Grave & Sudden Provocation under IPC

• Macaulay prepared the first draft of Indian Penal Code.

• Indian Penal Code, I860 came into force on 1st January, 1862.

• The preamble of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 aims to provide a General penal code.

• Essential ingredients of a crime are mens-rea and actus-reus.

• In Sherras Vs. De-Rutzen it was expressed that "In every statute 'mens rea’ is to
be implied unless contrary is shown".
• Under section 10 of I.P.C. ‘Man’ denotes a male human being of any age.

• In the case of Karunanidhi Vs. Union of India, it was held that a Chief Minister
or a Minister is in the pay of the Government and, therefore, public servant within the
meaning of Section 21(12) of I.P.C.

• Movable property’ under I.P.C. is defined in Section 22.

• Wrongful gain’ and ‘wrongful loss’ have been defined under I.P.C. in Section 23.
• Under Section 34 of I.P.C., the principle of ‘joint criminal liability’ is applicable

• The phrase “in furtherance of common intention of all” used in section 34 of I.P.C., is
added by Amending Act of 1870.

• Section 149 creates a specific offence whereas Section 34 does not.

• Section 34 speaks of common intention while Section 149 contemplates common

object.

• In the case of Barendra Kumar Ghosh Vs. King Emperor, Lord Summer said,
‘they also serve who stand and wait’.
• In the case of Mahboob Shah Vs. King Emperor, the Privy Council made a
distinction between ‘common intention’ and ‘similar intention’.

• Offence is defined under Section 40 of I.P.C.

• The word ‘illegal’ in section 43 of I.P.C. denotes : (1) Everything which is an offence;
(2) Everything which is prohibited by law; (3) Everything which furnishes ground for
a civil action.

• Under section 44 of I.P.C., the term ‘Injury’ means any harm illegally caused to a
person in body, mind, reputation or property
• The case of R. Vs. Dudley and Stephen is related to the defence of necessity.

• The principle of “(Doli incapax” is associated with Section 82 of I.P.C.

• McNaughten case is related to Section 84 of I.P.C.

• The case of Durhum v. United States is related to insanity.

• Director Public Prosecutions v. Beard is a leading caSe on intoxication.

• The ‘Wild Beast Test’ was propounded in R. v. Arnold.

• In Basudeo Vs. State of Pepsu, the Supreme Court has explained the true scope
of the following section of I.P.C. Section 86.
• Section 95 of I.P.C. is based on the maxim "de minimis non curat lex" (the law
takes no account of trifles).

• The right of private defence under I.P.C. is available even against an act which is not
offence under I.P.C.

• Right of private defence is not available where, there is a sufficient time to take
recourse of public authorities.

• Under Sections 100 and 103 of I.P.C. even death can be caused in exercise of right of
private defence of person and property.
• Under I.P.C., ‘abetment’ is constituted by instigating a person to commit an offence, by
engaging in a conspiracy to commit an offence and by intentionally aiding a person to
commit an offence.

• Abetment of an offence can be constituted by intentional aid, instigation and conspiracy.

• Supplying a person with shelter does not amount to ‘abetment of a thing’.

• A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. Here, A is guilty of abetting B to commit

murder

• Abetment of an offence is always an offence.

• 'A' incites 'B' to beat 'C'. Subsequently 'A' reaches the place where 'B' is beating 'C'. 'A’
is liable under Section 114.

• In Section 120A of I.P.C., the definition of ‘Criminal Conspiracy’ is given.

• To constitute an offence of criminal conspiracy under I.P.C., there must be an

agreement of two or more persons to do an illegal act or to do a legal act by illegal means.

• For criminal conspiracy the minimum number of persons required is two.

• In case of conspiracy, mere agreement is enough whereas in case of abetment by

conspiracy an act should have taken place in pursuance of conspiracy.
• Under Section 121A of I.P.C. a conspiracy to wage war against the Government of
India is punishable.

• Section 124A of I.P.C. defines ‘sedition’.

• The ambit and scope of the offence of sedition under Section 124-A of I.P.C. was
considered by a Five Judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of
Kedar Nath Singh v State of Bihar. In this case Supreme Court make it clear that
‘mere criticism or comments on government would not amount to offence of
sedition’.
• Rioting and affray have been defined in sections 146 and 159 of I.P.C. respectively

• Rioting is punishable with imprisonment extending to two years, affray is punishable

with imprisonment extending to one month.

• In I.P.C., punishment for rioting is provided under Section 147. Punishment for
rioting under I.P.C. is imprisonment for two years or fine or both.

• Rioting while armed with deadly weapons is punishable under I.P.C. in Section 148.
Section 149 of I.P.C. creates a distinct offence.
• Under I.P.C. fabricating false evidence has been defined in Section 192, I.P.C.

• 'A' puts jewels into a box belonging to 'B' with the intention that they may be found in
that box, and this circumstances may cause 'B' to be convicted of theft. 'A' has
committed the offence under Section 192 of I.P.C.

• Punishment for giving false evidence in court is provided under Section 193 I.P.C.

• Section 195A, I.P.C. is related to threat to give false evidence.

• Disclosure of identity of victim of rape is punishable in I.P.C. under Section 228A.

• Hicklin rule is related to Section 292 of I.P.C

• Uttering obscene words near a public place is an offence under Section 294 I.P.C.

• The mens rea required under Section 299 of I.P.C. is intention or knowledge.

• 'A' lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of causing death or with the knowledge
that death is likely to be thereby caused. 'Z' believing the ground to be firm treads on it, falls
and is killed. 'A' is guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

• In Rex Vs. Govinda, the points of distinction between Sections 299 and 300 of I.P.C. were
elaborately discussed and explained.

• The plea of ‘sudden and grave provocation’ under Section 300 Exception (1) of I.P.C.
• K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra is a leading case on grave and sudden
provocation.

• Section 301 of I.P.C. embodies what the English authors describe as the doctrine of
transferred malice.

• ‘A’ kills ‘C’ thinking ‘C’ as ‘B’. ‘A’ is guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 I.P.C.

• Death sentence should be awarded in rarest of rare cases" was held in Bachan Singh Vs. State
of Punjab.

• Section 303 I.P.C was struck down as unconstitutional by the supreme court in the case of
Mithu Vs. State of Punjab.
• By Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1986 Section 304B of I.P.C. relating to dowry
death was inserted.

• Punishment prescribed under section 304-B of I.P.C. is imprisonment for a term

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

• The case of Gian Kaur Vs. State of Punjab is related to attempt to commit
suicide. It was held in this case that "Right to live with human dignity does not
include right to terminate natural life”.

• The term 'thug' has been defined in Section 310 of I.P.C

• Eight kinds of hurts are included under grievous hurt under Section 320 of I.P.C. including
emasculation, privation of any joint, dislocation of tooth, etc.

• Acid Attack is an offence as mentioned in Section 326A, I.P.C.

• Provision regarding offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc. was
introduced vide Section 326A in I.P.C. by Act No. 13 of 2013.

• In the case of Laxmi Vs. Union of India, Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed to pay
minimum compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- per acid attack victim.

• Voluntarily attempting to throw acid on any person is punishable under Section 326-B of
I.P.C.
• Wrongful confinement has been defined under Section 340 of I.P.C.

• 'A' places men with firearms at the outlets of a building and tells 'Z' that they will fire
at 'Z’ if 'Z’ attempts to leave the building. 'A' wrongfully confines 'Z*

• In Section 342, I.P.C. punishment for wrongful confinement is provided.

• ‘A’ incites a dog to spring upon Z, without Z’s consent, intending to cause injury fear
or annoyance to Z, ‘A’ has, under I.P.C. committed use of criminal force.

• A spits over B. A would be liable for the offence of using criminal force.
• Section 354, I.P.C. may apply against woman also.

• “Voyeurism” is punishable under Section 354-C of I.P.C.

• Section 354-D I.P.C. is related to offence of Stalking.

• The offence of Section 361 I.P.C. is basically against lawful guardian.

• Intention of the accused is not an essential ingredient of the offence of

kidnapping under I.P.C.

• The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 has added a new Section 376-D which is
related to Gang Rape.
• In the case of Suresh Kumar Kaushal Vs. Naz Foundation (India) Trust -
(2014) 1 SCC 1, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court of
Delhi which decriminalized Section 377 of I.P.C. and upheld the constitutional
validity of Section 377, I.P.C.

• The subject-matter of theft can be movable property.

• Dishonest intention must precede the act of committing theft.

• ‘A’ cut down tree on B’s land with intention to take away that tree without B’s
consent. ‘A’ has committed the offence of theft as soon as tree was cut down and severed
from ground.
• A is a blacksmith who seized by a gang of dacoits and forced, by threat of instant death to
force open the door of B's house for the dacoits to enter and plunder it. A has committed no
offence.

• Under Section 396 I.P.C. punishment for offence of Dacoity with murder is provided

• Generally preparation of an offence defined in I.P.C. is not punishable but preparation of

dacoity is punishable under Section 399, I.P.C. as an offence.

• The law relating to criminal misappropriation of property is given under Section 403, I.P.C.

• Unlawful removal of ornaments form the body of a deceased perrons amount to the offence
misappropriation under section 404 of I.P.C.
• J.M Desai v State of Bombay case is related to criminal breach to trust under
section 406 of I.P.C.

• Provisions regarding cheating is explained under Section 415 of I.P.C.

• Under I.P.C., deceit is the essential ingredient of cheating.

• 'A' is not a servant in Income-tax department but showing himself as Income-tax

officer putting raid in 'B' business centre and gets valuable articles thus 'A' commits
cheating by personation.
• The offence of forgery is committed as regards to documents or electronic record.

• Z dictates his will to A. A intentionally writes down a different legatee named by Z,

and by representing to Z that he has prepared the will according to his instructions,
induces Z to sign the will. A has committed forgery.

• In his will, Mr. 'Y' wrote: "1 intend my property to be equally divided between my
three children 'A', 'S' and H." A dishonestly scratched out the name of H, intending
that it may be believed that the whole of the property was left to be divided between
H and himself alone. 'A' is guilty of forgery.
• In the offence of Bigamy criminal intention (Mens-rea) is irrelevant.

• Joseph Shine Vs. Union of India, AIR 2018 SC 4898 case pertains to the
constitutionality of Section 497 I.P.C. The Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of I.P.C.
as unconstitutional being violative of Arts. 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution. In this case, the
Supreme Court has remarked that “husband is not the master of his wife”.

• Section 498A of I.P.C. came into force from 25th December, 1983.

• Cruelty under Section 498A includes wilful conduct likely to drive the women to commit
suicide; wilful conduct likely to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health and
harassment with a view to coerce her to meet any unlawful demand of dowry.
• Defamation is a civil wrong and criminal offence.

• Defamation can be of a living as well as deceased person and of an individual, a

company, association or collection of persons.

• ’A' says—'Z' is a honest man, he never stole 'B's watch; intending to cause to be
believed that 'Z' did steal B's watch. 'A' is liable for defamation.

• The case of Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India, Ministry of Law &
Ors., upheld the constitutionality of Section 499 & 500 (criminal defamation) of
I.P.C.
• An offenses of criminal intimation involves threat.

• Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace, is punishable under
Section 504, I.P.C.

• False statement, rumour, etc. circulated with intent to cause mutiny or offence
against the public peace is dealt under Section 505 of I.P.C.

• Section 508 of I.P.C. deals with divine displeasure notion.

• The minimum duration of imprisonment provided for an offence under I.P.C. is

imprisonment for twenty four hours under Section 510.
• The punishment for attempting to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for
life or other imprisonment is provided in under Section 511, I.P.C.

• Attempt to commit any offence is punishable half of the term of imprisonment

provided for the offence.

• The Apex Court judgment in Abhayanand Mishra Vs. State of Bihar is related
to Sections 420 and 511 of I.P.C.

• A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by thrusting his hand into Z’s pocket. A
fails in the attempt in consequence of Z’s having nothing in his pocket. A is guilty
under section 511 of I.P.C.