PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

ASSIGNMENT OF INDIAN PENAL

CODE

TOPIC- OFFENCES AGAINST

HUMAN LIFE

SUMITTED TO- SUBMITTED BY- KRITI

VERMA
MR. SUNEEL KUMAR
2ND YEAR
FACULTY OF LAW
BBA-LLB (SEC-A)
ICFAI LAW SCHOOL
19FLICDDN01058

1
PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This assignment would not have been possible without the indispensable and gracious
support of our faculty of IPC Prof. Sunil Kumar. His support and guidance play an
important role in completing my assignment. I would also like to thank him for the
motivation he used to give us through our entire semester.

The competition of this undertaking could not have been possible without the participation
and assistance of so many people whose name could not at all enumerate. Their contributions
are sincerely appreciated and gratefully acknowledged. However, I would like to express my
deep appreciation and indebtedness to the following:

To all my friends and others who in one way or another shared their support either physically,
financially or mentally, thank you.

Above all, to the great almighty, the author of knowledge and wisdom, for his countless love.

I thank you.

KRITI VERMA

2
PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

INDEX

S.NO. TOPIC PAGE NO.

1 INTRODUCTION 4
2 UNIT-1, OFFENCES AFFECTING 4
LIFE
3 UNIT-2, OF HURT 20
4 UNIT-3, WRONGFUL RESTRAINT & 24
WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT
5 UNIT-4, OF CRIMINAL FORCE & 28
ASSAULT
6 UNIT-5, KIDNAPPING & 41
ABDUCTION
7 UNIT-6, SEXUAL OFFENCES 45
8 CONCLUSION 46
9 BIBLIOGRAPY 47

3
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

INTRODUCTION

In India, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 was introduced which contains various provisions to
provide punishments for different offences committed within the scope of the Act. The word
offence includes any act committed outside India, if committed in India would be punishable

In the degradation of society, human beings often attempt or cause the death of the other
human body for many reasons as they consider themselves to be superior among all so an act
that affects the life of any human body is defined and punishable under this code. In India,
the judges have been provided wide discretion in interpreting various offences defined under
this act and awarding appropriate punishment or sentences according to the given
circumstances of the case provided.

Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code explicates numerous offences that bode harsh or
justifiable punishment that the offender deserves. Section 299- 377 are covered under
offences affecting the human body, and they are explained below so as to produce more
lucidity to the topic.

NOTE: - The following link is being attached by me herein in order to view the explanations
of various sections of the bare act under IPC: https://devgan.in/ipc/chapter_16.php#s299

UNIT I- Of Offences Affecting Life

SEC- 299, CULPABLE HOMICIDE

1. MEANING OF HOMICIDE

Homicide means killing of a human being by a human being. It is the highest order of
bodily injury that can be inflicted on a human body.

The following image lists types of homicides.

4
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

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 to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide.

Illustrations-

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 know it. A, intending to cause, or knowing
it to be likely to cause Z’ 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 kill B or to cause death by
doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.

2. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS

a. Whoever causes Death-

It is immaterial if the person whom the accused intended to kill was not killed but some other
person. The death was could be caused by words deliberately used by a person. For example,
a seriously ill may die by hearing some agitating words.

The death result as a proximate and not a remote consequence of the act of violence. There
should not be the intervention of any considerable change of circumstances between the act
of violence and the death. Where the victim died three weeks after the occurrence due to
negligence on his part and sepsis consequent to the bad handling of the wound, this section
was held not attracted.

b. By doing an act with the intention of causing death –

It is important to note as done to extend illegal omission also. Intention is a question of fact
which is to be gathered from the acts of the parties (viz nature of the weapon used, the part of
the body on which the blow was given, the force and number of blows, etc.). The legal
maxim is that everyone must be presumed to intend the normal consequences of his act.
Intention does not imply or assume the existence of some previous design, it means an actual
intention, the existence intention of the moment. Causing serious injury on a vital part of the
body of the deceased with a dangerous weapon must necessarily, lead to inference that the
accused intended to kill.

c. With the intention he intended of causing such bodily injury as is likely to

cause death

5
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

It means an intention to cause an injury, which injury is, or tums out to be one
likely to cause death. It is not the death itself which is intended nor the effect of
the injury. Thus, where bodily injury enough to cause death is caused, it is
immaterial to go into the question of whether the accused had intention to cause
death. For example, where a person falsely arrested in a dacoity case, and
mercilessly beaten at the police station which resulted in his death; beating for
exorcising evil spirit resulting in death.
d. With the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death –

Knowledge in comparison to intention is a strong word and imports a certainty and not
merely a probability. Intention is the purpose or design with which an act is done. It is the
fore knowledge of the act coupled with the desire of it. Knowledge is an awareness of the
consequences of the act. A person who voluntarily inflicts injury such as to endanger life
must always, except in the most extraordinary circumstances, be taken to know that he is
likely to cause death. For example, when the accused fired his gun in the air to scare away the
opposite party and in the act one stray pellet caused gunshot wound to a person killing him.

The word ‘knowledge’ includes all cases of rash acts by which death is caused, imports a
knowledge of the likely result of an act which the actor does in spite of risk. In some cases,
gross negligence may amount to knowledge. For example, where the accused kills a person
by hitting him under the belief that he was hitting at a ghost.

EXPLANATION 1-

After causing the death, the accused will not be allowed to raise the plea, that the victim dies
due to disease from which he was suffering. It is important that the accused know that
condition of the deceased was such that his act was likely to cause that when the accused has
no knowledge of victim’s ailment the accused held guilty of grievous hurt.

EXPLANATION 2-

After causing death, the accused wont be allowed to raise the plea, that victim died because
of lack of good medical treatment. Even the fact that victim dies because of wrong treatment
could not resolve the accused of his guilt if victim dies as a result of the original injuries as
well as the operation the accused will be guilty.

EXPLANATION 3-

Causing death of a child in a womb is not culpable homicide. But where a part of the body of
the baby comes out of the mother, then death caused will definitely amount to culpable
homicide.

3. CASE LAW

Palani Goundan v Emperor [1919 ILR 547 (Mad)]- The accused struck his on the head with
a ploughshare, which made her unconscious. Believing her to be dead, in order to lay the

6
PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

foundation of a false defense of suicide by hanging the accused hanged her. The hanging
causes the death.

OBSERVATION-

The court observed that the intention of the accused must be judged not in the light of actual
circumstances but in the light of what he supposed to be the circumstances. It follows that a
man is not guilty of culpable homicide if his intention was directed only to what he believed
to be a lifeless body. It was held that that used cannot be convicted of culpable homicide or
murder, but for the offence of grievous hurt and attempt to create false evidence by hanging
his wife (However the accused could be guilty of murder if he had an intention to kill the
deceased when the deceased was alive).

Death caused without “requisite intention on knowledge” is not culpable homicide [see
illustration (c)]. In the absence of intention or knowledge the offence committed maybe hurt
or grievous hurt. It may be noted that ordinarily without Corpus Delicit (that is dead body of
the victim), it is dangerous to convict. However, if there is strong evidence the accused can
be convicted.

Sameer Singh Case (1941)- A gave blows on head of B which he intended or knew to be
likely to smash the victim’s skull. A would be taken to have known that he was likely to
cause death of B, A was therefore guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

SEC 304, PUNISHMENT FOR CULPABLE HOMICIDE NOT AMOUNTING TO

MURDER

SEC 304- Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be
punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the
death is caused is done with the intention of causing death. or of causing such bodily
injury as is likely to cause death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the
knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to
cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.

This section provides punishment for two separate degrees of culpable homicide depending
upon intension to cause death or a bodily injury likely to cause death under para 1 &
knowledge that the act is likely to cause death under para 2.

In a case, Shanmugam v. State of T.N the accused was charged under S.299, 300, and 304.
The court while awarding the punishment held that the accused stabbed the deceased in his
chest due to which he died so the intention and knowledge could be clearly established from
the facts of the case. The accused was convicted under section 304 (1) of IPC.1860.

SEC-300, MURDER

7
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder —

(1) If the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing
death, or
(2) If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender
knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused.
or
(3) If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the
bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of
nature to cause death, or
(4) If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it
must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause
death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing
death or such injury as aforesaid.

Illustrations

(a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits
murder.
(b) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause
his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in
consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have
been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in
a sound state of health. But if A, not knowing that Z is labouring under any
disease, gives him such a blow as would not in the ordinary course of nature kill
a person in a sound state of health, here A, although he may intend to cause
bodily injury, is not guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause death, or such
bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause death.
(c) A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club-wound sufficient to cause the death of
a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here A is guilty of
murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z’ death.
(d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one
of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated
design to kill any particular individual.

1. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS FOR AN ACT TO BECOME MURDER

i. When an act is done with the intention of causing death.

The degree of intention required is very high for murder. There must be intention present
and the intention must be to cause the death of the person, not only harm or grievous hurt
without the intention to cause death.

Instances would include:

• Shooting someone at point blank range.

8
PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

• Stabbing someone in the hurt

• Hanging someone by the neck till he dies
• Strapping a bomb on someone
• Administering poison to someone.

Remember the act must be accompanied with the intention to "cause death."

CASE LAW- Bhupinder singh v. state of Punjab 1988scr (3) 409.

ii. Inflicting of bodily injury which the offender knows is likely to cause death
The second situation covers instances where the offender has special knowledge about the
victim's condition and causes harm in such a manner which causes death of the person.
Look at this part of Section 300 very carefully. It states that the offender "knows likely to
be the cause of death"

Instances would include:

• Sundar is a haemophilic patient. Bandar knows this and cuts him in multiple places,
which if carried out on an ordinary person would not have cost him his life.
• Lolo is suffering from jaundice. Bebo knows this and slips in alcohol in Lolo's medicine
in order to rupture Lolo's liver so Lolo dies. Lolo dies as a result of consuming the
adulterated medicine.

CASE LAW- Rahaman samail v. emperor (AIR 1939 Lah 2450)

iii. Bodily injury which causes death in the ordinary course of nature
These situations cover such acts where there is bodily injury which in ordinary sequence
of events leads to the death of the person. Read the part of the section carefully. The
section actually has two conditions. Firstly, the bodily injury inflicted is inflicted with the
intention of causing death of the person on whom it is inflicted. Secondly, the bodily
injury caused in the ordinary course of events leads to death of someone.

An instance of the same would be:

• Musharraf wants Sharif dead. In order to kill Musharraf picks up a hockey stick and
repeatedly hits him on the head. Sharif dies as a result of the injury.

CASE LAW- In Rajwant Singh vs State of Kerala AIR 1966 SC 1874-

While committing a burglary, death took place as a direct result of the acts of the accused
(the nostrils of the victim where closed and he died of breathlessness).

OBSERVATION- It was held that thirdly was attracted. In other case, there was an
intention to cause an injury to the victim. A single knife blow was administered, which
accidentally fell upon the left shoulder cutting a boon through it and tearing up vital
arteries which came in the path of the knife. The injury was sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature to cause death. Held that to come under thirdly of section 300, the
intention to cause the requisite type of injury is absolutely necessary.
9
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

In Gurmail Singh vs State of Punjab 1982 Cr.LJ 1946(SC)-

When A attempted to intervene to save B and C from further harm a barcha was given by
accused D which landed on A. There was nothing to indicate in the evidence that D ever
intended to cause any injury to A.
HELD BY COURT- It was held that it could not be said that accused D intended to cause
that particular bodily injury which in fact was found to have been caused. It does not
matter that injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Thirdly
was not attracted.

iv. Commission of an imminently dangerous act without any legitimate reason which
would cause death or bodily injury which would cause death.
This head covers the commission of those acts which are so imminently dangerous which
when committed would cause death or bodily injury which would result in death of a
person and that such an act is done without any lawful excuse. Cases under this head have
three requirements. Commission of an inherently dangerous act the knowledge that the
act in all probability will cause death or bodily injury which will cause death and the act
is done without any excuse (the excuse must be lawful or legitimate excuse)

Instances would include:

• Throwing a high intensity bomb in a crowded public place.
• Thrown loaded cast iron boxes from a multi storied building in a busy thoroughfare.
Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder

CASE LAWS-

In Emperor v. Dhirajia, AIR 1940 All.486-

In the above case, a woman jump into a well with a baby in her arms due to panic of
fright caused by the incoming husband with whom she had quarrelled.

HELD-The court held that the act of Jumping into a well with a baby in one arm was so
imminently dangerous and act that however primitive a person may be and however
frightened he or she may be, the knowledge of the likely consequences must be supposed
to have remained with him or her.

The court held it to be a case of culpable homicide. However, she had an excuse and that
excuse was panic or fright. Thus, the clause 4 was not attracted. She was held guilty of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder under section 304.

However, in Gyarsibai v State (AIR 1953 M.B.61)- Where the women jump into a river
with her three children as her life had become unbearable on account of family discord. It
was held that there was no excuse for the accused for incurring the risk of causing death
of a children. Thus the case was held to be covered under clause 4 of section 300.

2. EXCEPTIONS TO OFFENCE OF MURDER

10
PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

 These are considered as ‘specific exceptions’ & are different from general exceptions.
 They are just used as mitigating factors & do not hold the accused completely non-
guilty.
 They are applicable when burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt established.

Exception 1, GRAVE AND SUDDEN Provocation

1. When culpable homicide is not murder – Culpable homicide is not murder if the
offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden
provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes
the death of any other person by mistake or accident.

The above exception is subject to the following provisos:

Provisos

1. That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an

excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.

2. That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by
a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.

3. That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the
right of private defence.

EXPLANATION OF EXCEPTION 1-

The Code has listed under Exception 1 to section 300, I.P.C. the circumstances under which
the offence of murder will be reduced to 'culpable homicide not amounting to murder'
punishable under section 304, I.P.C. if the murder is committed or provocation adduced by
the deceased. The following conditions must be complied with in order to invoke the benefit
of this clause: --

(1) The deceased must have given provocation to the accused.

(2) The provocation must be such as would deprive any reasonable man of his power of self-
control over himself.

(3) The act of killing of the accused must have been done when he was deprived of his power
of self-control by the grave and sudden provocation. It must be done under the immediate
impulse of provocation.

(4) The offender must not have reflected, deliberated or cooled, between the provocation and
the mortal stroke. Thus, there must not be sufficient time for the passion caused by the

11
PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

provocation to cool down and reason to reassert its control; Datta Gem v. State of
Maharashtra, MANU/SC/0102/1973: AIR 1974 SC 387.

(5) The offender must have caused the death of the person who gave the provocation or that
of any other person by mistake or accident.

The First exception is however subject to three exceptions:

(a) Where the accused courts provocation or merely uses it as an excuse for assaulting
another. In other words, provocation must come to him and he must not seek to get
provocation.

(b) Where the act is legal but is done in an illegal manner which offers sufficient provocation,
killing in pursuant there is no murder.

(c) A person who acts in the exercise of his right of self-defence performs a legal act and may
provoke another and if he retaliates on account of the provocation so received, it will not be
an extenuation of this crime.

K.M Nanavati vs State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605 -

In the above case, the wife confessed to husband for of illicit intimacy with one Ahuja. The
accused drove his wife and children to a cinema, left them and went to his ship, took a
revolver, drove his car to Ahuja's flat and short him dead. Between his wife’s confession and
Ahuja's Murder, 3 hours hard elapsed, and therefore the accused had sufficient time to regain
his self-control. His conduct clearly shows that the murder was a deliberate and calculated
one. Consequently, exception 1 do not apply.

Exception 2, Right of Private Defense

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

Illustrations

1. Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A.

A draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he
can by no other means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead.
A has not committed murder, but only culpable homicide.

EXPLANATION OF EXCEPTION 2-

12
PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

Exception 2 to section 300, I.P.C. is applicable to those cases wherein a person exceeds the
right of private defence. If the excess is intentional, the offence is murder, if unintentional, it
is culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

It is a cardinal principle of the law of right of private defence that the accused must be free
from fault in bringing about an encounter; there must be present an impending peril to life or
of great bodily harm, either real or apparent. The right of private defence is purely preventive
and not punitive or retributive; Kirpal Singh v. State, AIR 1951 SC 137.

Exception 3, Exercise of Legal Powers

Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a
public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to
him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be
lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and
without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.

EXPLANATION TO EXCEPTION 3-

This exception has been provided to protect a public servant or a person aiding a public
servant, if either of them exceeds the power given for the advancement of public justice. This
exception clause will not apply if the act is illegal or against public policy and not authorised
by law, or the person glaringly exceeds the power given to him by law. However, to invoke
this exception it must fulfil the following:

(1) The person accused must be a public servant.

(2) He must believe in good faith that the act which resulted in the death was lawful and
necessary for the due discharge of his duties.

Where a suspected thief who has been arrested by a police officer escapes by jumping down
from the train from its off side and the police officer finding

that he is not in a position to apprehend him, shoots at him but in doing so hits the fireman
and kills him; it was held that the case is covered by exception 3 to section 300, I.P.C. and the
accused is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder; Dukhi Singh v. Slate,
MANU/UP/0109/1955: AIR 1955 All 379.

Exception 4, Sudden Quarrel

Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden

fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender’ having
taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

Explanations

13
PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

1. It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the
first assault.

EXPLANATION TO EXCEPTION 4-

In this exception, if the death is caused without pre-meditation in a sudden fight in the heat of
passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender's having taken undue advantage or
acted in cruel or unusual manner. It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the
provocation or commits the first assault. The conditions necessary for the application of this
exception; Subhash Shamrao Pachunde v. State of Maharashtra, IV (2005) CCR 316 (SC),
are: -

(i) There must be a sudden fight;

(ii) The act must have been committed in a heat of passion;
(iii) The act must have been committed without pre-meditation;
(iv) The accused must not have taken undue advantage;
(v) The accused should not have acted in a cruel manner; and
(vi) The fight must have been with the person killed.

Exception 5, Death by Consent

Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above
the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.

Illustrations

1. A, by instigation, voluntarily causes Z, a person under eighteen years of age, to

commit suicide. Here, on account of Z’ youth, he was incapable of giving consent
to his own death; A has therefore abetted murder.

EXPLANATION TO EXCEPTION 5-

This last exception to section 300, I.P.C. deals with causing death by consent which is
nowadays very popular in terms of 'euthanasia' (mercy killing). The exception is justified on
the ground that a man's life is not only valuable to himself, but also to the State.

The infliction of harm with the consent of the sufferer falls in the general exception (Sections
87 to 93) but under those sections death cannot be consented to. But under this exception if
death consented to, then in such a case the person who kills shall be guilty of culpable
homicide but not murder. The person giving such a consent must be above 18 years of age.
This exception has to be strictly construed. Unless all the facts and circumstances are taken
into account by the person who consents to be killed this Exception cannot be invoked. The
consent must be unconditional.

Dasrath Paswan case

14
PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

In Dasrath Paswan v. State of Bihar, MANU/BH/0071/1958: AIR 1958 Pat 190 the accused
was a student of class X. He had failed at the annual examination for three years in
succession. The accused was very upset and depressed. He took his last failure so much to
heart that he decided to end his life and informed his wife, an illiterate woman of about 19
years of age, of his decision. His wife asked him first to kill her and then kill himself. In
accordance with the pact the accused killed his wife first, but was arrested before he could
kill himself. It was held by the Supreme Court that, the deceased was above the age of 18
years and that she had suffered death with her own consent. The deceased did not give the
consent under the fear of injury, nor under

SEC- 302, PUNISHMENT FOR MURDER

Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and
shall also be liable to fine.

In Mithu v. State of Punjab (AIR 1993 SC 473), the constitutional validity of sec 302 was
challenged on the ground that it violates article 21 of the constitution.

SEC- 304A, CAUSING DEATH BY NEGLIGENCE

SEC 304A- Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act
not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

The original IPC had no provision for punishment in cases where a person causes death of
another by negligence. To fill in the gap, sec-304A was inserted in IPC (Amendment) Act 27
of 1870.

15
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

To apprehend this section clearly, rash and negligent act must be differentiated from one
another.

1. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS

To bring a case of homicide under section 304A, I.P.C. the following conditions must exist,
viz.:

(i) There must be death of the person in question;

(ii) The accused must have caused such death; and
(iii) That such act of the accused was rash and negligent and that it did not amount to
culpable homicide.

This section applies where there is a direct nexus between the death of a person and the rash
or negligent act. The act must be the causa causans, it is not enough that it may have been the
causa sine qua non.

A rash act is primarily an overhasty act and is opposed to a deliberate act, even if it is partly
deliberate act; it is done without due thought and action. An illegal "omission" if negligent,
may come under this section.

The doctrine of contributory negligence does not apply to the criminal liability. Where there
is ample proof that the accused had brought about the accident by his own negligence and
rashness, it does not matter whether the deceased was deaf, or drunk, or in part contributed to
his own death.

However, this section does not apply to the following cases:

16
PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

(i) death is caused with any intention or knowledge (voluntary commission of offence),

(ii) in. other words, the act must not amount to culpable homicide,

(iii) death has arisen from any other supervening act or intervention which could not have
been anticipated.

(iv) in other words, death was not the direct or proximate result of the rash or negligent act,

(v) death occurred due to an accident e.g., where an accused on dark night believing a man to
be a ghost killed him; Waryam Singh v. Emperor, AIR 1926 Lah 554.

In Juggan Khan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, MANU/SC/0078/1964: AIR 1965 SC 831 it

was held by the Supreme Court that, a great care should be taken before imputing criminal
negligence to a professional man acting in the course of his profession. A doctor is not
criminally responsible for a patient's death unless his negligence shows such disregard for life
and safety as to amount to a crime against the State. Where the accused, who was registered
as a Homeopath, administered to the patient suffering from guinea worm, 24 drops of
Stramonium and a leaf of Dhatura without studying its effect and the patient died of
poisoning. It was held that the accused was guilty under section 304A.

In Bala Chandra v State of Maharashtra Air 1968 SC 1319

An illegal omission if negligent, may come under this section.

Rash and negligent driving- the mere fact that a perilous motor run over accident took place
would not by itself be enough to make the driver liable under section 304 a.

In order to impose criminal liability on the accused, it must be found as a fact that a collision
was entirely or at least mainly due to rational or negligence on the part of the driver. An error
of judgement on the part of the driver would not make him liable under section 304 A.

In Cherubin Gregory v State of Bihar AIR 1964 SC 205.

The accused fixed up a naked live electric wire in the passage to latrine so that no trespasser
may come and use the latrine. There was no warning that the wire was life. A trespasser who
manages to enter the Latrine without touching the wire, happens to receive a shock while
coming out and die soon.

HELD- It was held at the act of the accused was an actionable wrong under section 304 A.
The mere fact that the person entering a land is a trespasser does not en title the owner or
occupier to inflict on him personal injury by direct violence or indirectly by doing something
on the land the effect of which he must know was likely to cause serious injury to the
trespasser

SEC- 304B, DOWRY DEATH

SEC- 304 B,

17
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

1. Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs
otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage
and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection
with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such
husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.

Explanations

1. For the purposes of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as
in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).

2. Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a

term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life.

1. EXPLANATION OF SEC 304B

This section was inserted in 1986 by virtue of sec 304-B. The following are its essentials:

2. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS
 Death of woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise under normal
circumstances.
 Death must occur within 7 years of marriage.

 It must be revealed that soon before her marriage she was exposed to cruelty or
harassment by her husband or any other relative.

 The cruelty or harassment on her should be in connection with the demand for dowry.

Demand for Dowry

As per Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act,1961  which says that dowry is any property or
valuable security directly or indirectly agreed to be given by-

(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or

(b) by the parent of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the
marriage or to any other person, at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with
the marriage of the said parties.

Is Dowry death a bailable and a cognizable offence?

 Bailable Offences- Offences in which the permission from the court to release the arrested
person is not required. The arrested person by fulfilling the necessary requirements can be
released and the police cannot refuse the person.
 Cognizable Offences- Offence in which the police have the authority to arrest any person
without any warrant and also has the authority to start an investigation with or without any
permission of the magistrate by filing FIR.
18
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

Dowry death is a non-bailable and cognizable offence. 

As per Section 41 of The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973  the police officer while
arresting any person without a warrant, be satisfied with the complaint registered against a
person and fulfil all the provision of Section 41 of CrPC.

CASE LAW-

State of Himachal Pradesh vs Nikku Ram and Ors on 30 August 1995

In this case, the couple was married and after 5-6 months of their marriage husband, sister-in-
law and mother-in-law started taunting the wife of the husband for bringing less dowry. They
started demanding several things from her which was not fulfilled by her. The prosecutor
filed a case for torturing the deceased and subjected her to cruelty in order to make her bring
more dowry.

Gradually the torture on her increased so much that the mother-in-law hit her with a sharp
blade on her forehead causing a deep cut over there.

She was unable to tolerate the ill-treatment by her husband and by her in-laws on her, as a
result, she committed suicide by consuming naphthalene balls and died.

During the investigation, the sharp-edged blade was recovered and after the completion of the
investigation husband, sister-in-law and mother-in-law were charged under the Section
of 304-B, 306 and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code. And the case against them was registered.

HELD-The Court after examining all the evidences, it was held that persons who are charged
under Section 304-B, 306 and 498-A will be free from these criminal charges as the
prosecution failed to produce the evidence against them and only mother-in-law will be held
guilty under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code as voluntarily causing hurt to her daughter-
in-law. And imposed a fine of Rs. 3,000, failing to pay the fine will attract simple
imprisonment for 1 month.

In Hans Raj v. State of Punjab, SC held that ‘normal circumstances’ means not by natural
death.

SEC-306, ABETMENT OF SUICIDE

If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.

1.EXPLANATION TO SEC 306-

Section 306 prescribes punishment for abetment of suicide. Any person who abets the offence
shall be imprisoned for an extension to 10 years and be liable for a fine by the court of law.
While interpreting the sections the court ruled out that there must be instigation or assistance
to commit the offence.

19
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

It is necessary to prove the mens rea of the accused and that he has influenced the victim to
take away his life. The abetment of suicide also violates the purview of the Indian
Constitution. It is a mental process and there is a presence of a chain of circumstances by one
person who induces the other to take his life, which is to be established by the prosecution.

SEC-307, ATTEMPT TO MURDER

Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances
that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and
shall also be liable to fine; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender
shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such punishment as is hereinbefore
mentioned.

Illustrations

1. A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death
ensued A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section

2. A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in
a desert place A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the
death of the child does not ensue.

1. ESSENTIALS FOR CRIMINAL ATTEMPT

i. An existence of an intention on the part of the accused to commit a particular offence;

ii. Some steps taken towards it after completion of preparation;

iii. The step must be apparently though not necessarily adapted to the purpose designed;

iv. It must come dangerously near to success;

v. It must fall short of completion of the ultimate design.

SEC-309, ATTEMPT TO COMMIT SUICIDE

SEC-309 reads,

Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such
offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to
one year or with fine, or with both.

1. EXPLANATION –

The word suicide in itself is nowhere defined in the Indian Penal Code, however its meaning
and import is well known and requires no explanation. `Sui means ‘self’ and cide means

20
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

‘killing’, thus implying an act of self-killing. Suicide is often carried out as a result of despair,
the cause of which is frequently attributed to a mental disorder such as depression, bipolar
disorder, schizophrenia, borderline personality disorder, alcoholism, or drug abuse. Stress
factors such as financial difficulties or troubles with interpersonal relationships often play a
role. While a person who has completed suicide is beyond the reach of the law, as the crime
abates with him. However, when a person is unsuccessful in commission of suicide or if the
desired intention of the offender is not met in committing suicide, he is within the ambit of
Indian penal code under section 309. This section is based on a reasonable public policy to
prevent other person’s involvement, instigation and aiding in terminating one’s life. It takes
care of the situation and threats imposed by death baiters.

2. ILLUSTRATION- Where A in a state of drunkenness jumps in a well in an obvious attempt

to commit suicide. A would be liable for offence u/s 309 because he was voluntarily drunk & he
was aware about what he attempted to do.

UNIT-2, Of Hurt

Section 319 to 338 of Indian Penal Code deals with hurt and Grievous Hurt in various forms.
Section 319 defines simple hurt as causing bodily pain, disease, or infirmity, and section 321
makes voluntary causing of hurt an offence punishable under section 323, IPC.

SEC-319, HURT

Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.

1. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS TO CONSTITUTE HUR (BATTERY UNDER ENGLISH

LAW)

(i) Bodily pain- The pain suffered must be physical and not mental. Also the duration
or severity of pain is immaterial. So mentally or emotionally hurting somebody
will not be ‘hurt’ within the meaning of Section 319. There’s no need of physical
contact also. Example: Pulling a girl by her hair amounts to hurt1.
(ii) Disease- Communication of the disease or ailment to another person amounts to
hurt. However, there appears to be conflicting judicial decisions with respect to
cases of communication of sexual diseases by one to another. In Raka v.
Emperor, 1887 ILR11 Bom 59 the Bombay High Court held a prostitute who had
sexual connection with the complainant and thereby communicated syphilis, liable
under section 269, I.P.C., for spreading of infection and not of causing hurt,
because the interval between the act and disease was too remote to attract sections
319 and 321, I.P.C.
(iii) Infirmity- Infirmity means inability of an organ to perform its normal function
which may either be temporary or permanent. It denotes an unsound or unhealthy

1
Marana Goudan v. R case, AIR 1941 Mad 560
21
PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

state of the body or mind; such as a state of temporary impairment or hysteria or

terror; Jashanmal Jhamatmal v. Brahmanand Sarupananda, AIR 1944 Sind 19.

SEC-323, PUNISHMENT FOR VOLUNTARILY CAUSING HURT

SEC 323 reads,

Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt, shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
one year, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

SEC- 320, GREVIOUS HURT

The Code on the basis of the gravity of the physical assault has classified hurt into simple and
grievous so that the accused might be awarded punishment commensurate to his guilt.
Though it is very difficult and absolutely impossible to draw a thin line of distinction
between the two forms of hurts - simple and grievous - with perfect accuracy, the Code has
attempted to classify certain kinds of hurt as grievous.

� It is more serious kind of hurt.

� It must be voluntary in nature.
� The following kinds of hurt are only designated as grievous:

1. EMASCULATION- This clause is confined to males only. It means depriving a male

of masculine vigour, i.e. to render a man impotent. This clause was inserted to
counteract the practice common in this country for women to squeeze men’s testicles
on the slightest provocation.
2. INJURING EYESIGHT- Permanent deprivation of the sight of either eye or both
eyes.
3. INFLICTING DEAFNESS- It may be with respect to one or both ears. Deafness
caused must be permanent.
4. LOSS OF LIMB OR JOINT- ‘Member’ term used here just means organ or limb. It
includes crippling of organ/limb, joint & makes a person defenceless, so that he isn’t
able to perform his everyday functions.
5. IMPAIRING OF LIMB- Deprivation of person to the use of member or joint includes
lifelong crippling creating a permanent disability and not a mere temporary injury.
6. PERMANENT DISFIGURING OF HEAD OR FACE- ‘Disfigure’ means to do a
person a few outside hurts that detract from his private look, but doesn’t weaken him.
In Gangaram v. State of Rajasthan, when bridge of the nose was cut injury through a
sharp weapon, it was held that the act amounted to permanent disfiguration, thereby
its grievous hurt.

22
PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

7. FRACTURE OR DISLOCATION OF BONE OR TOOTH- A fracture, in order to

attract this clause, must extend to the inner surface. If the act results only in abrasion
and does not break the bone, it will not be a fracture2.
8. ANY HURT WHICH RISKS LIFE- ‘Dangerous Hurt’ means the hurt which cases: -
� Endangers life, or
� Which causes to be, during space of 20 days, in severe bodily pain or,
� Which causes sufferer to be, during space of 20 days, unable to follow his
ordinary pursuits.3

SEC- 325, PUNISHMENT FOR VOLUNTARILY CAUSING GREVIOUS HURT

SEC 325 reads,

Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous
hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

1. EXPLANATION OF SEC 325

According to section 325, I.P.C., the main ingredient of the offence is that grievous hurt
should be intended to be caused or the offender should have knowledge that the hurt caused
was likely to be grievous. The offence under this section is intermediate between hurt and
homicide.

In 4Jagga Singh v. State of Punjab,the deceased was taken away by accused and after 15-20
minutes gun shots were heard. Post-mortem examination on dead body of deceased found
that there were only lacerated wounds. There was no gun wound and accused entitled to get
benefit of doubt. It was alleged that accused persons fired at victim and a gun shot fired hit
him in leg. Trial court convicted 7 years rigorous Imprisonment and fine. The appeals of the
accused dismissed by the High Court but appeal of the State regarding acquittal of the
accused under section 302 read with section 34 was allowed. Supreme court observed that
accused cannot be held guilty under section 302 but under section 325 read with 34 IPC
sentenced to period already undergone. Accused acquitted.

SEC-326A, VOLUNTARILY CAUSING GREVIOUS HURT BY USE OF ACID,

ETC5.

Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or bums or maims or

disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous

2
Horilal v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1970 SC 1969
3
State of Gujarat v. Samaj
4
MANU/SC/0097/2011 : AIR 2011 SC 960
5
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013
23
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any

other means with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to
cause such injury or hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to
imprisonment for life, and with fine;

Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of
the treatment of the victim;

Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.

1. EXPLANATION TO SEC-326A
This section of IPC deals with the offence of deliberately causing grievous hurt with usage
of acids, etc.
2. ESSENTIALS
- Causing permanent or partial damage or deformity to any person
- Causing burns
- Any person who maims or disfigures or disables any part or parts of a body of a person
- Causes grievous hurt by throwing acid
- Causing injury by any other means
- Intention or knowledge that he’s likely to any such injury or hurt.

CASE LAWS- Laxmi v. UOI, for the first time remuneration was given to corrosive
casualty.

In Morepally Venkatasree Nagesh v State of AP 6, the accused was suspicious about the
character for his significant other and emptied mercuric chloride into her vagina, she later
kicked the bucket because of renal disappointment. The accused was charged under Section
302 and 307 of the IPC. In the State of Karnataka by Jalahalli Police Station v Joseph
Rodrigues, one of the most popular cases including corrosive assault. The accused tossed
corrosive on a young lady named Hasina for declining his employment bid. Because of the
corrosive assault, the shading and presence of her face changed which left her visually
impaired. The accused was convicted under Section 307 for IPC and condemned to
detainment forever (life imprisonment). Remuneration of Rs 2,00,000 notwithstanding Trial
Court fine of Rs 3,00,000 was to be paid by the accused to the guardians for the victim. 

OTHER SECTIONS RELATED TO HURT AND GRIEVOUS HURT

Section 326-B – Voluntarily throwing or attempting to throw acid.

Section 327 – Voluntarily causing

Section 328 of The Indian Penal Code – Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with
intent to commit an offence.
6
2002 (1) ALD Cri 905, 2002 (2) ALT Cri 52, 2002 CriLJ 3625

24
PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

Section 329 – Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort property, or to constrain to an

illegal act.

Section 330 – Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of

the property.

Section 331 – Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to extort confession, or to compel

restoration of the property.

Section 332 – Voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty.

Section 333 – Voluntarily causing grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty.

Section 334 – Voluntarily causing hurt on provocation.

Section 335 – Voluntarily causing grievous hurt on provocation.

Section 336 – Act endangering life or personal safety of others.

Section 337 – Causing hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.

Section 338 – Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or personal safety of others.

UNIT-3, Of Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement

Section 339 and 340 of Indian Penal Code define Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful
Confinement respectively. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 makes wrongful restraint and
wrongful confinement punishable under Section 339 to 348. The fundamental rule is that
'every man's person is sacred and law visits penalties on the accused who violates this rule
and molests the person in his free movement. Wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement
are two offences according to the I.P.C. under Sn. 33" and 340, which punish individuals for
violation of a person's movements.

SEC-339, WRONGFUL RESTRAINT

Sec 339 reads as,

Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding
in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to
restrain that person.

Exceptions

25
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

1. The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith
believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the
meaning of this section.

Illustrations

1. A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass. A not believing in good
faith that he has a right to stop the path. Z is thereby prevented from passing. A
wrongfully restrains Z.

1. EXPLANATION TO SEC 339

To understand this, let us look at the following illustrations-

1) A obstructs Z of his way 'A's intentions are not in good faith. Z is prevented from passing.
This is wrongful restraint.

2) A removed the ladder and prevented B from getting down the roof of a house.

3) A builds a wall across a path along which B had a right to pass.

4) A threatens to set his savage dog at Z, to prevent Z from passing along the road where he
had a right to pass.

5) B and his family were living in a house. A put a lock in the- temporary absence of the
family. A had locked without any good faith.

In all these cases thee accused is guilty of wrongful restraint.

2. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS

To establish the offence of wrongful restraint the complainant must prove all the following
essential:

1. That there was an obstruction;

2. That the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in any direction;

3. That the person/complainant so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the

direction concerned.

3. OBJECTIVE OF THIS SECTION

26
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

The objective of this section is to ensure that the freedom of a person is protected. When a
person has a right to proceed in a particular direction then the law must ensure that such right
is available to the person. Even if there is a slight unlawful obstruction, it is deemed to be
wrongful restraint.

SEC-341, PUNISHMENT FOR WRONGFUL RESTRAINT

Whoever wrongfully restrains any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment
for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five
hundred rupees, or with both.

1. EXPLANATION TO SEC 341

Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code imposes punishment against the wrongdoer under
Section 339 with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with
fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

The classification of the offence under this section is that the offence is Cognizable, Bailable
and Triable by any Magistrate, it is also compoundable by the person restrained or confined.

2. CASE LAW
In the case of Madala Perayya vs. Varugunti Chendrayya (1954 CrLJ 283 Mad), the facts
were that, the accused and the complainant jointly owner a well and so both of them were
entitled to use the water for agricultural purposes. The accused stopped the complainant from
using the water and also stopped the bullocks of the complainant from moving. The Court
held that the accused had committed eh offence of wrongful restraint under Section 339.

In the case of Shoba Rani vs. The King (1950-51 CrLJ 668 Cal.), the landlord was accused
of preventing his tenant who was the tenant from using the bathroom. By stopping the tenant
from using something that he had the right to use, the landlord was had committed wrongful
restraint under Section 339.

SEC-340, WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT

According to sec-340,

Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person
from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said “wrongfully to confine”
that person.
Illustrations
1. A causes Z to go within a walled space, and locks Z. Z is thus prevented from
proceeding in any direction beyond the circumscribing line of wall. A wrongfully
confines z.
2. A places men with firearms at the outlets of a building, and tells Z that they will
fire at Z if Z attempts leave the building. A wrongfully confines Z.
27
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

1. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS TO CONSTITUTE WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT

- The accused should have wrongfully restrained the complainant (i.e. all ingredients of
wrongful restraint must be present)
- Such wrongful restraint was to prevent the complainant from proceeding beyond certain
circumscribing limits beyond which he or she has the right to proceed.

In Shamlal's case, a police constable detained some persons for several days as suspects; it
was held that he was guilty under this section.

SEC-342, PUNISHMENT FOR WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT

Sec 342 reads-

Whoever wrongfully confines any person shall be punished with simple imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may
extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

1. EXPLANATION
The classification of this offence is that it is cognizable, Bailable and Triable by any
Magistrate. Further, it is Compoundable by the person confined with the permission of the
court.

2. CASE LAWS
In the case of State of Gujarat vs. Keshav Lai Maganbhai Gujoyan (1993 CrLJ 248 Guj), it
was discussed by the court that “For a charge of wrongful confinement, proof of actual
physical restriction is not essential. It is sufficient if the evidence shows that such an
impression was produced in the mind of the victim, a reasonable apprehension in his mind
that he was not free to depart. If the impression creates that the complainant would be
forthwith seized or restrained if he attempts to escape, a reasonable apprehension of the use
of the force rather than its actual use is sufficient and important.”

State vs. Balakrishnan (1992 CrLJ 1872 Mad), the complainant was detained in the police
station when this was brought to court, the accused claimed that complainant was at liberty to
go away from the police station at any time. The Court remarked that when a citizen enters
into a police station, the police officers’ authority prevails in that jurisdiction and they
entertain it with a ruddy manner. Court held that the accused committed the offence of
wrongful confinement.

3. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WRONGFUL RESTRAINT AND CONFINEMENT

28
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

Wrongful Restraint Wrongful Confinement

It is the genus, i.e. it is a wider term and It is a species of wrongful restraint i.e. a type
includes several types of restraints under of wrongful restraint.
it.
It prevents a person from proceeding in a It keeps a person within certain
direction in which that person has a right circumscribing limits.
to proceed.
It is not a very serious offence and is It is a more serious offence and is punishable
punishable with lesser punishment. with a more severe punishment than
wrongful restraint.
There is only a partial suspension of one’s There is total suspension of liberty beyond
liberty. certain circumscribing limits.
Punishment: Sec. 341. Imprisonment to Punishment: Sec. 342. Imprisonment to one
one month, or fine Rs. 500/-, or with both. year, or fine Rs. 1000/-,

UNIT-4, Of Criminal Force and Assault

In India, we can always see the news about crimes in regards to battery, assault7 etc. such
crimes are common in our country and it happens almost every day. Because of this people
were facing many problems, therefore for ensuring strict punishment to those who committed
such offenses, our Government had to step, thus such crimes can be reduced. Besides, the
article also focuses on the distinction between criminal force and assault and also the
important pronouncements made by courts.

SEC-349, FORCE

SEC 349 READS,

A person is said to use force to another if he causes motion, change of motion, or

cessation of motion to that other, or if he causes to any substance such motion, or
change of motion, or cessation of motion as brings that substance into contact with any
part of that other’ body, or with anything which that other is wearing or carrying, or
with anything so situated that such contact affects that other’ sense of feeling;
Provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion, or cessation of
motion, causes that motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion in one of the three
ways hereinafter described:
1. By his own bodily power.
2. By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion or change or
cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part, or on the
part of any other person.
3. By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion, or to cease to move.

1. EXPLANATION TO SEC 349

7
https://lawcorner.in/force-criminal-force-and-assault-under-i-p-c-and-distinction-between-them-explain/
29
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

The term ‘force’ in IPC examines force used by a human being on another human being. It
does not contemplate force against inanimate objects. Force means efficacy and signifies
strength, vigour, might, energy, power, violence, armament, necessity.

A definition close to the exact meaning of ‘force’ is violence, the power exerted against will
or consent. It does not constitute any offence but section 349 of IPC merely explains what
amounts to force. It is necessary to understand what force is, to understand the definition of
criminal force.

A is said to use force to B, if A causes motion or change of motion to B, or if A causes with

any substance such motion or change of motion so as to make that substance come in contact
with the body of B or anything he is carrying so as to affect his sense of feeling.

The means adopted may be-

a) By A, with his own bodily power or
b) By setting the substance in motion without further acting on it.
c) By inducing an animal to move
The court of law is in a better position to study the facts and circumstances, to determine
what can be called as use of force and what is not the use of force. Like in the case of
Chandrika Sao v. State of Bihar, (AIR 1967 SC 170), the lower court rejected the argument
that is merely snatching the book away from the hands of the official, which he was in the
official’s possession at that time, was not a use of force. The supreme court observed
otherwise, saying that the snatching of books was capable of fulfilling the essence of section
349. The book which was in possession of the official was caused to have a motion or change
in motion by mere snatching it; this affects a sensation of feeling to the official’s hands.
Hence, it is considered as use of force by the accused.

2. CASE LAW

Ramakant Rajaram v. Manuel Fernandes- Here court observed that when the motion is
caused or change in motion caused, or cessation of motion is caused to the external object or
substance or thing which is in possession or in contact, it does not affect that person, then it
cannot be considered as force, it will not be the use of force.

SEC-350, CRIMINAL FORCE

Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person’ consent, in order
to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or
knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or
annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that
other.

Illustrations
30
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

1. Z is sitting in a moored boat on a river. A unfastens the moorings, and thus

intentionally causes the boat to drift down the stream. Here A intentionally
causes motion to Z, and he does this by disposing substances in such a manner
that the motion is produced without any other action on any person’ part. A has
therefore intentionally used force to Z; and if he has done so without Z’ consent,
in order to the committing of any offence, or intending or knowing it to be likely
that this use of force will cause injury, fear or annoyance to Z, A has used
criminal force to Z.

2. Z is riding in a chariot. A lashes Z’ horses and thereby causes them to quicken

their pace. Here A has caused change of motion to Z by inducing the animals to
change their motion. A has therefore used force to Z; and if A has done this
without Z’ consent, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby
injure, frighten or annoy Z, A has used criminal force to Z.

1. EXPLANATION TO CRIMINAL FORCE

Using criminal force is an offence punishable under l.P.C. Any person who intentionally uses
'force' to another without his consent with a view to commit an offence or knowingly uses
force to cause injury, fear or annoyance to him, is guilty of using criminal force.

The above section gives us what is criminal force and the illustrations to explain the offence
better. These illustrations are a combination of scenarios where there is motion caused or
change in motion or in few cessations of motion caused. Further, these illustrations better
explain the clauses as provided in section 349, which gives us manners in which force can be
used.

2. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF SEC 350 OF THE CODE ARE

i) The intentional use of the force to any person;

ii) Such force must have been used without the person’s consent;
iii) The force must have been used:
……… a) In order to the committing of an offence; or
……… b) With the intention to cause, or knowing it to be likely that it will
cause, injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom it is used.

The above section says the use of force to be mandatory, then does it mean force is
punishable? No, mere force is not punishable under law. Section 349 has just defined the
force, but it is not treated as a negative act or as an offence. This means force can be used in a
positive sense. For example, if one uses force to protect a person from falling down or protect
from an injury, it is not an offence but still satisfies the essentials of section 349.

CONSENT

The meaning of consent is provided in section 90 of IPC. The act of using force must be
without the consent of the person to whom such force is being used. The terms “without

31
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

consent” and “against his will” are different. “Without consent” means there is a physical and
active opposition and “against his will” means there is a mental and active opposition. Thus,
the law requires the accused to be without consent.

INTENTIONAL USE OF FORCE

The word intentional excludes all voluntary, accidental or even negligent acts from the ambit
of criminal force.

E.g.: when a person negligently or carelessly pulls the veil of a woman, even though without
consent as it was not an intentional act of force, neither I sit for committing an offence nor it
is caused by an intention or knowledge to cause injury or fear or annoyance. Thus the act
cannot be considered as a criminal force.

PRESENCE OF PERSON

To prove that there was the use of criminal force, the presence of the person against whom
the force is to be alleged to be used is mandatory. Thus, the law does not consider the act as a
force when a thief broke into a house whose owner is not present there. There is no external
force used upon the person. It is not done without any use of force.

If the force does not cause any injury; it is constituted as a criminal force as it is executed
with a mental element, and is externally acted to achieve the results. And the mere fact that
the result was somehow escaped by some act will be immaterial.

E.g.: - the accused tried to beat a person with a stick and raise it with force against the victim,
but the victim escaped and frustrated the achievement of the intended result. It will not be
called a mere force.

Thus, the cause of injury or hurt is immaterial when other essentials of section 350 satisfy,
i.e.; the intention or knowledge is enough.

3. EXPLANATORY ILLUSTRATIONS

Where A spits over B, A would be liable for using criminal force against В because spitting
must have caused annoyance to B. Similarly, if A removes the veil of a lady he would be
guilty under Section 350 of the Code.

The various illustrations under Section 350 exemplify the different ingredients of the
definition of force given in Section 349. Of these illustrations,

- illustration a) exemplifies motion in Section 349;

- illustration (b) ‘change of motion’;
- illustration (c) ‘cessation of motion;
- illustrations (d), (e), (f), (g) and (h) ‘cause to any substance any such motion’.
- clause (1) of Section 349 is illustrated by illustrations (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g);
- clause (2) of Section 349 is illustrated by illustration (a); and
32
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

- clause (3) of Section 349 is illustrated by illustrations(b) and (h).

4. CASE LAW

- Nani Gopal Das v. Bhima charan Rakshit 

The court stated that the presence of the person whom the force is alleged to be used is
mandatory to prove that there was the use of force or criminal force.

- Bihari Lal v. Emperor

In this case, the court observed that in criminal force the physical presence of a person,
against whom the criminal force is alleged to be used is required.

SEC- 351, ASSAULT

According to Tomlins Law Dictionary, assault is “an attempt with force and violence, to do
corporate hurt to another as by sticking at him with or without a weapon. But no words
whatsoever, be they even so provoking can amount to an assault, notwithstanding the many
ancient opinions to contrary”

Sec 351 reads,

Whoever makes any gesture, or any preparation intending or knowing it to be likely

that such gesture or preparation will cause any person present to apprehend that he
who makes that gesture or preparation is about to use criminal force to that person, is
said to commit an assault.

Explanations

1. Mere words do not amount to an assault. But the words which a person uses may
give to his gestures or preparation such a meaning as may make those gestures
or preparations amount to an assault.

Illustrations

1. A shakes his fist at Z, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby

cause Z to believe that A is about to strike Z. A has committed an assault.

2. A begins to unloose the muzzle of a ferocious dog, intending or knowing it to be

likely that he may thereby cause Z to believe that he is about to cause the dog to
attack Z. A has committed an assault upon Z.

3. A takes up a stick, saying to Z, “I will give you a beating”. Here, though the
words used by A could in no case amount to an assault, and though the mere
33
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

gesture, unaccompanied by any other circumstances, might not amount to an

assault, the gesture explained by the words may amount to an assault.

1. ESSENTIALS TO CONSTITUTE ASSAULT

1) That the accused should make a gesture or preparation to use criminal force;
2) Such gesture or preparation should be made in the presence of the person in respect of
whom it is made;
3) There should be intention or knowledge on the part of the accused that such gesture or
preparation would cause apprehension in the mind of the victim that criminal force would be
used against him;
4) Such gesture or preparation has actually caused apprehension in the mind of the victim, of
use of criminal force against him.

2. EXPLANATION

Assault is generally understood to mean the use of criminal force against a person, causing
some bodily injury or pain. But, legally, ‘assault’ denotes the preparatory acts which cause
apprehension of use of criminal force against the person. Assault falls short of actual use of
criminal force. An assault is then nothing more than a threat of violence exhibiting an
intention to use criminal force accompanied with present ability to effect the purpose.

According to Section 351 of the Code, the mere gesture or preparation with the intention of
knowledge that it is likely to cause apprehension in the mind of the victim, amounts to an
offence of assault. The explanation to Section 351 provides that mere words do not amount to
assault, unless the words are used in aid of the gesture or preparation which amounts to
assault.

The apprehension of the use of criminal force must be from the person making the gesture or
preparation, but if it arises from some other person it would not be assault on the part of that
person, but from somebody else, it does not amount to assault on the part of that person. The
following have been held to be instances of assault:

i) Lifting one’s lota or lathi

ii) Throwing brick into another’s house
iii) Fetching a sword and advancing with it towards the victim
iv) Pointing of a gun, whether loaded or unloaded, at a person at a short distance
v) Advancing with a threatening attitude to strike blows.

The offence under Section 351 is non-cognizable, bailable, compoundable, and triable by any
Magistrate.

3. DISTINCTION BETWEEN CRIMINAL FORCE AND ASSAULT

34
PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

FORCE / CRIMINAL FORCE ASSAULT

1. It is the use of intentional force It denotes the preparatory acts which

on any person to cause any injury cause apprehension of use of criminal
or harm or fear of injury. force against the person.

2. Even use of criminal force includes There is an apprehension of use of force

an assault. only and no use of real force.

3. Physical contact exists. There is no physical contact.

4. The action of the wrongdoer is

It is an attempt to commit criminal force.
completed.

5. In criminal force, assault is In assault, the accused must be having

consummated by means and ability of enough means and ability to carry his
that person. threat into the intended result.

6. No belief of ability is needed. The It is necessary that the person assaulted

application of force is actionable even believes that the assaulting person has the
though it is the slightest amount of ability to apply the force so attempted by
force. him, on reasonable grounds.

7. It has something more in it as the It is an overt act indicating sudden

intentional application of force to the intention to commit criminal force
person of another without lawful coupled with the capacity of carrying out
justification is necessary. the intention into effect.

8. As soon as the thrown falls on the Throwing water upon a person is an

person, it becomes a criminal force. assault.

9. More serious form of offence when A less serious form offence compared to
compared to assault. criminal force.

10. Force is defined under section 349

and criminal force under section 350 Defined under section 351 of IPC.
of IPC.

35
PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

SEC-352, PUNISHMENT FOR ASSAULT OR CRIMINAL FORCE OTHERWISE

THAN ON GRAVE PROVOCATION

Section 352 of IPC provides punishment for assault or use of criminal force when there are
no aggravating circumstances provided in sections 353 to 358.

Sec 352 reads,

Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person otherwise than on grave and
sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may
extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

Explanations

1. Grave and sudden provocation will not mitigate the punishment for an offence
under this section, if the provocation is sought or voluntarily provoked by the
offender as an excuse for the offence, or

2. if the provocation is given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a

public servant, in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant, or

3. if the provocation is given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of
private defence.

Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to mitigate the offence, is a
question of fact.

Aggravated Forms of Assault or Criminal Force

Aggravated forms of assault or use of criminal force includes aggravating elements that
consist of the intention to outrage the modesty of a woman and he has the knowledge that
will outrage his modesty. It comes under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code.

SEC-353, ASSAULT OR CRIMINAL FORCE TO DETER PUBLIC SERVANT FROM

DISCHARGE OF HIS DUTY

Assault or criminal force on another person to discharge him from duty, this comes under
Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. Whoever assaults any public servant when he is in the
course of his or her duty, or with the intent of deterring the person of his duty, the person
shall be imprisoned for a term which may be extended for up to 2 years, or a fine, or both. 8

SEC- 354, ASSAULT OR CRIMINAL FORCE TO WOMAN TO OUTRAGE HER

MODESTY
8
Patar Munda v. State of Orissa AIR 1958 Ori 69
36
PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

A person who assaults another woman, intending to outrage her and thus likely to outrage her
modesty, shall be punishable under this act under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code. It
consists of assault or use of criminal force, mere knowledge is also sufficient without any
deliberate intention.

In the case of State of Punjab v. Major Singh AIR 1967 SC 63, the court decided that even
though the victim is a minor and is so tender to feel womanly modesty, and she is considered
to be outraged at her modesty when the accused had done the act of unnatural lust. Although
the reaction of the woman is material but is not considered to be decisive, the act done was
the act against a particular sex, and she possesses the modesty the moment she was born.
Modesty has nothing to do with her age.9

SEC-354B, ASSAULT OR CRIMINAL FORCE WITH INTENT TO DISROBE A

WOMAN

Any man who assaults or uses criminal force on another woman abets such act with the
intention of disrobing or compelling her to be naked, shall be punished with the sentence of
the term of 3 years minimum with the sentence also extending to seven years and also shall
be liable to a fine. This comes under Section 354B of the Indian constitution.

SEC-355, ASSAULT OR CRIMINAL FORCE WITH INTENT TO DISHONOUR A

PERSON

Whoever assaults or uses criminal force on that person, hereby intending to dishonor that
person, otherwise on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be imprisoned
for two years or be fined, or both. This comes under Section 355 under the Indian Penal code.

SEC-356, ASSAULT OR CRIMINAL FORCE IN ATTEMPTING THEFT

Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to another person to commit to attempt theft on any
person that he is wearing or he owns, shall be punished for a term which may extend to 2
years, or a fine, or both. This comes under Section 356 of the Indian Penal Code.

SEC- 357, ASSAULT IN ATTEMPTING WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT

Any person who assaults or uses criminal force on another person with the intention to
wrongfully confine another person, shall be imprisoned for a period of one year or be fined
Rs. 1000 or both. This comes under Section 357 of the Indian Penal Code.

Specific Acts Offending Decency of a Woman

9
State of Punjab v. Major Singh AIR 1967 SC 63, para 18 & 19

37
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

The section 354A, 354C and 354D are specifically added as many cases were affecting the
decency of a woman. All these were added through the criminal amendment act 2013.10

SEC- 354A, SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND PUNISHMENT FOR SEXUAL

HARASSMENT

Sec 354A enlists,

1. A man committing any of the following acts—

(i) physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual
overtures; or
(ii) a demand or request for sexual favours; or
(iii) showing pornography against the will of a woman; or
(iv)making sexually coloured remarks, shall be guilty of the offence of sexual
harassment.

2. Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) or clause
(iii) of sub-section (1) shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

3. Any man who commits the offence specified in clause (iv) of sub-section (1) shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

1. EXPLANATION TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT

This new provision was originated in a judgment of the Supreme Court dealing with the issue
of sexual harassment at workplace. Through the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act,
2013, Section 354A was inserted in the IPC which defines the offence of ‘sexual harassment’
and set down punishment for it.

According to Section 354A, a person shall be guilty of the offence of sexual harassment
against a woman in the following circumstances-

1. If he makes physical contact and advance unwelcome and explicit sexual act;

2. Demands or requests for sexual favours;

3. Shows pornography against the will of a woman;

4. Make sexually colored remarks.

The punishment for the offences specified under Section 354A (1) (i) to (iii) is the rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or both and in the case

10
Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 2013 (Act No 13 of 2013), s 6
38
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

of sub clause (iv), it is imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or
both.

In 2013, the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition and

Redressal) Act was enacted to provide protection to women against sexual harassment at
workplace and for the prevention and redressal of complaints regarding the matter of sexual
harassment or any such incident thereto. 

SEC- 354C, VOYEURISM

Sec 354C reads,

Any man who watches, or captures the image of a woman engaging in a private act in
circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed
either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator or
disseminates such image shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of
either description for a term which shall not be less than one year, but which may
extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine, and be punished on a second or
subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall
not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be
liable to fine.

Explanations

1. For the purpose of this section, “private act” includes an act of watching carried
out in a place which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to
provide privacy and where the victim’s genitals, posterior or breasts are exposed
or covered only in underwear; or the victim is using a lavatory; or the victim is
doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in public.

2. Where the victim consents to the capture of the images or any act, but not to
their dissemination to third persons and where such image or act is
disseminated, such dissemination shall be considered an offence under this
section.

1. EXPLANATION-

This offence came into existence after Nirbhaya Rape Case, 2012. It is mentioned
under Section 354C, IPC. The word ‘voyeurism’ means appeasement derived from observing
the genital or sexual acts of others usually secretly. This provision deals with the specific act
of either watching or capturing the images of a woman engaging in a private act where she
expects privacy and observation by the perpetrator or any other person at the behest of the
perpetrator is not likely. Such watching or capturing images of a woman is criminalized and
attracts an imprisonment term which shall not be less than one year but may extend to three
years and fine. Also on a subsequent conviction the minimum imprisonment term shall be
that of three years extendable to seven years and also fine. For the purpose of this section the
offence is widely defined and includes a situation where the victim may have consented to
39
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

the capturing of images or any act but not agreed to the dissemination of the same to any third
person.
A ‘voyeur’ is generally defined as "a person who derives sexual gratification from the covert
observation of others as they undress or engage in sexual activities." Voyeurism is the act of a
person who, usually for sexual gratification, observes, captures or distributes the images of
another person without their consent or knowledge. With the development in video and image
capturing technologies, observation of individuals engaged in private acts in both public and
private places, through surreptitious means, has become both easier and more common.
Cameras or viewing holes may be placed in changing rooms or public toilets, which are
public spaces where individuals generally expect a reasonable degree of privacy, and where
their body may be exposed. Voyeurism is an act which blatantly defies reasonable
expectations of privacy that individuals have about their bodies, such as controlling its
exposure to others. Voyeurism is an offence to both the privacy as well as the dignity of a
person, by infringing upon the right of individuals to control the exposure of their bodies
without their consent or knowledge, either through unwarranted observation of the individual,
or through distribution of images or videos against the wishes or without the knowledge of
the victim.

2. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS

1. The accused must be a male.

2. He must watch or capture the image.
3. The woman whose images are captured must be engaged in some private act.
4. The circumstances must be such that she has the expectations of not being.
observed by the perpetrator; or
5. The accused disseminates that image.

SEC- 354D, STALKING

Sec 354D reads,

(1) Any man who—

1. follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster

personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such
woman; or

2. monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of
electronic communication,
commits the offence of stalking;

Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it
proves that—

40
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

1. it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime and the man
accused of stalking had been entrusted with the responsibility of prevention and
detection of crime by the State; or

2. it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement
imposed by any person under any law; or

3. in the particular circumstances such conduct was reasonable and justified.

(2) Whoever commits the offence of stalking shall be punished on first conviction with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and
shall also be liable to fine; and be punished on a second or subsequent conviction, with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall
also be liable to fine.

1. EXPLANATION TO ‘STALKING’

Section 354D, IPC talks about the term ‘stalking’ which generally means the act of following
or trying to contact despite disinterest of woman. This section contains two offences. Firstly,
where a man follows or contacts or attempts to contact a woman repeatedly despite her clear
indication of disinterest and secondly, where a man monitors the use by a woman of the
internet, email, or any other form of electronic communication. 

For the first conviction, the punishment prescribed is imprisonment for a term which may
extend to three years with fine. The punishment for second conviction may extend up to five
years of imprisonment with fine.

2. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS:

1. The accused must be a man and victim must be a woman.

2. Follow or contact a woman or attempt to contact; or

3. Monitors the use by the woman of the internet, email or any other electronic
communication.

4. Despite disinterest of woman.

What does not amount Stalking?

Section 354D has a proviso attached to it which carves out an exception to this offence. If a
part of responsibility is imposed on a person by the State to prevent and detect any crime and
such acts must be pursued by any law and in the particular circumstances such conduct of the
person must be reasonable and justified then, it will not amount to stalking.

UNIT-5, Of Kidnapping, Abduction, Slavery and Forced Labour

41
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

Sections 359 to 369 of the Code have made kidnapping and abduction punishable with
varying degree of severity according to the nature and gravity of the offence. The underlying
object of enacting these provisions is to secure the personal liberty of citizens, to give legal
protection to children of tender age from being abducted or seduced for improper purposes
and to preserve the rights of parents and guardians over their wards for custody or
upbringing.

SEC-359, KIDNAPPING

Kidnapping is of two kinds:

1. kidnapping from India, and

2. kidnapping from lawful guardianship.

1. EXPLANATION TO SEC 359

The word 'kidnapping' has been derived from the word 'kid' which means 'child' and 'napping'
which means 'to steal'. Thus kidnapping literally means child stealing.

SEC-360, KIDNAPPING FROM INDIA

Whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of India without the consent of that
person, or of some person legally authorized to consent on behalf of that person, is said
to kidnap that person from India.

2. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS

To attract this section, the following two ingredients must be fulfilled:

(i) Conveying of any person beyond the limits of India,

(ii) Without the consent of that person, or of some one legally authorized to consent on
behalf of that person.

Conveying without consent: meaning of

The word 'convey' literally means simply going together on a journey but in popular parlance,
it now means carrying a person to his destination. However, mere conveying of a person from
one place to another is not criminal. That act becomes criminal if he is conveyed without his
consent. A person may be conveyed as much by using force as by inducing him to give his
consent by fraud and deception.

SEC-361, KIDNAPPING FROM LAWFUL GUARDIANSHIP

42
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

Whoever takes or entices any minor under sixteen years of age if a male, or under
eighteen years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of
the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of
such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.

Explanations

1. The words “lawful guardian” in this section include any person lawfully
entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person.

Exceptions

1. This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes
himself to be the father of an illegitimate child, or who in good faith believes
himself to be entitled to the lawful custody of such child, unless such act is
committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose.

1. OBJECT AND SCOPE

The provisions of this and subsequent sections under this head are intended more for the
protection of the minors and the persons of unsound mind themselves than for the right of the
guardians of such a person. It may be that the mischief intended to be punished may partly
consists, in the violation of infringement of the guardians right to keep their wards under their
care and custody, but more important object is to afford security and protection to the wards
themselves against seduction or abduction for improper purposes; State v. Harbans Singh
Kishan, AIR 1954 Bom 399.

2. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS

a) The offender took or enticed away a minor or a person of unsound mind;

b) Such minor, if male, must be under 16 years of age, and if female must be less than 18
years of age;
c) The act must be one of taking or enticing out of the keeping of the lawful guardianship of
such minor or person of unsound mind;
d) The act of taking or enticing out must be done without the consent of the lawful guardian.

3. CASE LAWS

In R.V. Rabbins the accused went to the house of a minor girl by night, kept a ladder against
the window, by which she came down. She eloped with him. Held the accused was guilt

In R.V. Prince (English case: girl must be below sixteen). The accused pleaded that the girl
looked to be above sixteen and therefore he was not guilty. The court held that this was a bad
argument. Her real age must be taken into consideration.

SEC- 362, ABDUCTION

43
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces any person to go from
any place, is said to abduct that person.

1. EXPLANATION TO ABDUCTION

According to the section 362, I.P.C. abduction takes place when any person by force
compels, or by any deceitful means induces another person, to go from any place. For
instance:

(a) If the intention is that the person abducted may be murdered or so disposed of as to be put
in danger of being murdered, section 364, I.P.C. applies;

(b) If the intention is to confine secretly or wrongfully a person, section 365, I.P.C. applies;

(c) if the abducted person is a woman and the intention is that she may be compelled, or is
likely to be compelled, to marry any person against her will, or may be forced or seduced to
illicit intercourse, or is likely to be so forced or seduced, section 366, I.P.C. applies;

(d) If the intention is to cause grievous hurt, or to dispose of the person abducted as to put
him in danger of being subjected to grievous hurt, or slavery, or to the unnatural lust of any
person, section 367, I.P.C. applies;

(e) If the abducted person is a child under the age of ten years and the intention is to take
dishonestly any movable property from its person, section 369, I.P.C. applies.

2. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS

To constitute the offence of abduction the following ingredients must remain present i) The
offender enticed a person by deceitful means or by forcible compulsion to go away from any
place; ii) The offence of abduction was committed for any of the purposes enumerated in
section 366 of the IPC.

3. DIFFERENCE B/W KIDNAPPING & ABDUCTION

44
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

KIDNAPPING (FROM LAWFUL ABDUCTION (SECTION 362, I.P.C)

GUARDIANSHIP) (SECTION 361,
I.P.C.)

1. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship as 1. Abduction may take place against a

defined in section 361 is committed, (i) in person of any age. Likewise, kidnapping
respect of minors, if male under 16 and if a from India as discussed in section 360,
female under 18 years of age, and (ii) in I.P.C. can take in respect of any person
respect of a person of unsound mind (of any irrespective of his or her age.
age).
2. Abduction has reference only to the
2. Kidnapping is the removal of a person person abducted.
from lawful guardianship.
3. In abduction, force, compulsion, or
3. Kidnapping is simply taking away of a deceitful means are used.
minor or a person of unsound mind. The
4. Free and voluntary consent of the person
means used are not relevant.
abducted condones abduction.
4. Consent of person kidnapped is
5. Intention of the abductor is an important
immaterial.
factor in determining guilt of the accused.
5. Intention of the kidnapper is immaterial
6. Abduction is not a substantive offence
for the offence.
and is not punishable in itself. It is an
6. Kidnapping is a substantive offence. offence only when done with some other
intent as given in sections 363A, 364, 364A
7. Kidnapping is not a continuing offence. It to 369, I.P.C.
is complete as soon as the minor or person
of unsound mind is removed from lawful 7. Abduction is a continuing offence and
guardianship. continues so long as the abducted person is
removed from one place to another.
8. In kidnapping there must be taking or
enticing from a lawful guardian. 8. In abduction the question of taking or
enticing does not arise.

SEC- 363, PUNISHMENT FOR KIDNAPPING

Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven
years, and shall also be liable to fine.

UNIT-6, Sexual Offences

45
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

The various provisions of Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with various heinous crimes against
women happening in the society like rape, kidnapping, domestic violence etc. and prescribe
punishment for offender and compensation to women who are victims of such crimes in order
to prevent such crimes in society.

SEC-375, RAPE

1. EXPLANATION TO RAPE

In simple terms, the offence of rape is the ravishment of a woman, without her consent, by
force, fraud or fear. In other words, it is the carnal knowledge (penetration of any of the
slightest degree of the male organ of reproduction) of any woman by force against her will. It
is an obnoxious act of highest degree which violates the right to privacy and sanctity of a
female. Apart from being a dehumanizing and perverted act, it is also an unlawful
interference in the personal life of a woman which is an intense blow on the honour, dignity,
reputation and self-esteem of a woman.

2. ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF RAPE

- Actus Reus: There must be sexual intercourse, as understood in terms of the provisions of
Section 375 (a) to (d), with a woman by a man.
- Mens Rea: The sexual intercourse must be under any of the seven circumstances as given
under Section 375.

3. PUNISHMENT FOR RAPE (SECTION 376)

Section 376 provides punishment for committing the heinous crime of rape. This section is
divided into two sub-sections.

- Section 376(1) provides a minimum sentence of seven years of imprisonment that may
extend to life imprisonment and fine.
- Section 376(2) provides punishment not less than ten years of imprisonment but may extend
to imprisonment for life or death or fine.

SEC-376D, GANG RAPE

Section 376D lays down the punishment for gang rape. Where a woman is raped by more
than one person acting in furtherance of a common intention, each of them shall be liable for
the offence of rape and shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for not less
than twenty years which may extend to lifetime imprisonment and fine.

Case: Priya Patel v. State of M.P.

Facts: The prosecutrix was returning home after her sports meet and the husband of the
appellant met her at the railway station and told her that her father has sent him to pick her.
He took her to his house and raped. During the commission of rape, appellant (the wife)
entered the room and prosecutrix asked for the help but instead of saving her, the appellant
slapped her and closed the door and left the place of the incident. The accused husband was

46
PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

charged under Section 376, IPC whereas the appellant wife was charged for commission of
offence punishable under Section 376(2)(g), IPC. 

The appellant wife challenged the legality of the charge framed against her under Section
376(2)(g), IPC on the ground that since a woman cannot commit rape and so cannot be
convicted for commission of ‘gang rape’.

Judgment: The court held that a woman cannot said to have an intention to commit rape.
Therefore, the appellant cannot be prosecuted for alleged commission of an offence
punishable under Section 376(2)(g).

SEC-377, UNNATURAL OFFENCES

Sec 377 reads,

Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man,
woman or animal, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to
fine.

Explanations

1. Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary for the

offence described in this section.

CONCLUSION

Indian Penal Code,1960 was enacted to define various offences and prescribe punishment
according to the different circumstances. With the changing society, it is needed by the courts
to interpret the language and phrases used in the act as the makers of the law made the act
according to the society of that time.

Human beings are at the top of the life cycle so they consider themselves to be the most
intelligent species. Law aims to prevent crimes committed by one person to the other so many
offences against life were discussed in the Indian Penal Code,1860.

Courts while deciding a case, preferred many previous judgments given by different courts,
and used the rules of interpretation to convict the accused. The most essential part of the fair
trial is to understand the true nature of the act and prescribe the punishment according to it
while interpreting the act. To serve the proper justice and maintain law and order in the
country it is necessary to understand the pure intention of the legislature while framing the
laws.

47
 PROJECT OF IPC OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN LIFE

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. BOOKS REFERRED
- The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Bare Act)
- S.N. Mishra, The Indian Penal Code (22nd edn, Law Publishers, Allahabad 1998)
- KL Vibhute, PSA Pillai: Criminal Law (12 edn, LexisNexis 2014)

2. LEGAL WEBSITES
- https://www.legalbites.in/criminal-force-assault-meaning-essentials-explanation-
difference/#_ftnref44
- https://devgan.in/ipc/chapter_16.php#s300
- http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-3981-interpretation-of-offences-affecting-
life.html
- https://indiankanoon.org/docfragment/92382661/?formInput=culpable%20homicide
%20cases
- https://www.latestlaws.com/articles/all-you-need-to-know-about-offences-against-women-
under-indian-penal-code-1860-read-article/
- https://lawcorner.in/force-criminal-force-and-assault-under-i-p-c-and-distinction-between-
them-explain/
- https://blog.ipleaders.in/offences-against-women/#:~:text=Section%20354%2C%20IPC
%20deals%20with,is%20derogatory%20to%20her%20modesty.

-FOR REFERENCE ONLY-

48