated from any kind of contact with the outside world. Section
73-74 deals with certain important provisions relating to solitary
confinement.
 Punishment for solitary confinement is very rarely inflicted.

3. Forfeiture of property:- Punishment of Forfeiture of property now

abolished, which is section 61-62. However there are three sections in
which offender is liable to forfeiture of specific property. They are
 Section 126(committing depredation on territories to power at
peace with the government of India),
 Section 127(receiving property taken by war on depredation
mentioned in sections 125 and 126),
 Section 169(public servant unlawfully buying or bidding for
property).

4. Fine:- Section 63 where no sum of fine is expressed, the amt. of fine is

unlimited, but shall not be excessive.
 Page no. 69-70 RD
Q
 Chapter IV
General Exceptions
(S.76-106)

Exceptions of offences:-
Exceptions

Absence of Right of
Mistake of criminal Act done by Private
Judicial Act, Accident Trifling Act
Fact., an act intention consent defence
namely,- (S.80) (S.95)
of a person (S.81-86, 92- (S.87-91)
94)
act of an communiacat of property
Judtified by act done to of body
Bound by lay act of lunatic intoxicated ion made in (S.96-
law to do it avoid other act of a child (S.96-102,
to do it (S.76) (S.84) person (S.85- good faith 99,101,103-
(S.79) harm (S.81) 104,106)
86) (S.93) 105)
above seven
and under
an act under seven twelve of
pursuant to year (S.82) immature
an order of a understandin
an act of a judge (S. 78)
Judge (S.77) g (S.83)

 All the above kinds of acts done under the circumstances mentioned in S.
76-106 will not amount to offences under the code. In other words, these
acts are exempted from the category of offences under the IPC.
 According to S.105 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 When a person is
accused of any offence, the burden of prove will lie on him that whether
he lies under general exception in IPC.

1. Mistake of Fact
i. Believing himself Bound by law to do it. (S.76)
 Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who owing to
mistake of fact, and not a mistake of law, in good faith,
believes himself to be bound by law to do it.
 Illustration: A, an officer of a court of justice, being ordered
by the court to arrest Y and after due enquiry, believing Z to be
Y, arrests Z. A has committed no offence.
 Mistake of law is no offence, but mistake of fact is.
 In India it is presumed that law is known to everyone.
 ii. Believing himself that it is justified by law. (S.79)
 A

2. Judicial Act
i. An act of judge when acting judicially. (S.77)
Any act done by a judge while acting judicially is no offence.
Thus, a judge who sentence a prisoner to death is not himself
liable to be punished for having caused somebody’s death. If it
were otherwise, it would lead to utter chaos.

ii. Act done in pursuant of any judgment or order of court. (S.78)

An act done pursuant to the judgment or order of a court of justice
is no offence. If it were to be an offence the hangman who hangs
the prisoner pursuant to the order of the judge, would also have to
be hanged. This would also be equally absurd.

3. Accident (S. 80)

Nothing is offence which is done by accident or misfortune-
a. Without criminal intention or knowledge,
b. In the doing of a lawful act,
o In lawful manner,
o By lawful means, and
o With proper care and caution.

 An effect is said to be accidental when the act by which it is caused is

not done with the intention of causing it.

Ingredients of S. 80

o Act was an accident or misfortune;

o It was not accompanied by any criminal intention;
o It was the outcome of a lawful act, and this lawful act must be
done.
4. Absence of criminal intent (S. 81-85 and 92-94)
 Criminal intention means the purpose or design of doing an act forbidden by
criminal law without just cause or excuse. Now, there are certain act which
appear to be criminal, but are done without criminal intent. It is but fair that
such acts should not be penalized. They are, therefore, rightly exempted
from the category of ‘offences’. Act which comes under this act are as
follow:-
i. Act done to avoid other harm (S. 81)
ii. Act of a child,~
 Under seven year (S. 82)
 Above seven and under twelve year, but of immature
understanding (S. 83)
iii. Act of lunatic (S. 84)
iv. Act of an intoxicated person (S. 85-86)
v. Bona fide act for another’s benefit (S. 92)
vi. Communication made in good faith (S.93)
vii. Act done under compulsion or threat (S.94)
{except murder, and offences against the state punishable with death,
nothing is offence which is done by a person in this section.}

5. Act done by consent. (S.87-91)