1

1. Explain ‘Crime’ with suitable examples. How many parties of crime are there? What are the
different stages of crime? Discuss in detail.

Crime may be defined as an act or omission, which the society has of thought fit to punish or otherwise
deal with under its laws for the time being in force. 'Offence' in place of Crime. Section 40 of the IPC
Paul Tappan (1960) has defined crime as "an intentional act or omission in violation of criminal
law committed without defence or justification and sanctioned by the state for punishment as a
felony or a misdemeanor".

Six elements as under are important in this definition:

1. The act should be actually committed or it should be an omission of a legal duty (as different
from moral duty),
2. The act must be voluntary and committed when the actor has control over his actions.
3. The act should be intentional, whether the intent is general or specific.
4. The act should be a violation of a criminal law, as distinct from a non-criminal law or
civil and administrative law.
5. The act should be committed without defence or justification.
6. The act should be sanctioned by the state as a felony or a misdemeanor.
Elements of Crime
1. Human Being- Section 11 of the Indian Penal Code provides that word ‘person’ includes
2. Mens Rea- The second important essential element of a crime is mens rea or evil intent or guilty
mind. “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” which means that, the guilty intention and guilty
act together constitute a crime..
There are different degrees of mens rea.
a. Intention: foresees but also wills. b. Knowledge: c. Recklessness: d. Negligence: e. Motive :.
3. Actus Reus [Guilty Act Or Omission] - Prof. Kenny was the first writer to use the term ‘actus
reus’. He has defined the term thus- “such result of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent”.
4. Injury- 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
Intention Preparation Attempt Accomplishment or Completion-
2. Explain the doctrine of ‘Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea'.
This maxim is important for the determination of criminality of an act or omission. It means that act
does not make a man guilty unless his intention is so. The maxim contains a good deal of truth, as
there could be no crime without the presence of the guilty mind. It has been observed that, “the
maxim is bedrock of the English Common Law of crimes and it amounts to no more and no less than
that all crime is characterized by and necessarily involves, some form of culpable intentionality”.
Or according to Stephen as observed in R. V Sheppard, it means “no more than that the definition of
all or nearly all crimes contains not only an outward and visible element, but a mental element
varying according to the different crimes”. It may be said that the two important elements of crime
examined from the view point of the offender are—
(i) Conduct on his part or act or action which constitutes the physical act which is objective; and
(ii) A guilty state of mind or a mind which is blame-worthy, which is the subjective element usually
inferred from either—
(a) The facts and circumstances of the case; or
(b) On the basis of the proposition that a man intends the natural consequences of his act.
 2

3. What do you understand by Culpable Homicide? In what circumstances Culpable Homicide does
not amount to Murder? What are those exceptions when Culpable Homicide does not amount to
Murder?

- homo and cido. Homo means human and cido means. Section 299 of IPC defines Culpable
Homicide as follows -
Section 299 - Who ever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the
intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he
is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of Culpable Homicide.
Illustrations -
Explanation 1 - A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder,
disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to
have caused his death.
Explanation 2 - Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily
injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and
skillful treatment the death might have been prevented.
Explanation 3 - The causing of the death of child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it
may
amount to Culpable Homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been
brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.

Based upon the above definition, the following are the essential elements of Culpable Homicide -
1. Death of a human being is caused
2. By doing an act
3. Intention or Knowledge - -
a. Intention of causing death -
b. Intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death –
Or the act must have been done with the knowledge that such an act may cause death -
Jamaluddin's case 1892,.
Negligence -

Murder (When Culpable Homicide amounts to Murder)

Murder is a type of Culpable Homicide where culpability of the accused is quite more than in a
mere Culpable Homicide. Section 300, says that Culpable Homicide is Murder if the act by which
the death is caused is done
1. with the intention of causing death
2. or with an intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause
the death of the person,
3. or with an intention of causing such bodily injury as is sufficient in ordinary course of nature
to cause death.
4. It is also Murder if the person committing the act knows that the act is so dangerous that it
will cause death or such injury as is likely to cause death in all probability and he has no valid
reason for doing that act.

When death is caused due to bodily injury, it is the probability of death due to that injury that
determines whether it is Culpable Homicide or Murder. If death is only likely it is Culpable Homicide,
 3

if death is highly probable, it is Murder. SC observed that in the scheme of the IPC Culpable Homicide
is genus and Murder its specie. All 'Murder' is 'Culpable Homicide' but not vice-versa.

Illustrations -
A shoots Z with an intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits Murder.
A intentionally gives Z a sword cut that sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. Z
dies because of the cut. A commits Murder even though he had no intention to kill Z.
A without any excuse fires a loaded canon on a crowd. One person dies because of it. A
commits Murder even though he had no intention to kill that person.
Thus, it can be seen that Murder is very similar to Culpable Homicide and many a times it is
difficult to differentiate between them.

Situations where Culpable Homicide does not amount to Murder: Section 300 also specifies certain
situations when the Murder is considered as Culpable Homicide not amounting to Murder. These are:
1. If the offender does an act that causes death because of grave and sudden provocation by
the other. (Exception I) - Culpable Homicide is not Murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the
power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the
provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. The
above exception is subject to the following provisos -
a. That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse
for killing or doing harm to any person.
b. That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a
public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
c. That the provocations not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of
private defence.
Explanation - Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence
from amounting to Murder is a question of fact.
Illustrations
1. A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills,
Y, Z's child. This is Murder, in as much as the provocation was not given by the child,
and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act
caused by the provocation.
2. Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y,
neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of
sight. A kills Z. Here A has not committed Murder, but merely Culpable Homicide.
3. A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the
arrest, and kills Z. This Murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing
done by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.

2. If the offender causes death while exceeding the right to private defence in good faith.
(Exception 2) - Culpable Homicide is not Murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the
right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes
the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without
premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose
of such defence. Illustration – Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause
grievous hurt to A. draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he
 4

can by no other means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not
committed Murder, but only Culpable Homicide.

3. If the offender is a public servant and does an act that he, in good faith, believes to be
lawful. (Exception 3)- Culpable Homicide is not Murder if the offender, being a public servant or
aiding a public servant acting or the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to
him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and
necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the
person whose death is caused.
4. If the act happens in a sudden fight in the heat of passion. (Exception 4) - Culpable Homicide
is not Murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon
a sudden quarrel and without the offenders having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or
unusual manner.
Explanation-It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first
assault.
5. If the deceased is above 18 and the death is caused by his own consent. (Exception 5)-
Culpable Homicide is not Murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of
eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.
Illustration - A, by instigation, voluntarily causes, Z, a person under eighteen years of age to
commit suicide. Here, on account of Z's youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own
death; A has therefore abetted Murder.
 5

4. What are the main ingredients of the offence of Grievous hurt? Distinguish between Hurt and
Grievous Hurt.

Hurt generally means injury on the body of a person. It is such an injury which causes bodily pain or
disease or infirmity or fracture or disfigurement of face etc.
There are two kinds of Hurt:-
1. Simple Hurt :- simple hurt is defined under section 319 of IPC whereas the grievous hurt has been
defined under section 320. Simple hurt causes simple injury with simple bodily pain, while grievous
hurt causes serious injury and serious pain in the body too.
DEFINITION OF SIMPLE HURT: Section 319 says that,” whoever causes bodily injury or pain or
disease
or infirmity by an act to any other person, such act is called simple hurt. Section 319 contains the
following ingredients:-
a) Bodily Pain:- The words show that there must be some pain in the body of a person. It means
mental paid does not come under bodily pain. Any such injury which causes pain on any external
part of body comes under simple hurt.
b) Disease : Disease means any illness. By such act which creates weakness and if a man comes into
contract of any disease then it will come under simple hurt.
c) Infirmity:- Infirmity means by illness. By such act which creates weakness in the body, comes
under simple hurt.
d) To any other Person : The hurt must be caused to any other person not to himself. In this way, in
a simple hurt there is no need of physical contact. A hurt may be caused by any mean or method.
Such hurt must cause bodily pain or disease or infirmity. Such hurt must be caused to another
person and not to himself.
e) Section 319 does not show that there must be direct physical contact with another person for
committing simple hurt.

Example 1
A, a person beats B with a stick in order to get his work done. Here A is causing hurt to B by
giving him bodily pain.
Example 2
A, a person suffering from communicable disease deliberately comes in contact with another
person B to make him infected. Here A is causing hurt to B.
Example 3
A knows that B has a weak heart. He deliberately goes to B in the early morning and gives him
news that his son has committed suicide. And B, in consequence of this shock, faces heart
attack. A has caused hurt.

Grievous Hurt : There are various kinds of grievous hurt which have been defined in section 320 in
IPC. Thus a hurt is more than a slightly causing harm as defined in section 95 of IPC and less the
culpable homicide. If the hurt results into death and fulfils the conditions of section 299 then it
becomes culpable homicide, otherwise it grievous hurt.
The grievous hurt can be classified/designated as under :-
a. Emasculation : The destruction of private organ of a human being is known as
emasculation. Any injury which makes a person incapable for functioning of the private
organ, person comes under grievous hurt.
 6

b. Permanent privation of the sight of either eye: if there is privation or separation or

destruction either eye of a person, is grievous hurt.
c. Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear: Similarly the destruction or separation of
either ear is grievous hurt. Here the power of hearing must be affected. The eye and ears are
the main functional organs of a human being. They have is an important role in the life.
d. Privation of any member or joint: Privation of any member or joint also comes under
grievous hurt.
e. Destruction or permanent loss of the power of any member or joint:- If there is destruction
of any member of joint of the body then it is also a grievous hurt or if any member or joint
fails to work properly then also it will comes under grievous hurt.
f. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face :- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face
means to cause such an injury on the head or face that they look bad or head becomes
crucial.
g. Fracture or dislocation of Bone or tooth:- When any bone or tooth is dislocated it means
they loss their original place. Fracture of any bones comes under grievous hurt.
h. When there is such hurt which endangers to life or which causes pain continuously for a
period of 20 days. Endanger to life means there must be death from such hurt. If the death
is caused by grievous then it will not be culpable homicide or murder because there is no
intention to cause death. So any hurt to create danger to life is also called grievous hurt.

PUNISHMENT FOR SIMPLE & GRIEVOUS HURT:

Section 323: Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt is one year or fine or with both.
Section 324 : Punishment for causing grievous hurt with instruments of shooting etc – 3
years or fine or both.
Section 325: For voluntarily causing grievous hurt, the punishment is 7 years with fine.
Section 326: Whoever except the case provided for by sec. 335 voluntarily causes grievous
hurt by means or any instrument for shooting or cut or any instrument which is used as a
weapon of offence is likely to cause death or by means of fire. Punishment imprisonment of
life, it is ten years with fine.

Difference between hurt and Grievous Hurt

1. Section 319 defines Hurt.
Section 320 explains the eight categories of grievous hurt.
2. Simple hurt does not endanger to life. It is not serious. Grievous Hurt may cause
endanger to life.
3. Simple hurt includes bodily pain, disease and infirmity. It may also include mental shock.
Grievous hurt is serious in its nature.
4. Hurt is punishable, when it is accompanied with other offences, such as voluntarily
causing hurt, etc.
Grievous hurt itself is punishable offence. Punishment increases depending upon the
nature of the Grievous Hurt.
5. Injuries caused with burning fire wood do not endanger life, and therefore, do not fall
within the injuries specified in Sec. 320. Emasculation, permanent privation of sight of
either eye, or hearing of either ear, etc. are Grievous hurts.
6. Where the knife injury though was on the vital part of the body, but the depth of the
injury was not given. X-ray reports also did not show any bone cut. The injury was held
simple. The Court convicted the accused u/s. 324.
 7

The accused fired on the neck of the victim. It resulted in bleeding for three hours. It
is a Grievous hurt. The accused is punishable u/s 326.
7. An injury, which cannot be endangering to life, is not a grievous hurt, but is a simple
hurt. An injury, if it endangers life, is a Grievous hurt.
8. The accused stabbed with a sharp-edged weapon on abdomen of victim. The doctor said
that the injury touched interior surface of the stomach, but did not touch any important
organ or structure. He also stated that it could not endanger life. The injury was treated
as a simple hurt.
The accused trusted a lathi into anus of the victim. The Court treated it as a Grievous
hurt.

Conclusion
As observed above, ‘Hurt’ is mischief, injuring, torment, irritation, throbbing,
inconvenience, hurting, stinging, throbbing, aches. In every single criminal court, the
greater part of the cases is ‘deliberately causing hurt’ cases. Medicinal narrative confirmations
like medico-legal reports on harms arranged by the restorative specialists are significant for the
courts in making their lawful decisions. The kind of wounds and weapons, lawful classes of
damages and their ages must be explicitly noted in the damage reports: Medicolegal
preparing and encounters fortify the capacities of the restorative master observers.
 8

5. Specify the offences against which the right to private defence can be executed. Indicate the
limits within which the right to private defence should be exercised.

It is said that the law of self-defense is not written but is born with us. We do not learn it or acquire it
somehow but it is in our nature to defend and protect ourselves from any kind of harm. When one is
attacked by robbers, one cannot wait for law to protect oneself. Bentham has said that fear of law
can never restrain bad men as much as the fear of individual resistance and if you take away this
right then you become accomplice of all bad men.

IPC incorporates this principle in section 96, which says, Nothing is an offence which is done in the
exercise of the right of private defense.
It makes the acts, which are otherwise criminal, justifiable if they are done while exercising the right
of private defence. Normally, it is the accused who takes the plea of self defence but the court is
also bound to take cognizance of the fact that the accused acted in self defence, if such evidence
exists.
In Section 97 through 106, IPC defines the characteristics and scope of private defence in various
situations.
Section 97 - Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to
defend - first - his own body or body of any other person against any offence affecting the human
body. second - the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person,
against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal
trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.
This allows a person to defend his or anybody else's body or property from being unlawfully harmed.
Under English law, the right to defend the person and property against unlawful aggression was
limited to the person himself or kindred relations or to those having community of interest e.g. parent
and child, husband and wife, landlord and tenant, etc. However, this section allows this right to
defend an unrelated person's body or property as well. Thus, it is apt to call it as right to private
defence instead of right to self defence.

It is important to note that the right exists only against an act that is an offence. There is no right to
defend against something that is not an offence. For example, a policeman has the right to handcuff
a person on his belief that the person is a thief and so his act of handcuffing is not an offence and
thus the person does not have any right under this section.
Similarly, an aggressor does not have this right. An aggressor himself is doing an offence and even if
the person being aggressed upon gets the better of the aggressor in the exercise of his right to self
defence, the aggressor cannot claim the right of self defence. As held by SC in Mannu vs State of UP
AIR 1979, when the deceased was way laid and attacked by the accused with dangerous weapons the
question of self defence by the accused did not arise. The right to private defence of the body exists
against any offence towards human body, the right to private defence of the property exists only
against an act that is either theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal trespass or is an attempt to do the
same.

Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind. etc. – Section 98 :
When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth,
the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person
 9

doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the
same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence.
Illustrations
(a) Z, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill A; Z is guilty of no offence. But A has the same
right of private defence which he would have if Z were sane.
(b) A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled to enter. Z, in good faith, taking A for a
house-breaker, attacks A. Here Z, by attacking A under this misconception, commits no offence. But A
has the same right of private defence against Z, which he would have if Z were not acting under that
misconception.

Restrictions on right to private defence – Section 99: As with any right, the right to private defence
is not an absolute right and is neither unlimited. It is limited by the following restrictions :
Acts against which there is no right of private defence
 There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the
apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public
servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act, may not be strictly
justifiable by law.
 There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the
apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction
of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may
not be strictly justifiable by law.
 There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to
protection of the public authorities.
Extent to which the right may be exercised—The right of private defence in no case extends to the
inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.

Right to private defence of body up to causing death – Section 100

The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last
preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the
offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter
enumerated, namely:—
 First.—Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be
the consequence of such assault;
 Secondly.—Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will
otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
 Thirdly.—An assault with the intention of committing rape;
 Fourthly.—An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;
 Fifthly.—An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;
 Sixthly.—An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances
which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the
public authorities for his release.
 Seventhly.—An act of throwing or administering acid or an attempt to throw or administer
acid which may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the
consequence of such act.
 10

Duration of the right of private defence of body: Section 102 specifies the duration of the right
of private defence of the body as follows -
Section 102- The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable
apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence, though
the offence may not have been committed and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to
the body continues.
Section 103 - The right of private defence of property extends, under the restriction mentioned in
section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the wrong doer, if the offence,
the committing of which, or attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right, be an
offence of any of the descriptions here in after enumerated, namely -
 First - Robbery
 Secondly - House breaking by night.
 Third - Mischief by fire committed on any building, tent, or vessel, which building tent
or vessel is used as a human dwelling or as a place for custody of property.
 Fourth - Theft, mischief or house trespass under such circumstances as may reasonably
cause apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the consequence if such right of
private defence is not exercised.
Duration of the right of private defence of property: Section 105 specifies the duration of the right of
private defence of the property as follows -
Section 105- The right of private defence of the property commences as soon as a reasonable
apprehension of danger to the property commences. It continues -
In case of theft - till the offender has affected his retreat with the property or either the
assistance of the public authorities is obtained or the property has been recovered.
In case of robbery- as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or
hurt or wrongful restraint or as long as the fear of instant death or of instance hurt or of
instance personal restraint continues.
In case of criminal trespass- as long as the offender continues in the commision of criminal
trespass or mischief.
In case of house breaking by night- as long as the house, trespass which has been begun by
such house breaking, continues.

Section 106: Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is a risk of harm to
innocent person: If the exercise of exercise of private defence against an assault, a person
causes apprehension of death, which defender has no choice but harming an innocent
person his right will extend to that running of risk.
 11

6. Provisions of General Exceptions.

General Exceptions under IPC

The criminal law covers various punishments which vary from case to case but it is not always
necessary that the person gets punished for a crime which he/she had committed. The IPC
recognises defence in chapter 4 of the Indian penal code under General exceptions from section
76- section 106 which covers these defences for the presumption that a person is not liable for
the committed offence. These defences depend upon the circumstances prevailing at that point
of time, mens rea of person and reason of actions that accused.
Introduction:
Every offence is not absolute, they have certain exceptions. When IPC was drafted, it was
assumed that there were no exceptions in criminal cases which was a major loophole. So, a
separate chapter 4 was introduced by the maker of the IPC.
Burden of proof:
A Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. Before the
enforcement of the Indian Evidence Act 1882, the prosecution had to prove that the case does
not fall under any exception, but section 105 of Evidence act shifted the burden on the
claimant.
But in exceptions, as per section 105 of evidence Act 1882, a claimant has to prove the existence
of general exception in crimes.
The general exceptions are divided into two categories:
 Excusable Acts
 Judicially Justifiable Acts

Excusable Acts: An Excusable Act is the one in which the harm should be caused by a person yet
that person should be excused because he cannot be blamed for the act. For example, if a person
of unsound mind or insane commits a crime, he can’t be held responsible for that because he
was not having men rea. Same goes for involuntary intoxication, insanity, infancy or honest
mistake of fact.

Mistake of Facts: Under Section 76: Act done by a person bound by or by mistake of fact
believing, himself to be bound by law is included. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person
who is or by reason of a mistake of fact, not done by a mistake of law in good faith believes
himself, to be, bound by law to do such act. It is derived from the legal maxim “ignorantia facti
doth excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat”. Example: If a soldier firing on a mob by the order of
his officer in conformity or through command of the law then he will not be liable for his act.
Act done by a person justified or by a mistake of facts believing, himself justified, by law is
included Under Section 79: Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by
in the court of law or who by reason of mistake of fact and not mistake of law in good faith,
believes himself to be justified by law, in doing that particular act. Case law for Section 79, In
Kiran Bedi vs state of inquiry, petitioner refused to deposed to the beginning of the inquiry as she
believed that she could depose only at the end of an inquiry.

Accident under section 80: An accident committed while doing a lawful act is not an offence
which is done by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention or knowledge in the
doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.
 12

Infancy - Section 82 and 83:

Section 82: It includes an act of a child below seven years of age is not an offence. Nothing is
an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.
Section 83: It includes an act of a child above seven and below twelve of age who is
immature.
Section 84 Insanity – Act of a person of unsound mind is not is an offence which is done by
a person who at that time is going to perform it, by reason of unsoundness of mind and is
incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or against
the law.

Intoxication: Section 85 and 86

Section 85: Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication which is caused
against his will is not 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 person is doing what
is either wrong or contrary to law, provided that the thing which intoxicated that person
was administered involuntarily without that person’s will or knowledge.
Section 86: Offence requiring a particular intention or knowledge committed by one who is
intoxicated. This applies to cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a
particular knowledge or intention, a person who does the act in state of intoxication, shall be
liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been
intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his
knowledge or against his will but if it will be intentionally then the person is not liable to take
this defence.

Justifiable Acts:
A justified act is one which would have been wrongful under normal condition but
circumstances under which the act was committed makes it acceptable.
Section 77 and 78:
Section77: Act of the judge when acting judicially then there is nothing an offence which is done
by a judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is in good faith, he
believes to be and given to him by law.
Section 78: Act done pursuant to the Judgement or order of the court is not an offence, which is
done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by the judgment or order of, a court of justice, if
done whilst such judgment or order remains in force, is an offence and the court may have no
jurisdiction to pass such judgment or order, provided the person doing the act in good faith
believes that the court had such jurisdiction.
Necessity: Section 81 : Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intentions, and to
prevent other harm is not an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that
it is likely to cause harm if it is 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.

Consent under Section 87-89 and Section 92:

Section 87: Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done
by consent. It is not an offence which is not intended to cause death, or grievous hurt, and
which is not known by the person who has committed and which is likely to cause death or
 13

grievous hurt, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or to be intended by the
doer to cause, to any person, above 18 years of age, who has given consent, whether express or
implied, to suffer that harm; or by reason of any harm which it may be known by the person to
be likely to cause to any harm who has consented the risk.
Section 88: Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person’s
benefit. The operation performed by a doctor for an eye with the consent of the patient and the
operation resulted in the loss of eyesight. The doctor has protected under this section as he
acted in good faith.
Section 89: Act done in good faith for the benefit of child or insane person by consent of the
guardian is not an offence and a person can take this defence.
Section 90: Consent known to be given under fear or misconception is not a consent under this
section. Consent of an insane person is not a valid consent. Consent given in intoxication or
given in unsoundness of mind is not a valid consent.
Section 92: Act done in good faith for the benefit of a person in a good faith. Nothing is an
offence by reason of any harm which may causes to a person for whose benefit is done in good
faith.
Communication under section 93: Communication made in good faith. Any communication
made in good faith is not an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is made if it
is made for the benefit of that person.
Duress under Section 94: Act to which a person is compelled by threats. Except murder, and
offences against the state punishable with death, nothing is an offence which done by a person
compelled to do it under threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the
apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence, provided
the person doing the act did not of his own accord, or from reasonable apprehension of
harm to himself short of instant death, place himself in the situation by which he became
subject to such constraint.
Trifles under Section 95: Act causing slight harm is included under this section. It is not an
offence if 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 and temper
would complain of such harm.
Private Defence under section 96-106:
Section 96: Things done in private defence. Nothing is an offence in which person harms
another person in the exercise of another person.
Section 97: Right of private defence of body and property. Every person has right to private
defence with some restrictions:
 Protecting his or her body or protecting others body against any offence in which there is
a danger to life.
 Protecting his or her personal property and another’s property of movable and
immovable nature against theft, robbery mischief or trespass.

Section 98: Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind.
Section 99: Acts against which there is no right of private defence.
 There is no right of private defence against the act which does not reasonably cause
the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done.
 Attempted to be done by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office,
though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law.
 14

 There is no right of private defence in cases where there is time to have recourse to the
protection of public authorities.
 The harm caused should be proportional to that if imminent danger or attack.
Section 100: When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing injury. i. Assault
causing reasonable apprehension of death. ii. Reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt iii.
Committing rape iv. Unnatural lust v. Kidnapping or abducting vi. Wrongfully confining a
person in which a person is not been able to contact public authority. vii. Act of throwing or
attempting to throw acid.
Rights extending to causing any harm other than death: Section 101: If the offence be not of
any If the offence be not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section, the
right of private defence of the body does not extend to the voluntarily causing of death, but does
extends under the restrictions mentioned in section 99.
Commencement and continuance the right if private defence of the body: Section 102 : The
right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of
danger to the body arises from an attempt or a threat to commit the offence though the
offence may not have been committed if it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to
the body continues.
Section 103: When right if private defence of the property extends to causing death:
 Robbery
 House breaking in night
 Mischief by fire committed on any building
 Theft, house trespass or mischief under such circumstances as may reasonably cause
apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be consequences if right of private
defence is not performed.
Section 104: When such rights extend to causing harm other than hurt: If the offence, the
committing or the attempting to commit which occasions the exercise of the right of private
defence, be theft, mischief, or criminal trespass, not of any of the descriptions enumerated
in the last preceding section, that right does not extend to the voluntary causing of death, but
does extend, subject to the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing to the
wrong-doer of any harm other than death.
Section 105: Commencement and continuous of the right of private defence of property: The
right of private defence of the property commences when:
A reasonable apprehension of the commencement of the danger to the property. The right
of private defences of the property against theft continues until the offender has affected his
retreat with the property.
 Either the assistance of the public authority is obtained.
 Or, the property has been recovered.
The right of the private defence of the property against robbery continues as long as the
offender causes or attempt to cause to any person death or hurt.
As long as the fear of instant death or instant hurt or instant personal restrain continues. The
right of private defence of the property against criminal trespass or mischief continues.
Section 106: Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is a risk of harm to
innocent person: If the exercise of exercise of private defence against an assault, a person
causes apprehension of death, which defender has no choice but harming an innocent person
his right will extend to that running of risk.
Conclusion:
 15

So these are the general exceptions Section 76 to 106 are available for the accused to escape
liability or save themselves from the offence committed. It may extend to harm the innocent
person or death of that person depending upon the circumstances. These exceptions are
provided so as to represent oneself to the court of law.
 16

7. Ingredients of theft. How does it differ from extortion, robbery and dishonest misappropriation
of property?

Ans.: -
Property is mainly divided into two parts, namely movable and immovable. Any offence
which is committed in regard to any property whether it is movable or immovable is
punishable under the provisions of the law of Crimes or the Indian Penal Code [IPC]. These
offences and the punishments relating to them are explained in details in sections 378 to 460 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. XLV of 1860).
The offences which are mainly recognized in the IPC are ten in number
 Theft.
 Extortion.
 Robbery and dacoity.
 Criminal misappropriation of property.
 Criminal breach of trust.
 Receiving stolen property
 Cheating.
 Fraudulent deed and disposition of property.
 Mischief.
 Criminal trespass

Sec. 378: Theft

Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any
person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to
commit theft.
Explanation 1 - A thing so long as it is attached to the earth, not being movable property, is
not the subject of theft; but it becomes capable of being the subject of theft as soon as it is
severed from the earth.
Explanation 2 – A moving effected by the same act which effects the severance may be
a theft.
Explanation 3 - A person is said to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which
prevented it from moving or by separating it from any other thing, as well as by actually
moving it.
Explanation 4 - A person, who by any means causes an animal to move, is said to move that
animal, and to move everything which, in consequence of the motion so caused, is moved
by that animal.
Explanation 5 - The consent mentioned in the definition may be expressed or implied, and
may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose
authority either express or implied.

Essential Ingredients of Theft

The absence of the persons consent at the time of moving and the presence of dishonest
intention in so taking at the time, are the essential ingredients of the offence of theft (K.N. Mehra
v. State of Rajasthan 1957).
Intending to take dishonestly - Dishonest intention exists when the person so taking the
property intends to cause wrongful gain (even temporary) to himself or wrongful loss to
 17

the other; either is sufficient. This intention is known as animus furandi (intention to steal)
and without it the offence of theft is not complete. Thus, where a respectable person just
pinches the cycle of another person, as his own cycle at the time was missing and brings it back,
it was held that no theft was committed by him.

Theft by wife: Where a wife removes the property of her husband left in her custody from his
house with dishonest intention, she commits theft. However, a Hindu woman does not commit
theft by removing her stridhan out of the custody of her husband.

Theft by servant: A servant is not guilty of theft when what he does is at his masters bidding,
unless he participates in his masters knowledge of the dishonest nature of the acts.
Any movable property - A boat, valuable security, a Hindu idol, stones or sand or minerals when
severed from earth is movable property. There is no theft of wild animals, birds, etc. at large, but
there is a theft of tamed animals. A human body, whether living or dead, cannot be the subject
of theft.
Taking out of the possession of another person - It does not matter for the purposes of theft
that the person from whose possession the property is taken is not the true owner or has an
apparent and not real title to the property. Possession and not ownership is the essential
element in the offence. A theft is a theft. Thus, where a person steals a thing from a thief he is
guilty of theft.
Removing ornaments from a dead body cannot be taking property out of possession of a person
and thus not a theft, but it is a criminal misappropriation, as also in the case of picking up a
lost property. Where the owner removes a property which has been attached by the court, he
has committed a theft. Taking out of possession of another person may not be permanent or
with the intention to appropriate things. In K.N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1957 SC 369), the
accused took out an LAF plane for an unauthorised flight, even temporarily, was held guilty.

Taking without consent - Consent obtained by false representation which leads to a

misconception of facts will not be a valid consent.
Moving property in order to such taking - Till the property is moved, no offence of theft can be
committed even if the alleged offender had intended to take dishonestly the property out of the
possession of any person without his consent.
Punishment: Under section 379 punishment is 5 years or fine or both.
Aggravated Forms of Theft :
Theft in any building, tent or vessel used as human dwelling or for the custody of property:
Sec. 380.
Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of his master: Sec. 381.
Theft after preparation made for causing death, or hurt or restraint or fear of death, etc. to any
person in order to the committing of such theft, or the effecting of escape afterwards or the
retaining of property taken by such theft: Sec. 382.

Difference between Theft and Extortion

As to consent
In extortion, consent is obtained by putting the person in possession of property in fear of injury
to himself or any other person. In theft, the offender’s intention is to take the property
without the owner’s consent.
 18

Element of force
There is element of force in the offence of extortion as the property is obtained by putting a
person in fear of injury to that person or any other. There is no element of force in theft.
Scope
Extortion is wider in scope as it covers any kind of property, valuable security or anything that
may be converted into valuable security. Theft covers only the cases of moveable property.
Property
In extortion, both moveable and immovable property may be the subject of the offence. In theft
it is limited only to moveable property.
Effect
In extortion, the property is delivered. In theft, there is dishonest removal of property.
Taking of Property
In extortion, threat may be by one person and the property may be received by another person.
In theft, property must be move by a person in order to such taking.

Difference between Theft and Robbery

“Theft” and “robbery” are common terms that refer to taking money or personal property
without permission, but they don’t mean the same thing. The crimes of theft and robbery can
easily be confused because both involve taking someone else’s money or property. However,
while theft and robbery share some characteristics, the offences are quite different.
Robbery differs from theft primarily in that it involves force or intimidation to take property
from another person. It is the use of force that makes robbery, in most cases, the more
serious crime.
Like theft, robbery involves taking money or property without permission. However, the crime of
robbery also involves force or the threat of force. The typical elements of robbery are someone
taking money or property:
 with the intent to keep the property permanently
 without the property owner’s consent
 by the use of force or intimidation.
 Presence of Victim
Someone can commit theft even by taking unattended property. A couple examples are taking
cash left on a restaurant table and stealing a parked car.

Robbery, unlike theft, entails taking property directly from a person. For instance, suppose two
men armed with guns enter a bank, demand money from a teller, and flee with the cash.
Because they had intent to steal, used the threat of force, and took money directly from a
person, the two men have committed robbery.

Difference between Theft and dishonest misappropriation of Property

The Offences of Theft and Criminal Misappropriation are given under the head of crime against
property in IPC. Theft can be defined as an act of taking any movable property out of the
possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property for taking its
possession. Whereas, Criminal Misappropriation can be defined as an act of converting or
misappropriating any movable property with dishonest intention for his own use. Both the
offences deal with the movable property.
 19

Basis Theft Criminal Misappropriation

Provision Offence of theft is defined under Offence of Criminal Misappropriation is

under IPC section 378 of Indian Penal Code, defined under section 403 of Indian Penal
1860 Code, 1860
Intention In Theft, the initial taking of the In Criminal Misappropriation, the initial step of
property is always unlawful. The taking property may be innocent and lawful.
intention behind such act is Dishonest intention develops
always dishonest. subsequently.
Consent In theft, property is moved In Criminal Misappropriation, the owner
without the consent or might have come into possession of the
knowledge of the owner. property with the express consent of the
owner or by some casualty.
Commission In theft, the moving of property is In Criminal Misappropriation, the offence is
of offence itself an offence. said to be committed when the property is
converted or misappropriated with dishonest
intention for offender’s own use. Mere
moving of property not constitute the
offence.
Right of In theft, the right of the Un Criminal Misappropriation, the there is no
Possession possession is violated by the such infringement of right of possession as
wrongdoer. the offender is already in the possession
of the property.

Punishment Offence of theft is punishable Offence of Criminal Misappropriation is

with imprisonment of either punishable with imprisonment of either
description for a term which description for a term which may extent to 2
may extent to 3 years or with years or with fine, or with both (Sec.403,IPC)
fine,or with both (Sec.379,IPC)
 20

8. What is defamation? What defences are available to a person who is charged with the offence of
defamation?
The term defamation is derived from the Latin word “Diffamare’ which means ‘spreading evil
or bad information about someone. As per the Black law dictionary, defamation is an offence
wherein a person’s character, fame, or reputation is injured by false and malicious statements. In
simple terms, under defamation, one person publicizes or issues a statement that is derogatory
or untrue in nature with the sole objective of destroying the image of that person in the society,
workplace, etc.
Example: Rahul posted a comment on Vivek’s post that he had been in prison for 5 years in a
murder case. Now, if any person reads this comment on the post, then he will definitely think
that Vivek is a criminal and he spent 5 years in jail. This can totally tarnish the image of Vivek
because no one will give him respect and start avoiding him. If this statement is untrue, then
it will be called a defamatory statement and this offence is known as defamation.
In the Indian Penal Code, 1860, the offence of defamation is provided under Section 499. As per
this section, if some words, signs or visible representation is published or spoken with the sole
intention of causing harm to the reputation of a person or it has a reason to believe that this will
destroy the reputation of that concerned individual, then the offence of defamation is
committed. The punishment for defamation is provided under Section 500 of the IPC which
is generally of 2 years with or without a fine. The defamation comes under criminal as well as a
civil wrong. A person who has been defamed can sue for damage to the person who defamed
him.

Types of defamation
There are essentially two types of defamation:
 Libel
 Slander

Libel defamation
It refers to that defamation that harms the reputation of an individual, business group etc. by
making a false representation in the form of writing, picture, movie etc. This type of
defamation is generally of permanent nature and invites more stringent punishment. This
defamation occurs while publishing an article in the newspaper, making a comment on a social
media platform, etc.

For example- A newspaper named “Z” publishes that Mr X has become bankrupt but in reality,
Mr X is not. So, this is a false statement made in a written form, thereby it is called libel
defamation.

Slander defamation
It refers to that defamation wherein a falsified statement is made by spoken words or by some
other transitory forms, whether visible or audible, such as a sign, gesture, hissing, etc. This type
of defamation generally attracts civil punishments and it is actionable only in proof of actual
damage.
For example – In an ongoing TV interview, Mr X questioned the chastity of Z and made some
alluring remarks through his eyes in front of the camera. Now, the defamatory statement is
made verbally and with the help of gestures, it is called slander.
 21

It becomes clear before the aforesaid definitions that the fundamental distinction between libel
and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. However, In
Indian jurisprudence, unlike British law, both libel and slander are treated equally and both are
considered as an offence under Section 499 of the IPC. In the case of Hirabai Jehangir v.
Dinshawdulji, the Bombay high court both stated that no distinction shall be made between
treating libel and slander as criminal offences.

Essential Ingredients of Defamation

Section 499 obliges three essential ingredients for the offence of defamation under IPC.
An imputation or allegation must be made to harm the person against whom it is made.
Such an imputation or allegation must be made by:
 words, either spoken or written; or
 signs; or
 visible representations.
 Publishing such imputation or allegation.
Exceptions of Defamation
Along with the definition of defamation, section 499 also contains some circumstances
under which the false statement made against another person do not amount to defamation.
The following circumstances are exceptions to defamation:
 Imputation of Truth Which Public Good Requires to Be Made or Published
 If a true imputation or allegation is made related to a person, it does not amount to
defamation. But, it must be made for the good of the public.

Public Conduct of a Public Servant

When any opinion is expressed in good faith respecting the conduct of the public servants in the
discharge of their public functions, it does not amount to defamation.

Conduct of Any Person Approaching Any Public Question

When any opinion is expressed in good faith respecting the conduct of any person
approaching the public question or who discharges public functions, it does not amount to
defamation.
For example, the act of publicists who take part in politics or other matters related to the public
in good faith does not amount to defamation.

Publication of Reports of Proceedings of Courts

Publishing a substantially authentic report of the proceedings of any Court of Justice or result
of any such proceedings does not amount to defamation.

Merits of a Case Decided in Court or Conduct of Witnesses and Other Related to the Case
An unrestricted statement on the judgements of the courts, the jury’s verdict, the act of parties
and witnesses is necessary. And therefore, if any opinion is expressed relating to the merits of
any case decided by a court of justice or conduct of parties and witnesses does not amount
to defamation.

Merits of Public Performance

 22

 This exception covers criticisms of the book published on literature, art, singing, etc. It is
not defamation to express any opinion in good faith regarding the qualities of any
performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public.
 Censure Passed in Good Faith by a Person Having Lawful Authority Over Another
When a person who has authority over another person either by law or arising out of
a valid contract condemns in good faith the conduct of that person, it does not amount to
defamation.
 Accusation Desired in Good Faith to Authorised Person
When a person who has lawful authority over another person accuses him, he will not be
liable for defamation. However, the complaint must be bona fide.
 Further, accusation in newspapers is not covered under this section.
 Imputation Made in Good Faith by a Person for the Protection of his or Others Interests
This exception is applied when a defamatory statement is made against any person in
good faith for the protection of the interest of the person who made it.

Caution Intended for the Good of a Person to Whom Conveyed or the Public Good
Any caution or warning conveyed in good faith from one person to another or for the good of the
public does not amount to defamation.
Defences against defamation
The offence of defamation is not absolute and certain exceptions have been carved out for the
same. These include –
Justification of truth
The truth is an absolute defence of the offence of defamation. It means that if a statement is
true, irrespective of the fact whether it is derogatory or cheap, the offence of defamation can
never take place. In civil defamation, it is well-settled law that if the statement is proved true,
then the charge of defamation automatically gets removed because the law can’t punish an
individual for speaking the truth.

However, under criminal law merely proving the truth will not solve the purpose and besides
this, the person needs to show that the statement was made in a bona fide manner. In the case
of Radheyshyam Tiwari v. Eknath, the court held that if the defendant can’t prove the validity of
the statement, then it will be presumed that the intention was malice.

Making Fair comment

The term fair comment involves making or putting one’s opinion in matters relating to our
national interest. This is a valid defence against the offence of defamation. For taking this
exception, one needs to prove the following things –
It must be a comment. In other words, it means that it shall be an expression of opinion rather
than an assertion of fact.
The comment must be fair and it should not be based upon untrue facts.
The matter commented upon must relate to the public interest. Matters like administration of
government departments, courts, ministers, public meetings, textbooks, etc. falls under the
ambit of public interest.

Privilege
 23

The word privilege means giving a special status. This special status is generally accorded when
the law feels that the right of free speech overweighs the right against defamation. These
privileges are generally of 2 types.
(1). Absolute privileges – In these matters, complete immunity is given to a person speaking and no
action for defamation can lie against him. It includes the occasion of
 Parliamentary proceedings– As per Article 105(2) of the Indian constitution, the
parliamentarians can speak anything during the course of business of parliament and
no action of defamation would lie against them.
 Judicial proceedings– This protection has been accorded to judges, counsels, witnesses,
and parties to a suit under the Judicial Officers Protection Act of 1850.
(2.) Qualified privilege – In this type of privilege, though the immunity is given to the speaker it is
not absolute in nature. For availing of this defence, the impugned person needs to prove that
the statement has been made without an element of Malice.

Getting Apology from the Aggrieved Party

If the person who has passed the defamatory statement asks for an apology by the defamed
person and the defamed person accepts the apology, then also it will not be considered
defamation.
In the recent case of Arun Jaitley v Arvind Kejriwal, the court held that though the statement said
by Arvind Kejriwal and his 5 other leaders appears to be defamatory but the matter needs to be
completely disclosed as all the defendants apologized for their actions and apology is granted to
them.

Communication between husband and wife

As per Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 it is believed that the communication
between husband and the wife is considered as “privileged communication” and it is outside the
purview of defamation. The law believes that husband and wife are the lifelong partners with
whom we share our all sentiments thus there cannot be any publication and consequently no
defamation. Thus, the communication between husband and wife will be considered as an
exception of section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
In the case of T.J. Ponnen v. M.C Verghese, the court held that a letter from the husband to his
wife containing some defamatory matter in relation to his father- in-law will not amount to
defamation. This letter will be covered within the ambit of privileged communication as provided
under Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Punishment for Defamation as Per Section 500 IPC

Punishment for the offence of defamation is contained under section 500 of the Indian Penal
Code. As per this section, the punishment for defamation is simple imprisonment, the term of
which may extend to two years, or fine, or both.
Conclusion
Defamation is an offence that involves injury to the reputation of an individual in society. It is
provided under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The essential ingredients of this
offence involve that it must be a false statement with the objective of hampering the reputation.
Defamation is generally of 2 types namely Libel and slander. In India, defamation is civil as well as
criminal. However, this offence is not absolute and certain exceptions have been provided and
the chief defence against this offence is proving that the statement is being “true”. The judiciary
 24

has also evolved its scope in recent times.

 25

9. Abatement

Definition
The act of assisting, encouraging, or instigating someone to commit a crime is a criminal offence
under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It is a serious offence because it involves actively facilitating the
commission of a crime, and it is punishable severely.
Sections 107 to 120 of the Indian Penal Code cover the provisions concerning abetment (IPC). These
sections define various types of abatement, such as instigation, conspiracy, and aiding, and prescribe
abetment punishment based on the severity of the crime committed. The sections also include
guidelines for determining abettor’s liability when the crime committed differs from the one intended
or planned by the abettor.

Forms of Abetment under the IPC

Abetment, according to the IPC, can take three forms:
 Instigation
 Conspiracy
 Aiding

Instigation
The act of urging or inciting someone to commit a crime is referred to as instigation, whereas
conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime. Providing material
assistance or support to someone committing a crime, such as providing weapons or transportation, is
referred to as assisting.
Instigation is punishable under Section 107 of the IPC, which establishes the general principle of
abetment. Section 108 of the IPC makes specific provisions for instigation and specifies the penalty
for instigation based on the severity of the crime committed.

Conspiracy
Section 120-A of the Indian Penal Code contains provisions relating to conspiracy. Conspiracy is
frequently regarded as a preparatory offence because it occurs before the commission of the actual
crime. It is a serious offence under the law because it involves criminal planning and coordination
among individuals, demonstrating a high level of criminal intent and a potential threat to public
safety.

Aiding
Aiding is a type of abetment in the Indian Penal Code, which refers to the act of providing material
assistance or support to someone who is committing a crime. This means that if someone assists
another person in committing a crime by providing them with weapons, transportation, or any other
type of material support, they may be charged with aiding.
Aiding can take many forms, including any type of material assistance that assists a person in
committing a crime. Giving someone a key to a building they intend to burglarize, giving them a
getaway vehicle, or even simply offering advice or guidance on how to commit a crime may all be
considered aiding under the law.
Anyone, regardless of whether they are physically present at the scene of the crime, can commit
abetment. This means that even if a person does not physically participate in a crime, they can still be
held criminally liable if they encourage or aid in its commission.
 26

Elements of Abetment
There must be an obvious link between the act of the abettor and the commission of the crime for it
to be considered a criminal offence. The abettor must have a specific intention and actively assist in
the commission of the crime if he or she intends to aid or facilitate the commission of the crime. The
objective of the act of the abettor is to assist in the commission of the crime and is directly related to
the commission of the crime. For example, the abettor of a murder must have some knowledge of the
crime and may be actively involved in helping it to be carried out.

Relevant Case Laws

The law of abetment has undergone major changes very recently. The changes are laid out by the
landmark cases below:
 In Pramod Shriram Telgote v. State of Maharashtra , it was held that “clear mens rea to
commit the offence is a sine qua non for conviction under Section 306 IPC”.
 In Channu v. State of Chattisgarh, it was held that “merely because wife committed suicide
in matrimonial house, husband and in-laws can’t be charged for abetment to suicide.”
 In Gurucharan Singh v. State of Punjab, it was held that “in order to convict a person for
abetment of suicide, there has to be a clear mens rea to commit an offence.”

Punishment for Abetment

The punishment for abetment is outlined in Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. This section states
that if someone abets the commission of a crime and that crime is committed in consequence of the
abetment, then the abettor shall be punished with the punishment provided for that crime.
For example, if Aman instigates Rohit to commit murder, and Rohit commits the murder as a result of
Aman’s instigation, then Aman can be punished with the same punishment as prescribed for murder
under IPC.

The penalty for abetment varies according to the gravity of the crime committed. If the abetment
results in the commission of a minor offence, the abettor faces up to three years in prison, a fine, or
both. If abetment leads to the commission of a major offence, the abettor may face life imprisonment
or a term of up to ten years in prison, as well as a fine.

Conclusion
Under the IPC, abetment is a serious offence because it involves actively facilitating the commission of
a crime. Individuals must understand the legal implications of abetment and avoid engaging in such
activities to protect themselves and others. Law enforcement agencies take abetment very seriously,
and those found guilty of abetment can expect serious legal consequences.
 27

10. Provisions against Marriage under IPC

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), contains several sections related to offences relating to
marriage. These sections cover various aspects of marriage and the crimes that can arise from
them.

Offences Relating To Marriage (Indian Penal Code 1860, Section 493 to 498A)
Chapter XX of IPC deals with offences relating to marriage. All these offences are within the
institution of marriage. chapter XX-A containing only one section (s.498A) dealing with cruelty to
a woman by her husband or relatives to coerce her and her parents to meet material greed of
dowry was added to the IPC by criminal law (Second amendment act,1983).
Following are main offences under this chapter:
1. Mock or invalid marriage (section 493 and 496).
2. Bigamy (section 494 and 495).
3. (Adultery (section 497)
4. Criminal elopement- seduction (section498)
5. Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband (section 498A)

Section 493- cohabitation caused by man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage.
Every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that
she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten
years and shall also be liable to fine. It is non-cognizable and non-bailable.
Section 496- Marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without lawful marriage
Whoever dishonestly or with fraudulent intention goes through the ceremony of being married
knowing that he is not thereby lawfully married shall be punished with imprisonment for term
which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable for fine. It is non-cognizable and
bailable. In both the sections woman is cheated by the man into believing that she is legally
married to him, but men is fully aware that the same is not true.

Section 494- Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife (Bigamy)

Whoever having husband or life living marries in any case in which such marriage is void by
reason of its taking during the life of such husband or wife. Shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for term which may extend to seven years and shall be liable for fine.
Exception: This section does not extend to any person whose marriage with such husband or
wife has been declared void by court of competent jurisdiction. Any person who contracts
marriage during the life of former husband or wife, if such husband or while at the time of
subsequent marriage shall been continually absent from such person for seven years and shall
not been heard by such person as being alive within that time provided the person contracting
such subsequent marriage takes place, inform the person with whom such marriage is contracted
of the real state of facts so far as the same are within his or her knowledge.

Section 495- Same offences with concealment of former marriage from person with whom
subsequent marriage is contracted.
The essential ingredients are:
1. Existence of a previous marriage.
2. Second marriage to be valid.
3. Second marriage to be void by reason of first husband or wife living.
 28

4. Non-disclosure of first marriage.

Whoever commits the offence defined in last preceding section having concealed from the person
with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact of the former marriage shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and
shall also be liable to fine.

Section 497- Adultery

Adultery is sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than the lawful
spouse. Under law adultery is defined as a consensual physical correlation between two
individuals who are not married to each other. Adultery is also known as infidelity or extra-
marital affair which is certainly a moral crime and is been considered as a sin by almost all
religions.
According to section 497 whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he
knows or has reason to believe to be wife of another man, without the consent connivance of that
man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of
adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment or either description for a term which may
extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such a case wife shall not be punishable as
an abettor.
The essential ingredients are:
1. Sexual intercourse between married woman and man who is not her husband.
2. Woman must be married sexual intercourse by a man, who is the wife of another man.
3. Sexual intercourse must take place with woman consent .i.e.:-it must not constitute rape.
4. Sexual intercourse with married woman must take place without the consent or
connivance of her husband.

Section 498 Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman
Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knocks or has a reason to
believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her
on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or
conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine or with both.
Essential ingredients are:
1. Takes or entices away.
2. Woman to be a married woman.
3. The person enticing or taking away the married woman should have knowledge that she is
the wife of another man.
4. Taken from control of husband or person having care of her on behalf of her husband.
5. Intention to have illicit intercourse.
6. Conceals or detains any such woman.
Alamgir v state of Bihar, AIR 1969
It was observed that whilst the wife is living with the husband, man knowingly goes away with
her in such a way as to deprive the husband of his control over her, with the intent to have illicit
intercourse, then it constitutes an offence within the section.
Section 498A Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband.
Whoever being husband or relative of husband of a woman, subject such woman to cruelty shall
be punished with imprisonment for term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable
to fine.
Explanation: for purpose of this section cruelty means:
 29

a. Any wilful conduct which is of such nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit
suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether physical or
mental) of the woman; or
b. harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawfully demand for any property or valuable
security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such
demand.
For safeguarding the interest of a woman against cruelty the Indian Penal Code, 1860 was
amended in 1983 and Section 498A and Section 304B was inserted which deals with
Matrimonial Cruelty to a women by husband and his relatives and dowry death respectively.
Section 113B was added to Indian Evidence Act, 1872, wherein it is provided that if it was
shown that soon before the death of the woman she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by
person in connection with demand for dowry, then it shall be presumed that such person who
harassed the woman had caused the death of woman.
Inder Raj Malik v. Sunita Malik, 1896 It was held that word cruelty is defined in explanation
which inter alia says that harassment of a women with a view to coerce her or any related
persons to meet any lawful demand for any property or any valuable security is cruelty.
Reema Aggarwal v. Anupam AIR 2004 SC 1418
It was argued that 'husband' of 'second wife' who marries her during the subsistence of his
earlier legal marriage, is not husband within the meaning of section 498A and the second wife,
therefore, cannot invoke section 498A for cruelty and harassment caused to her by him or his
relatives. The appellant, Reema Aggarwal, who was harassed by her husband and his relatives for
not bringing sufficient dowry, consumed poisonous substance. She admitted that she married
him during lifetime of his first wife. Based on this fact her husband with others, was charged-
sheeted under sections 307 and 498A.

Conclusion
Offences related to marriage are serious crimes that can lead to devastating consequences for
those involved. From bigamy and adultery to concealing a previous marriage and fraudulently
conducting a wedding ceremony, these offences have been the subject of intense legal debate and
scrutiny over the years. The Indian Penal Code provides for strict punishment for those found
guilty of such offences, with imprisonment and fines being the most common penalties.