INDIAN PENAL CODE Most important and expected questions » . What is crime? Explain the difference between crime and tort? . Explain types of punishments to which offences are liable under IPC with special reference to death sentence? . What is mens era? state its significance in statutory offences. 4. Write a note on public servant. 5. Explain the nature and extent of unsoundness of mind required to exempt a person from criminal liability with reference to leading cases. 6. Define crime? Distinguish with morality? Explain the role of mensrea in statutory offences. 7. Write a note on concept of crime. 8. Discuss the right of private defense? When does it extends to causing death while defending the body? 9. Explain giving false evidence and fabrication of false evidence. 10.Explain the circumstances under which culpable homicide amount to murder. 11.What is kidnapping? Distinguish from abduction. 12.What is criminal misappropriation of property? How does it differ from criminal breach of trust? 13.Explain the ingredients of the offense of cheating with illustration? 14.Explain the brief the offences relating to marriage? 15.Write a note on accident. 16.Write a note on dowry death. 17.Write a note on criminal trespass. 18.Who are the possible parties to a crime? Discuss. 19.What is giving false evidence? Distinguish from fabricating false evidence. 20.Explain the distinguish between culpable homicide and murder. 21.In all robbery there is either theft or extortion? Explain? 22.Define and distinguish criminal misappropriation of property and breach of trust? Nv w23.Write a note on offences relating to public tranquility. 24,Write a note on unlawful assembly. 25.0ffences relating to public servants. 26.Offences relating to election. 27.Explain the essentials of criminal trespass, house trespass and house breaking. 28, Define forgery and false documents under Indian penal code. 29.Write a note on common intension a common object. 30.Write a note on attempt and abetment. 31.Write a note on Concept of lawful authority. 32.What is force? When does it becomes criminal force? 33,What is robbery? When does it become dacoity? 34.Discuss the offence of adultery with recent developments. 35.Discuss the term of defamation with exceptions. 36.Write a note on sedition. 37.Write a note on rape.What is crime? Explain the difference between crime and tort? Introductio Legal terms often generally become a source of confusion. Two of the terms are Crime and Tort. Sometimes, people use them interchangeably but that is not the reality. Both terms are completely different from each other. Each of them has. separate features and consequences. It becomes very essential to understand the real existence of these legal terms in order to understand the legal system properly. In this article, we will look at the meaning of crime and tort, and the difference between tort and crime. What is Crime? Undoubtedly, Crime is nothing but doing something wrong. Specifically, in this case, the impact is on society in general. There are special cases or acts which are a crime under the state legal system. In case, a person does any of the act, the law will take necessary decisions of punishment in the court. Specifically, the proceeding takes place in the criminal court of law. Crimes which go against laws are already set for the protection of society. Moreover, it keeps peace ensuring everyone can have the right to live in a society, free of crimes. Crime is an illegal act for the following reason: 1. Firstly, crime goes against existing laws set-up in society. 2. Secondly, crime affects the standard of living of law-abiding citizens who wish to live peacefully in society. . Lastly, a crime is an intentional act contravening human fundamental rights. What is Tort? Unlike a crime, tort is doing something wrong hampering individual parties. In legal terms, a tort happens when negligence directly damages a person or his/her property. There are different types of torts, but all of them result in injury toa private person or property.Negligence is the most common reason for tort. When a person unintentionally harms someone then the injured party can sue the defendant for his act. A strict liability tort becomes an issue if a private party is injured through a faulty product. Crime ‘A.Crime is wrongdoing which hampers the social order of the society we live in. Crime happens mostly intentionally. It is a deliberate act which people do to get some unlawful benefits. Crime impacts the well-being of society in general. The legal bodies try to give proportional punishment to law offenders in order to maintain peace in society. es are presented in the Criminal Court. Compensation for crimes is already mentioned in the book of law. Tort A Tort is wrongdoing which hampers the individual or his property. It happens mostly due to negligence. Tort is hardly intentional. But itis still damaging to the individual. Tort impacts the well-being of the individual. The aggrieved party seeks compensation for the damages Torts are presented in the Civil Court. Compensation for torts is given on the basis of the damages to the aggrieved party. 2.Explain types of punishments to which offences are liable under IPC with special reference to death sentence? Introduction:Under the law, punishment is provided to cease the wrongdoer from ‘committing the crime again. Punishment is a consequence or result of a wrong committed by a person. Provision for punishment are provided under Sec 53 and chapter 3 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The Section defines various kinds of punishments to which the offenders are liable under the Indian Penal Code. The punishments given under Sec 53 apply only to offences given under this code. In India, the reformative theory is followed to provide punishment. The punishment awarded should neither be so harsh nor so easy so that it fails to serve its purpose in generating impact on the offender and as an eye-opener for others.it is considered that punishment should be of such a nature that it brings reform in a person's personality and thinking. Sec 53 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes 5 kinds of punishments. 1. Death Penalty 2. Life imprisonment 3. Imprisonment a. Rigorous b. Simple 4 Forfeiture of property 5.Fine Death Penalty Death penalty is also called the capital punishment. Under this punishment, a person is hanged till he dies. The infliction of death sentence or taking away the offenders life by authority as a punishment for an offence is capital punishment or death penalty. In India it is awarded in rarest of rare cases. It may be awarded as punishment in the following offences: ‘a, Waging war against the government of india (Sec 121) b. Abetting mutually actually committed (Sec 132) c. Giving or fabricating false evidence upon which an innocent person suffers death (Sec 194)|. Murder (Sec 302) . Murder by life convicts (Sec 303) Abetment of suicide of a minor or an insane or intoxicated person (Sec 305) .. Dacoity accompanied with murder (Sec 396) .. Kidnapping for ransom (Sec 364A) Case Law 1. Bachan Singh Vs the State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC 898,1980 Upheld the validity of the death penalty, but the court restricted the provision of the death penalty in rarest of rare cases only. If the case falls under this theory, then capital punishment may be given. . Jagmohan Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh (1973 AIR 947,1973 SCR 2)541) The death penalty is unconstitutional and hence invalid as a punishment. The Supreme Court held the death penalty as valid. It held that deprivation of life is constitutionally lawful if that is done according to the procedure set by law. Life Imprisonment The words imprisonment for life was substituted for transportation for life by Act XXVI of 1955.In its ordinary connotation imprisonment for life means imprisonment for the whole of the remaining life period of the convicted person's natural life. According to Sec57 imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for 20 year's. But only for calculating fractions of terms of punishment imprisonment for life shall be reckoned as equivalent to imprisonment for 20yrs.But otherwise the sentence of imprisonment for life is of indefinite duration. Case Law 1. Bhagirath And Ors Vs.Delhi Administration (1985 AIR 1050) The supreme court of India defined imprisonment for life as imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the convict. If life imprisonment is given to a person, he shall stay in the prison for a minimum of 14 years and the maximum is the rest of his life.2. Naib Singh V.State of Punjab And Ors. (AIR 1986 SC 2192} The supreme court of India cleared the confusion with the duration of life imprisonment and section 55 of IPC. The court held that a life convict cannot claim for his release after serving 14 years in prison. Life imprisonment continues until the death of the prisoner. The only exception to this is commutation and remission. Imprisonment Imprisonment means taking away a person's freedom and putting him in prison. According to Sec 53 of the IPC, there are two kinds of punishments: a. Simple: itis a punishment in which the offender is confined to jail only and not subjected to any hard labour. The following are some offences which are punishable with simple imprisonment: Wrongful Restraint (Sec 341) Uttering any word or making any sound or gesture with an intention to insult the modesty of a women (Sec 509) Misconduct in a public place by a drunken person (Sec 510) Defamation (Sec 500,501,502) Criminal misappropriation of property (Sec 403) . Rigorous: In this case the offender is put to hard labour such as grinding corn, digging, cutting wood etc. The following are some offences which are punishable with rigorous imprisonment: Kidnapping in order to murder (Sec 364) Robbery (Sec 392) Dacoity (Sec 395) House breaking in order to commit offence punishable with death (Sec 449) Case Law1, Gautam Dutta Vs. State of Jharkhand (10 feb 2016) The boy named Atif Mustafa get kidnapped intentionally and the kidnappers murdered him and disposed of his body to protect themselves from the criminal trial. M.D Safique is already in the court trial. During the court trial court find about his second crime of kidnapping a boy with his 3 friends. Court Find them and convicted them for the offense of kidnapping which is punishable under Section 364a, 120b IPC. .. Md.Munna Vs. Union of India and Ors (AIR 2005 SC 3440) The writ petition is filed under article 32 of the Indian constitution. The petitioner was found guilty of murder. And previously he has already got imprisonment for life for 21 years. In this petitioner claimed that life imprisonment should be equivalent to 20 years and further subject to remission admissible under law. Forfeiture Of Property Forfeiture implies the loss of property of the accused. Under this punishment, the state seizes the property of a criminal.it is the result of the wrong or default caused by the person. The property forfeited may be movable or immovable. In two provisions the forfeiture of the property has been abolished: 1. Under Section 126 for committing depredation on territories of power at peace with government of India 2. Under Section 127 for receiving property taken during war or depredation mentioned in section 126 of IPC. Fine can be simply defined as monetary punishment. Almost all the sections related with awarding punishment includes fine as punishment. However section 63 says where sum is expressed to which a fine may extend, the amount of fine to which the offender is liable is unlimited, but shall not be excessive. Case Law + Palaniappa Gounder Vs. State of Tamilnadu (1977 AIR 1323 The apex court stated that the sentence given by the court shall beproportionate to the nature of the offence which includes the sentence of fine. And the punishment shall not be unduly excessive. Conclusion We have discussed various punishments which are imposed differently in different offences, the term, nature, etc varies in each case and offences and also according to courts. All the punishments are retributive, reformative and deterrent in nature. Itis stated that a reformative approach to punishment should be the object of criminal law. What is mens rea? state ignificance in statutory offences. Introduction: To be found guilty of a crime, the prosecution must prove that there was a physical action, actus reus, and a state of mind to commit a crime, known as mens rea. Mens rea is concerned with what the defendant was thinking at the time he committed the actus reus. Different crimes have different mens rea requirements. The purpose of this presentation is to provide an overview of mens rea. First, the presentation will introduce the different categories of mens rea. Next, the presentation will analyze each of these categories, provide the key components to each, and will provide examples of crimes that are classified under these mental states. Overview of Mental States Mens reais divided into three categories: general intent, specific intent, recklessness/criminal negligence. Additionally, there is a class of crimes for which no mens rea element is required. These are called strict liability crimes. Strict liability crimes are crimes for which liability is imposed without consideration of the defendant’s knowledge or intentions.[1] General Intent General intent crimes require that the defendant had the intention to commit an illegal act. All that is needed for a conviction is an intent to commit the act that constitutes the crime. General intent exists when the illegal act may reasonably be expected to follow from an offender's voluntary act even without any specific intent by the offender.To prove general intent, the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant acted intentionally in the sense that he was aware of what he was doing. For general intent crimes, the very doing of acts that have been declared criminal shows the criminal intent necessary to sustain a conviction. For example, a defendant can be convicted for the illegal skinning of an alligator if he is merely in possession of an alligator that was not appropriately skinned. This is because a jury may infer the required general intent merely from the doing of the act. ‘Some examples of general intent crimes are the following: Rape Battery False imprisonment Kidnapping Specific Intent Specific intent designates a special mental element that is above and beyond any mental state required with respect to the actus reus of the crime.[2] Specific intent is a term used to describe a state of mind that exists where a defendant objectively desired a specific result to follow his act. The prosecution must prove that the defendant acted with the intent to achieve a specific goal, as well as the intent to commit the illegal acts. Specific intent cannot be inferred from the commission of the act and specific proof is required to demonstrate that this element is satisfied. Conspiracy is an example of a crime requiring the mens rea to be specific intent. The general federal conspiracy statute provides, ‘{iJf two or more persons conspire . .. to commit any offense against the United States . . . each shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.’ 18 U.S.C. § 371. ‘[T]he specific intent required for the crime of conspiracy is in fact the intent to advance or further the unlawful object of the conspiracy.’ Other examples of specific intent crimes ar Attempt Assault First degree premeditated murderBurglary False pretences Criminal Negligence and Recklessness There are also crimes that require neither specific nor general intent. A prosecutor can secure a conviction by demonstrating that the defendant acted recklessly or negligently. Both recklessness and criminal negligence may exist when the defendant acted with a gross lack of care without paying attention to the unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. Recklessness is a higher level of guilt than criminal negligence. Both negligence standards and the possible criminal charges stemming from criminal negligence vary state to state. Even though there are variations, the defendant's mental state must be of such a nature and to such a risky degree that the failure to perceive the risks of his actions constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise. Unlike general or specific criminal intent, criminal negligence is negative, meaning it does not require an affirmative act by the defendant. ‘An example of a conviction based on a showing of recklessness occurred in a case involving drag racing.[3] The defendant was convicted of negligent homicide as the result of illegal drag racing, where speeds were at least forty miles per hour over the speed limit. After two vehicles engaged in such reckless driving, there was a crash and a fatality. The prosecution successfully proved that the defendant’s mental state was reckless. In convicting the defendant, the court reasoned that driving at those speeds while drag racing “exhibited such disregard for the interest of others as to amount to a gross deviation below the standard of care expected of a reasonably careful man.” Strict Liability There is another class of crimes referred to as strict liability crimes. Strict liability crimes, also known as public welfare offenses, are crimes that do not require mens rea. The defendant could be found guilty merely because he committed the act. Some examples of crimes that fall into the strict liability category are: Statutory rapeSelling alcohol to minors Bigamy Statutory rape is a strict liability crime because even if the offender believed their partner was of consenting age, he is still guilty of committing the crime so long as the victim is under a certain age. These laws, even though very severe, are intended to protect certain classes of individuals from certain kinds of conduct.{4] Determining whether a crime is a strict liability crime depends on the state legislature's intention. 4.Write a note on public servant. Section 21 of IPC Public servant can be described as an individual who works for the state and whose main duty is associated with the welfare of public and society. The duties include providing service to the public in the form of protection, administration or maintenance. Characteristics of a public servant + Selflessness The public servant is expected to keep welfare of public and society above his/her own. Empathetic The public servant must be able to understand the feelings and emotions of public for creating a maximum positive impact through his actions. Moral integrity The public servant should hold high morals and ethical beliefs while performing his role. Expected role of Public servant Offic luties + Administration The public servant has to provide governance to the public so as to ensure that welfare of society is maintained.Protection The public servant is required to protect rights of individuals and provide security to society from threats. Services The public servant also provides various services to the society in creating and maintaining public property like roads, cleaning infrastructure etc. + Moral duties + Inspiration The public servant must act as a role model who can inspire individuals in doing good for the society through their acts, Medi A public servant can act as a perfect mediator in resolving disputes and fights in his personal capacity. He can be considered a neutral entity. Thus, public servant as a position is not restricted to a particular job or duty instead it is a wide ranging effort that ensures social welfare. 5.Explain the nature and extent of unsoundness of mind required to exempt a person from criminal liability with reference to leading cases. Introduction: Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code says that any act done by a person who is of unsound mind at the time of doing act and the person is incapable of knowing the nature of the act and the person does not know that the act which he is doing is wrong or contrary to Law. Origin of Law of Insanity: McNaughten Case There were various tests used to declare a person legally insane such as Wild Beast Test , this test was the first to check the insanity laid down in the case of Arnold , in this case it was held that if any person do not have the capacity to determined what is right or wrong then he would get insanity defense . Then came the Insane Delusion Test and test of capacity to distinguish between right or wrong, these three tests laid the foundation of McNaughten rule.In 1843 the accused McNaughten was suffering from persecution mania and because of this disease he thought that whatever the difficulties he is facing is because of British Prime Minister Robert Pel and McNaughten shot mr drummond believing under a mistake that he was killing Prime Minister who was the private secretary of PM and this happened because McNaughten was sick. So he pleaded insanity and the House of Lords acquitted him . This generated a lot of public sentiment and lot of pressure was put on the House of Lords and they constituted a special committee of Judges and laid down the rules for plea of insanity and this is known as McNaughten's Rules. These rules are as follows: 1. All are presumed to be sane , until contrary be proved for the satisfaction of the Court . To claim the defense of the Insanity , one should clearly show that at the time of the act the accused was suffering from the defect or mental illness }. At the time of doing act he did not know the nature of the act . At the time of doing the act the accused do not know the that what he was doing was wrong English Law considers insanity as a valid defense . The definition of insanity is based on Mc Naughten rules. Indian Law on the concept of Defense of Insanity In India the law on this subject is mentioned under section 84 of IPC, the provisions are same as mentioned in McNaughten case held by House Of Lords . By the way Section 84 use a more comprehensive term unsoundness of mind rather than the word Insanity. Essential ingredients of section 84 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) 1. Act must be done by a person of unsound mind 2. Such person was unsound at the time of committing the act 3. Such incapacity should be of unsoundness of mind of the accused 4. Such person was not capable to know the nature of the act or the act he was doing was either wrong or contrary to law6.Define crime? Distinguish with morality? Explain the role of mensrea in statutory offences. Introduction Law and morality are two normative systems that manage and regulate conduct in a human community to promote peaceful and successful inter- subjectivity among persons who acknowledge one another as right-bearers. Both concepts are based on the principle of individual autonomy and equal respect for all people. They have a mutually beneficial connection. Meaning of morality Morality is a collection of principles that enable people to live together in communities. It’s what cultures deem “correct” and “acceptable.” Acting morally sometimes necessitates putting one’s short-term interests aside to serve society. Individuals who violate these principles may be deemed immoral. There appears to be little reason to believe that a single definition of morality will apply to all moral debates. One explanation for this is because the term “morality” appears to be used in two broad senses: descriptive and normative. More specifically, the term “morality” can be applied in two ways: + Descriptively, to describe specific rules of conduct promulgated by a community or a group (such as a church), or adopted by an individual for their actions, Normatively, to allude to a rule of conduct that, under certain circumstances, would be proposed by all reasonable individuals. When anthropologists write on the morality of the civilizations they study, they employ the descriptive form of the word morality while anyone who fulfils specific intellectual and volitional requirements, usually always including the condition of being rational, accepts the normative version of morality. Most morals aren’t set in stone. They are prone to shift and change throughout time. Over time, opinions on whether some practices are moral, such as pre- marital sex, same-sex partnerships, and cannabis use, have evolved. While the majority of the public formerly considered these actions to be “bad,” the great majority today considers them to be “appropriate.” Another example is that contraception is deemed unethical in various cultures, faiths, and locations. ‘Some individuals in other areas of the globe believe that contraception is,moral since it prevents unintended pregnancies, manages the population, and lowers the danger of STDs. The connection between law and morality Both laws and morals are intended to control communal conduct and allow people to live in peace. Both are based on the idea that everyone should have autonomy and treat one another with respect. But since the resurgence of jurisprudence as a scientific discipline, the relationship between law and morality has been hotly debated, the issue has yet to be resolved, and may never be. The common understanding of the relationship between law and morality is that the law exists in some manner to promote morality, to protect the conditions that allow men to live moral lives, and then to enable them to live sober and productive lives. To clear these confusions, let us look at some of the major points which show the connection and relationship between law and morality. Astate’s enactment is referred to as a law. Physical coercion is used to support it. Its violation is punished by law. It embodies the state’s intent and serves its purpose. The political, social, and economic ties in the society are reflected in a country’s laws. It establishes people's rights and responsibilities to one another and the state. The government keeps its promises to the people by enforcing them through legislation. It is a reflection of society's social necessity. Laws are usually founded on societal moral ideals. Both govern an individual's behaviour in society. They have a lot of impact on each other. To be effective, laws must reflect the people's moral values. Good laws, on the other hand, can help to arouse people’s moral consciences and establish and sustain situations that foster moral growth. Examples of this type of legislation are laws prohibiting the use of tobacco and encouraging the expansion of basic education WORDS DENOTING MENS REA IN INDIAN PENAL CODE As we all know that the word ‘Mens rea’ is not used in Indian Penal Code but there are some words used in the Indian Penal Code which denote the presence of Mens rea in Indian Penal Code, such words are —Fraudulently Generally, the term ‘Fraud’ means ‘the wilful, misstatement about material fact of a thing’. According to Section 25 of the code ~ “A person is said to doa thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise”. The term ‘fraud’ has been defined under Section 17 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 which has received a meaning much extensive for the purpose of the code. Section 17 of Indian Contract Act provides that - ‘Fraud’ means and includes any of the following acts committed by the party to a contract, or with the connivance or by his agent, with intent to deceive another party thereto or his agent, or to induce him to enter into the contract - (1) The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true by one who does not believe it to be true ; (2) The active concealment of a fact by one having knowledge or belief of the fact; (3) A promise made without any intention of performing it; Case ~ Queen Empress V/s Soshi Bhushan In this Case accused applied for admission to LL.B. (Final) class in Benaras University alleging that he had attended LL.B. (Previous) class in Lucknow Canning College. He was admitted and required to produce a certificate in support of proof of having passed LL.B. (Previous) examination. He produced a forged certificate and it was held that he acted fraudulently. Dishonestly — Generally, ‘Dishonestly’ means ‘unchaste, shameful, or characterized by lack of truth, honesty’. According to Section 24 of the Code. ‘Dishonestly’ means — “Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another, is said to do that thing dishonestly”. For Example ‘A’ is entitled to the possession of his house from ‘7’ and sued him for the arrears of rent on the basis of rent note, which was found to be forged. Thus, he is not entitled to get the rent as per that rent note and as ‘A’s intention to cause wrongful gain to himself so he is said to do that thing dishonestly. Case - Krishan Kumar v/s. Union of IndiIn this case the Court has held that Wrongful gain includes wrongful retention and wrongful loss includes being kept out of the property as well as being wrongfully deprived of property. Therefore when a particular thing has gone into the hands of a servant he will be guilty of misappropriating the thing in all circumstances which show a malicious intent to deprive the master of it. There are some Sections in Indian Penal Code, where the words ‘fraudulently’ and dishonestly’ have been jointly used. Such sections are Section 209, 246, 247, 415, 421, 422, 423, 424, 464, 471 and 496. Voluntarily: Generally, the word ‘voluntarily’ means ‘an act done without influence or compulsion’. According to Section 39 of the Code- “A person is said to cause an effect voluntarily when he causes it by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it.” The word ‘voluntarily’ as used in Section 39 takes into account not only intention but also knowledge and reasonable grounds of belief. Voluntarily causing an effect embraces- (a) with intention to cause the effect, (b) with the knowledge of the likelihood of causing the effect. (c) having reason to believe that the effect is likely to be caused. Case ~ Emperor V/s Raghu Nath Rai In this case, a Hindu took away a calf from a Mohammedon’s house without his knowledge and consent in order to save it from slaughter. The accused was held guilty of theft and rioting although he acted with the best of motive to. save the life of the sacred cow. Conclusion There is no hard jacket or universal formula that can decide whether or not legislation should be employed to impose morality. It can only be inferred that the amount of moral standard enforcement varies from situation to situation. In instances when morality has a positive and beneficial influence on society, the law might be utilised to enforce such positive morality, if necessary. On the other hand, any morality that harms society in any way should never be enforced through the use of legislation. 7.Write a note on concept of crime.+According to Bentham, “offences are whatever the legislature has prohibited for good or for bad reasons. +According to Austin, “a wrong which is pursued at the discretion of the injured party and his representatives is a civil injury; a wrong which is pursued by the sovereign or his subordinates is a crime.” +According to Paul W. Tappen, “an intentional act or omission in the violation of criminal law, without justification and sanctioned by the law as felony or misdemeanour.” +According to Stephen, “crime is an act forbidden by law and which is at the same time revolting to the moral sentiments of the society.” Essential Elements of Crime The main elements that make up a crime are: 1. Ahuman being 2. Evil intent or guilty mind from the part of a human being. (Mens rea) 3. Any act committed or omitted in accordance with the evil intent and is forbidden by law. (Actus reus) 4. Injury 1. Human Being The first element of a crime is a human being. Any wrongful act to be called crime must be done by a human being. There must be a human being under a legal obligation to act in a particular way, and it must also be capable of being punished.2. Mens Rea The second essential element of a crime is mens rea or guilty mind or evil intent. Mens rea refers to the mental element that is necessary for a particular crime. Any wrongful act committed by a human being cannot be called a crime if committed without evil intent. There must be an evil intent while doing an act. There is a well-known maxim— ‘Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’. It means ‘the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intentions were so.’ From this maxim there came another maxim- ‘actus me invito factus non est mens actus’ which means ‘an act done by me against my will is not my act atall.’ 3. Actus Reus The third element of the crime is actus reus. The criminal intent to be punishable must be obvious in some voluntary act or omission. As per Kenny, ‘actus reus’ is such a result of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent. The act committed must be the one that is forbidden or is punished by the law. ‘An act includes omissions also. A man is also held liable if some duty is imposed upon him by law, and he omits to discharge that duty. An omission must be a breach of a legal duty. 4. Injury Injury is the last important, or we can say the essential element of a crime. It must be caused illegally to another human being or a body of individuals orsociety at large. ‘injury’ has been defined in section 44 of the Indian Penal Code as ‘any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property.’ 8.Discuss the right of private defense? When does it extends to causing death while defending the body: Introduction: Section 96 of Indian Penal Code This section talks about the things done in private defense and explains that nothing is an offense which is done in the exercise of the right of private defense.Right of private defense is not an offense, and in fact, itis an act done in defense. The right of self-defense under Section 96 is not absolute but is clearly qualified by Section 99 which says that the right in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary for the purpose of defense. The burden of proof is upon the person who pleads for the right of private defense. Consequently, this right cannot be allowed to be used as a shield to justify an act. A very careful weighing of the facts and circumstances of each case is required to decide as to whether the accused had, in fact, acted under this right. There is no place for assumptions on the part of the accused while exercising this right. There must be a reasonable apprehension about the possibility of an attack to exercise the right of private defense. Section 97 of Indian Penal Code Section 97 talks about the Right of private defense of the body and of Property. Each individual has a right to defend himself, i.e., his body or the body of any other person. Similarly, he has the right to protect his property or else’s property, whether movable or immovable against an act which amounts to an offense of theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal trespass. There must be an offense committed or attempted to be committed against a person who wants to invoke the plea of right of private defense. An injury caused to a man in question is not considered necessary for deciding the question of the accrual of the right of the private defense. Reasonable apprehension of causing grievous injury is absolutely enough to exercise the right of private defense.Section 98 of Indian Penal Code This section talks about the Right of private defense against the act of a person of unsound mind, etc. The right of private defense also exists in cases that would not result in an offense due to the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on behalf of the person. Every person has the same right to private defense against the act which he would have if the act was an offense. Section 99 of Indian Penal Code Section 99 limits the exercise of the right of private defense. It lays down the various conditions under which the right of private defense has to be exercised or invoked. The first three clauses of section 99 provide that this right cannot be invoked when: a public servant acting in good faith exercises his legal duty not giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt, any person acting the direction of a public servant in good faith exercises his legal duty not giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt, reasonable time exists to resort help of public authorities. There must be reasonable grounds to b believe that the act done was done by a person under public authority. Section 100 of Indian Penal Code Sec 100 specifies seven situations in the exercise of the right to private defense of the body extend to causing death. The right of private defense of the body extends to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant if the offense is of nature herein described: Such an assault may reasonably cause the apprehension of death Such an assault may reasonably cause the apprehension of grievous hurt An assault with the intention of committing rape An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust Assault having the intention of abducting or kidnapping An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will not be able to take protection from public authorities for his release. An act or attempt to throw acidSection 101 of Indian Penal Code This section prescribes for when the right of self-defense extends to causing any harm other than death. If the offense is not of the nature mentioned in the above section, the right of private defense of the body does not extend to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant but does extend, to the voluntary causing to the assailant of any harm other than death. Section 102 of Indian Penal Code Section 102 deals with Commencement and continuance of the right of private defense of the body. As soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger arises to the body from an attempt or threat to commit the offense even though the offense may not have been committed, the right of private defense ‘commences. And it continues as long as the apprehension of danger to the body continues. This apprehension should be real and reasonable. In Kala Singh case, the deceased was a strong man of a dangerous character. Previously in a fight with the accused, he threw the accused on the ground, pressed him hard and bit him. The accused took up a light hatchet and gave three blows of the same on the brute’s head, The deceased died after three days of this fight. It was held that the circumstances raised a strong apprehension of danger in the mind of the accused that he would be killed otherwise. This apprehension was real and reasonable and not timid and fancy, and so his exercise of the right of private defense is justified. Section 103 of Indian Penal Code This section provides for when the right of private defense of property extends to causing death. Whereas sec 100 provides for the exercise of the right of private defense of the body extends to causing death. The right of private defence of the property also extends to death when voluntarily caused or if any harm is caused in the form of an offense. Provided such an offense is in the form of the following descriptions, namely: Robbery House-breaking by night 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 the custody of property Theft, mischief, or house-trespassSection 104 of Indian Penal Code It says that if the committing or attempting to commit any offense leads to the exercise of the right of self-defense, then such a right does not extend to the voluntary causing of death but extends to the voluntary causing to the wrongdoer of any harm other than death. Provided that the offense is not of any other nature as described in the previous section Section 105 of Indian Penal Code Section 105 prescribes the commencement and continuance of the right of private defense of property. The commencement of the right of private defense of property takes place when a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property takes place. Continuation of this right against theft takes place until the offender affects his retreat with the property or the property has been recovered. Continuation of the right of private defense against robbery continues as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt. Section 106 of Indian Penal Code Right This section mentions that private defense against deadly assault when there is a risk of harm to an innocent person. If in the exercise of the right of private defense by a person against an assault causes reasonable apprehension of death, the defender so situated, cannot effectually exercise the right of private defense without risk of harm to an innocent person his right or private defense extends to the running of that risk. The obstacle is the doubt which exists in the mind of the defender if he is, entitled to exercise his right even when there is a possibility of some innocent persons being harmed by his actions. According to this Section, in case of an assault which causes a reasonable apprehension of death, if the defender is facing a situation where there exists a risk of harm to an innocent person, there is no restriction on him to exercise his right of defense, and thus he is entitled to run that risk, The law authorizes a man who is under a reasonable apprehension that his life is in danger or his body in risk of grievous hurt to inflict death upon his assailant either when the assault is attempted or directly threatened, but it must be proportionate to or commensurate with the quality and character of the act it is intended to meet and what is done in excess is not protected. The right of private defence of the body extends to the causing of death or any other harm to the assailant under the following circumstances:‘An assault causing reasonable apprehension of death ‘An assault causing reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt. An assault with the intention of committing rape. An assault with intention of kidnapping or abducting. An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust. ‘An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person under circumstances which may cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release. Any harm short of death can be inflicted in exercising the right of private defence in any case, which do not fall under the above circumstances The right of private defence 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 Punishment The Court will decide the punishment after considering whether there was a reasonable apprehension of death or not. Conclusion The right of private defense is a weapon to the citizens of India for their self- defense but is often used by many people for evil purposes or unlawful purposes. It is the court’s duty to make sure if the right was exercised in good faith or not. The extent to avail the right of private defense depends on the real apprehension of danger and not on actual danger. This right can be extended only in some situations to a certain degree. The amount of force to be used should only be the amount necessary to counter the attack. 9.Explain giving false evidence and fabrication of false evidence. Introduction: Evidence is information which is used in the court to prove something which exists or true. Giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence is an offence under Indian penal Code, 1860. The provisions of False evidence andfabricating false evidence are specifically mentioned in Section 191 and section 192 respectively of the IPC under Chapter XI. Definitions: + Giving false evidence Whoever being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any subject, makes 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. + Fabricating false evidence: Whoever cause any circumstances to exist or [makes any false entry in any book or record, or electronic record or makes any document or electronic record containing a false statement], intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding, is said “to fabricate false evidence.” Object of Chapter XI of IPC: + To punish those who have given and fabricated false evidence + To prevent fraud and falsehood + To ensure the criminals get punishment + To give justice to the innocent Difference between Giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence Following are the differences of giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence —1. In case of false evidence, general intention is required whereas in Fabricating false evidence, particular intention is necessary. Intention is the essence of both the offence. In short it must be intentionally given. 2. In false evidence, the statement which are false not necessary that it should be material. On the other hand, in fabricating false evidence statements must be on material point only. 3. The offence of giving false evidence is committed by the person who is legally bound by an oath to the state the truth whereas its opposite in the fabricating false evidence i.e. the offence is committed by a person who is not legally bound to take an oath to state the truth. 4. In Giving false evidence, the question of effect of the evidence on the officer before whom the evidence is given is of no consequences while this effect of the evidence is important in fabricating false evidence. 5. In giving false evidence, it is necessary that there should be a proceeding of judicial or non-judicial being conducted whereas in fabricating false evidence, it is not necessary of judicial or non-judicial proceeding because it is enough that there is reasonable prospect of the proceeding. Important Provisions: Section 191: Giving false evidence It is an offence if — + The person is legally bound by the oath to state truth or to make declaration He has given false statement- it is not necessary that the false evidence should be concerning a question material to the decision of the case; itis sufficient if the false evidence does not bear directly on material issue in the case being relative to incidental that would be a matter to be taken into consideration in fixing the sentence.+ The false statements which he has been giving he must know that they are false and not true. Abatement of giving false evidence- the person who instigate or induce other person to make false statement, then he will not be guilty of giving false evidence but he will be guilty of abatement of that offence. Section 192: Fabricating false evidence It is an offence if- It causes any circumstance to exist, or makes any false entry in book Makes any document containing false statement Above acts done intentionally by the person There is fabrication of a material point Forming of erroneous opinion, there could be no fabrication if on the basis of the fabrication no erroneous opinion could be formed touching any point material to the result of proceeding. Section 193: Punishment for false evidence or fabricates false evidence + Any person intentionally gives false evidence or fabricates false evidence for being sued in the judicial proceeding then the punishment will be + Imprisonment which may extend to 7 years and + Fine Any person either gives false evidence or fabricates false evidence in all other cases, then the punishment will be + Imprisonment which may extend to 3 years and + Fine This offence in non- cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable and triable by the Magistrate of first class. Section 194: Giving or fabricating false evidence with intention to procure conviction + Any person gives or fabricates false evidence with an intention and reason to believe that it may cause person to be convicted for capital punishment, the he shall be punished-+ Rigorous imprisonment which may extend to ten years and + Fine This section provides for more severe punishment if an innocent person is convicted and executed in consequences of such false evidence. Section 195-A: Threatening any person to give false evidence + Ifany person threatens or threat to cause injury to the person, his, property, reputation with an intention to induce that person to give false evidence the such person shall be punished- + Imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years or + Fine or + Both Case laws: + Abdul Mi Krishna Lal Nag In this case, it was held by the court that the false evidence must be given in a proceeding in which the accused was bound by law to speak the truth. If the court has no authority to administer an oath the proceeding will be coram non- judice and prosecution for false evidence cannot stand. Similar will be the case where a court is acting beyond the jurisdiction. 10.Explain the circumstances under which culpable homicide amount to murder. INTRODUCTION The term ‘Homicide’ has its root in the Latin words of Homo meaning Human and Caedere meaning to kill, therefore, it means killing of a human being by another human. Killing of a human being attracts the most severe type of punishment, for instance, the death penalty or rigorous imprisonment for the remaining life, etc., because it the maximum degree of bodily injury that can be inflicted upon a human being There lies a slight difference of knowledge and intention between culpable homicide under section 300 and section 299, but that difference holds a significant position for it allows the judiciary to give fair and just judgments.CULPABLE HOMICIDE Culpable homicide is categorized as an unlawful homicide. Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for the laws against the crime of culpable homicide. Culpable homicide is further categorized into two sections: Culpable homicide not amounting to murder- Section 299: It simply can be referred as culpable homicide. Section 299 of the Indian Penal Code describes it as, “Whosoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as itis likely to cause death or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to. cause death, commits the offence of Culpable Homicide”. As per the definition given under IPC, the following conditions need to be fulfilled to hold someone liable for the crime + Intention of causing death + Intention of inflicting such bodily injuries that may lead to death + Knowledge that the inflicted bodily injury might cause death IMlustrations: 1, Let say, X hit Y's head with a bat, with the intention of causing severe bodily injury that might cause death, unaware of the fact that the Y is suffering from brain hemorrhage and as a result Y dies. X is held liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. 2. Xin order to stop trespassing on his property, digs a pit and cover it using leaves and wooden sticks with the knowledge that any person falling for his trap might incur such bodily injuries that may lead to death. And as anticipated, Y falls in the pit and dies. X is liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Punishments: Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code awards the punishments to the people liable for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. It states that, “whoever causes death with intention or causes such bodily injury as is likely to causedeath or with the knowledge that death is likely to be caused because of the act, shall be liable for life imprisonment or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine (Section 304(1) IPC)”. According to section 304(2), whoever causes death without the intention of causing death or causes such severe injuries unaware that such bodily injuries might cause death, will be awarded with the imprisonment extending to ten years, and will be held liable to pay fine. If someone causes death without the intention of causing death but with the knowledge that inflicted bodily injuries might cause death then the person will be awarded with imprisonment of prescribed term that might extend to ten years and will be liable to pay fine. It simply can be referred as murder. Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code defines murder as, “Culpable homicide is murder, if the act is done with the intention of causing death or if itis done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause the death of the person or if the inflicted bodily injury is sufficient enough in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or if there is knowledge involved that the act done is so fatal that in all probability it can cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death and commits such act without any excuse.” As per the IPC, the following conditions needs to be fulfilled for holding someone liable for the crime of murder: Intention of causing death Intention of inflicting such bodily injuries that the offender knows, in most probabilities will cause death of the person to whom such harm is inflicted. Intention of inflicting bodily injuries to any person and the harm caused or injuries inflicted is enough in ordinary coarse of action to cause death of the person. The offender knows that the committed act will in all probability cause death of the person or bodily injury that will lead to death, due to the dangerous nature of the act and commits it without any excuse.Mlustrations: 1. Let’s say, A is fully aware of the fact that B is suffering from brain tumor and by using the information, he hits B repeatedly on his head, causing B’s death. Thereby, A will be held liable for murder. 2. A intentionally and with complete knowledge of the dire consequences, mixes poison to B’s drink. B after consuming the drink collapses and ultimately dies. A will be held liable for the murder of B. CONCLUSIO! With the help of the article, the researcher tried to explain how the offence of murder differs from culpable homicide not amounting to murder and when does a crime of murder takes place. Now, as mentioned earlier, there’s a very fine line of difference between these two subsets of culpable homicide. 11, What is kidnapping? Distinguish from abduction. Introduction Kidnapping and Abduction are the crime under Indian Penal Code,1860. It talks about the forcefully taking of the person or a child (from guardianship) with or without the consent for that matter. Both the offences are given under Chapter 26 - Offences affecting the Human Body, particularly from section 359 to 366 of Indian Penal code. Although both the offences are similar in some aspects but they are poles apart in many other aspects. IBasis Kidnapping |Abduction Difference Provision The offence of kidnapping is defined|The offence of abduction is defined) lunder IPC __ju/s 359-361 of IPC lu/s 362 of IPC lAge (Minor orjit is committed only in respect of al it is committed in respect of any person| IMajor) Iminor i.e. in case of boy 16 years andlof any age. There is no bar to any specific lage of person.lin case of a girl 18 years, or a person] jof unsound mind. [Guardianship [The person kidnapped is removed rom the lawful guardianship. A child] ithout a guardianship can’t be| kidnapped. |Guardianship is immaterial to determine! [the offence of abduction. It has| ireference exclusively to the person] labducted. IMeans Used lEmployed lin kidnapping, the minor is simply} ‘aken away. The means used to} kidnap a child may be innocent. iThe means employed in abduction are| force, compulsion or deceitful methods. Consent consent of the person enticed is| immaterial lconsent of the person matters i.e. if a lperson is removed with free consent in] hat case offence of abduction is said bel lnot committed. Intention (strict Liability) lin Kidnapping the intent of a person is immaterial i.e. he would be liable in all he circumstances irrespective of the| lid motive and good intention. Intention is very important to determine| Ithe offence. Hence, a person would be| liable only if there is ill intention behind he act. Completion o loffence It is not a continuing offence. The| loffence is completed as soon as the| Iminor is removed from the custody of his or her/his guardian It is a continuing offence. The offence is lin continuation as the place of thel jabducted person changes from one to} janother. kind loffence Kidnapping from guardianship is al substantive offence, punishable u/s {363, IPC. |Abduction is an auxiliary act, not lpunishable by itself, unless accompanied| lwith some intent specified u/s 364-366. Hence, a particular purpose is necessary) 10 punish an accused. :12.What is criminal misappropriation of property? How does it differ from criminal breach of trust? Introduction, Criminal misappropriation takes place when the possession has been innocently come by, but where, by a subsequent change of intention, or the knowledge of new fact with which the party was not previously acquainted,the retaining becomes wrongful and fraudulent. A person commits criminal misappropriation, if he: + Dishonestly misappropriates or converts any property into his own use, + Such property should be movable. For Example - The retention of money by a servant authorized to collect it from a person may be criminal misappropriation even though he retains it on account of wages due to him. Punishment Whoever dishonestly misappropriates any movable property shall be punished with imprisonment, which may extend to two years, or fine, or with both. On the basis of: Provision: Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines Misappropriation of the property whereas Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 defines Criminal Breach of Trust. Possession: In Criminal Misappropriation, the property comes into the possession of the offender in some natural manner or by some casualty, but in Criminal Breach of Trust, the property comes into the possession of the offender due to the entrustment by the owner of the accused. Relationship: In Criminal Misappropriation, there is no contractual relationship between the offender and owner of the property, but in Criminal Breach of Trust, there is a contractual relationship between the offender and owner regarding the property. Nature of the property: In Criminal Misappropriation, the subject matter i.e. the property is always movable in nature, but in Criminal Breach of Trust, the property may be movable or immovable in nature. + Misappropriation: In Criminal Misappropriation, the property is dishonestly misappropriated by the offender for his own use, but in Criminal Breach of Trust, the property or goods are misappropriated for his own personal use.Conclusion It is concluded that the Criminal Misappropriation and Criminal Breach of Trust are not the same. Criminal Breach of Trust includes Criminal Misappropriation but the reverse is not always true. Also, there is a huge difference between Criminal Misappropriation and Theft. Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code deals with the provision related to Theft. Under theft, the consent of the real owner of the property is not known to the offender, but in Criminal Misappropriation, initially, the real owner of the property grants consent to the offender. +Introducti «If any person by deceiving another person, fraudulently or dishonestly convinces that person to deliver or give consent to the retention of any property. «Intentionally induces that person to do or omit something from doing which he would have done in the normal circumstances. «If that act or omission is likely to cause damage or harm to that person's body, mind, reputation, or property, shall be punished and will come under the offence of “cheating”. Note: Dishonestly hiding a fact will also come under the offence of “cheating”. Illustrations of Cheating 1. A intentionally deceives Z by falsely claiming to be in the civil service and dishonestly encourages Z to give certain items on credit for which he never intended to pay. A commits the offence of cheating.2. By placing a counterfeit mark on an item, A deceives Z into believing that the item was created by a well-known manufacturer and thereby defrauds Z into purchasing and paying for the item. A commits the offence of cheating. 3. X purposefully deceives Y by pledging certain items with him and telling him that the items are diamonds. But he knows these are not diamonds. Therefore, he dishonestly encourages Z to lend money. A commits the offence of cheating, 4, P deceives X by taking a loan and making him believe that he will repay the loan that P never intended to repay and therefore deceives X into lending him money. A is a cheater. 5. A deceives Z into believing that A has fulfilled his portion of a deal with Z, which he has not, and thereby defrauds Z into paying money. A is a cheater. Main Ingredients of Cheating Following are the main components of cheating: 1. Deceiving any person. . The act of deceiving was done purposefully or intentionally. 2 3. The inducement should be false or made with a fraudulent intention. 4. |. The person who was deceived should be convinced to deliver goods or perform an action (that is, deliver the goods). Cheating by PersonationA person is said to “cheat by personation” if he cheats by claiming to be someone else, or by knowingly replacing one person for another, or by falsely representing him to be some other person. Note: The offence will be committed whether the person personated is a real or imaginary person. Illustration of Cheating by Personation 1. A deceives by pretending to be a wealthy banker by the same name. This is how A cheats by personation. 2. A deceives by pretending to be a person B who has already died. Here, A cheats by personation. Punishment for Cheating Under IPC Punishment for cheating is defined under sections 417 to 420 of IPC, depending upon the case. Let’s study each section one by one: Section 417 IPC - Punishment for Cheating As per section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, whoever commits an offence of cheating is liable for imprisonment of either description, which may extend to one year, or fine, or both. Section 418 IPC - Cheating With the Knowledge That the Person Whose Interest Has to Be Protected Incurs Losses ‘Suppose a person cheats another even after knowing that his act will cause wrongful loss to the person whose interest was supposed to be protectedeither by law or legal contract. Such a person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term up to three years, or with fine, or both Section 419 IPC - Punishment for Cheating by Personation As per section 419 of the Indian Penal Code, if a person cheats another by personation, the person committing the offence shall be punished with imprisonment of either description of up to three years or a fine, or both Section 420 IPC - Cheating and Dishonestly Inducing Delivery of Property «If any person cheats and thus dishonestly encourages the deceived person to deliver any property to any person, or +To make, alter, or destroy the whole or any part of valuable security, or anything that is signed or sealed and is capable of being converted into a valuable security; +Such a person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term that may extend to seven years and fine. Case Laws Related to Cheating Ishwarlal Girdharilal vs the State of Maharashtra (1969) The court stated that the term “property” as used in section 420 of the IPC does not necessarily refer to only those properties with monetary or market value. It also comprises features that are not monetary. Suppose a property does not have a monetary value for the person in possession of it, but after being cheated by another person, it becomes a property with a monetary value for the person who obtains it throughcheating, In that case, it can be considered as an offence of cheating under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Sushil Kumar Datta vs State (1985) ‘The accused pretended to be a scheduled caste candidate and took the Indian Administrative Service examination. Due to his false claim of being a scheduled caste, he was assigned that position. The court stated that the accused was liable for cheating by personating under section 416 of the IPC as he did not belong to a scheduled caste and falsely represented himself as one and that his conviction for cheating was justified under that section. Conch Cheating is defined as deceiving another person into doing or not doing something under the Indian Penal Code. The intent of the accused individual is important and is taken into account while determining his liability. The two fundamental components that must be addressed to prove the offence of cheating are deception and inducement, 14.Explain the brief the offences relating to marriage? Introduction A generally accepted definition of marriage is that of matrimony or wedlock, which is a culturally recognised social sanction of union between two people. This union helps in establishing rights and obligations between two people coming together in this union, along with their children, and the in-laws.However, the sacrosanct institution of marriage has been existing through generations and has consumed in itself various distorted versions of the same. To correct them, and subsequently, make sure that no innocent life suffers. Different laws and precedents have been brought in by various courts, with the most illuminating ones being from the Hon’ble Apex Court. Such misbehaviours, namely: adultery, desertion, or cruelty, amongst others, are known to be offences against marriage or matrimonial offences. Offences relating to Marriage Offences pertaining to marriage are provided in Sections 493 to 498, of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). These laws deal with the various aspects of a marriage, and their subsequent felonies. The most illuminated of these is Section 498-A, otherwise known as The Cruelty Law. This law, along with The Domestic Violence Act (Passed in 2005), aims to provide substantial protection to female victims of cruelty and domestic violence. With the incrementally increasing cases of such nature, it was observed that such legislation was necessary to ensure that the Fundamental Right to Life and Dignity, entrusted upon each citizen by the Constitution of India, is complied with. Furthermore, cruelty was also made to be a substantial ground for the dissolution of a marriage, too. Other sections of chapter XX include: Mock marriages (Section 493); Bigamy (Section 494 and 495); Fraud Marriage (Section 496) Adultery (Section 497); Criminal elopement (Section 498); Section 493 is for every man who deceives a woman into having carnal intercourse with him under the pretext that she is married to him. For this, the Indian Penal Code provides for a ten-year jail term, with a fine. This section has been a topic of heated debate amongst lawmakers for a considerable amount of time.Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife Section 494 states that marrying again during the lifetime of the spouse is bigamy (read with) Sec 50 of the Evidence Act and Section 198 (1)(c) of CrPC. However, the section provides for exceptions to Section 494 of IPC, viz: (2) If the first marriage has been declared void by the following: -bya court, -holding competent jurisdiction (b) If the previous spouse has been continuously absent for a period of seven years and -not heard of as being alive -provided that the facts are disclosed to the person with whom the second marriage is contracted The aforementioned offence is termed as bigamy. It can be afflicted by either of the spouses on to one another. For a better understanding of the aforementioned provision, Section 17 of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 108 of the Evidence Act along with the judgment of the Supreme Court in the landmark judgement of Smt. Sarla Mudgal vs Union Of India & Ors (1995) must be referred to. This case laid down the principles against the practice of solemnizing second marriage by conversion to Islam, with first marriage not being dissolved. The verdict discusses the issue of bigamy, the conflict between the personal laws existing on matters of marriage and invokes Article 44 of the Indian Constitution. It is considered a landmark decision that highlighted the need for a Uniform Civil Code. Concealing the previous marriage before subsequently getting wed Section 495 talks about a ten year incarceration period, with fine, for a person who hides their former marriage with someone they are getting married to. It isa non-cognizable, bailable offence, with the trial being carried out by first class Magistrate. Fraudulent_conduction of wedding ceremony without a lawful, genuine marriage Section 496 provides for a jail term extending up to as long as seven years, along with a fine, for anyone who dishonestly, clubbed with a fraudulent intention, goes through the wedding ceremony, despite knowing that he is not thereby lawfully married. Adultery Earlier, Section 497 gave way for a jail term up to five years, with or without a fine, to a person who had sexual intercourse with the wife of another man without the consent or connivance of that man. If it was not rape, the man would be guilty of the offence of adultery. Meanwhile, in such a case, the wife would not be punishable as an abettor. It is important to note that this law has since been decriminalised but continues to be strong grounds for divorce. Section 498 of the IPC provides for a two-year jail term, with or without a fine, for anyone who takes, or conceals, or detains, or entices away, any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be- the wife of any other man, with the intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person. The deceit and fraudulent intention should exist at the time of the marriage. The essential ingredients of Sections 493 and 496 are as follows: 1. the accused must have deceived the woman, 2. as a consequence of which she is led to believe that she is lawfully married to him, though in reality, she is not.Thereby, mens rea an essential component of both these sections. The words ‘deceit’, ‘dishonestly’ and ‘fraudulent intention’ have been used in Sections 493 and 496 respectively. This means that in both the sections while the man remains aware that they are not married, the woman is cheated on by the man into believing the same to be true. Landmark Judgments In a landmark case of Subhransu Sekhar Samantray v. The State (2002), the Orissa High Court contended that the statement of the prosecutrix that she had resisted the establishment of sexual relations with the accused, but when he put vermillion on her head and declared her as his wife, and alleged that he would accept her status in his life publicly after getting a job she submitted herself to his advances, is sufficient to constitute an offence under Section 493 of the IPC. In Kashuri v. Ramaswamy (1978), the court said, “the proof of sexual intercourse has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of a case as direct evidence can rarely be proved”. When the question about Section 498 arises, a landmark decision is taken to be that of Alamgir v. State of Bihar (1958), wherein the court said that “if a man knowingly goes away with the wife of another in such a way to deprive the husband of his control over her, with the intent to have illicit intercourse, then it would constitute an offence within the meaning of Section 498”. The Apex Court, in the case of Mohd. Hoshan vs. State of A.P (2002) concluded that the issue of cruelty, by one upon the other is essentially a question of fact, and is quite subjective in nature. The impact of complaints, accusation or taunts on a person amounting to cruelty depends on various factors of the victim, viz: sensitivity, socio-economic background, education etc. The court further elaborated that mental cruelty varies from person to person- depending on: the intensity of the sensitivity, degree of courage, and, endurance to withstand such cruelty, and that each case has to be dealt with on an instant case basis.However, as these reforms have made their way into the legislation over the course of the past two decades, a common criticism witnessed against laws relating to matrimonial offences in India has been that women misuse these laws. This allegation has often been made by various sectors including the police, politicians and even judges of the High Courts and the Supreme Court. The allegation of misuse is made particularly against Section 498A and also against the offence of dowry death in Section 304B. The Supreme Court less than a decade ago, in the landmark case of Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and others (2005), observed that the object of the provision was to prevent the dowry menace. But many instances have since come to light where the complaints are not in good faith and have been filed with perverse motive. Sometimes unfavoured, unwanted media coverage adds to the misery. However, the 243rd_Law Commission’s Report, which came out in August 2012, observed that the misuse of law is not a ground to remove the provision from its efficacy since what is involved is a larger societal interest. The question, thus involved is which remedial measures must be taken to prevent such abuse of well-intentioned legislation. The constitutionality and intra vires nature of the law definitely isn’t a licence for people to harass others for personal vendetta. It thus becomes necessary for the lawmakers to find out methods of how frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Less than a decade ago in another case of Arnesh Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Anr (2014) the Supreme Court declared with particular reference to Section 498A, that no arrest should be made immediately in the offences which are allegedly committed by the accused and the offence is cognizable and non- bailable, and went on to lay down crisp guidelines for the police officers to follow relating to the arrests made under the section, due to increase in a number of seemingly false complaints Concl Matrimonial offences are multi-causal and multidimensional in nature. It is impossible to justly address them with a straitjacket method. It transcends beyond culture, and socioeconomic status. However, there definitely are underlying common factors. The rising cases of matrimonial offences againstwomen have their roots deeply ingrained in indifference, and negligence that is primarily the result of general acceptance of men’s superiority over women, which is evident from the gender specificity of the nature of these offences. 15.Write a note on accident. The word accident means a sudden unintended and misfortune act by chance without any apparent cause. It is considered as one of the general defence under criminal law for lack of mens rea, as a vital part in committing a crime, at the time of action. Mere an act without a guilty mind doesn’t constitute a crime. This section says that “Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.” Illustration is at work with a hatchet; the head flies off and kills a man who is standing by. Here, if there was no want of proper caution on the part of A, his act is excusable and not an offence. Essential elements of Section 80 IPC 1. Act should be done by accident. 2. Act should be without any criminal intention or knowledge. 3. While doing a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means. 4. With proper care & caution. Accident in doing a lawful act Actually, it is based on a principle that no act is an offence unless the one doing it has done it with criminal intention.Section 80 sheds light on the fact that nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune and without any criminal intention or knowledge, in the doing of a lawful act act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution. Mlustration ‘A’ is at work with a hatchet; the head flies off and kills a man standing nearby. Here, if proper precautions were not taken on behalf of A, then his work shall be excusable as per mentioned in the general defence of IPC and not an of offence. Important case laws related to the accident State of Government v. Rangaswamy [1952] This case is based on the principle that an act done by an accident, will come under Section 80 of Indian Penal Code. In this case, the accused went with a view to killing Hyena and heard a sound from a direction and fired a shot at it’s direction. But later it was convinced that it was a person, not Hyena. Then he pleaded that it was raining and had a bona fide impression that it was Hyena and fired the shot with a view to protecting people around him from being attacked by it. The Court upheld that the accused will be entitled to the benefits mentioned under Section 80 of Indian Penal Code as besides other facts, there was no expectation of any other person being present in that area in which the death happened. so it is proved that the act was the result of an accident. Tunda v. State [1950] This case is based on a principle that when an act is done without criminal intention or knowledge, it will come under Section 80.In this case, the accused Tunda and the deceased were friends who were very interested in wrestling and were engaged in a wrestling bout. While wrestling, the deceased got injured on his head and it resulted in his death. in this case, Allahabad Highcourt observed that the injury caused by death was the result of an accident and there was no foul play on part of the accused. In addition to that, the court held that there was an implied consent of the deceased in taking any risk in the wake of wrestling. Therefore the accused was entitled to get benefits under both Section 80 and 87. 16.Write a note on dowry death. Introducti Chapter XVI of the Indian Penal Code covers the offences affecting the human body. Under which Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code, “if a woman dies within the seven years of marriage by any burns or any other bodily injury or it was revealed that before her marriage she was exposed to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any other relative of the husband in connection to demand the dowry then the death of the woman will be considered as a dowry death.” Punishment for dowry death ranges from a minimum sentence of imprisonment for seven years and a maximum sentence extending to. imprisonment for life. There are certain pre-requisite for consideration of dowry death laid under Section 3048 of the Indian Penal Code which are as follows: Death should be caused either by burns or bodily injury or by any other circumstances for that matter. Death must occur within or before seven years of marriage. It must also be revealed that soon after the marriage of the bride, she was exposed to some sort of cruelty or harassment by her husband or any other relative. And lastly, her cruelty or harassment of her should be connected with the demand for dowry. 17.Write a note on criminal trespass.Introduction: Every individual has a right to the full enjoyment of their property without any disturbance, this is the reason trespass was made an offence. Even though trespass is ordinarily a civil wrong for which the defendant can sue for damages, but when such trespass occurs with a criminal intention it amounts to criminal trespass. If your enjoyment of your property, whether movable or immovable is disturbed due to criminal activities of any kind, be it theft or assault, you can seek remedy under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). For instance, X unlawfully and without Y's permission enters into Y's house to steal his grandfather's antique watch, X would be liable for theft as well as criminal trespass. Further, the offence of criminal trespass may be aggravated depending upon the facts of certain cases. Consider the same example, with an additional fact that X entered Y’s property at night or in order to enter the assaulted Y, then X would have a greater liability. As the subject of criminal liability is so vast, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) has discussed criminal trespass in 22 sections, commencing from Section 441, IPC till Section 462, IPC. Meaning of Criminal Trespass According to Section 441 of The Indian Penal Code, whoever enters into property in the possession of another with the intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into such property, but remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or any such person, or with an intent to commit an offence, is said to commit ‘criminal trespass’. Thus it can be deduced that criminal trespass occurs when a person unlawfully without any right or an express or implied license enters into the private property of another person or remains into such property with a criminal intention. The object of making criminal trespass an offence is to ensure that people can enjoy their private property without any kind of interruption from outsiders. Punishment for criminal trespass, as prescribed in Section 447 of IPC is either imprisonment which may extend to three months, or fine which may extend to INR 500 or both. Ingredients of Criminal Trespass Criminal trespass has two limbs, firstly, entering into the property of another with criminal intent and secondly, entering lawfully but remaining in the property with a criminal intent to harm or cause annoyance. Thus the essential ingredients for committing Criminal trespass are:“Whoever enters’ To commit the offence of criminal trespass, there must be an actual entry into the property of another by the accused person. No trespass can occur if there is no physical instrument by the accused into the private property of the victim. In the State of Calcutta vs Abdul Sukar, the court held that constructive entry by a servant does not amount to entry, under this Section as even though there was no possession in law, there was possession in fact. For instance, X throws garbage outside Y's house on a daily basis, in this case, X may be liable for nuisance but he has not committed criminal trespass as there is no entry by X into Y's property. Property The term property under this Section includes both movable and immovable property. Wrongful entry into one’s car or other movable property would have similar liability as wrongful entry into one’s house. In Dhannonjoy v Provat Chandra Biswas, the accused drove away from the boat of the possessor after attacking him. The court held that this would amount to criminal trespass even though it was a movable property. But the term property does not include incorporeal property or something which cannot be touched, such as patent rights. Possession of another The possession of the property should be in the possession of the victim and not the trespasser. Having the ownership of the property is not necessary, mere possession is sufficient to claim criminal trespass against the trespasser. However, it is not necessary for the person having possession or the owner of the property to be present at the time when the trespassing occurred, no presence of owner or possessor would also amount to trespassing as long as the. premises are entered into by the trespasser to annoy. For instance, writing love letters and delivering them to a girl’s house against her will would also amount to criminal trespass, even if at the time of delivering such letters, the gir! was not at home. Intention Ifit is proved that the intention of the accused parties was not to insult, harm or annoy the owners or possessors of the property, then it would not amount tocriminal trespass. The Intention is the essence of this crime, and if there is no dominant motive to commit the crime, no criminal trespass. The test for determining whether the entry was done with an intent to cause annoyance or any kind of harm is to determine the aim of a trespasser at the time of such entry. In Punjab National Bank Ltd v All India Punjab National Bank Employees’ Federation, the court held that as the employees who were on strike entered the bank with the intention to only put pressure on the management to concede their demands, and there was no intent to insult, harm or annoy any of the superior officers, their entrance into the bank cannot amount to criminal trespass. However, if in the given circumstances, the strikers would have stormed into the private cubicles or offices of the superior staff with the aim of causing annoyance to such members, then it would amount to criminal trespass. Further, it is to be proved that the intention of the accused was not probable but an actual one, this principle was laid down in Ramjan Misrty v Emperor. It is not sufficient to show that the person entering into the property of another had the knowledge that his entrance would cause annoyance, it is to be proved that there was an intention to commit an offence, or intimidate, insult or annoy any such person for an offence of criminal trespass to take place. 18. Who are the possible parties to a crime? Discuss. Accomplice Liability At early common law, parties to crime were divided into four categories. A principal in the first degree actually committed the crime. A principal in the second degree was present at the scene of the crime and assisted in its ‘commission. An accessory before the fact was not present at the scene of the crime, but helped prepare for its commission. An accessory after the fact helped a party to the crime after its commission by providing comfort, aid, and assistance in escaping or avoiding arrest and prosecution or conviction, In modern times, most states and the federal government divide parties to crime into two categories: principal, and accessories (Idaho Code Ann., 2010). The criminal actor is referred to as the principal, although all accomplices have equal criminal responsibility as is discussed in Section 7.1 “Parties to Crime”. Accomplice Elements‘An accomplice under most state and federal statutes is responsible for the same crime as the criminal actor or principal (18 U.S.C., 2010). However, accomplice liability is derivative; the accomplice does not actually have to commit the crime to be responsible for it. The policy supporting accomplice liability is the idea that an individual who willingly participates in furthering criminal conduct should be accountable for it to the same extent as the criminal actor. The degree of participation is often difficult to quantify, so statutes and cases attempt to segregate blameworthy accomplices based on the criminal act and intent elements, as is discussed in Section 7.1 “Parties to Crime”. Accomplice Act In the majority of states and federally, an accomplice must voluntarily act in some manner to assist in the commission of the offense. Some common descriptors of the criminal act element required for accomplice liability are aid, abet, assist, counsel, command, induce, or procure (K.S.A., 2010). Examples of actions that qualify as the accomplice criminal act are helping plan the crime, driving a getaway vehicle after the crime’s commission, and luring a victim to the scene of the crime. The Model Penal Code defines the accomplice criminal act element as “aids...or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing [the offense]” (Model Penal Code § 2.06(3) (a) (i)). In many states, words are enough to constitute the criminal act element required for accomplice liability (N.Y. Penal Law, 2010). On the other hand, mere presence at the scene of the crime, even presence at the scene combined with flight, is not sufficient to convert a bystander into an accomplice (Commonwealth v. Hargrave, 2010). However, if there is a legal duty to act, a defendant who is present at the scene of a crime without preventing its occurrence could be liable as an accomplice in many jurisdictions (People v. Rolon, 2010). As the Model Penal Code provides, “[a] person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if...having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make proper effect so to do” (Model Penal Code § 2.06(3)(a)(iii). Example of a Case Lacking Accomplice Act Review the criminal law issues example in Chapter 1 “Introduction to Criminal Law”, Section 1.2.1 “Example of Criminal Law Issues”. In that example, Clara and Linda go on a shopping spree. Linda insists that they browse an expensivedepartment store. After they enter the lingerie department, Linda surreptitiously places a bra into her purse. Clara watches, horrified, but does not say anything, even though a security guard is standing nearby. As Linda and Clara leave the store, an alarm is activated. Linda and Clara run away with the security guard in pursuit. In this case, Clara has probably not committed the criminal act element required for accomplice liability. Although Clara was present at the scene of the crime and did not alert the security guard, mere presence at the scene is not sufficient to constitute the accomplice criminal act. Clara fled the scene when the alarm went off, but presence at the scene of a crime combined with flight is still not enough to comprise the accomplice criminal act. Thus Clara has probably not committed theft as an accomplice, and only Linda is subject to a criminal prosecution for this offense. Example of Accomplice Act Phoebe, the parent of a two-year-old named Eliza, watches silently as her live- in boyfriend Ricky beats Eliza. In Phoebe's state, parents have a duty to come to the aid of their children if their safety is threatened. Ricky severely injures Eliza, and both Phoebe and Ricky are arrested and charged with battery and child endangerment. Phoebe probably has committed the criminal act element required for accomplice liability in many jurisdictions. Phoebe does not personally act to physically harm her child. However, her presence at the scene combined with a legal duty to act could be enough to make her an accomplice. Thus Phoebe has most likely committed battery and child endangerment as an accomplice, and both she and Ricky are subject to a criminal prosecution for these offenses. The criminal intent element required for accomplice liability varies, depending on the jurisdiction. In many jurisdictions, the accomplice must act with specific intent or purposely when aiding or assisting the principal (Or. Rev. Stat., 2010). Specific intent or purposely means the accomplice desires the principal to commit the crime. The Model Penal Code follows this approach and requires the accomplice to act “with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense” (Model Penal Code § 2.06(3) (a)). In other jurisdictions, if the crime is serious and the accomplice acts with general intent or knowingly or has awareness that the principal will commit the crime with his or her assistance, intent to further the crime’s commission could be inferred (People v. Lauria, 2010). In a minority of jurisdictions, only generaltent or acting knowingly that the crime will be promoted or facilitated is required, regardless of the crime's seriousness (Washington Rev. Code Ann., 2010). Example of Accomplice Intent Joullian, a hotel owner, rents a hotel room to Winifred, a prostitute. In a state that requires an accomplice to act with specific intent or purposely, Joullian must desire Winifred to commit prostitution in the rented room to be Winnifred’s accomplice. Evidence that Joullian stands to benefit from Winnifred’s prostitution, such as evidence that he will receive a portion of the prostitution proceeds, could help prove this intent. If Joullian’s state allows for an inference of specific intent or purposely with serious crimes when an accomplice acts with general intent or knowingly, it is unlikely that prostitution is a felony that would give rise to the inference. If Joullian’s state requires only general intent or knowingly for accomplice liability regardless of the crime’s seriousness, to be deemed an accomplice Joullian must simply be aware that renting Winifred the room will promote or facilitate the act of prostitution. 19. What is giving false evidence? Distinguish from fabricating false evidence. Introducti Evidence is information which is used in the court to prove something which exists or true. Giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence is an offence under Indian penal Code, 1860. The provisions of False evidence and fabricating false evidence are specifically mentioned in Section 191 and section 192 respectively of the IPC under Chapter XI. ing false evidence: Whoever being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any subject, makes 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Difference between Giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence Following are the differences of giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence — 1. In case of false evidence, general intention is required whereas in Fabricating false evidence, particular intention is necessary. Intention is the essence of both the offence. In short it must be intentionally given. 2. In false evidence, the statement which are false not necessary that it should be material. On the other hand, in fabricating false evidence statements must be on material point only. 3. The offence of giving false evidence is committed by the person who is legally bound by an oath to the state the truth whereas its opposite in the fabricating false evidence i.e. the offence is committed by a person who is not legally bound to take an oath to state the truth. 4, In Giving false evidence, the question of effect of the evidence on the officer before whom the evidence is given is of no consequences while this effect of the evidence is important in fabricating false evidence. 5. In giving false evidence, it is necessary that there should be a proceeding of judicial or non-judicial being conducted whereas in fabricating false evidence, it is not necessary of judicial or non-judicial proceeding because it is enough that there is reasonable prospect of the proceeding. Conch It can be concluded that there is a difference between these two terms. The intention is important in both terms i.e. general intention in giving false evidence and material or particular intention in fabricating intention. The person who will threaten or induce to give or fabricate false evidence will also liable for the punishment. Itis to be noted that the person who is giving false evidence must have knowledge that he is giving a false statement or believe it to be false. The person who will commit an offence of giving and fabricating anevidence will be punished according to the punishment period mentioned in the IPC, 1860. 20.£xplain the distinguish between culpable homicide and murder? Differences Between Section 299 and Section 300, IPC Now, let us compare both the sections and see when does culpable homicide amounts to murder. 1, Intention of causing death. The phrase “an act with the intention of causing death” has been used in sections 299 and 300 both. Then where is the difference? Sometimes an intentional act that causes death will not amount to murder because it falls under the five exceptions provided in section 300, that’s culpable homicide not amounting to murder. So, if an intentional act which fulfills the condition of section 299, but it goes to the second part of section 300 (exceptions), then that act does not amount to murder. 2. Bodily injury likely to cause death. Whoever causes death by performing an act with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.Comparing this part of section 299 with section 300, that is, if the act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury where the offender knows that itis likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused. Or, If the act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury to any person and where the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Here, for this part, we can clearly see that an act, when done with intention but not with knowledge, will not amount to murder, and it will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Bodily Injury + Inter CHNM But even if there is an absence of knowledge and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted, in the ordinary course of nature is sufficient, it will amount to murder. Bodily injury that is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death + Intention = CHAM 3.A difference of knowledge under sections 299 and 300. Ifa person causes death by doing an act with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death.This is the last condition laid down in section 299. So if we raise the degree a bit higher, then the act will fall under section 300. If the person committing the act has the knowledge that it is so imminently dangerous that it will in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and thereby he commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid, amounts to murder. Knowledge is in both the cases, but the degree makes the differenc Example: | had a knowledge that if | give very tight two-three slaps to an old person who is very weak, he may die due to nervous shock. And if he dies, it will be culpable homicide not amounting to murder, But what if | start beating him so severely that blood starts coming out. Knowing that the man is so weak that he will not be able to bear the pain even for a second. And if he dies, it will be culpable homicide amounting to murder. Punishment Under Section 299 and 300 of IPC The punishment for culpable homicide amounting to murder is under section 302. Whereas, for culpable homicide not amounting to murder, itis under section 304 of the Indian Penal Code. The main points of difference between culpable homicide and murder are: 1. Culpable homicide is wider than the term murder. Culpable homicide is therefore considered as the genus while as murder is regarded as aspecies. All murders are culpable homicide but all culpable homicides are not regarded as murder. . Murder is an aggravated form of culpable homicide. . In murder, the offender has a definite knowledge that the act would result in the death while as in culpable homicide the knowledge is not so definite. . The probability of causing death is higher in murder than culpable homicide. 21.1n all robbery there is either theft or extortion? Explain? Robbery. In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. When theft is robbery.—Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint When extortion is robbery.—Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted. Explanation.—The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. Mlustrations (a) A holds Z down, and fraudulently takes 2's money and jewels from Z's clothes, without Z's consent. Here A has committed theft, and, in order to the committing of that theft, has voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to Z. A has therefore committed robbery. (b) A meets Z on the high road, shows a pistol, and demands 7's purse. Z, in consequence, surrenders his purse, Here A has extorted the purse from Z by putting him in fear of instant hurt, and being at the time of committing the extortion in his presence. A has therefore committed robbery.(c) A meets Z and 7's child on the high road. A takes the child, and threatens to filing it down a precipice, unless Z delivers his purse. Z, in consequence, delivers his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z, by causing Z to be in fear of instant hurt to the child who is there present. A has therefore committed robbery on Z. (d) A obtains property from Z by saying "Your child is in the hands of my gang, and will be put to death unless you send us ten thousand rupees". This is extortion, and punishable as such: but it is not robbery, unless Z is put in fear of the instant death of his child. 22.Define and distinguish criminal misappropriation of property and breach of trust? Refer Earlier Answer. 23.Write a note on offences relating to public tranquility Introduction Peace and tranquillity are the prerequisites for development in society. If there is disorderliness in society or any other hindrance of like nature, the society cannot provide to the individual, the opportunity to grow and develop to their full potential, hence the maintenance of peace and tranquillity is a must for every society and nation as a whole. Offences against the public tranquillity are the offences against not only a single person or property but against the society at large. These kinds of offences are committed by the group of people sharing a common intention to disturb the peace and tranquillity of an area thus affecting the whole society. Itis important to study these offences so that they could be curbed Public Offences Under IPC chapter eight deals with public offences. These offences could be categorized into four: + Unlawful assembly; + Rioting; + Enmity amongst different classes;+ Affray. Furthermore, Chapter X of the Criminal Procedure Code 1973 gives legal guidelines for the maintenance of public peace and order and also delineates duties, responsibilities, functions, and power of the Executive and the Police in this matter. Unlawful Assembh Section 1410f the IPC, 1860 deals with the unlawful assembly. Article 19(1)(B) of the Indian Constitution,1950 confers a fundamental right to assemble peacefully however this section seeks to criminalize an unlawful assembly. ioting Section 146 and 147 under IPC deal with rioting. It usually takes place as a way to dissent something or for a perceived threat or grievance. Affray Section 159 and 160 of the IPC,1860 deals with affray and its punishment. Promoting Enmity between Classes This category of public offence comes under Section 153A and 153B of the IPC. 24,Write a note on unlawful assembly. Section 144 - Joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon Section 144 IPC states that “Whoever, being armed with any deadly weapon, or with anything, which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Sec 144 Indian Penal Code is the aggravated form of section 143. This section clearly states that the risk to the public tranquillity is aggravated by the intention of using force, evinced by carrying arms or deadly weapons such as pistols, guns, spears, swords, daggers, kirpans, and kantas, etc.Sec 144 IPC provides says that where a member of an unlawful assembly is armed with a deadly weapon which is used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, he would be liable to an enhanced punishment which may extend to two years of imprisonment, or with fine, or with both Unlawful assembly is defined under Section 141 of IPC. The section defines, unlawful assembly as the group of five or more than five people constituting the unlawful assembly. In this, all the members commit an act with the same intention and object. The common object in the cases of unlawful assembly must be to commit an illegal act as specified in the section. 25. Offences relating to public servants. 166. Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person. Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will, by such disobedience, cause injury to any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. 166A. Public servant disobeying direction under law. Whoever, being a public servant, {a) knowingly disobeys any direction of the law which prohibits him from requiring the attendance at any place of any person for the purpose of investigation into an offence or any other matter, or (b) knowingly disobeys, to the prejudice of any person, any other direction of the law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct such investigation, or (¢) fails to record any information given to him under sub-section (1) of se 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in relation to cognizable offencepunishable under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354B, section 370, section 370A, section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 3768, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB, section 376E or section 509, 166B. Punishment for non-treatment of victi Whoever, being in charge of a hospital, public or private, whether run by the Central Government, the State Government, local bodies, or any other person, contravenes the provisions of section 357C of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both. Whoever, being a public servant, and being, as such public servant, charged with the preparation or translation of any document, frames or translates that document in a manner which he knows or believes to be incorrect, intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. 168. Public servant unlawfully engaging in trade. Whoever, being a public servant, and being legally bound as such public servant not to engage in trade, engages in trade, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.169. Public servant unlawfully buying or ing for property. Whoever, being a public servant, and being legally bound as such public servant, not to purchase or bid for certain property, purchases or bids for that property, either in his own name or in the name of another, or jointly, or in shares with others, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and the property, if purchased, shall be confiscated. Whoever pretends to hold any particular office as a public servant, knowing that he does not hold such office or falsely personates any other person holding such office, and in such assumed character does or attempts to do any act under colour of such office, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 171. Wearing garb or carrying token used by public servant with fraudulent intent. Whoever, not belonging to a certain class of public servants, wears any garb or carries any token resembling any garb or token used by that class of public servants, with the intention that it may be believed, or with the knowledge that it is likely to be believed, that he belongs to that class of public servants, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees, or with both. 26.Offences relating to election.Introduction: In Indian penal code, section 171A to 1711 deals with any offences relating to elections. This chapter was inserted in the year 1920. The main purpose was to enact a view of providing the punishment for malpractices during elections. Thus, any kind of misconduct is avoided in such scenarios. Section 171A This section mentions the definition of electoral right and candidate. For this chapter, you can say that the definition of ‘candidate’ is a person who has been nominated as a representative at an election. Also, electoral right, in this context means the right for a person to stand. Furthermore, the person can also withdraw or not stand from being a candidate because of this right. Section 171B This section is for the bribery in the case of elections. If someone gives gratification to another person with the objective of inducing the other person in order to exercise the electoral right than it is called bribery. Section 171¢ This section states taking undue influence at the time of elections. The section is used when someone voluntarily influences or interferes the free exercise for any electoral right. Thus, this person that is said to have committed undue influence at the time of the election. Also, when someone threatens the voter or a candidate, with an injury is punished under this section. Although when someone declares a promise or a public policy without any intent to interfere with an electoral right is not included. This person is not deemed to. interfering within the meaning of this section. Section 171D Ifa person in an election applies for a voting paper based on votes is said to have committed an offence in the election. Also, the person can be dead, alive or ina fictitious manner.27. Explain the essentials of criminal trespass, house trespass and house breaking. INTRODUCTION Trespassing was made a crime because everyone has the right to enjoy their property without being bothered. Trespass is defined as a person who accesses another person's property without permission from the owner. Trespassing is normally considered a civil wrong for which compensatory damages are awarded, but trespassing with the purpose to commit a crime is considered a criminal offence and is penalised under Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code. Because criminal liability is such a broad topic, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) divides it into 22 sections, beginning with Section 441, IPC and ending with Section 462 of IPC. WHAT IS CRIMINAL TRESPASS? ‘According to Section 441 of the Indian Penal Code, that whoever tries to enter the property in the possession of another with the intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult, or annoy any person in possession of such property, or who has lawfully entered such property but remains there with the intent to intimidate, insult, or annoy any such person, is said to have entered into such property with the intent to commit an offence. Asa result, criminal trespass occurs when a person enters or remains on another person's private property without permission or an express or implicit licence with the goal of committing a crime. INGREDIENTS OF CRIMINAL TRESPASS, THE FOLLOWING ARE THE 4 INGREDIENTS OF CRIMINAL TRESPASS: Entry into another person’s property To commit the crime of criminal trespass, the accused individual must physically enter the property of another. There can be no trespass if the offender does not physically enter the victim's private property. For Example- Mr Sharma throws his kitchen waste in front of Mr Kapoor’s house daily, in this Mr Sharma cannot be accused of criminal trespass as he has not physically entered the property of Mr Kapoor. Possession of property The plaintiff should have possession of the property in question, not the trespasser or anybody else. The mere possession of the property is enough to charge the trespasser with criminal trespass. The victim does not need to be the ‘owner of the property.The term "ownership" refers to an object's absolute rights and claims. It refers tothe owner's ownership of an object, whereas "possession" refers to the actual control of an object. It is not necessary for the person in possession to be present at the moment of the trespass; trespassing can occur even if the possessor is not there. For example- buying gifts and delivering it to a person's house against their will, is also a form of criminal trespass, even though at the time of delivering such gifts, the person is not present at the house. Intention For the unauthorised entry or stay, there must be a purpose to conduct an offence or to intimidate, insult, or irritate the owner of the property. It would not be criminal trespass if it could be proven that Defendant's intention was not to do so. For example- if some children are playing cricket outside A’s house. The cricket ball while playing went inside A’s house and one of the kids went running inside A’s house to catch the ball. In this case, the kid has no bad intention and therefore will not be liable for criminal trespass. WHAT IS HOUSE-TRESPASS? House-trespass is defined in Section 442 of the Indian Penal Code as entering or remaining in any building, tent, or vessel used as a human home, place of worship, or a place for the safekeeping of property with the purpose of committing criminal trespass. A human dwelling need not be a permanent resident of the defendant; occasional occupants such as schools or railway stations can also be considered human dwellings. However, in order for a structure to be considered a human residence, it must have walls or some form of security, and a simple fence will not suffice. Because this is an intensified type of criminal trespass, every house-trespass is criminal trespassing, but not every criminal trespass is not a house-trespass. Since house-trespass is a crime that requires the defendant to be in real possession of the property, it cannot be committed if the defendant is not in possession of the property. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIMINAL TRESPASS AND HOUSE-TRESPASS 1.“Criminal trespass" is defined under Sec. 441 “House-trespass” is defined under Sec. 442 2. Sec. 447 gives the punishment for criminal trespass. Sec. 448 gives ment for house trespass.3.Punishment for this is less. 3 months or fine up to Rs. 500 or with both. Punishment is severe than criminal trespass. 1year imprisonment or a fine of Rs. 1,000/- or both. 4.Criminal trespass comes under the ordinary category of the offence of trespass. House trespass is considered to be an aggravated form of Criminal trespass. 5.Criminal trespass may be committed on any property House trespass can be committed only in the case of dwelling buildings. 6. The trespasser should do a certain act of insult or intimation or annoy the property owner to be liable for criminal trespass. Trespasser will be liable for house-trespass even if one of his body parts enters the dwelling property of the owner. CONCLUSION If an outsider or even a known person enters any property in your possession with the aim to hurt or injure you, that person will be charged with criminal trespass under the IPC, and remedies can be sought in any court of law. In order to be charged with criminal trespass, you must have the intent to conduct a crime; mere awareness does not constitute criminal trespass. 28. Define forgery and false documents under Indian penal cod Introduction To understand the concept of an offence relating to documents, we need to know what is a document as well as a forgery. According to Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act,1872 defines document as, “Document” means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to be used, or which may be used, for the purpose of recording that matter.” Forgery is defined under Section 463 of Indian Penal Code, Whosoever makes any fake document or incorrect electronic record or part of a document with an intention to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to share with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with purpose to commit fraud or that fraud may be accomplished, commits forgery.Forgery hence can be described as a means to achieve an end- the end is an instance of action or scheme fabricated to mislead someone into believing a lie or inaccuracy. Concept of false Document According to Section 463 of IPC, A person is declared to make a false document when; Firstly: who dishonestly or fraudulently makes sign, seal or performs a document or part of a document makes any mark indicating the execution of a document, with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of a document was made signed sealed or executed by the authority of a person by whom authority was not made, signed at a time at which he knows that it was not made sealed or executed; or Secondly- who without legal authority dishonestly or fraudulently by withdrawing or contrarily reconstructs a document in any material part thereof after it has been made himself or by any person whether such person be alive or dead at the time of such alteration; or Thirdly- whoever dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to seal, sign, execute or reconstruct a document knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot by reason of deceit practised upon him, he does not know the content of the document or the nature of the alteration Mlustrations: 1. Xhasa letter of credit upon B for rupees 10,000 written by Z. X, inorder to defraud B, adds a cipher to the 10,000 and makes the sum 100000 intending that it may be delivered by B that Z so wrote the letter. A has committed forgery. . A picks up a cheque on a banker signed by Himanshu, payable to bearer but without any sum having been inserted in the cheque. A fraudulently fills up the cheque by inserting the sum of ten thousand rupees. A commits forgery. The basic elements of forgery includ+ Forgery requires Deception In most of the jurisdiction, the crime of forgery is not imposed unless it is done with the intent to commit fraud larceny. For example, the work of art can be replicated or copied without any crime being committed unless someone attempted to sell or represent the original copies. In such cases, the act would be considered an illegal forgery. + Creation of fake document Forgery also includes the creation of fraudulent or fake documents. For instance, it can involve photocopying of the person’s signature and then artificially placing it on a document without their knowledge or consent. Moreover, On the grand scale forgery occurs in the field of art and literature. + Forgery as Identity Theft Identity theft is a crime wherein the defendant unjustly acquires and uses another's person personal data in some way that involves fraud or deception typically for budgetary gain. Initially, states have treated identity theft as deceptive imitation forgery or as theft by deception + The intention of the forger Section 468 pertains only to the cases where forgery is for the purpose of cheating. Forgery has been explained before as concerning the presence of one or other of the two elements of dishonesty or fraud. Three Forms of Making False Documents For the purpose of the subject of identification and comparison of signature and writing, forgery may be classified as; 1. Simulated or copied forgery: In this variety of forgery, the forger chooses a model signature or writing and tries to replicate the design of letters and other broad features depending upon his ability, practice, and competency. Such an attempt in most cases ends in a crude forgery, however, in some cases, the forger is competent enough to make a simulation which at first sight may appear to be accurate and may be passed as real by those who compare only the general outlineof letters and gives little attention to the line quality and other minute details. Traced forgery: This means reproducing the exact copy of the original signature. Traced forgery is accomplished by using carbon paper, indented tracing, tracing paper, transmitted light or scanned image. . Forgery by memory: It belongs to the signature or writing prepared of the material by the mental impressions of forms and letters of signatures or writings of the actual writer without examining any model or writing at the time of forgery. . Forgery by impersonation: When a person nearly writes or signs the name of another person in his own handwriting in a normal manner rather than expressing himself to be that person with some motive involved. 29. Write a note on common intension a common object Definition of Common Intention Common Intention refers to the predetermined plan and taking action in unison to proceed with the plan. Common Intention springs before the crime is committed, but the time gap between the two should not be long. It could take place suddenly. When two or more than two persons give their consent to perform an act, under common intention, the co-accused are entitled to equal criminal liability, as mentioned in Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In such a case each and every member is liable for that act, in a way that they had done the act solely. Section 34 of the IPC incorporates the principle of joint liability when a criminal act is performed, and the crux of that liability is the presence of common intention. Its applicability is due to the involvement in the offence. It is among the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, which is exercised to extend the liability of other people. The essence of this section is that the accused must be physically present at the actual commission of the crime.