1|Page

CRIMINAL LAW-1
EXTERNAL IMPORTANT
QUESTIONS
1. DEFINE CRIME AND ITS ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS?
2. DIFFERENCE B/W CRIME AND BREACH OF CONTRACT
AND B/W CRIME AND TORT
3. VARIOUS THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT?
4. VARIOUS TYPES OF PUNISHMENT?
5. DEFINE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?
6. WHAT ARE THE GENERAL EXCEPTIONS [ ACCIDENTS,
INSANITY, INTOXICATION, JUDICIAL ACTS, INFANCY]?
7. WHAT IS CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND OFFENCES TO
THE PUBLIC TRANQUILITY?
8. WHAT IS UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY, RIOTS, AFFERY?
9. WHAT ARE THE OFFENCES RELATING TO PUBLIC
SERVANT?
10.CONTEMPT OF LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC
SERVANT?
11. OFFENCES RELATING TO ELECTION?
12. FALSE EVIDENCE?

|
2|Page

13. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PUBLIC NUISANCE AND

PRIVATE NUISANCE?14. ADULTRATION OF DRUGS AND
FOOD?
15.PUBLIC MORALS AND DECENCY [PREVENTION OF
OBSCENITY]?
16. OFFENCES RELATED TO RELIGION?
17.STAGES OF CRIME?
18.PRIVATE DEFENCE [S 36-106]
19.ABETMENT?
20.PRIVATE DEFENCE, MENSREA, ACTUSREA?
21.HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF IPC?
22. PERJURY?
23. ACTUS NON FACIT REUM NISI MENS SIT REA?
24.DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FALSE EVIDENCE AND
FABRICATING FALSE EVIDENCE?
25.JOINT LIABILITY?
26. COMMON INTENTION SEC 34?
27.DIFFERENCE B/W COMMON INTENTION AND
COMMON OBJECT [SEC 34 & SEC 149]?

|
3|Page

28. OFFENCES RELATED TO WEIGHTS MEASUREMENTS

&COINS?
29. NECESSITY
30. CONSPIRACY MEANS BREATHING TOGETHER
DISCUSS LEGAL PROVISIONS?
31. INTRA & EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION?
32.VICARIOUS LIABILITY MENS REA?

1. WHAT IS CRIME AND ITS ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS AND STAGES

OF CRIME?
Ans. A crime or offence [or criminal offences] is an act harmful
not only to some individual or individuals but also to a
community society or the state [a public wrong] such acts are
forbidden and punishable by law the notion that acts such as
murder rape and the theft are to be prohibited exists
worldwide what precisely is a criminal offence is defined by
criminal law of each country
Elements Of Crime: There are four elements which go to
constitute a crime, these are: -
· Human being
· Mens rea or guilty intention
· Actus reus or illegal act or omission
· Injury to another human being

|
4|Page

➢ Human Being- The first element requires that the wrongful

act must be committed by a human being. In ancient times,
when criminal law was largely dominated by the idea of
retribution, punishments were inflicted on animals also for
the injury caused by them,
➢ Mens Rea- The second important essential element of a
crime is mens rea or evil intent or guilty mind. There can be
no crime of any nature without mens rea or an evil mind.
Every crime requires a mental element and that is considered
as the fundamental principle of criminal liability. The basic
requirement of the principle mens rea is that the accused
must have been aware of those elements in his act which
make the crime with which he is charged.
There is a well known maxim in this regard, i.e. “actus non
facit reum nisi mens sit rea” which means that, the guilty
intention and guilty act together constitute a crime. It comes
from the maxim that no person can be punished in a
proceeding of criminal nature unless it can be showed that
he had a guilty mind.

➢ Actus Reus [Guilty Act or Omission] - The third essential

element of a crime is actus reus. In other words, some overt
act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of the
guilty intention. Actus reus is the manifestation of mens rea
in the external world. Prof. Kenny was the first writer to use
the term ‘actus reus’. He has defined the term thus- “such

|
 5|Page

result of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent”.

➢ Injury- The fourth requirement of a crime is injury to another

person or to the society at large. The injury should be illegally
caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property
as according to Section 44 of IPC, 1860 the injury denotes
any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body,
mind, reputation or property.
➢ Stages Of A Crime
➢ If a person commits a crime voluntarily or after preparation the
doing of it involves four different stages. In every crime, there is
first intention to commit it, secondly, preparation to commit it,
thirdly, attempt to commit it and fourthly the accomplishment.
The stages can be explained as under-

➢ 1. Intention- Intention is the first stage in the commission of an

offence and known as mental stage. Intention is the direction of
conduct towards the object chosen upon considering the
motives which suggest the choice. But the law does not take
notice of an intention, mere intention to commit an offence not
followed by any act, cannot constitute an offence. The obvious
reason for not prosecuting the accused at this stage is that it is
very difficult for the prosecution to prove the guilty mind of a
person.

➢ 2. Preparation- Preparation is the second stage in the

commission of a crime. It means to arrange the necessary

|
 6|Page

measures for the commission of the intended criminal act.

Intention alone or the intention followed by a preparation is
not enough to constitute the crime. Preparation has not been
made punishable because in most of the cases the prosecution
has failed to prove that the preparations in the question were
made for the commission of the particular crime.
If A purchases a pistol and keeps the same in his pocket duly
loaded in order to kill his bitter enemy B, but does nothing
more. A has not committed any offence as still he is at the
stage of preparation and it will be impossible for the
prosecution to prove that A was carrying the loaded pistol only
for the purpose of killing B.

➢ Preparation When Punishable- Generally, preparation to

commit any offence is not punishable but in some exceptional
cases preparation is punishable, following are some examples
of such exceptional circumstances-
· Preparation to wage war against the Government - Section
122, IPC 1860;
· Preparation to commit depredation on territories of a power
at peace with Government of India- Section 126, IPC 1860;
· Preparation to commit dacoity- Section 399, IPC 1860;
· Preparation for counterfeiting of coins or Government stamps-
Sections 233-235, S. 255 and S. 257;
· Possessing counterfeit coins, false weight or measurement
and forged documents. Mere possession of these is a crime and

|
7|Page

no possessor can plead that he is still at the stage of

preparation- Sections 242, 243, 259, 266 and 474.
3. Attempt- Attempt is the direct movement towards the
commission of a crime after the preparation is made. According
to English law, a person may be guilty of an attempt to commit
an offence if he does an act which is more than merely
preparatory to the commission of the offence; and a person will
be guilty of attempting to commit an offence even though the
facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible.
There are three essentials of an attempt:-
· Guilty intention to commit an offence;
· Some act done towards the commission of the offence;
· The act must fall short of the completed offence.
➢ 4. Accomplishment or Completion- The last stage in the
commission of an offence is its accomplishment or
completion. If the accused succeeds in his attempt to commit
the crime, he will be guilty of the complete offence and if his
attempt is unsuccessful, he will be guilty of an attempt only.
➢ For example, A fires at B with the intention to kill him, if B
dies, A will be guilty for committing the offence of murder
and if B is only injured, it will be a case of attempt to murder.

2. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIME AND TORT AND CRIME AND

BREACH OF CONTRACT?
Ans. The real distinction between a tort and a crime lies in the

|
8|Page

method in which the remedy for the wrong is pursued. Tort

differs from crime both in principle and procedure.
Every tortious act does not amount to crime, nor does every
crime include a tort. There are certain points of distinction
between a tort and a crime, which are tabulated below:
Tort:
1. A tort is a species of a civil wrong. It gives rise to civil
proceedings
2. In a tort, the plaintiff is the injured party.
3. A tort is a violation of the private rights of an individual.
4. The wrong doer is liable to compensation to the injured
party.
5. The purpose of awarding compensation to the injured party
is to make good the loss suffered by him.
6. The nature of punishment is lighter, that too in the shape of
awarding damages.
7. In tort, the intention is not important factor.
8. Mens rea has no place in tort.
9. The principles of “Injuria sine damnum”, “Damnum sine
injuria”, “Vicarious Liability”, “Respondeat Superior”, “Absolute
Liability”, “Precautionary Principle”, “Polluter Pays’ Principle”,
etc. are recognised in the Law of Torts.
10. Burden of proof lies on the complainant/ injured.

|
9|Page

11. Natural Principles of Justice, good conscience, equity, etc.

are followed in fixing the wrong-doer’s liability.
12. Most of the Law of the Torts is judge-made- law. It is not
codified.
Crime:
1. Crimes are those which result in punishment of the criminals.
2. In a crime, the victim is an individual. The criminal
proceedings against the wrong-doer are instituted by the State.
3. A crime is a breach of the public rights and duties which
affect the whole community.
4. The wrong-doer is generally punished. Sometimes the fine is
imposed. But that fine amount is credited into the State
account. The amount collected by way of fine or penalty is not
paid to the victim.
5. The purpose of the criminal law is to protect the society by
preventing and deterring the offenders from committing
further offences.
6. The nature of punishment is heavy and serious in the shape
of imprisonment.
7. In crime, intention plays important factor.
8. Generally an act shall not be punished as a crime, unless
there is mens rea actually present in the wrong-doer.

|
10 | P a g e

9. In majority criminal cases, these principles are not adopted in

the criminal law.
10. Burden of proof lies on the State. The injured becomes a
witness only.
11. Strict rules of procedure and principles are followed in fixing
the liability of the criminal.
12. All the crimes are defined, and the punishments are
prescribed. Criminal Law is codified.

Distinction between Crime and

Breach of Contract
1) In crime, the injured party cannot sue for damages. The
injury to the victim is deemed as an injury to the society. It
is the violation of public right. Hence the State prosecutes
the accused. The burden of proof lies upon the State. If the
wrongful act is proved, the accused is put in imprisonment
or imposed fine, or both. Such fine is not paid to the
victim. It is credited into the State’s account. But, in case
of breach of contract, the injured party has right only for
liquidated damages i.e. actual damages.
(2) The object of the criminal law is to project the peace of
the society, while the object of law on the breach of
contract is to protect the rights of the parties in a contract.
(3) Mens rea (ill intention) is an important factor in
imposing the Criminal liability upon the wrong-doer

|
11 | P a g e

where-as, in breach of contract, the motive is not an

essential factor. The defaulting party has to pay the pre-
settled and actual damages.
(4) A wrongful act is an infringement of right in rem. The
wrong-doer has a ‘Duty in rem’ i.e., he should not do harm
or injury to any person. It is a statutory duty. But, a breach
of contract is an infringement of a right in personam i.e., a
right available only against some determinate person or
body and for which the community at large has no
concern.
(5) The Criminal law which deals with crimes and offences
is a separate branch, whereas breach of contract is a
species of law of contract, which belongs to civil law
(6) The criminal law is completely codified one while the
law relating to contracts considers certain trade customs,
though it has been codified.
(7) In crime, the victims are not paid damages. The
accused is sent to jail or imposed fine or both. The fine
goes to the State. However, in breach of contract, the
party is entitled only for actual damages.

3. VARIOUS THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT?

Ans. The purpose of punishment is explained by various
theories. Each theory has its own reason and justification.
Theory of punishment can be classified as below
(i) Deterrent theory;

|
12 | P a g e

(ii) Preventive theory;

(iii) Retributive theory;
(iv) Reformative theory;
(v) Expiatory theory.
(1) Deterrent Theory of Punishment:
The chief end of the law of crime is to make the evil-doer an
example and warning to all those who are like minded.
Offences are committed by reason of conflict between the
interests, real or apparent, of the wrong-doer and those of
society at large. Punishment prevents offences by destroying
the conflict of interests to which they owe their origin—by
making all deeds which are injurious to others, injurious also to
the doers of them by making every offence, in the words of
Locke, “an ill-bargain to the offender”.
(2) Preventive Theory of Punishment:
Punishment is, in the second place, preventive or disabling. Its
primary and general purpose being to deter by fear, its
secondary and special purpose is, wherever possible and
expedient, to prevent a repetition of wrongdoing by the
disablement of the offender. Imprisonment is disablement by
isolation.
he most effective mode of disablement is the death penalty,
which in practice, in time of peace, is confined to the crime of

|
13 | P a g e

murder, though it is legally possible for treason and certain

forms of piracy and arson.
(3) Retributive Theory of Punishment:
Retributive punishment, in the only sense in which it is
admissible in any rational system of administering justice, is
that which serves of the satisfaction of that emotion of
retributive indignation which in all the healthy communities is
stirred up by injustice.
Retribution was formerly based on the theory of revenge—”an
eye for an eye and tooth for tooth.” Today, on the other hand,
the retributive theory is based on the idea that punishment is
the necessary alkali to neutralise the evil effects of the crime.
“Crime is the first half but the punishment the second half.”
The idea behind the retributive punishment is that of the
restoration of the moral order, the appeasement of the
disturbed conscience of society itself, and the maintenance of
the concerning power of the State which becomes aggrieved
when a crime is committed and inflicts punishment to set
matters right.
(4) Reformative Theory of Punishment:
Punishment in the fourth place is reformative. Offences are
committed through the influence of mating or by a change of
character. The curative or medicinal function is practically
limited to two particular species of penalty, namely,

|
14 | P a g e

imprisonment (where it pertains to the ideal rather than to the

actual) and probation.
The new science of criminality would go far towards identifying
crime with disease, and would willingly deliver many classes of
criminals out of the hands of the men of law into the hands of
men of medicine. Imprisonment and probation, indeed, are the
only important instruments available for the purpose of a
purely reformative system. It is the most controverted theory.
(5) Expiatory Theory:
This theory is peculiar in nature which is properly explained in
Hindu Jurisprudence. This is also named as theory of penance.
According to this theory punishment is necessary for the
purification of the offender.
According to Manu “Men who are guilty of crime, when
condemned by the king become pure and go to heaven in the
same way as good and virtuous men go.” The theory is
historical one. Expiation is to some extent akin to the idea of
retribution.
Fry observes that punishment should be in order to ‘adjust the
suffering to the sin’. Oppenheimer is of the opinion that
punishment is the purification not of the individual alone but of
the humanity as a whole.
4. VARIOUS TYPES OF PUNISHMENT?
Ans. Introduction
Section 53 to 75 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 deals with the

|
15 | P a g e

scheme of Punishment. Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code

prescribes five kinds of punishments
➢ Punishment Meaning :
Punishment is a process by which the state inflicts some
pain to the persons or property of person who is found
guilty of Crime. In other words punishment is sanction
imposed on an accused for the infringement of the
established rules.
➢ Object
The Object of Punishment is to protect society from
mischievous and undesirable elements by deterring
potential offenders, by preventing the actual offenders
from committing further offences and by reforming and
turning them into law abiding citizens.
➢ Punishments under the Indian Penal Code
Section 53 of the Indian Penal Code prescribes five kinds
of punishments are as follows :
a) Death
b) Imprisonment for life
c) Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions, namely -
(1) Rigorous, that is with hard labour
(2) Simple
d) Forfeiture of property
e) Fine.
a) Death: Death Penalty or capital Punishment is the
most serious nature of punishment. Some countries
abolished it. A death sentence may be awarded under the

|
16 | P a g e

Indian Penal Code in the following cases -

i) Waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging
of war, against the Government of India . (Section. 121)
ii) Abetment of mutiny, if mutiny is committed. (Section
132)
iii) Giving or fabricating false evidence upon which an
innocent person suffers death (Section. 194)
iv) Murder (Section 302)
v) Abetment of suicide of a minor, or insane or
intoxicated person (305)
vi) Attempt to Murder by a person under sentence of
imprisonment for life, if hurt is caused (Section 307).
vii) Kidnapping for ransom etc. (Section 364A)
viii) Dacoity with murder (Section 369)

b) Imprisonment for life –

Life Imprisonment means a sentence of imprisonment
running throughout the remaining period of a convict's
natural life (till death). But in practice it is not so.
According to Section 55 of Indian Penal Code, in every
case in which sentence of imprisonment for life shall have
been passed, the appropriate Government may, without
the consent of the offender, commute the punishment
for imprisonment of either description for a term not
exceeding fourteen years. Section 57 states that in
calculating fractions of terms of punishment,
imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to

|
17 | P a g e

imprisonment for twenty years.

K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, (AIR 1962 SC

605)
In this case supreme court held that imprisonment for
life means rigorous imprisonment for life and not simple
Imprisonment

c) Imprisonment - Rigorous and Simple

➢ i) Rigorous Imprisonment -
Imprisonment may be rigorous with hard labour. such
as digging earth, cutting wood etc.
According to Section 60 of I.P.C in every case in which an
offender is punishable with imprisonment which may be
of either description, it shall be competent to the Court
which sentences such offender to direct in the sentence
that such imprisonment shall be wholly rigorous, or that
such imprisonment shall be wholly simple or that any part
of such imprisonment shall be rigorous and the rest
simple.
➢ The Indian Penal Code prescribes imprisonment as
punishment for -
(1) Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to
procure conviction of capital offence (Section 194)

|
18 | P a g e

(2) House-trespass in order to commit offence

punishable with death (Section 449)

ii) Simple Imprisonment:

Simple imprisonment is imposed for small offences like
wrongful restraint, defamation etc. In case of simple
imprisonment, the convict will not be forced to do any
hard-manual labour. There are some offences which are
punishable with simple imprisonment are as follows :

1) Refusing to take oath (Section 178)

2) Defamation (Section 500)
3) Wrongful restraint
4) Misconduct by a drunken person, etc (Section 510)

➢ Solitary Confinement
Solitary Confinement means keeping a prisoner
thoroughly isolated from any kind of contact with the
outside A harsh and hardened convict may be confined
in a separate cell to correct his conduct. Court can award
this punishment only when the offence is punishable
with rigorous imprisonment.
Solitary confinement may be imposed subject to the
following restrictions
(a) Solitary confinement should not exceed three
months of the Substantive term of imprisonment

|
19 | P a g e

(b) It cannot be awarded where imprisonment is not

part of the substantive sentence.
(c) It cannot be awarded for the whole of term of
imprisonment
(d) It cannot also be awarded where imprisonment is in
lieu of fine.
According to Section 74 of I.P.C in no case the sentence
of solitary confinement be awarded more than fourteen
days at a time. and it must be imposed at intervals.

d) Forfeiture of property -
Forfeiture of property means taking away the property
of the criminal by the State. Forfeiture of property is
now abolished except in the case of following offences :
1) Committing depredation on territories of Power at
peace with the Government of India(Section 126)
2) Receiving property taken by war or depredation
mentioned in sections 125 and 126 (Section 127).

e) Fine
The Courts may impose fine as sole imprisonment or
alternative or it may be imposed in addition to the
imprisonment. The Indian Penal Code , 1860 prescribes
fine along with imprisonment in respect of certain
offences. In default of fine, imprisonment may be
imposed.

|
20 | P a g e

5. DEFINE CAPITAL PUNISHMENT?

Ans. Capital punishment, also known as the death
penalty, is a government-sanctioned practice whereby a
person is put to death by the state as a punishment for a
crime.
➢ The sentence ordering that someone be punished in
such a manner is referred to as a death sentence,
whereas the act of carrying out such a sentence is
known as an execution. Crimes that are punishable by
death are known as capital crimes, capital offences or
capital felonies, and vary depending on the jurisdiction,
➢ but commonly include serious offences such as murder,
mass murder, aggravated cases of rape, child rape, child
sexual abuse, terrorism, treason, espionage, sedition,
piracy, aircraft hijacking, drug trafficking and drug
dealing, war crimes, crimes against humanity and
genocide, and in some cases, the most serious acts of
recidivism, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping
➢ the term capital (lit. "of the head", derived via the Latin
capitalis from caput, "head") in this context alluded to
execution by beheading
➢ Fifty-six countries retain capital punishment, 106
countries have completely abolished it de jure for all
crimes, eight have abolished it for ordinary crimes (while
maintaining it for special circumstances such as war
crimes), and 28 are abolitionist in practice
➢ Capital offences

|
21 | P a g e

Section under IPC or Nature of crime

other law
Being a party to a criminal
120B of IPC conspiracy to commit a capital
offence

War against Indian

121 of IPC government

Abetting a mutiny in the

armed forces (if a mutiny
132 of IPC occurs as a result), engaging in
mutiny

Giving or fabricating false

evidence with intent to
194 of IPC procure a conviction of a
capital offence

302, 303 of IPC Murder

305 of IPC Abetting the suicide of a minor

Part II Section 4 of Aiding or abetting an act of

Prevention of Sati Act Sati

Kidnapping, in the course of

which the victim was held for
364A of IPC ransom or other coercive
purposes.

|
22 | P a g e

31A of the Narcotic Drug trafficking in cases of

Drugs and Psychotropic repeat offences
Substances Act
376AB of IPC; 42 of
Protection of Children
from Sexual Offences Rape and gang rape of a girl
Act, 2012 (POCSO) and under 12 years of age[44]
The Criminal Law
(Amendment) Act, 2018
Dacoity with murder – in cases
where a group of five or more
individuals commit dacoity
and one of them commits
396 of IPC murder in the course of that
crime, all members of the
group are liable for the death
penalty.

Rape if the perpetrator inflicts

injuries that result in the
376A of IPC and victim's death or
Criminal Law incapacitation in a persistent
(Amendment) Act, 2013 vegetative state, or is a repeat
offender.[45]

Bombay Prohibition In Gujarat only – Manufacture

(Gujarat Amendment) and sale of poisoned alcohol
Bill, 2009 which results in death(s)

|
23 | P a g e

6. WHAT ARE THE GENERAL EXCEPTIONS OF [ ACCIDENTS

INSANITY, INTOXICATION, JUDICIAL ACTS, INFANCY]?
Ans. GENERAL EXCEPTIONS (I.P.C)
• When a person proved with the commission of an offence,
and ought to have been punished by law, if he is exempted
from such legal punishment under special conditions stipulated
in the law, it is known as General Exception.
• Ch. IV comprising of Ss-76 to 106 deals with the General
Defenses in the Indian Penal Code.
• In fact, these provisions indicate the absence of mens rea
element in the acts of commissions and omissions on the part
of the perpetrator of the offence.
• When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of
proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within
the exception lies on that accused person
CATEGORIES OF EXCEPTIONS
can be divided into seven categories –
I) Mistake of Fact [ Sec – 76, 79]
ii) Judicial acts [Sec- 77,78]
iii) Accident [Sec-80]
iv) Absence of criminal intent [Sec-81-86, 92-94]
v.) Consent [Sec 87- 91]
vi) Trifling acts [ Sec– 95]

|
24 | P a g e

vii) Private Defense [Sec-96 – 106]

Divided into- •
1. Excusable
2. Justifiable
MISTAKE OF FACT
➢ Act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing
himself bound by law [sec 76]
➢ Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is or
who by reason of a mistake of fact or not by reason of a
mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be bound
by law to do it [excusable act]
➢ Ex. A police firing at a rioting mob under lawful orders, did
not commit any offence.
➢ ii) Arrest by police a wrong person under mistake of fact.
➢ In Shew Mangal’s case, it was held that a subordinate
officer carrying the orders of his superior, is not liable.
➢ [Sec-79] provides exemption from criminal liability in
respect of acts of a person justified, or believing himself to
be justified by law.
➢ Rao Bahadur Thapa’s case – Gurkha killing innocent
women under the impression of apparitions
JUDICIAL ACTS [SEC 77-78]
➢ [sec 77] Act of judge when acting judicially: nothing is an
offence which is done by a judge when acting judicially is

|
25 | P a g e

the exercise of any power which is or which in good faith

he believes to be given to him by law
➢ [sec 78] Act done pursuant to the judgement or order of
court : nothing which is done in pursuance of or which is
warranted by the judgement or order of a court of justice
if done whilst such judgement or order remains in force is
an offence not withstanding the court may have had no
jurisdiction to pass such judgement or order provided the
person doing the act in good faith believes that the court
had such jurisdiction

ACCIDENTS: [SEC 80]

➢ Sec-80 provides exemption from criminal liability in
respect of accidents in due performance of lawful acts. Act
is done by Accident or misfortune Without any criminal
intention or knowledge
➢ In a lawful manner and by lawful means • With proper
care and caution
➢ Ex. A hatchet, while cutting wood, flies off and kills a
person, when there was no want of caution

ABSENCE OF CRIMINAL INTENT (SEC 81-86& 92-94)

➢ [SEC 81] Act likely to cause harm but done without
criminal intent and to prevent other harm : nothing is an
offence merely by reason of its being done with the

|
26 | P a g e

knowledge that it is likely to cause harm if it be done

without any criminal intention to cause harm and in good
faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm
to person or property
➢ Ex: A in a great fire pulls down horses in order to prevent
the conflagration from spreading he does this with the
intention in good faith of saving human life or property
here if it be found that the harm to be prevented was of
such a nature and so imminent as to excuse A’s act A is not
guilty of the offence

INCAPABILITY
CLASSIFIED INTO
1. INFANCY – [S-82, 83]
2. INSANITY –[S-84]
3. INTOXICATION – [S-85 & 86]
INFANCY [SEC 82,83]
➢ [sec 82] Act of a child under seven years of age: Nothing
is an offence which is done by a child under seven years
of age
➢ [sec 83] Act of a child above seven and under twelve of
immature understanding: Nothing is an offence which is
done by a child above seven years of age and under
twelve who has not attained sufficient maturity of

|
27 | P a g e

understanding to judge of the nature and consequences

of his conduct on that occasion
➢ Child should not have attained sufficient maturity of
understanding to judge the nature and consequences of
his conduct

INSANITY [SEC 84]

➢ Sec- 84 provides exemption from criminal liability in
respect of acts of a person of unsound mind (non-compos
mentis)
➢ At the time of the act, incapable of knowing the nature of
the act and Not capable of understanding what he was
doing was either wrong or contrary to law.

INTOXICATION [SEC 85,86]

➢ [sec 85] Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason
of intoxication caused against his will: nothing is an
offence which is done by a person who at the time of
doing it is by reason of intoxication incapable of knowing
the nature of the act, or that he was doing what was either
wrong or contrary to law, and that the thing which
intoxicated him was given to him without his knowledge or
against his will
➢ [sec 86] says- if an act is an offence only when done with a
particular intent or knowledge, and such act is committed
by an intoxicated person, he is liable unless he can show

|
28 | P a g e

that he was intoxicated without his knowledge and against

his will.
➢ Voluntarily drunken person will be liable as if he was sober
when he did it must be considered as an aggravation
rather than a defense.
➢ Based on the principle – QUI PECCAT EBRIUS, LUAT
SOBRIUS i.e. one who sins when drunk, should be
punished when he is sober.
➢ Sarthi vs. State of M.P (1976) – Three drunken accused
roughed up the deceased making him unconscious, and
without ascertaining whether he was dead or alive,
hanged him from the ceiling fan – state of intoxication
gave the accused benefit to be convicted under Sec-304
IPC instead of under Sec-302

➢ [sec 92] : deals with the acts done in good faith for the
benefit of a person without consent and Covers the cases
not covered by sec-89
➢ It deals with the cases of emergency and Sec-92 presumes
implied consent of the party in question.
➢ Consent may be absolutely dispensed with when the
circumstances are such as –
➢ i) to render consent impossible, or
➢ ii) when the person is incapable of assenting, there is no
one at hand whose consent can be substituted
➢ Sec-92 presumes implied consent in two categories of
cases – i) when it is impossible to obtain consent because

|
29 | P a g e

the person who could accord consent might not be

available and the act (operation) is urgent and
➢ ii) when it is not articulated or expressed.
➢ Ex. A man falls under epileptic fit, suffers hemorrhage and
bleeding – not capable of giving consent – Act of doctor in
good faith and to save the victim, causing bleeding
commits no offence
[sec 93]: Against a criminal Sec-93 gives protection to a person
from criminal liability for making a communication to one
which results in harm to him. To claim this protection –
i) the communication must be made in good faith, and
ii) It must be made for the benefit of the person. • Ex. A doctor
communicates in good faith to his patient the gravity of his
disease and the probability of his living. The patient died of
shock. Doctor is exempted from criminal liability

[sec 94] : exempts a person from criminal liability in respect of

an act committed under compulsion or duress.
➢ Based on the principle ACTUS NE INVITO FACTUS EST NISI
ACTUS i.e. an act done by me against my will is not my act
➢ This defense is subject to two exceptions
i)Murder and (ii) Waging war against Govt. of India, which is
punishable with death

|
30 | P a g e

➢ The threat under S-94 must be of instant death to the

person compelled to commit the offence

CONSENT [SEC 87-91]:

[SEC 87]: gives immunity from criminal prosecution on the
ground of consent in general.
➢ S-87- immunity will not justify causing death or grievous
bodily injury or harm likely to cause death, and which is
known to the doer. The restriction is absolute and
unconditional.
➢ Consenting party should be above 18 years of age.
➢ EX: A and Z agree to fence with each other for amusement
this agreement implies the consent of each to suffer any
harm which in the course of such fencing may be caused
without foul play and if A while playing fairly hurts Z A
commits no offence

[sec 88]: S-88 grants immunity to persons like doctors from

punishments for all acts, done in good faith and for the benefit
of the consenting party, which may cause any harm except
causing death intentionally.
➢ Ex. A surgeon operating on a critical patient with the
consent of the patient – No malice or negligence on the
part of the doctor and the operation conducted for the
benefit of the patient.

|
31 | P a g e

[sec 89]: S-89 authorizes guardian or other persons having

lawful charge of
i) child below the age of 12 yrs.
ii) ii) a person of unsound mind – not competent to give
consent in law to consent to inflict harm either himself or
by another person, provided
iii) it is done in good faith and for the benefit of the such
minor/person of unsound mind, and
iv) the act is not either immoral or illegal. Sec-89 is a
corollary to Sec-88 of the Code.
[sec 90]: Consent known to be given under fear or
misconception: A consent is not such a consent as is intended
by any section of this code if the consent is given by a person
under fear of injury or under a misconception of fact and if the
person doing the acts knows or has reason to believe that the
consent was given in consequence of such fear or
misconception
[sec 91]: exclusion of acts which are offences independently of
harm caused : the exceptions in sections 87 88 and 89 do not
extend to acts which are offences independently of any harm
which they may cause or be intended to cause or be known to
be likely to cause to the person giving the consent or on whose
behalf the consent is given

|
32 | P a g e

TRIFLING ACTS [SEC 95]

[sec 95]: Act causing slight harm : nothing is an offence by
reason that it causes or that it is intended to cause or that it is
known to be likely to cause any harm if that harm is so slight
that no person of ordinary sense any temper would complain of
such harm
➢ Ex: To take a sheet of paper from other’s drawer
➢ Pressing a man and causing hurt while getting into a
railway compartment.
➢ Calling a person a liar, though it attracts defamation.

PRIVATE DEFENCE [SEC 96-106]

Self-help is the first rule of criminal law. The right of private
defense is absolutely necessary for the protection of one’s own
life and property.
➢ Ss-96 to 106 state the law relating to the right of private
defense of body and property. Use of necessary force
against the assailant or wrong-doer is legally permissible
when immediate state aid could not be procured.
➢ This right cannot be applied as a pretense for justifying
aggression for causing harm to another person, nor for
causing more harm than is necessary to inflict for the
purpose of defense.
➢ The right is not absolute but subject to restrictions
contained in Ss-97 to 105.

|
33 | P a g e

➢ Sec-96 lays down general proposition that – ‘nothing is an

offence which is done in the exercise of the right of
private defense
➢ Sec-97, 98 and 99 are of a general nature and deal with
both aspects right to defend body and property
➢ Sec-100, 101, 102, 106 are concerned with the defense of
body. •
➢ Sec-103, 104 and 105 are concerned with the defense of
the property.
➢ Sec-97 provides Right to defend i)one’s own body, and
body of others against any offence affecting human body,
and ii) one’s own property- of others- movable and
immovable- against any action of theft, robbery, mischief
or criminal trespass or attempt to commit such acts.
➢ This right is subjected to the restrictions under Sec-99 i.e.
there is no right of private defense
➢ i) against the acts of public servant acting in good faith
➢ ii) against the acts of those acting under their authority or
direction
➢ iii) where there is sufficient time for recourse to public
authorities; and
➢ iv) the quantum of harm that may be caused shall in no
case be in excess of harm that may be necessary for the
purpose of defense.
➢ Sec-98 provides self-defense against an offence
committed by a person who might be exempted from
criminal liability, by reason of

|
34 | P a g e

➢ i) being unsound mind u/s-84

➢ ii) want of maturity of understanding u/s-82,83,
➢ iii) misconception of the part of that person u/s76, 79.
➢ For ex. If, A an insane person, attempts to kill B, then B
will have right of self-defense against A.
➢ Defense of Body: Sec-100 provides that the right of
private defense extends even to the causing of death or
any other harm to the assailant under the following six
circumstances
➢ i) An assault causing reasonable apprehension of death.
In such a case, if the defender cannot exercise this right
without causing harm to an innocent person, he may even
run that risk. (S-106)
➢ ii) An assault causing reason apprehension of grievous
hurt
➢ iii) An assault with the intention of committing rape.
➢ iv) An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural
lust.
➢ V) An assault with intention of kidnapping or abduction.
➢ Vi) An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a
person under circumstances that may cause him to
apprehend that he will not have any recourse to public
authorities for his release.
➢ Subject to the above restrictions, the right of private
defense of body extends to the causing of any harm short
of death.

|
35 | P a g e

➢ The right of self-defense does not extend to the voluntary

causing of death. (s-101)
➢ When right of self-defense available S-102 and 105 fix the
time when the right of private defense commences and
the time during which it continues.
➢ S-102 says that the right of private defense of the body
commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of
danger to the body arises from an attempt, threat to
commit the offence, though the offence may not have
been committed; and it continues as long as such
apprehension of danger to the body continues.
➢ Sec-103 The right of private defense of property extends
to the causing of death or any other harm to the assailant
under the following circumstances:
➢ i) Robbery
➢ ii) Housebreaking by night
➢ iii) Mischief by fire to building, tent, or vessel, used as a
human dwelling or for custody of property.
➢ iv) Theft, mischief or house trespass, reasonably causing
the apprehension of death or grievous hurt.
➢ Sec-104 says that the right of private defense of property
extends to the causing of any harm short of death
➢ Defense of property: Sec-105 fixes the time when the
right of private defense of property commences and when
it comes to an end. This right commences as soon as a
reasonable apprehension of danger to property

|
36 | P a g e

commences and its continuation depends upon the nature

of offence. It continues, in case of
➢ i) theft – till the offender retreated, or procurement of
assistance of public authorities or till the property is
recovered.
➢ ii) robbery – as long as the offender causes or attempts to
cause any person death or hurt or instant personal
restraint continues. •
➢ iii) criminal trespass or mischief – as long as the offender
continues in the commission of criminal trespass or
mischief.
➢ iv) Housebreaking by night – as long as such house
trespass that began continues

6. WHAT IS CONSPIRACY AND OFFENCES AGAINST THE PUBLIC

TRANSQUILITY?
Ans. Conspiracy u/s. 120 A , 120B:
➢ When two or more person commit any crime with
common intension then all of them are equally liable for
punishment for the crime which they have committed u/s.
120 B.
➢ There is direct or indirect participation of all the accused in
the committing the crime.

|
37 | P a g e

➢ When There is plan or conspiracy to commit crime but

they have not committed it then punishment is 6 months
imprisonment u/s. 120 A.
➢ Ex. A B C make a plan to commit murder of X, A purchase a
poison B added in glass of Milk, C offered glass to X after
drinking milk A died All three are liable for Murder.
Because they have committed Crime under criminal
conspiracy.
➢ Ex. A Made Block, B printed Currency notes. And C
Circulated Currency notes. All are liable for crime because
it has been committed under criminal conspiracy.
OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC TRANSQUILITY:
➢ It means public peace and traffic which should not be
disturbed. There are four offences relating to public
tranquility specific from sec. 141 to 160 of IPC.
➢ This offence are as follows:
1.Unlawful Assembly [sec 141-145]
➢ [u/sec 141] An assembly which was not unlawful when it is
assembled may subsequently become an unlawful
assembly
➢ When five or more-person assemble with common object
who commit a crime or illegal act then it is called unlawful
assembly. They have common object to do something
illegally.[sec 141]
➢ Every person in the group is member of the unlawful
assembly. [sec 142] Even though they may not commit any

|
38 | P a g e

crime. There is liability of six-month imprisonment or fine

or both [sec 143]
➢ Whoever Join unlawful assembly armed with deadly
weapon shall be punished with 2 years imprisonment or
fine or with both [sec 144]
➢ Whoever joins or continues in unlawful assembly knowing
it has been commanded to disperse by law shall be
punished with 2 years imprisonment or fine or with both [
sec 145]
2. Rioting [ sec 146-153]
➢ When five or more person assemble and violence then it is
rioting. [sec 146]
➢ Violence includes damaging public or private property or
any using force. Such as injuring another person. It can be
said unlawful assembly + violence = rioting.
➢ Punishment for rioting is 2 years [sec 147]
➢ imprisonment when rioting is done with deadly weapon
then punishment is 3 years imprisonment. [sec 148]
➢ every member of unlawful assembly guilty of offence
committed in prosecution of the common object [ sec 149]
➢ whoever hires or engages or employs any person to
become a member of unlawful assembly shall be
punishable as a member of such unlawful assembly in a
pursuance of such hiring or employment in the same
manner as if he is a member of such unlawful assembly
[sec 150]

|
39 | P a g e

➢ knowingly joining or continuing in assembly of five or more

persons after it has been commanded to disperse by law
shall be punished with 6 months imprisonment or fine [sec
151]
➢ assaulting or obstructing public servant when suppressing
riot etc. shall be punished with 3 years imprisonment or
fine or with both [ sec 152]
➢ wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot if
rioting be committed in consequence of such provocation
shall be punished with one year imprisonment or fine [ sec
153]
3. Promoting enmity b/w. classes people:
➢ Whether any body by his action public address, pamphlet,
Act, create enmity between group of people or tension or
misunderstanding then it is crime against Public tranquility
[SEC 153 A]
➢ Punishment for this crime is 2 years imprisonment.
➢ Whoever by words either spoken or written or by visible
representation causes disharmony or feeling of enmity or
hatred shall be punished with 2 years’ imprisonment or
fine [sec 153-B]
4. Affray [ sec 159-160]
➢ It means fighting between two or more person on a public
place disturb the public peace they are to commit an
affray [ sec 159]

|
 40 | P a g e

➢ Whoever commits an affray shall be punished with

imprisonment of one month or fine or with both [ sec 160]
8 WHAT IS UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY RIOTS AFFRAY?
Ans. Refer 7 answer
1. WHAT ARE THE OFFENCES RELATED TO PUBLIC SERVANT?
Ans. Offences related to public servant is u/sec 161-171:

Section Cognizable Bailable By what

Offence Punishment or non- or non- court
cognizable bailable triable

Being or
excepting to be
a public
servant, and
Imprisonment Cognizable Magistrate
taking a Non-
161 IPC for 3 years, or of the first
gratification bailable
fine, or both class
other than legal
remuneration
in respect of an
official act.

Taking a Imprisonment Cognizable Magistrate

Non-
162 IPC gratification in for 3 years, or of the first
bailable
order, by fine, or both class

|
 41 | P a g e

corrupt or
illegal means,
to influence a
public servant.

Taking a
gratification for
Simple
the exercise of Magistrate
imprisonment Non-
163 IPC personal Cognizable of the first
for 1 year or bailable
influence with class
fine, or both.
a public
servant.

Abetment by
public servant
of the offences
defined in the Imprisonment Magistrate
Non-
164 IPC last two for 3 years, or Cognizable of the first
bailable
preceding fine, or both class
clauses with
reference to
himself.

Public servant Imprisonment Magistrate

165 IPC obtaining any for 3 years, or Cognizable Non- of the first
valuable thing, fine, or both bailable
class
without

|
 42 | P a g e

consideration,
from a person
concerned in
any proceeding
or business
transacted by
such public
servant.

Punishment for
abetment of
offences Imprisonment Magistrate
Non-
165A IPC punishable for 3 years, or Cognizable of the first
bailable
under section fine, or both class
161 or section
165.

Public servant
disobeying a Simple
Magistrate
direction of the imprisonment Non-
166 IPC Bailable of the first
law with intent for 1 year or cognizable
class
to cause injury fine, or both.
to any person.

Public servant Imprisonment Magistrate

167 IPC framing an for 3 years, or Cognizable Bailable of the first
incorrect fine, or both. class

|
 43 | P a g e

document with
intent to cause
injury.

Public servant Simple

Magistrate
unlawfully imprisonment Non-
168 IPC Bailable of the first
engaging in for 1 year or cognizable
class
trade. fine, or both.

Simple
imprisonment
Public servant
for 2 years, or
unlawfully Magistrate
fine, or both, Non-
169 IPC buying or Bailable of the first
and cognizable
bidding for class
confiscation of
property.
property, if
purchased.

Imprisonment Magistrate
Personating a Non-
170 IPC for 2 years, or Cognizable of the first
public servant bailable
fine, or both. class

Wearing garb Magistrate

Imprisonment
171 IPC or carrying
for 3 months, Cognizable Bailable of the first
token used by class
or fine up to
public servant

|
44 | P a g e

with fraudulent 200 rupees, or

intent. both.

2. CONTEMPT OF LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC SERVANT?

Ans. Public servants in India ensure the smooth functioning of
all aspects of the government. They are responsible for various
procedures that help in the investigation and court
proceedings. Contempt of acts done in their lawful authority
leads to disorder and chaos in the process. The definition for
public servants is mentioned under Section 21 of IPC.
Offences Relating to Contempt of the Lawful Authority of Public
Servants
Chapter X of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) exclusively talks about
the offences relating to contempt of lawful authority. The main
offences are:
• Prevention of service of summons.
• Absconding from a place in order to escape from
proceedings.
• Non-attendance and nonappearance.
• Omission to produce relevant documents .
• Producing false information.

|
45 | P a g e

• Refusal to sign and take an oath.

• Obstructing the sale of property or illegal purchase.
• Threatening the public servant who is responsible

• Offences Relating to Avoidance or Prevention of

Summons:

• Section 172 of the IPC provides the punishment if the

person absconds intentionally from a place in order to avoid
being served with the summons. The punishment is usually
simple imprisonment which may extend up to

• Section173 of the IPC speaks about the prevention of

summons intentionally. There are various acts that are
considered as an offence under this section:

• Removing the fixing summons.

• Preventing the affixing of lawful summons.

• Preventing the lawful making of any proclamation.

• one month or fine which may extend up to five hundred

rupees.

The punishment is for preventing the summons intentionally is

usually simple imprisonment which may extend up to one
month and fine which may extend up to five hundred rupees

|
46 | P a g e

Offences Relating to Non-appearance in Response to a

Proclamation
Section 174 of the IPC is concerned with offences relating to
nonappearance in response to a proclamation.
Section 174 A deals with nonappearance in response to
proclamation provided under Subsection 1 of Section 82 of the
Code of criminal procedure.
Section 82 of the criminal procedure code deals with the
proclamation for person absconding. If the court has all reasons
to believe that the person has absconded or is concealing
himself so that the warrant cannot be executed then the court
can publish a written proclamation asking him to appear within
thirty days. The punishment provided under section 174A is
imprisonment which may extend up to seven years and also
fine. Since the punishment is hard people fear and appear to
the proceedings on time.
Offences Relating to Production of Documents
Production of proper documents is very essential in every
procedure. Documentary evidence holds a lot of value in the
investigation. If the documents are not provided properly the
procedure and investigation will become tedious. Section 175
of the IPC deals with the intentional omission of production of
documents to public servants and Section 176 deals with the
intentional omission to give notice or information. Section 177
of the IPC deals with the furnishing of false information. The

|
47 | P a g e

various ingredients of this section according to the case

of Bishan Dass v State of Punjab and another:
• The person must be legally bound to produce information
on a particular subject to a public servant.
• He must furnish that information as true information
which he knows to be false

• Offences Relating to Statements on Oath

• Section 178 of the IPC deals with refusal of oath or

affirmation when necessary and the punishment under this
section is simple imprisonment which may extend up to six
months and a fine of rupees thousand. Section 179 and 180
deal with the refusal to answer the questions by a public
servant and refusal to sign statements provided by them
respectively.

• The punishment for not answering the question properly is

simple imprisonment for a term which may extend up to six
months or fine of thousand rupees. The punishment
provided under Section 180is simple imprisonment which
may extend up to three months and a fine of rupees five
hundred.

• False Information Causing Wrongful use of Power by

Public

|
48 | P a g e

• Section 211 of the IPC deals with false charges of offenses

that are made with the intention to injure another person.
Giving false charges is a very heinous offence that affects
everyone involved in the process of providing justice.

For example, if a person informs a magistrate that a police

officer did not do his work properly even though it’s false. If the
magistrate believing the complaint takes action on police
officer then it would amount to an offence under Section 182.
Offences Relating to Disobeying or Non-enforcing Order of
Public Servant
According to Section 186 of the IPC, if a person voluntarily
obstructs any public servant who is discharging his public
functions, it would be considered as an offence and the person
can be punished with imprisonment of either term which may
extend up to three months or fine of rupees five hundred or
both.
Whenever there is a need to assist the public servant and if a
person intentionally omits it, then he can be punished under
Section 187 with simple imprisonment which may extend to
one month or fine which may extend up to two years. Section
188 of the act deals with disobedience to order that is duly
promulgated by the lawful authority
Proposals for Reform
There is a need for amendments in various aspects of this
chapter so that it would be useful for public servants to

|
49 | P a g e

perform their duty. There are various ideas of reforms which

are as follows:
• The punishments must be added on in various sections,
instead of increasing the terms of imprisonment the fine
amount can be increased which would make these
sections more effective.
• The term punishment and the fine amount must be
increased to the offences relating to avoidance or
prevention of summons, as it is the first step in the process
of investigation and if it gets delayed the entire process
would be affected.
• Disobedience of order or promulgation provided by the
public servants must be considered seriously as it affects
the process and it is a heavy threat to the safety and public
order.
• Giving false information to the public servants is a very
grievous issue as it wastes the time of public servants and
it also provides unnecessary tension to the public. Thus
fine amounts to these offences must be increased in order
to prevent such offences in the future.

3. OFFENCES RELATING TO ELECTION?

Ans. Chapter IXA, Section 171A to Section 171I of the Indian
Penal Code 1860 dealing with offences relating to elections.
This Chapter of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was inserted in the

|
50 | P a g e

year 1920. It was enacted with a view to Provide for the

punishment of malpractices in an elections and for the conduct
of inquiries in disputed Election.

Scope :
The scope of the provisions of this chapter is wide. It applies
not only to the elections of legislative bodies but also to the
membership of Municipalities, district boards, Panchayat and
other Local Authorities.

Object :
An object of the Chapter IX of Indian Penal Code 1860 is to
provide for the punishment of malpractices in connection with
elections and attempts to safeguard the purity of the franchise

1) Definition of "Candidate" and "Electoral right"(

Section 171A)
(a) "candidate" means a person who has been nominated as a
candidate at any election;

(b) "electoral right" means the right of a person to stand, or

not to stand as, or to withdraw from being, a candidate or to
vote or refrain from voting at an election.
2) Bribery (Section 171B)

|
51 | P a g e

(1) Whoever - (i) gives a gratification to any person with the

object of inducing him or any other person to exercise any
electoral right or of rewarding any person for having exercised
any such right; or
(ii) accepts either for himself or for any other person any
gratification as a reward for exercising any such right or for
inducing or attempting to induce any other person to exercise
any such right, commits the offence of bribery

3) Undue influence at elections. (Section 171C)

(1) Whoever voluntarily interferes or attempts to interfere with

the free exercise of any electoral right commits the offence of
undue influence at an election
2) Without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-
section (1), whoever -(a) threatens any candidate or voter, or
any person in whom a candidate or voter is interested, with
injury of any kind, or
(b) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or voter to
believe that he or any person in whom he is interested will
become or will be rendered an object of Divine displeasure or
of spiritual censure, shall be deemed to interfere with the free
exercise of the electoral right of such candidate or voter, within
the meaning of sub-section (1).

|
52 | P a g e

4) Personation at elections (Section 171D)

Whoever at an election applies for a voting paper on votes in

the name of any other person, whether living or dead, or in a
fictitious name, or who having voted once at such election
applies at the same election for a voting paper in his own name,
and whoever abets, procures or attempts to procure the voting
by any person in any such way, commits the offence of
personation at an election

5) Punishment for bribery. (Section 171E)

Whoever commits the offence of bribery shall be punished with

imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to one year, or with fine, or with both: only. Provided
that bribery by treating shall be punished with fine only.
6) Punishment for undue influence or personation at an
election. (Section 171) Whoever commits the offence of
undue influence or personation at an election shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to one year or with fine, or with both.
The offence of undue influence is non-cognizable, bailable,
non-compoundable and triable by Magistrate of first class. In
case of personation at an election, it is cognizable, bailable and
triable by Magistrate of first class.

|
53 | P a g e

7) False statement in connection with an election (Section

171G) -

Whoever with intent to affect the result of an election makes

or publishes any statement purporting to be a statement of fact
which is false and which he either knows or believes to be false
or does not believe to be true, in relation to the personal
character or conduct of any candidate shall be punished with
fine.
The offence false statement in connection with an election
is non-cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable and triable by
Magistrate of first class.

8) Illegal payments in connection with an election (Section

171H) -

Whoever without the general or special authority in writing of

a candidate incurs or authorizes expenses on account of the
holding of any public meeting, or upon any advertisement,
circular or publication, or in any other way whatsoever for the
purpose of promoting or procuring the election of such
candidate, shall be punished with fine which may extend to five
hundred rupees
9) Failure to keep election accounts (Section 171-I) -

Whoever being required by any law for the time being in force

|
54 | P a g e

or any rule having the force of law to keep accounts of

expenses incurred at or in connection with an election fails to
keep such accounts shall be punished with fine which may
extend to five hundred rupees.
The offence under this Section is non-cognizable, bailable,
non-compoundable and triable by Magistrate of first class.

12. FALSE EVIDENSE?

Ans. Sec 191 defines false evidence who ever being legally
bound by an oath or by express provision law to state the truth
or being by law to make a declaration upon any subject make
any statement which is false and which he either knows or
believes to be false or does not believe to be true is said to give
false evidence
False evidence, fabricated evidence, forged evidence or
tainted evidence is information created or obtained illegally, to
sway the verdict in a court case. Falsified evidence could be
created by either side in a case (including the
police/prosecution in a criminal case)
Misleading by suppressing evidence can also be considered a
form of false evidence (by omission), however, in some cases,
suppressed evidence is excluded because it cannot be proved
the accused was aware of the items found or of their location.
Types

|
55 | P a g e

• Forged evidence - an item or information manufactured, or

altered, to support some agenda, is not admissible in many
courts, including U.S. criminal courts.
• Planted evidence - an item or information which has been
moved, or planted at a scene, to seem related to the
accused party, is not admissible in many courts, including
U.S. criminal courts.
• Tainted evidence - information which has been obtained
by illegal means or has been revealed (or traced) using
evidence acquired by illegal search, and/or seizure, is
called the "fruit of the poisonous tree" and is not
admissible in many courts, including U.S. criminal courts.
• Parallel construction - tainted evidence, where the origin
of the evidence is untruthfully represented, preventing
discussion of whether it was legally obtained or not.
• Suppressed evidence - an item or information which a
court judge has ruled as "inadmissible" is forbidden to be
presented in a court case. Suppressed evidence might be
excluded because it was found hidden or locked away in
areas the accused could not be proven to know.
Punishment for false evidence: in stage of judicial proceedings
shall be punished with 7 years imprisonment or fine
In other cases shall be punished with 3years imprisonment and
with fine
13 DIFFERENCE B/W PUBLIC AND PRIVATE NUISANCE?

|
56 | P a g e

Ans.
No
Public Nuisance Private Nuisance

1 Meaning: Meaning:

According to Section Private Nuisance means

268 of IPC Public Nuisance any illegal act of omission
Is a Criminal Offence. It causing injury or danger to
means any illegal act or any individual or his property
omission causing injury, in particular.
obstruction, danger or
annoyance to public in
general or public at
Large.

2 Definition: Definition :

A person is guilty of a Private nuisance may

public nuisance who does be defined as unlawful
any act or is guilty of an interference with another's
illegal omission which use and enjoyment of
causes any common property or someone's right
injury, danger or over or in connection with
annoyance to the public property.
or to the people in general

|
57 | P a g e

who dwell or occupy

property in the vicinity, or
(Private nuisance is not
which must necessarily defined in Indian Penal Code)
cause injury, obstruction,
danger or annoyance to
persons who may have
occasion to use any public
right. (Section 268 Indian
Penal Code)

3 Nature: Nature:

It affects the public It affects only

at large. Individuals or determinate
body thereof.

4 Right To sue: Right To sue:

Any public A private individual or

motivated or spirited his legal representative, to
person or organization or whom or to whose property
association can sue. injury is caused can sue.

5 Remedy: Remedy:

Injunction Damages can also be

claimed with injunction.

|
58 | P a g e

restraining from doing any

illegal act or omission.

14. ADULTRATION OF DRUGS AND FOODS?

Ans. Adulterated food is food that is generally, impure, unsafe,
or unwholesome. The main federal laws governing adulterated
foods are the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, the
Federal Meat Inspection Act, and the Poultry Products
Inspection Act.
These laws contain separate language defining in very specific
terms how the term adulterated" will be applied to the foods
each of these laws regulates
Products that are adulterated under these laws’ definitions
cannot enter into commerce for human food use. Under U.S.
law, using an ingredient not approved by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is one form of food adulteration. State
statutes may also regulate adulterated food produced or sold in
the state. The selling of adulterated food is subject to civil
penalties
The following is an example of a state statute defining
adulterated food:
"(a) Food is adulterated if
1. it bears or contains a poisonous or deleterious substance
which may render it injurious to health; but in case the
substance is not an added substance the food is not

|
 59 | P a g e

considered adulterated under this paragraph if the

quantity of the substance does not ordinarily render it
injurious to health;
2. it consists in whole or in part of a diseased, contaminated,
filthy, putrid, or decomposed substance, or if it is
otherwise unfit for food;
3. it has been produced, prepared, packed, or held under
unsanitary conditions in which it may have become
contaminated with filth, or in which it may have been
rendered diseased, unwholesome, or injurious to health;
(b) Food is adulterated if
1. a valuable constituent has been omitted or abstracted in whole
or part;
2. a substance has been substituted in whole or part for a
valuable constituent;
3. damage or inferiority has been concealed;
4. a substance has been added or mixed or packed with it to
increase its bulk or weight, or reduce its quality or strength, or
make it appear better or of greater value than it is.
(c) Confectionery is adulterated if it bears or contains an
alcohol or non-nutritive article or substance except harmless
colouring, harmless flavouring, harmless resinous glaze not in
excess of four-tenths of one per cent, harmless natural wax not
in excess of four-tenths of one per cent, harmless natural gum,
and pectin. This subsection does not apply to confectionery
containing less than one-half of one per cent by volume of
alcohol derived solely from the use of flavouring extracts, or to

|
60 | P a g e

chewing gum containing harmless non-nutritive masticatory

substances.
(d) Food is adulterated if it bears or contains a coal tar colour
other than one from a batch which has been certified under
authority of the federal act.

15. PUBLIC MORALS AND DECENCY?

Ans. Offences against public decency and morals consist in
publicity and circulation of obscene literature, doing obscene
acts, reciting obscene songs, uttering obscene words etc. in
public, exhibiting objects, corrupting any person under the age
of twenty years by obscenity.
The concept of obscenity has always been directly linked with
the concept of morality in the society. The socially acceptable
standard of morality and obscenity have always been in a state
of flux from the ancient time
Section 67 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 also gives
provisions regarding obscenity. It runs as follows:
The Code does not define what is obscene, but Section 292
points out that any writing, drawing, painting or object or
engraving etc. kept or used for bona fide religious worship is
not deemed to be obscene for the purposes of the law relating
obscenity

|
61 | P a g e

The Code provides for the following offences against public

decency and morals—
(1) Selling, distributing, importing, exporting, publishing, and
letting to hire any obscene book, pamphlet, drawing, painting,
representation or figure.
(2) Making, keeping or producing such things for any of such
purposes.
(3) Taking part in or receiving profits from any business
connected with such things in any way including
advertisements.
(4) Offering or attempting to do any of the foregoing offences.
Punishment for the above offences may be imprisonment of
either description upto three months or fine or both (Section
292).
“Obscenity” —Meaning of:
Section 292 came to be amended in 1969. The amended
provision seeks to clarify what may be deemed to be obscene
within the meaning of the section, as the word “obscene”
appearing in the section has not been defined in the section or
in any provision of the Code.
There has been a kind of confusion between vulgarity and
obscenity. In the case of Samaresh Bose, the Supreme Court
took an opportunity to resolve the confusion by pointing out
that vulgarity arouses a feeling of disgust and revulsion and also
boredom but does not have the effect of depraving, debasing

|
 62 | P a g e

and corrupting the morals of any reader of the novel, whereas

obscenity has the tendency to deprave and corrupt those
whose minds are open to such immoral influences.
Letting to hire, selling, distributing or circulating any of the
above things to person under twenty years in age is an
aggravated form of the offence and punishment may extend to
imprisonment of either description up to six months or fine or
both (Section 293).
Doing any obscene act in a public place, uttering obscene
words, singing obscene songs or ballads in or near any public
place—Imprisonment of either description up to three months
or fine or both (Section 293).
16. OFFENCES RELATED TO RELIGION?
Ans.

IPC Section Cognizable Bailable

By what court
Offence Punishment or non- or non-
triable
cognizable bailable

Destroying,
damaging Imprisonment
295 IPC or defiling for 2 years, or Cognizable Non- Any Magistrate
a place of fine, or both bailable
worship or
sacred

|
 63 | P a g e

object with
intent to
insult the
religion of
any class of
persons

Maliciously
insulting
the religion Imprisonment
Non- Magistrate of the
295A IPC or the for 2 years, or Cognizable
bailable first class
religious fine, or both
beliefs of
any class

Causing a
disturbance
to an Imprisonment
296 IPC assembly for 1 year, or Cognizable Bailable Any Magistrate
engaged in fine, or both
religious
worship

Trespassing Imprisonment
297 IPC in place of for 1 year, or Cognizable Bailable Any Magistrate
worship or fine, or both
sepulcher,

|
 64 | P a g e

disturbing
funeral
with
intention
to wound
the feelings
or to insult
the religion
of any
person, or
offering
indignity to
a human
corpse

Uttering
any word
or making
any sound
in the
hearing or Imprisonment
298 IPC making any for 1 year, or Non- Bailable Any Magistrate
gesture, or fine, or both cognizable
placing any
object in
the sight of
any person,
with
intention

|
65 | P a g e

to wound
his
religious
feeling

17. STAGES OF CRIME?

Ans. Refer 1 answer
18. PRIVATE DEFENCE?
Ans. Refer 6 answer
19.ABETMENT?
Ans. Abetment means to instigate or encourage other person
to commit crime. A person who make instigate is called as
abettor.
There is participation of abettor in committing the crime. And
he is behind carton. It may be done with or without
consideration
Ex. A say to B to commit murder of ‘x’’ A is abettor and B is
murderer
detail of abetment is form section 107 to 120 of IPC.
Punishment
1. If criminal get death sentence then Abettor get life
imprisonment

|
66 | P a g e

2. If Criminal gets particular punishment then Abettor is given

half
punishment.
3. When abetment is done for a particular crime. But accused
commit
additional crime then abettor is not liable for additional crime.
Because he has not done abetment to such crimes.
4. When there is abetment to abetment then immediate
abettor gets half punishment and first abettor gets ¼
punishment for the crime which he’s abetted.
5. When there is abetment to commit a crime but other
person did not commit it then also abettor is liable for 1/8
punishment.
20.private defence mens rea actus rea?
Ans. Private defence in answer 6 mensrea actusrea in answer 1
21. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF I.P.C?
Ans. The Indian Penal Code (IPC) is the official criminal code of
India. It is a comprehensive code intended to cover all
substantive aspects of criminal law. The code was drafted in
1860 on the recommendations of first law commission of India
established in 1834 under the Charter Act of 1833 under the
Chairmanship of Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay

|
67 | P a g e

It came into force in British India during the early British Raj
period in 1862. However, it did not apply automatically in the
Princely states, which had their own courts and legal systems
until the 1940s. The Code has since been amended several
times and is now supplemented by other criminal provisions.
After the partition of the British Indian Empire, the Indian Penal
Code was inherited by its successor states, the Dominion of
India and the Dominion of Pakistan, where it continues
independently as the Pakistan Penal Code. After the separation
of Bangladesh from Pakistan, the code continued in force there.
The Code was also adopted by the British colonial authorities in
Colonial Burma, Ceylon (modern Sri Lanka), the Straits
Settlements (now part of Malaysia), Singapore and Brunei, and
remains the basis of the criminal codes in those countries.
History
The draft of the Indian Penal Code was prepared by the First
Law Commission, chaired by Thomas Babington Macaulay in
1834 and was submitted to Governor-General of India Council
in 1835. Based on a simplified codification of the law of England
at the time, elements were also derived from the Napoleonic
Code and from Edward Livingston's Louisiana Civil Code of
1825. The first final draft of the Indian Penal Code was
submitted to the Governor-General of India in Council in 1837,
but the draft was again revised. The drafting was completed in
1850 and the Code was presented to the Legislative Council in
1856, but it did not take its place on the statute book of British

|
68 | P a g e

India until a generation later, following the Indian Rebellion of

1857. The draft then underwent a very careful revision at the
hands of Barnes Peacock, who later became the first Chief
Justice of the Calcutta High Court, and the future puisne judges
of the Calcutta High Court, who were members of the
Legislative Council, and was passed into law on 6 October
1860.[4] The Code came into operation on 1 January 1862.
Macaulay did not survive to see the penal code he wrote come
into force, having died near the end of 1859. The code came
into force in Jammu and Kashmir on 5 August 2019, following
the revocation of Article 370, and replaced the state's Ranbir
Penal Code.
Objective:
The objective of this Act is to provide a general penal code for
India. Though not the initial objective, the Act does not repeal
the penal laws which were in force at the time of coming into
force in India. This was done because the Code does not
contain all the offences and it was possible that some offences
might have still been left out of the Code, which were not
intended to be exempted from penal consequences. Though
this Code consolidates the whole of the law on the subject and
is exhaustive on the matters in respect of which it declares the
law, many more penal statutes governing various offences have
been created in addition to the code.
22. PERJURY?

|
69 | P a g e

Ans. Perjury has been derived from the Latin term perjurium’.
As per the Oxford Dictionary perjury means “the offence of
wilfully telling an untruth or making a misrepresentation under
oath. In other words, any person on being lawfully bound under
an oath intentionally or wrongfully makes a false statement.
Perjury is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or
falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in
writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding
For example, it is not perjury to lie about one's age except if
age is a fact material to influencing the legal result, such as
eligibility for old age retirement benefits or whether a person
was of an age to have legal capacity.
Perjury is considered a serious offense, as it can be used to
usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of
justice. In the United States, for example, the general perjury
statute under federal law classifies perjury as a felony and
provides for a prison sentence of up to five years
The judicial system is dependent upon truthful testimony of
witnesses and experts in both criminal and civil cases. It also
includes verbal and written information. With the help of the
information so provided the court decides the guilt of the
accused. If they do not depose truthfully, there is a high
probability of miscarriage of justice. The pillar of democracy
shall collapse.
23 ACTUS NON FACIT REUM NISI MENS SIT REA?

|
70 | P a g e

Ans. An act does not make anyone guilty unless there is a

criminal intent or a guilty mind.
Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea explains that for any
act to be illegal in nature it must be done with a guilty mind.
Thus to convict the defendant, it must be proved that the
criminal act was carried out with a criminal intend.
Not only is the act of the accused important but the intention
of the accused to do the specific act is equally important to
prove the guilt of the accused. Thus it can be concluded that
mere commission of a criminal act or breach of law is not
sufficient to constitute a crime.
It should be combined with the presence of wrongful intent.
Further the mens rea is important to understand the severity of
the crime committed. The essential ingredient is the
blameworthy condition of the mind. Its absence can negate the
liability. However the statement without a guilty mind there is
no crime is subjected to certain exceptions such as strict
liability. Under strict liability, it is not necessary to show that a
defendant possessed the relevant mens rea for the act
committed.
This maxim can find its importance under section 14 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It states that facts which indicate
state of mind or intention are relevant facts in issue.
ORIGIN:

|
71 | P a g e

The two basic components of criminal law is Actus Reus and

Mens Rea. Actus Reus is the wrongful act committed and Mens
Rea is the state of mind behind such acts. The Latin maxim
Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea is derived from Mens
Rea. Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea further explains as
to how Mens Rea is applicable in criminal law. It states that a
person is guilty of a criminal act only if such acts are
accompanied by a criminal intention
This maxim is used to determine whether an act committed is
criminal in nature or not. Sever penal actions are required for
crimes committed with specific intend and not for
unanticipated or unintentional acts. However no breach of law
can be left unpunished. Thus this maxim is established to
differentiate between intentional and unintentional criminal
act so that the quantum of punishment can be decided
accordingly
For example:
When a person is attacked by another person with an intention
to cause grievous hurt or injury then it is a crime. But when the
person who was attacked causes injury to the other person in
private defence then it is an unintentional act. In the first
scenario guilty mind was present but in the second case no
intention of causing harm was there. The second act is
categorised as self defence and is dealt under section 96 to 106
of the Indian Penal Code. In the first act the person is guilty of
criminal act.

|
72 | P a g e

24.DIFFIRENCE B/W FALSE EVIDENCE AND FABRICATING FALSE

EVIDENCE?
ANS. Difference between ‘Giving False Evidence’ and ‘
Fabricating False Evidence’
Giving False Evidence Fabricating False Evidence
General intention. Particular intention.
Committed by a person who
is bound by a legal duty to The section is silent.
state the truth.
The false statement need not The fabricated evidence must
be material to the case. be material to the case.
There should be a proceeding. It is not required
Punishment
Section 193 prescribes punishment for giving false evidence. It
can be divided into parts. The first part lays down the
punishment for intentionally giving false evidence or fabricating
false evidence in a judicial proceeding. The second part deals
with the punishment for intentionally giving false evidence or
fabricating false evidence other than a judicial proceeding

25.JOINT LIABILITY?

|
73 | P a g e

Ans. A Crime may be committed by an individual or in

collaboration with others. An individual committing a crime
would be punished according to the nature of the offence
committed. However, difficulty arises when several persons are
engaged in the Commission of an offence in different
capacities. While one of them might be engaged in the actual
commission of the offence, say murder, the other might have
assisted the assailant by placing a knife in his hand, and another
might have chalked out the plan but stayed away from the
scene of occurrence throughout the commission of the act. In
such cases, a distinction is drawn between the acts of each of
such individuals according to their mode and degree of
participation or involvement in the commission of the offence
for ascertaining guilt and awarding punishment. Such persons
may broadly be classified into principals and abettors.
A principal is a person who either actually commits a crime or
aids in the commission of crime while being present at the
place of occurrence. Such a person is held liable as the actual
offender under the specific section or under the provisions
governing joint and constructive liability. The provisions relating
to joint liability (also called constructive liability) have been
elaborately dealt with in Sections 34 to 38, 120A, 149, 396 and
460 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. These provisions classified
into three categories:1.
First, where the offence is committed with the common
intention of the group (Section 34-38).2.

|
74 | P a g e

Secondly, where the accused is a member of a conspiracy to

commit an offence (Section 120A).
Thirdly, where the offences committed with the common
object of an unlawful assembly (Section 149)
26. COMMON INTENTION [SEC 34]
Ans. Criminal Intention is the highest form of blameworthiness
of mind or mens rea. Intention occupies a symbolic place in
criminal law. As the highest form of the mental element, it
applies to murder and the gravest form of crimes in the
criminal justice system.
The term ‘intention’ is not defined in Indian Penal Code but
section 34 of IPC deals with common intention. The intention
made among several people to do something wrong and act
done in that manner in which it was formulated comes under
the sanction of Section 34 of IPC.
Section 34 deals with a situation, where an offence requires a
particular criminal intention or knowledge and is committed by
several persons. Each of them who join the act with such
knowledge or intention is liable in the same way as if it were
done by him alone with that intention or knowledge. The
liability of individuals under this circumstance is called Joint
Liability.
The principle of Joint Liability defined in section 34 is as follows:
Section 34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of
common intention – When a criminal act is done by several

|
75 | P a g e

persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such

persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were
done by him alone.

27. DIFFERENCE B/W COMMON INTENTION AND COMMON

OBJECT [SEC 34 SEC 149]?
Ans.
COMMON INTENTION COMMON OBJECT
1. section 34 of ipc defines 1. sec 149 of ipc defines
common intention common object
2. when a criminal act id done 2. every member of unlawful
by several persons in assembly guilty of offence
furtherance of the common committed in prosecution of
intention of all each of such the common object
persons is liable for that act 3. based on common object
in the same manner as if it 4. in common object at least five
were done by him alone persons are necessary
3. based on common 5. merely being a member of
intention that group is enough
4. in common intention two or 6. unlawful assembly is
more persons are required necessary
5. each member should have 7. in common intention liability
participated in the act is always vicarious
6. prior meeting together is 8. act should be done in
not necessary prosecution of common
object or known to be likely

|
76 | P a g e

7. everyone’s liability in committed in furtherance of

common intention is the common object
primary
8. act should have been done
in furtherance of common
intention

28. OFFENCES RELATED TO WEIGHTS MEASUREMENTS?

Ans. CHAPTER XIII - OFFENCES RELATING TO WEIGHTS AND
MEASURES

Cognizable Bailable By what

Section Offence Punishment or non- or non- court
cognizable bailable triable

Fraudulent
use of false Imprisonment
Non- Any
264 IPC instrument for 1 year, or Bailable
cognizable Magistrate.
for fine, or both
weighing

Fraudulent
Imprisonment
use of false Non- Any
265 IPC for 1 year, or Bailable
weight or cognizable Magistrate
fine, or both
measure

|
77 | P a g e

266 IPC Being in Imprisonment Non- Bailable Any

possession for 1 year, or cognizable Magistrate
of false fine, or both
weight or
measures
for
fraudulent
use

Making or
selling
false
Imprisonment
weights or Non- Any
267 IPC for 1 year, or Cognizable
measures bailable Magistrate
fine, or both
for
fraudulent
use

29. NECESSITY?
Ans. Meaning and Definition

Necessity as a defense is defined under section 81 in Indian Penal

Code as:

“Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and
to prevent other harm.—Nothing is an offence merely by reason
of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause
harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm,
and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other
harm to person or property.”
Factors affecting necessity
1. Affirmative defence

|
78 | P a g e

2. A defendant typically invokes the defence

3. Against intentional torts of trespass to chattels, , trespass
to land or conversion.
4. With the necessity defence there will always be a prima
facie violation of the law.
5. A tort is a civil wrong for which unliquidated damages
must be compensated by the defendant even if he did in
case of necessity. The defence of necessity is only
applicable when the defendant can justify his unlawful
acts. It seems to be generally assumed that, if the defence
of necessity succeeds, that is the end of the matter
➢ Types of necessity

➢ Public Necessity: Public necessity pertains to action taken by

public authorities or private individuals to avert a public
calamity. The action consists in destroying or appropriating
another’s property

➢ he classic example of public necessity is the destruction of

private property to prevent the spread of fire or disease and
hence to avert an injury to the public at large.

➢ The first case which was filled with reference to public

necessity was Surocco v Geary

➢ For example: “A ship which had run into difficulties found it

necessary to discharge her cargo of oil, thereby polluting

|
79 | P a g e

beaches which belong to the plaintiff. Since the discharge of

the oil was necessary to save the crew, and not only the ship,
it was accepted that the defence of necessity applied.

➢ Private Necessity
➢ Private necessity arises from self-interest rather than from a
community at large. It takes place when the defendant wants
to protect his own interest. It does not serve as an absolute
defence unlike in the case of public necessity.
➢ For example, If defendant entered upon his neighbour’s land
without his consent, in order to prevent the spread of fire into
his own land. The principle applied for private necessity is
“necessitas inducit privilegium quod jura private”, meaning
‘Necessity induces a privilege because of a private right’. This
maxim makes it clear that private defence its more kind of a
privilege enjoyed by many person.The earliest case of private
defence was Vincent v. Lake Erie Transp. Co.
30. CONSPIRACY MEANS BREATHING TOGETHER DISCUSS THE
LEGAL PROVISION?
Ans. Conspiracy:
‘Conspiracy’ means etymologically ‘breathing together’.
Conspiracy is an act of making secret plans with others
especially to do something wrong. When two or more persons
agree to commit any crime, they are guilty of conspiracy
whether the crime is committed or not.

|
80 | P a g e

Meaning of Criminal Conspiracy

Conspiracy consists in the agreement of two or more persons to
do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. It is
an inevitable offence of common law, the punishment for
which is imprisonment or fine or both at the discretion of the
Court
According to Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860,
“when two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done
1) An illegal act, or
2) An act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an
agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an
offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act
besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such
agreement in pursuance thereof.
Explanation: -
It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of
such agreement or is merely incidental to that object.
Ingredients of Section 120A of the Code:
The main ingredients of Section 120A of the code are: (to
constitute criminal conspiracy):
1) There should be two or more persons;
2) There should be an agreement between themselves;

|
81 | P a g e

3) The agreement must be to do or cause to be done:

a) An illegal act; or
b) A lawful act by illegal means.

31. INTRA AND EXTRA TERITORIAL JURISDICTION?

Ans. Intra territorial jurisdiction:
➢ Sec 2 deals with the intra territorial jurisdiction
A. Every person shall be punished, who commits an offence,
within India. The words “Every person” clearly say that subject
to the General Exceptions (Chapter-IV), every person,
irrespective of his caste, region, religion, etc., shall be punished,
if he is proved guilty under the provisions of this Code.
B. Foreigner:
A foreigner, who is a guilty of any offence under this Code, shall
be punishable under this Code, if he has committed any offence
in India, although the alleged offence might have not been an
offence in his mother land.
C. Corporations:
The corporations cannot be imposed corporal punishments for
the offences which can be committed by human beings only,
viz., murder, treason, perjury, etc.
D. Persons exempted from the I.PC.

|
82 | P a g e

Section 2 mentions “every person” within India. However, there

are certain persons exempted from the jurisdiction of Criminal
Courts. These persons are given certain rights, privileges, etc.
This is the same position in other countries also. Such persons
are:
(a) Foreign Sovereigns:
Foreign Sovereigns are the persons completely exempted from
the jurisdiction of the Indian Criminal Courts.
(b) Ambassadors:
Certain immunities and privileges have been granted to
Ambassadors of other countries by the United Nations
Organization. Accordingly every country has passed separate
Acts giving immunities and privileges to the Ambassadors.
(c) Alien Enemies:
The military persons of alien enemies do not come under the
jurisdiction of ordinary Criminal Courts, for the acts done
connecting with the war. However, if they commit theft,
robbery, rape, etc., unconnected with war, they shall be tried
by the Indian Criminal Courts.
(d) Warships:
The warships entered into the Indian Sea waters cannot be
tried under the ordinary Indian Criminal Courts. The Public
International Law applies to such men-of-war.
(e) President and Governors:

|
83 | P a g e

The President of India and the Governors of the States are

exempted from the jurisdiction of the Criminal Courts, by
Article 361 of the Indian Constitution.
(f) Foreign army:
The Foreign army personnel entered into the Indian territories
with the permission of the Indian Government is exempted
from the jurisdiction of the criminal courts.
(G). High seas:
High seas are open to all and represent the entire sea-space
beyond the three miles limit of the shore. This expression
includes all ocean seas, bays, channels, rivers, creeks and
waters below low watermark, and where great ships could go,
with the exception only of such parts of such ocean and as were
within the territory of some country.

EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION:

➢ Sections 3 and 4 deal with the extra-territorial operation
of the Indian Penal Code.
➢ Sec. 3. Punishment of offences committed beyond, but
which by law may be tried within India: Any person
liable, by any Indian law, to be tried for an offence
committed beyond India shall be dealt with according to
the provisions of this Code for any act committed beyond
India in the same manner as if such act had been
committed within India.

|
84 | P a g e

➢ Sec. 4. Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences:

➢ The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence
committed by,
➢ (1) Any citizen of India in any place without and beyond
India;
➢ (2) Any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India
wherever it may be.
➢ Explanation:
➢ In this Section the word “offence” includes every act
committed outside India which, if committed in India,
would be punishable under this Code.

32. VICARIOUS LIABILITY?

Ans. Vicarious liability is a form of a strict, secondary liability
that arises under the common law doctrine of agency ;
respondeat superior – the responsibility of the superior for the
acts of their subordinate, or, in a broader sense, the
responsibility of any third party
Vicarious liability also known as joint responsibility liability is a
legal theory of liability that empowers the court to hold a
person liable for the acts of other. Under this doctrine
individuals can be made vicariously liable for a criminal act of
others even if they merely helped to further the crime in some
way example aiding and abetting criminal activities
In a criminal context, vicarious liability assigns guilt, or criminal
liability, to a person for wrongful acts committed by someone

|
85 | P a g e

else. This doctrine is considered to be fundamentally flawed

under criminal law because it is based on ―respondent
superior‖ principles that are concerned with distributing loss
caused by tortious act.

Vicarious Liability in Criminal Law

A person can be criminally liable for the acts of another if they
are a party to the offense. For instance, the driver of the get-
away car is guilty of the armed robbery of a store even though
the driver never left the car, and the entire robbery itself was
committed by others. The essence of vicarious liability in
criminal law is that a person may be held liable as the principle
offender that is the perpetrator of a crime whose actus reus is
physically committed by someone else. It is believed that
person merely performing the actus reus on the say of another
is not innocent and thus is also made liable for the offence.
➢ Section 149 provides for vicarious liability, it states that if
an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful
assembly in prosecution of a common object thereof or
such as the members of that assembly knew that the
offence to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that
object, every person who at the time of committing that
offence was member would be guilty of the offence
committed
➢ Section 155 fixes vicarious liability on the owners or
occupiers of land or persons claiming interest in land, for

|
86 | P a g e

the acts or omissions of their managers or agents, if a riot

takes place or an unlawful assembly is held in the interest
of such class of persons.
➢ Section 156 imposes personal liability on the managers or
the agents of such owners or occupiers of property on
whose land a riot or an unlawful assembly is committed.
➢ Section 268 and 269 explicitly deals with public nuisance.
Under this section a master is made vicariously liable for
the public nuisance committed by servant.
➢ Section 499 makes a master vicariously liable for
publication of a libel by his servant. Defamation is an
offence under this section
Vicarious liability under Special Statutes
➢ The doctrine of vicarious liability is more frequently
invoked under special enactments, such as Defence of
India Rules 1962, The India Army Act 1911, The Prevention
of Food Adulteration Act 1954, The Drugs Act 1940, etc.
➢ A master is held criminally liable for the violation of rules
contained under the aforesaid statutes, provided that his
agent or servant, during the course of employment,
committed such act
➢ Sarjoo Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh the appellant, who
was an employee, was convicted under the Prevention of
Food Adulteration Act 1954 for the act of the master in
selling adulterated oil.

|
87 | P a g e

THE END

Prepared by
Sumaiya Mehmood