CRIMINAL LAW

• No act is crime unless accompanied by a guilty mind

• Every person is innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
• Prosecution must also prove guilty state of mind.

1. Sec.8 : Gender – pronoun “ He” derivatives used for person male or female
2. Sec.9 : Number unless contrary from context ,singular includes plural & vice versa
3. Sec.10 : Man denotes male of any age , woman denotes female of any age
4. Sec.11 : Person includes any company or association whether incorporated or not.
5. Sec.32 : Words referring to act include illegal omissions
6. Sec.33 : The word act denotes as well a series of acts as a single act , omission denotes series as single omission.
7. Sec.40 : Offence denotes a thing / act punishable by this IPC
8. Sec.46 : Death denotes death of a human being
9. Sec.84-85 : Insanity ie. impairment of cognitive faculty due to disease or intoxication

Essentials Of A Crime (presumption is of innocence & not of guilt and prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt)

1. Guilty Mind ( presence of )

2. Guilty Mind must accompany the act or illegal omission
3. Consequence ( forbidden )

MOTIVE ( Good or bad behind the mind )

↓
INTENTION ( Idea with knowledge within mind ) Act done is presumed to be intent unless proved otherwise.
↓
GUILT ( of Mind ) → ( manifests itself in ) ACT →
↓
Act ( resulting in forbidden ) CONSEQUENCE
↓
Hurt ( s.319 IPC )
↓
Grievous Hurt ( s.320 IPC )
↓
CH ( s.299 IPC ) Culpable Homicide = Blameworthy / illegal + Death of a living being by other living being.
↓
Murder ( s.300 IPC )
 Chap. XVI of IPC
Offences affecting the Human Body

HOMICIDE
( Death of a living being by another living being )
↓
-----------------------------------------------
↓ ↓
Unlawful Lawful
↓ ↓
----------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------
↓ ↓ ↓ ↓
Culpable Homicide Death by Rash or negligent Excusable Justified
( s.299 IPC ) act not amounting to CH
↓ (s.304A)
↓
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
↓ ↓
CHAM ( amounting to murder ) CHNAM ( not amounting to murder )
- falls in s.299 a ) falls in s.299 but not in s.300
- and in s.300 - punishable u/s 304 { 299(b)304(i) & 299(c)304(ii) }
- and not in exceptions to s.300 b ) falls in s.299 always in s.300 &
- punishable u/s 302 / 301 also attracts exceptions to s.300
- punishable u/s 304 (1)

DEFENCES
↓
↓
--------------------------------------------------------
↓ ↓
Complete Defences ( general ) Partial Defences
( Sections 76 – 106 ) ( exceptions to Sec.300 )
Before the Supreme Court , it is always a question of Law based on certain facts.

Distinction between CH ( S.299) – Rash or Neg. Act ( S.304A) and GH ( S.322 ) is very foundation of Criminal Law

For cases to fall under s.299 , s.300 or s.304A

Common ingredient is the Act + the forbidden consequence i.e. Death in all cases
But what differs is degree of rashness & knowledge as form of mens rea and the degree of seriousness of its consequence on
May – Possible –Likely - Most Likely – Certainly scale .

Point is how much knowledge u can attribute to a person ?

Assault-Type-weapons used-Injury – type of injury – consequence.

Every CH is one of GH
Every GH is not CH
Every GH is Hurt
But every hurt is not GH

Negligence is lack of care & caution expected normally.

1. Advertent negligence – knowingly negligent
2. Inadvertent negligence- negligently negligent due to lack of expected caution
3. Rash = knowingly negligent act ie. Higher degree of criminal element
4. Every rash act is negligent but not all negligent acts are rash.

Reasonable Man ( always behaving in a rationale manner ) is a legal fiction.

1. Every normal person is prone / subject to irrational behavior at times due to situations / circumstances / provocations.
2. One can afford to lose emotional control resulting in minor errors of judgment but there is no excuse for impairing of
cognitive faculties to the extent of losing control over one’s intent / actions, decision making abilities and forgetting the
forbidden consequences. Every one is expected to control impulses.
3. Knowledge of Fact – responsibility of prosecution to prove.
4. Knowledge of consequence – presumption of law is that if you do an act , you know (ought to know ) the consequences
presumption of sound mind ie. Not a man of extremes Med.insanity (individ.concept) v.Legal insanity (society at large)
5. Cognitive faculties presumed to be present in every one unless proved otherwise as in insanity.
 6. Emotional/will faculty/impulse V. Failure of Cog. Faculty where U prove that ability to form mens rea was impaired.

Sec.299 ( CH ) v Sec.300 ( Murder )

A person commits culpable homicide if the act by which the death is caused is done
Subject to certain exceptions culpable homicide is murder if the act by which the death is caused is done -

299 • In the scheme of the IPC “CH” is GENUS .
• Speaking generally, “CH” sans 'special
characteristics of murder is “CHNAM”.
• For the purpose of fixing punishment,
proportionate to the gravity of the generic
offence, the IPC practically recognizes three
degrees of CH.
1. 'CH of the first degree'. This is the
greatest form of CH, which is defined
in Section 300 as 'murder' punishable
under Section 302 / 301.
2. 'CH of the second degree'. This is
punishable under the first part of
Section 304.
3. ‘CH of the third degree'. This is the
lowest type of CH and the punishment
provided for it is, also the lowest
punishable under the second part of
Section 304.
300 • In the scheme of the IPC 'MURDER' is its SPECIE.
• All cases of 'murder' s.300 are 'CH' s.299 but not vice-versa.
• The academic distinction between 'Murder' and 'CHNAM' has
always vexed the Courts. The confusion is caused, if Courts losing
sight of the true scope and meaning of the terms used by the
legislature in these sections, allow themselves to be drawn into
minute abstractions.
• The safest way of approach to the interpretation and application of
these provisions seems to be to keep in focus the keywords used in
the various clauses of Sections 299 and 300 IPC. The following
comparative table is helpful in appreciating the points distinction
between the two offences..
S299 Whoever causes death by doing an act ;
(Intent + Act capable of killing→ resulting in Death )
Part
a With the INTENTION of causing death; or
b With the INTENTION of causing such bodily
injury as is LIKELY to cause death; or
Clause (b) of Section 299 IPC corresponds with
Clause (2) of Section 300 IPC. But does not
postulate any such knowledge about peculiar
condition or state of health of the victim on the part
of the offender.
If the assailant had no such knowledge about the
disease or special frailty of the victim, nor an
intention to cause death or bodily injury sufficient in
the ordinary course of nature to cause death, the
offence will not be murder, even if the injury which
caused the death, was intentionally given.
Possibility covered 1 – Cases where the offender has
knowledge regarding infirmity / peculiar condition or
state of health of the particular victim.
Clause (b) of Section 299 IPC also
corresponds with Clause (3) of Section 300
IPC but instead of the words 'likely to cause
death' , the words sufficient in the ordinary
course of nature" have been used.
Possibility covered 2 & 3 – Cases where the offender
has no knowledge regarding infirmity / peculiar
condition or state of health of the particular victim or
the victim was of normal health.
S300 Except in the cases hereby excepted ,CH is murder if the act by
which the death is caused ;
Part
1 With the INTENTION of causing death; or
2 With the INTENTION of causing such bodily injuries as the
offender knows to be LIKELY to cause the death of the person
to whom the harm is caused; or
The distinguishing feature of the mens rea requisite is the knowledge
possessed by the offender regarding infirmity /peculiar condition or state
of health that the internal harm caused to the particular victim is likely to
be fatal, notwithstanding the fact that such harm would not in the ordinary
way of nature be sufficient to cause death of a person in normal health or
condition.
It is noteworthy that the 'intention to cause death' is not an essential
requirement of Clause (2). Only the intention of causing the bodily injury
coupled with the offender's knowledge of the likelihood of such injury
causing the death of the particular victim, is sufficient to bring the killing
within the ambit of this clause.
Instances of cases can be where the assailant causes death by a fist blow
intentionally given knowing that the victim is suffering from an enlarged
liver, or enlarged spleen or diseased heart and such blow is likely to cause
death of that particular person as a result: of the rupture of the liver, or
spleen or the failure of the heart, as the case may be.
3 With the INTENTION of causing bodily injury to any person
and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is SUFFICIENT
in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or
For cases to fall within this Clause (3), it is not necessary that the offender
intended to cause death, so long as the death ensues from the intentional bodily
injury or injuries sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
In Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1958 SC 465), Vivian Bose, J. observed
that the prosecution must prove the following acts before it can bring a case
under Section 300 IPC, "thirdly".
 1. First, it must establish quite objectively, that a bodily injury is present;

Obviously, the distinction lies between a bodily injury
LIKELY (conveys the sense of probable as distinguished
from a mere possibility ) to cause death.
And a bodily injury SUFFICIENT (conveys the sense
that death will be the "most probable" result of the injury
in the ordinary course of nature ) to cause death.
The distinction is fine but real, of the degree of probability
of death resulting from the intended bodily injury.
2. Secondly the nature of the injury must be proved objectively.
3. Thirdly, it must be proved that there was an intention to inflict that
particular injury, that is to say, that it was not accidental or unintentional
or that some other kind of injury was intended. Once these three
elements are proved to be present, the enquiry proceeded further, and
4. Fourthly it must be proved that the injury of the type just described
made up the three elements set out above was sufficient to cause death in
the ordinary course of nature. This part of the enquiry is purely objective
and inferential and has nothing to do with the intention of the offender.

Thus, according to the rule laid down in Virsa Singh's case, even if the intention
of accused was limited to the infliction of a bodily injury sufficient to cause
death in the ordinary course of nature, and did not extend to the intention of
causing death, the offence would be murder.

Certain ( 100 % )
↑
Most Likely(Sufficient) /Most Probably ( 90 % )
↑
Likely / Probable ( 60 % )
↑
Possibility ( 50 % )
↑
May ( 35 % )

What is may is not possibility

What is possibility is not likely
What is likely is not most likely
What is most likely is not certain
Whereas what is certain is most likely, What is most likely is likely ,
what is likely is possibility, what is possibility is may .
C with the KNOWLEDGE that the act is likely to cause 4 with the KNOWLEDGE that the act is so imminently dangerous that it must in
death all probability cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as is
mentioned above.

It will be applicable where the knowledge of the offender as to the probability of

death of a person or persons in general as distinguished from a particular person
or persons – being caused from his imminently dangerous act approximates to a
practical certainty. Such knowledge on the part of the offender must be of the
highest degree of probability, the act having been committed by the offender
without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as
aforesaid.
Exceptions to s.300 : The CH is not a murder ;
1. If offender deprived of power of self control by grave &
sudden provocation causes the death of person who
gave the provocation or death of any other person by
mistake or accident.
2. If offender,in the exercise in good faith of the right of
private defence person or property, exceeds the power
given to him by law…..without any premeditation and
without any intention of doing more harm than is
necessary for such self defence.
3. If offender being a public servant or aiding a public
servant acting for the advancement of public justice
exceeds the power given to him by law and causes death
by doing an act which he in good faith believes to be
lawful and necessary for discharge of his duty as public
servant and without ill- will towards the victim.
4. If committed without any premeditation in a sudden
fight in heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and
without offender having taken undue advantage or acted
in cruel or unusual manner. Immaterial as which party
offers provocation or commits first assault.
5. When the person whose death is caused being above 18
years suffers death or takes the risk of death with his

Kidnapping V Abduction
Kidnapping (S.361)
whoever takes or entices-minor<16 if male ,<18 if
female or any person of unsound mind-out of keeping
of lawful guardian-without the consent of such
guardian ,is said to kidnap such person from LG.
1 Committed in respect of minor / unsound mind person
2 Person removed from lawful guardianship
3 Person simply taken away / enticed by innocent means
4 Not a continuous offence –complete once committed
5 Consent of person kidnapped is immaterial
6 Intent of offender irrelevant ie. mens rea neutral
7 Substantive offence per se punishable u/s 363 IPC
Imprisonment for 7Y and fine C+B trial by Magistrate
Non-compoundable
own consent.
Abduction (S.362)
whoever by force compels or by deceitful means induces any person- to go
from any place, is said to abduct that person
Any person at any stage
Not necessarily under any guardianship
Force / compulsion / deceitful means employed
Continuing offence –first taken / then from one place to another
Against the consent of person ( if freely given condones offence)
Important for some intent
Auxiliary act not punishable unless accompanied by cr intent 364-66
364 - Murder 364A –Ransom 365 confine 366 Woman for marriage
Life or RI 10 and fine C+NB trial by Sessions Non-compoundable

1 S.Varadrajan v. State of Madras SC 1965
2 Thakur lal D. Vadgama V. Sate of Gjurat, SC 1973
3 State of Haryana V. Raja Ram, 1973 SC
Savitri+Apl.Vardarajan – father left her far away at relative- Magistrate+HC
convicted 363-1Y RI- SC acquitted grounds –no enticement-tele invitation-
willingly go-age of discretion –educated
Mohini+Apl.- industrialist – mt.Abu etc- Sessions 366&376(rape),HC only
366-SC- sentence already lenient & appeal fails .
Santosh Rani-Jainarain-Rajaram sends daughter to fetch her - ASJ convicts 366
1Y RI + fine , HC acquits-SC upholds

Theft V. Extortion
Theft (S.378) Extortion (s.383)
1 Consent Dishonest Intention to take it without consent Wrongfully obtained
2 Property Movable Movable + immovable
Severability concept also
3 Force/Fear No Force Force + Threat+ Fear of injury
4 Offence Committed when property is in persons possession Committed when property is in persons possession
5 Delivery of No consent - Taken away by offender without Vitiated consent - Delivered to offender under force or fear
property owners consent of injury
6 Theft leads to extortion Extortion leads to Robbery dacoity
S.379 Up to 3-7 yrs( Dwelling) + fine or both S.384 Up to 3 yrs + fine or both
Theft V. Cr. Misappropriation V. Cr. Breach of Trust V. Cheating

Theft (S.378) Cr. Misappropriation (S.403) Cr. Breach of Trust (S.405) Cheating (S.415)
1 Intention Dishonest Intention Initial honest Initial honest Deception with
from outset Subsequent Dishonesty develops Subsequent Dishonest fraudulent Dishonest
when property already in Intention at the outset.
possession Decep.(puffing-
>cheating)
2 Property Movable Movable Any property Any property

3 Force/Fear No Force No Force No Force No Force

4 Possession , Possession Prop. may have moved from Property lawfully acquired with Inducing the person so
Delivery of wrongfully taken person to offender in neutral consent of owner entrusted with deceived to deliver the
property away from person / manner good faith in variety of offender but dishonestly property or to consent
moved by offender ways by casualty . misappropriated that any person shall
without owners Already in possession of the Enticement or Dominion over retain the property
consent offender Prop + CM = CBT
5 Offence when Offence completed Dishonest misappropriation for Offence complete when offender When the induced person
complete when property is converting to self use , before dishonestly converts property for delivers or parts with the
taken away exhausting reasonable means / his own use property.
time to discover and return to
owner
6 No contractual relationship Contractual relationship
ie every CBT(405) includes CM
(403)converse not always true
7 Remarks Theft for Taken with consent -not returned Unless entrustment for safe Dishonest concealment of
time also a theft subsequently. retention – no offence facts / impersonation
Dishonest misappropriation for
time also CM
Examples Necklace removed Class notes taken not given back Common Carrier – goods sold Puffing v Cheating
on the way I-False credentials/credit
PFC deducted – not deposited II-Quacks-Villagers
Rly.Ticket Taken out of pocket Lose it - someone gets it- uses it Give it to friend to hold – goes Takes to check
away particulars - goes away
8 Punishment S.379 S.403 itself S.406 S.417/420
Up to 3-7 yrs + fine Up to 2 yrs + fine or both Up to 3 yrs + fine or both Up to 1-7 yrs + fine or
or both both