CS Executive JIGL - Indian Penal Code 1860 Question and Answers

CS Executive JIGL – Indian Penal Code 1860

Crime

Crime is punishable because it affects the society as a whole. It may be committed by an individual but it affects the whole fabric of society. Although the Indian Penal Code does not define crime, but as per Section 40, the word ‘Offence’ indicates an act that is punishable by the Code.

Mens rea

It implies the evil intention of the person committing the wrong. This is shown by the circumstantial or surrounding facts too. For example, if a person buys a gun after having a bad fight with another, and the other turns up dead as a result of a gun wound inflicted by a bullet from the first person’s gun, his having bought the gun shows his intention.

Actus reus

This means the act or omission. This is a very important ingredient to constitute a crime, since intention is not always clear and can rarely be presumed. Actus Reus implies that something action must have taken place that clarifies the guilty intention. Such action should be something that the law prohibits.

Intention

It is the purpose behind an act; a reason for doing something. It helps in providing guidance as to a person’s state of mind at the time when a crime was committed. It is classified as criminal and generic.

Negligence

It is a type of mens rea. It implies an element of carelessness, not taking care when it ought to have been so taken. It is indicative of a state of mind that is neutral as to a specific outcome or consequence.

It means a deviation from the standard of care required of a reasonable man by law, in identical circumstances.

Learn and Read More CS Executive JIGL Question and Answers

Recklessness

It can be said to occur when a person, knowing the probable consequence of an action, still goes ahead with the risk of causing it by his action. It implies a blatant disregard for the effects of actions.

Criminal intention

This is the seed of a crime, since it is where a crime is conceptualized. However, law does not normally punish individuals simply for their wrong or evil intentions, because it is virtually impossible to impute intentions.

Preparation

These are all the actions that have gone into the commission of an intended criminal act. These, by themselves, are not sufficient for punishment to be ascribed as it is difficult to prove that necessary preparations were made with the intention of committing the offence.

There are however, exceptions to this. The Code, however, punishes mere preparation too.

Attempt

Attempt has been equated with preliminary crime. As per Section 511 of the IPC, an attempt to commit an offence is also punishable, because attempt hints at preparation and intention to commit the crime.

However, the act comprising attempt must be proximate to the planned outcome.

CS Executive JIGL - Indian Penal Code 1860 Question and Answers

Commission (of crime)/Accomplishment

This is last stage in the commission of crime. It can have two outcomes – either the accused succeeds in his attempt of the crime or he fails to do so. If he succeeds in commission of the crim, he becomes guilty of the offence. If he fails to do so, he is charged with attempt to crime only.

Presumption of innocence

Usually a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. In order to link the crime with the accused, the prosecution has to prove it ‘beyond reasonable doubts’ that the accused is in fact, guilty of the crime.

Burden of proof

The burden of proof in criminal cases is on the prosecution; the party filing a case against another has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has in fact, committed the crime. Hence, the onus is on the plaintiff usually.

Simple imprisonment

Imprisonment where the person incarcerated has to do simple works in prison.

Rigorous imprisonment

It implies hard labour being meted out to the person incarcerated.

Criminal breach of trust

If a person wrongfully appropriates another person’s property dishonestly, or disposes of that property illegally, violating the prescriptions of law can be said to have committed a “criminal breach of trust”.

Criminal conspiracy

When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done something illegal as per an act, or commit an act that by itself is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is said to be a criminal conspiracy.

Criminal Mis-appropriation of Property

Anyone who comes across another’s movable property and acquires it as his own can be said to have committed the crime of criminal misappropriation. It is punishable with imprisonment – either simple or rigorous extending upto two years, or with fine, or with both. [Section 403]

Criminal Breach of Trust

If a person wrongfully appropriates another person’s property dishonestly, or disposes of that property illegally, violating the prescriptions of law, he can be said to have committed a “criminal breach of trust”. [Section 405)]

Cheating

This offence is related to property. In the offence of cheating, an accused not only gets possession but also the property. The IPC provides that whoever deceives a person in order to cause him to deliver any property or to consent to the retention of any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do which causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. [Sections 415 to 420 of the IPC]

Forgery

Forgery is the making of a false document or false electronic record or part of such document or electronic record, with an intention of causing damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to create or support a false claim or title to property or to enter into any express or implied contract with an intention of committing fraud is perpetrating forgery. [Section 463]

Defamation

Defamation is saying false things about another in order to malign that other. The things said can be by way of oral means or by written or even pictographic means. It can also be published, i.e. it can be communicated to some person other than the person it is about.

Libel

Libel is a relatively permanent form of defamation, for example, an article written against somebody in a newspaper will forever be in its archives.

Slander

Slander is a more transient form of defamation. In involves the use of spoken words or gestures or inarticulate but significant sounds.

CS Executive JIGL – Indian Penal Code 1860 Distinguish Between.

Question 1 Distinguish between ‘Libel’ and ‘Slander’ under Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Answer:

Difference between ‘Libel’ and ‘Slander’ under Indian Penal Code, 1860

Defamation is of two kinds – libel and slander.

Difference between 'Libel' and 'Slander' under Indian Penal Code, 1860

CS Executive JIGL – Indian Penal Code 1860 Descriptive Questions

Question 1: In exceptional cases, mere ‘preparation’ to commit an offence is punishable under Indian Penal Code, 1860. Discuss.
Answer:

‘Preparation’ is one of the stages of a crime.

As such, a voluntary commission of crime involves four important stages, viz.

Criminal Intention: This is the seed of a crime, since it is where a crime is conceptualized. However, law does not normally punish individuals simply for their wrong or evil intentions, because it is virtually impossible to impute intentions.

Preparation: These are all the actions that have gone into the commission of an intended criminal act. These, by themselves, are not sufficient for punishment to be ascribed as it is difficult to prove that necessary preparations were made with the intention of committing the offence.

There are however, exceptions to this. The Code, however, punishes mere preparation too e.g. possessing false weights or measurements and forged documents indicates the wrong intention to make use of these forged articles.

Attempt: Attempt has been equated with preliminary crime. As per

Section 511 of the IPC, an attempt to commit an offence is also punishable, because attempt hints at preparation and intention to commit the crime. However, the act comprising attempt must be proximate to the planned outcome. late

Commission of Crime or Accomplishment: This is the actual commission of the crime. If the accused succeeds in his attempt, the result is the commission of crime and he will be guilty of the offence. If his attempt is unsuccessful, he will be guilty for an attempt only.

However, the act comprising attempt must be proximate to the planned outcome. According to Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, any act showing preparation for, or motive for any preceding or following act, will be a relevant fact.

This is where the accused person’s conduct becomes important, as it indicates that he had a motive and had made some preparations for giving effect to his motive.

Question 2: The ‘mens rea’ is an essential element to constitute an offence under Indian Penal Code, 1860. Discuss briefly.
Answer:

The ‘mens rea’ is an essential element to constitute an offence under Indian Penal Code, 1860

‘Mens rea’ provides a basis for all cases under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. It is derived from the Latin maxim ‘actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea’, the literal meaning of which is ‘the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty’.

Under the Code, an offence is punishable only if and when it is done with the intention of committing it, and premeditation was involved in the act. To judge upon the intention behind an act is difficult, hence the circumstances surrounding the case help in giving a clearer picture of the accused intentions.

It implies the evil intention of the person committing the wrong. This is shown by the circumstantial or surrounding facts too.erial geant to say

It has three forms:

Intention: Intention is the purpose behind an act. It indicates a dimme person’s condition at the time of commission of the offence as also his Letter will, i.e. his willing conduct of the crime. It can be of two types- specific intention and generic intention.

For example: A poisons the food which B was supposed to eat with the intention of killing B. C eats that food instead of B and is killed. A is liable for killing C although A never intended it, as it was his act that caused C’s death.

Negligence: Negligence not taking care, where there is a duty to take care. There might be absence of a desire to cause a particular consequence, still the liability would arise, as the law requires a degree of care as depicted by a reasonable man in identical circumstances.

Recklessness: Recklessness can be said to occur when the person doing an act foresees the possibility of a repercussion of his act and
consciously takes the risk. It can be said to be a total disregard for the consequences of one’s own actions.od

However, in the following cases mens rea is not required as a prerequisite in criminal law:

Where a statute imposes a definite liability, the presence of absence of a guilty mind is irrelevant. Many laws passed in the interest of public safety and social welfare imposes absolute liability. E.g. matters concerning socio-economic welfare, public health, food, drugs, etc.

Further examples would be the licensing of shops, hotels, restaurants and chemist establishments, cases under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Arms Act etc. Stuge

Where it is difficult to prove mens rea and penalties are petty fines: These are cases in which speedy disposal is more important and the proving of mens rea is not easy.

In cases of strict liability a person is punished regardless of his intention.

If a person violates a law even without the knowledge of the existence of the law, it can still be said that he has committed an act which is prohibited by law. It is not a valid defense that he was not aware of the law and hence did not intend to violate it; he would still be liable as if he was aware of the law.

This is supported by the maxim ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’.

Corporate Body and Mens Rea:

As per Section 11 of the IPC, the word ‘person’ includes any Company or Association, or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, hence companies are covered under the provisions of the IPC.

The criminal intentions of the person or group of persons that guide the business of the company, is also attributed to the company.

Question 3: Naveen takes property belonging to Ganesh out of Ganesh possession in good faith belonging at the time when he takes it that the property belongs to himself. Later on Naveen discovers his mistake, dishonestly misappropriates the property to his own use. Explain what offence he has done?
Answer:

Section 403 and 404 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with Criminal Misappropriation of Property. According to Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

In the present case Naveen takes property belonging to Ganesh out of Ganesh’s possession, in good faith believing at the time when he takes it, that the property belongs to himself.

Naveen is not guilty of theft; but if Naveen, after discovering his mistake, dishonestly appropriates the property to his own use, Naveen is guilty of an offence under this section.

Question 4: Allegation against the accused was that he furnished a certificate to get employment as ETT Teacher which was found to be bogus and forged in as much as school was not recognized for period given in the certificate. However, the certificate did not anywhere say that school was recognized. Whether the accused is guilty of any offence? Explain with the help of decided judicial precedent.
Answer:

The Supreme Court in the case of Ramchandran v. State, AIR 2010 SC 1922, has held that to constitute an offence of forgery document must be made with dishonest or fraudulent intention.

A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise. The Supreme Court in the case of Parminder Kaur v. State of UP, has held that mere alteration of document does not make it a forged document.

Alteration must be made for some gain or for some objective.

Similarly, in the case of Balbir Kaur v. State of Punjab, 2011 CrLJ 1546 (P&H), the allegation against the accused was that she furnished a certificate to get employment as ETT teacher which was found to be bogus and forged in as much as school was not recognized for period given in certificate.

However the certificate did not anywhere say that school was recognized. It was held that merely indicating teaching experience of the accused, per-se, cannot be said to indicate wrong facts. So the direction which was issued for prosecution is liable to be quashed.

Question 5: Describe kinds of offences under which capital punishment may be awarded by Court under Indian Penal Code.
Answer:

A death sentence is the harshest of punishments provided in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which involves the judicial killing or taking the life of the accused as a form of punishment.

The Supreme Court has ruled that death sentence ought to be imposed only in the “rarest of rare cases”. The IPC provides for capital punishment for the following offences:

Murder
Dacoity with Murder.
Waging War against the Government of India.
Abetting mutiny actually committed.
Giving or fabricating false evidence upon which an innocent person suffers death
Abetment of a suicide by a minor or insane person;
Attempted murder by a life convict.

The capital punishment is awarded only in two categories of offences, namely treason and murder. In either of the cases, when the court decides that death penalty is the appropriate sentence to be imposed in the light of the gravity of matter and consequences of the offence committed and the absence of mitigating factors, then the court under the provisions of section 354(3) of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) has to give special reasons as to why the court came to this conclusion.

Question 6: The Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for general exceptions for a person accused of committing any offence under the code to plead in his defence. Explain any eight exceptions.
Answer:

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for general exceptions for a person accused of committing any offence under the code to plead in his defence.

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) provides for general exceptions for a person accused of committing any offence under the Code to plead in his defense. General defences or exceptions are contained in sections 76 to 106 of the IPC.

In general exceptions to criminal liability there will be absence of mens rea (guilty mind) on the part of the wrong-doer. If there is any general defense of the accused in a criminal case, the burden of proving lies on him under section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The exceptions are:

Mistake of Fact bound by law
Act of Judge when acting judicially
Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of Court
Mistake of Fact-justified by law
Accident in doing a lawful act
Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm
Act of a child under seven years of age
Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding
Act of a person of unsound mind
Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will
Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated
Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent
Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person’s benefit
On consent of guardian if any act is done in good faith to it
Consent
Exclusion of acts which are offences independently of harm caused
Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent
Communication made in good faith
Act to which a person is compelled by threats
Act causing slight harm.

Question 7: Discuss the important forms of ‘mens rea’ under the Indian Penal Code. 1860.
Answer:

The important forms of ‘mens rea’ under the Indian Penal Code. 1860

Forms of Mens rea

It implies the evil intention of the person committing the wrong. This is shown by the circumstantial or surrounding facts too.

It has three forms:

Intention: Intention is the purpose behind an act. It indicates a person’s condition at the time of commission of the offence as also his will, i.e. his willing conduct of the crime. It can be of two types-specific intention and generic intention. For example: A poisons the food which

B was supposed to eat with the intention of killing B. C eats that food instead of B and is killed. A is liable for killing C although A never intended it, as it was his act that caused C’s death.

Negligence: Negligence not taking care, where there is a duty to take 70 care. There might be absence of a desire to cause a particular consequence, still the liability would arise, as the law requires a degree of care as depicted by a reasonable man in identical circumstances.

Recklessness: Recklessness can be said to occur when the person Joten doing an act foresees the possibility of a repercussion of his act and consciously takes the risk. It can be said to be a total disregard for the consequences of one’s own actions.

However, in the following cases mens rea is not required as a prerequisite in criminal law:

Matters concerning socio-economic welfare, public health, food, drugs, etc. Further examples would be the licensing of shops, hotels, restaurants and chemists establishments, cases under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Arms Act etc.

Where it is difficult to prove mens rea and penalties are petty fines: These are cases in which speedy disposal is more important and the proving of mens rea is not easy.

In cases of strict liability a person is punished regardless of his intention.

This is supported by the maxim ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’.

Corporate Body and Mens Rea:

As per Section 11 of the IPC, the word ‘person’ includes any Company or Association, or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, hence companies are covered under the provisions of the IPC. The criminal intentions of the person or group of persons that guide the business of the company, is also attributed to the company.

Question 8: Define ‘criminal breach of trust’ under section 405 of the Indian Penal Code; 1860. State the essential ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust.
Answer:

Criminal breach of trust: If a person wrongfully appropriates another person’s property dishonestly, or disposes of that property illegally, violating the prescriptions of law, he can be said to have committed a “criminal breach of trust”. [Section 405)]

Punishment for criminal breach of trust. (Section 406) Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Essential Ingredients

The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust are as under:
The accused must be entrusted with the property or have control over it,
The person so entrusted must use that property for his own use or dispose of it illegally, or; 3. The accused must violate –

- Directions of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or;
- Of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust.

In the case of V.R. Dalal v. Yugendra Naranji Thakkar, the Supreme Court of India held that the first ingredient of criminal breach of trust is entrustr.ent and where it is missing, it would not be a criminal breach of trust.

Breach of trust might be treated as a civil wrong but when it becomes a case of mens rea, it gives rise to criminal liability also.

The Supreme Court in Onkar Nath Mishra v. State held that in the commission of offence of criminal breach of trust, there are two elements –

Creation of an obligation in relation to property over which control is acquired by the accused.
Misappropriation or dishonest dealing with the property, contrary to the terms of the obligation.

After analyzing all the cases we may conclude that for an offence to be punishable under this Section the following four requirements are essential:

There is a fiduciary relationship between the person handing over the property and the person who is taking the property so as to create a position of trust.
The accused must have control over the property.
The term property includes both movable as well as immovable property.
The accused should have put the property to his own use or to some unauthorized use.

Question 9: Define criminal conspiracy and state the punishment for it under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Answer:

Criminal conspiracy –

When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,-

an illegal act, or
an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:

Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in pursuance thereof. [Section 120A]

Explanation. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.

The Supreme Court specified the ingredients of criminal conspiracy in the betsent ad irigas case of R. Venkatkrishnan v. CBI,-

An agreement between two or more persons;
The agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either –
1. An illegal act; or
2. An act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.

Punishment for criminal conspiracy:

Anyone who is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. 16

Anyone who is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal nor conspiracy in point (1) above shall be punished with imprisonment of bat either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.

The punishment for criminal conspiracy is more severe if the agreement is one to commit a serious offence and less severe otherwise. [Section 120B] Space to write important points for revision

CS Executive JIGL – Indian Penal Code 1860 Practical Questions

Question 1: A is a warehouse-keeper, Z going on journey entrusted his furniture to A, under a contract that it shall be returned on payment of a stipulated sum for warehouse room. Before coming Z from journey. A has sold furniture. What offence has been committed by the A and what is punishment for it? Explain.
Answer:

A is a warehouse-keeper. Z going on a journey, entrusts his furniture to A, under a contract that it shall be returned on payment of a stipulated sum for warehouse room. A dishonestly sells the goods before Z has returned from his journey.

Here, we can say that A has committed ‘criminal breach of trust’. Sections 405 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deal with Criminal Misappropriation of Property. Criminal breach of trust as per Section 405 means when a person who is entrusted with some property, or with control over another’s property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts it to his own use, or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property going against any explicit or implicit direction of the other or of the law regarding the mode in which he is to look after such property, or going against any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made with the other party who entrusted the property to him, commits “criminal breach of trust”. For this offence, the wrong-doer shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term extending upto three years, or with fine, or with both.

CS Executive JIGL – Indian Penal Code 1860 Descriptive Questions

Question.1: Define ‘crime’.
Answer:

‘Crime’

Crime is punishable because it affects the society as a whole. It may be committed by an individual but it affects the whole fabric of society. The Indian Penal Code does not define crime but as per Section 40 the word ‘Offence’ indicates an act that is punishable by the Code.

The term ‘crime’ and its connotations may differ from time to time and from culture to culture,hence it is relative. It can be said that only that act is a crime which law terms as such. Generally speaking, a criminal offence is a wrong against society whereas a civil wrong is a wrong against an individual.

Question.2: When is innocence presumed and on whom does the burden of proof lie?
Answer:

Presumption of Innocence and Burden of Proof Presumption of Innocence – Generally, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of any person accused of a crime. It means that in the eyes of the law, the accused is innocent until proven guilty by the prosecution.

Burden of Proof – In order to rebut the presumption of innocence, the prosecution has to prove that the crime was in fact, committed by the accused. If there is any doubt that is created as a result of the defendant’s counter arguments, he will not be held guilty.

Hence, the liability of proving a person as guilty is on the prosecution. Both these concepts also prevent any person being falsely accused and harassed for a crime he did not commit.

Question.3: Comment on the premises of ‘cheating’.
Answer:

Cheating

This offence is related to property. In the offence of cheating, an accused not only gets possession but also the property. The IPC provides that whoever deceives a person in order to cause him to deliver any property or to consent to the retention of any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do which causes or is likely to cause damage or [ harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”. Sections 415 to 420 of the IPC].

The Explanation to Section 415 says that even a dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. For example – If X pretends to be someone he is not to get some pecuniary benefits, this action of his would be termed as cheating, because he would not have received those benefits unless he had pretended.

Question.4: Explain the concept of ‘forgery’..
Answer:

The concept of ‘forgery’

Forgery is covered under Section 463 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the punishment for it is given under section 465. Forgery is the making of a false document or false electronic record or part of such document or electronic record, with an intention of causing damage or injury to the public or to any person, or to create or support a false claim or title to property or to enter into any express or implied contract with an intention of committing fraud is perpetrating forgery. [Section 463].

Punishment for forgery – The punishment is imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or fine, or both. Section 465 covers the making of a false document or a false electronic record.

The following case laws add to the definition of forgery –

In the case of Ramachandran v. State, the Supreme Court was of the view that in order to be called a forgery, a document must be made with dishonest or fraudulent intention. Hence, any act might be termed a forgery which is done with the intention to defraud another; it cannot be so termed if the intention is different.

In the case of Parminder Kaur v. State of UP, the Supreme Court held that mere alteration of document does not make it a forged document, unless the alteration is made for some gain or for some objective.

Question.5: What are the different kinds of defamation?
Answer:

The different kinds of defamation

Defamation is saying false things about another in order to malign that other, The things said can be by way of oral means or by written or even pictographic means. It can also be published, i.e. it can be communicated to some person other than the person it is about.

Defamation is of two kinds- libel and slander. Libel is a relatively permanent form of defamation, for example, an article written against somebody in a newspaper will forever be in its archives.

The following sections are relevant too

Section 501 –

Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Any person who prints or engraves defamatory matter can be said to be abetting the offence of defamation and is guilty under Section 501. It also requires that the person printing such matter must have had knowledge that the matter being printed is defamatory.

This was illustrated in the case of Sankaran v. Ramkrishna Pillai, in which the defamatory matter was printed in Malayalam and the accused did not know the language, hence mens rea was absent and he was declared not guilty.

Section 502-

Whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter, knowing that it contains such matter, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

To constitute an offence under Section 502, it is essential that:

The published material is defamatory as per Section 499 of the IPC.
The published material was either printed or engraved.
The accused knew that such matter contained defamatory information.
The accused sold or offered for sale the defamatory matter.

Slander is a more transient form of defamation. In involves the use of spoken words or gestures or inarticulate but significant sounds.

Question.6: Comment on the applicability and jurisdiction of the IPC.
Answer:

Applicability of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 The Indian Penal Code (IPC) applies to the whole of India except the state of Jammu and Kashmir, which has a separate penal code. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 is a substantive law; it defines acts which constitute a crime and lays down punishments for the same.

It establishes principles of criminal law. The procedural aspect of it is governed through the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. The IPC has two parts general principles and defences and specific offences.

Jurisdiction of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 Under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 the criminal courts in India exercise jurisdiction either because a crime is committed by any person (national or foreigner, citizen or non-citizen, resident or not ordinarily resident) within the Indian territory or because a crime, though committed outside India, is liable to be tried under an Indian law. The former is intra-territorial jurisdiction and the latter is extra-territorial jurisdiction.

Intra-territorial jurisdiction: This is when the crime is committed within India, and is regardless of the fact that the person committing the crime is an Indian national or foreigner. The Section says that the law shall be applied equally on everyone without any discrimination on the ground caste, creed, nationality, rank, status or privilege.

The Code applies to any offence committed:

within the territory of India as defined in Article 1 of Constitution of India;
within the territorial waters of India, or
on any ship or aircraft either owned by India or registered in India.

It should be noted that it is not a valid defence that the person committing the wrong is a foreigner and did not know that he was committing a wrong, the act he committed not being an offence in his own country.

In the case of Mobarik Ali Ahmed v. State of Bombay, the Supreme Court held that it is obvious that for an Indian law to operate and be effective in the territory where it operates, i.e., the territory of India, it is not necessary that the laws should either be published or be made known outside the country in order to bring foreigners under its ambit.

Effective publication of the Act would be publication in India, not outside India, and it shall be sufficient to bring it to the notice of everyone who intends to pass through India.

Exemption from intra-territorial jurisdiction of IPC:-

The following are deemed to be exempt from this –

The President or Governor of a state, as per Article 361(2) of the Constitution, during the time they hold office.
Foreign sovereigns, as per international law.
The ambassadors and diplomats of foreign countries who have official Tekstatus in India.

Extra-territorial jurisdiction: Section 3 and section 4 of the IPC provide for extra-territorial jurisdiction. These Sections say that when a crime is committed outside the territory of India by an Indian national, such a person may be tried and punished by the India courts.

Such a person is liable to be convicted and punished in the same manner as if the crime was committed in India. Section 4 extends the applicability of IPC to any offence committed by any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be.

The courts in India have extra-territorial jurisdiction to try offences committed on land, high seas and air by Indian nationals or other. The jurisdiction of a court over offences committed in high seas is called the ‘admiralty jurisdiction’.

Question.7: What are the fundamental elements of crime?
Answer:

The Fundamental Elements of Crime

In order to be termed as a crime, a criminal act must contain the following elements:

Human Being – The first requirement for commission of crime is that the act must be committed by a human being. However, only a human being under legal obligation and capable of being punished can be covered under criminal law.

Mens rea – It implies the evil intention of the person committing the wrong. This is shown by the circumstantial or surrounding facts too. It has three forms –

Intention: Intention is the purpose behind an act. It indicates a Sabik person’s condition at the time of commission of the offence as also etto his will, i.e. his willing conduct of the crime.

It can be of two types – specific intention and generic intention. For example: A poisons the food which B was supposed to eat with the intention of killing B. C eats that food instead of B and is killed. A is liable for killing C although A never intended it, as it was his act that caused C’s death.

Recklessness: Recklessness can be said to occur when the person herm doing an act foresees the possibility of a repercussion of his act and makin consciously takes the risk. It can be said to be a total disregard for the consequences of one’s own actions.

Question.8: Explain the concept of mens rea and explain the exceptions in criminal law, where mens rea is not a prerequisite.
Answer:

The concept of mens rea and explain the exceptions in criminal law, where mens rea is not a prerequisite

It implies the evil intention of the person committing the wrong. This is shown by the circumstantial or surrounding facts too. However, in the following cases mens rea is not required as a prerequisite in criminal law:

Further examples would be the licensing of shops, hotels, restaurants and chemists establishments, cases under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Arms Act etc.

Where it is difficult to prove mens rea and penalties are petty fines –

These are cases in which speedy disposal is more important and the proving of mens rea is not easy.

In cases of strict liability a person is punished regardless of his intention.

This is supported by the maxim ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’.

Corporate Body and mens rea As per Section 11 of the IPC, the word ‘person’ includes any Company or Association, or body of persons, whether incorporated or not, hence companies are covered under the provisions of the IPC.

The criminal intentions of the person or group of persons that guide the business of the company, is also attributed to the company.

Question.9: What are the various stages of a crime?
Answer:

The Stages of Crime

A voluntary commission of crime involves four important stages, viz.

Criminal Intention:-

Preparation:-

Attempt:

Question.10: What is ‘attempt to crime’? Explain its categories.
Answer:

‘Attempt to crime’

However, the act comprising attempt must be proximate to the planned outcome. Under the IPC, the sections on attempt can be divided into four broad categories:

The sections in which the commission of an offence and the attempt to commit are dealt within the same section; here the extent of punishment is the same for both the offence as well as the attempt.

The examples of this category are offences against the State like sedition, or an attempt to cause sedition, assaulting or attempting to assault the President or Governor etc.

Those offences in which the attempt to commit specific offences are dealt along with the offences themselves, but separately, and separate punishments have been provided for both.

The examples of this category are attempt to commit an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life for offences like robbery, murder etc.

Attempt to commit suicide is specifically dealt in under a separate section Section 309.

The fourth category is for attempts to commit offences for which no specific punishment has specifically been provided in the IPC. Such attempts are covered under section 511.

This section of the Code provides where no express provision is made by IPC for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.

Question.11: What are the various punishments that can be given for a crime under IPC?
Answer:

Punishments: The punishments for various crimes under the IPC are as follows –

Death:

A death sentence involves the judicial killing or taking the life of the accused as a form of punishment. The Supreme Court has ruled that death sentence is to be imposed only in the ‘rarest of rate cases’. The IPC provides for capital punishment for the following offences:

Murder
Dacoity with Murder.
Waging War against the Government of India.
Abetting mutiny actually committed.
Giving or fabricating false evidence upon which an innocent person suffers death
Abetment of a suicide by a minor or insane person;
Attempted murder by a life convict.

The death sentence or capital punishment is awarded only in two categories of offences, namely sedition and murder. Under the provisions of Section 354(3), CrPC has to give special reasons as to why the court came to this conclusion

Life Imprisonment:

This implies rigorous imprisonment, that is, imprisonment till the last breath of the convict.

Imprisonment:

Imprisonment is of two descriptions namely –

Rigorous Imprisonment or hard labour; hot tractar
Simple Imprisonment.

Forfeiture of property:

Forfeiture is the divestment of specific property without compensation in consequence of some default or act forbidden by law done by the accused. This is covered under Sections 126 and 127 of the IPC.

Fine:

The imposition of fine implies forfeiture of money by way of penalty. It should be imposed individually and not collectively. In the event the convict does not pay the fine amount, he would have to suffer imprisonment for a further period as indicated by the court, which is known as the default sentence.

Question.12: Explain the concept of criminal conspiracy and the punishment for it.
Answer:

Criminal conspiracy –

When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,-

an illegal act, or
an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:

Explanation. It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely incidental to that object.

The Supreme Court specified the ingredients of criminal conspiracy in the case of R. Venkatkrishnan v. CBI,-

An agreement between two or more persons;
The agreement must relate to doing or causing to be done either –
1. An illegal act; or
2. An act which is not illegal in itself but is done by illegal means.

Punishment for criminal conspiracy

Anyone who is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy in point (1) above shall be punished with imprisonment of od either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or Jam with both.ped eldarisinug cels al consito nis tinimoo of tonlath

The punishment for criminal conspiracy is more severe if the agreement is one to commit a serious offence and less severe otherwise. [Section 120B]

Question.13: What is ‘criminal misappropriation’ and what are the various provisions against it as contained in the IPC? Answer:

Criminal Misappropriation of Property

Example –

A comes across a movable property belonging to a friend. Thinking that he has his friend’s consent to take the property, he keeps it with himself. A is not guilty of theft; but if A, after discovering his mistake, sells or hides the property for his own use, he is guilty of an offence under this section.

Misappropriation here has the element of dishonesty, hence punishable under this Section. Property could be movable property of any description, even money or negotiable instruments. It has the following ingredients –

The accused misappropriated property and kept it for his own use.
He did so dishonestly.
The property in question is movable; and
The property belonged to the complainant.

Section 403 makes this offence non-cognizable and bailable. Such an offence would be compoundable with the permission of the court and triable by any Magistrate.

Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death (Section 404)

Whoever takes a deceased person’s property dishonestly, for his own use, is said to have committed this offence. The punishment for this is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and also with fine, and if the offender at the time of such person’s death was employed by him as a clerk or servant, the imprisonment may
extend to seven years.

Example –

When a servant’s employer dies, leaving behind property which has yet to legally come into someone’s hands, and the servant dishonestly misappropriates it, we can say that he has committed the offence defined in this section.

Question.14: Explain the concept of ‘Criminal Breach of Trust’ and its essential ingredients.
Answer:

Section 405 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deal with

Criminal Breach of trust.

Criminal breach of trust If a person wrongfully appropriates another person’s property dishonestly, or disposes of that property illegally, violating the prescriptions of law, he can be said to have committed a “criminal breach of trust”. [Section 405)]

Punishment for criminal breach of trust. (Section 406)

Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Essential Ingredients

The essential ingredients of the offence of criminal breach of trust are as under –

The accused must be entrusted with the property or have control over it,
The person so entrusted must use that property for his own use or dispose of it illegally, or;
The accused must violate,
- Directions of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or;
- Of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust.

In the case of V.R. Dalal v. Yugendra Naranji Thakkar, the Supreme Court of India held that the first ingredient of criminal breach of trust is entrustment and where it is missing, it would not be a criminal breach of trust.

Breach of trust might be treated as a civil wrong but when it becomes a case of mens rea, it gives rise to criminal liability also.

The Supreme Court in Onkar Nath Mishra v. State held that in the commission of offence of criminal breach of trust, there are two elements –

Creation of an obligation in relation to property over which control is acquired by the accused.
Misappropriation or dishonest dealing with the property, contrary to the terms of the obligation.

After analyzing all the cases we may conclude that for an offence to be punishable under this Section the following four requirements are essential-

There is a fiduciary relationship between the person handing over the property and the person who is taking the property so as to create a position of trust.
The accused must have control over the property.
The term property includes both movable as well as immovable property.
The accused should have put the property to his own use or to some unauthorized use.

Question.15: What are the various categories of a criminal breach of trust? Answer:

Criminal breach of trust by carrier (Section 407)

This Section is applicable to a carrier, wharfinger or warehouse-keeper who commits a criminal breach of trust in respect of property. Such a person shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant (Section 408)

When a person employed as a clerk or servant and entrusted in such capacity with some property commits criminal breach of trust in relation to that property, he shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and also with fine.

Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent (Section 409)

When a person employed as a public servant and entrusted in such capacity or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, with some property commits criminal breach of trust in relation to that property, he shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

In the case of Girish Saini v. State of Rajasthan, a public servant was accused of neither depositing nor making entries of stationery required for official purpose. Accused public servant was in charge of the store in the concerned department at the time of the wrongdoing, hence it could be said that he was in a position of trust.

Therefore, the accused was held guilty of committing criminal breach of trust under this Section.

Question.16: What are the essential ingredients and types of ‘cheating’?
Answer:

The main ingredients of cheating are as under –

Deception caused to another.
Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person –
- to deliver any property to self or any other person; or
- to consent that any such person shall retain such property.
Intentionally causing a person to do or omit to do anything which he ( would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

The Supreme Court in Iridium India Telecom Ltd. v. Motorola Incorporated and Ors., said that the complainant must prove that inducement has been caused by deception of the accused.

Non-disclosure of relevant information was also held to be misrepresentation of facts leading to deception. debuer

Cheating by personation

As per section 416 if a person pretends to be someone else or someone other than who he actually is, he is said to be committing the crime of “cheating by personation”.amos mid yd be

Explanation to the Section-The offence is committed whether the individual personated is a real or imaginary person.

Illustration
A has a name similar to a banker; he uses it to make people believe that he is that banker and swindles people out of their savings. This is a crime under
this Section.

Punishment for cheating

This is given under Section 417 that provides that whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person whose interest offender is bound to protect

Anyone who cheats another whose interests he was to protect under law or under a contract shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Punishment for cheating by personation

Section 419 states that whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property

Anyone who causes deception to another, thereby causing that other to deliver property that ought not to have been delivered to him shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Question.17: Explain the concept of ‘defamation’ and the exceptions to it.
Answer:

The concept of ‘defamation’

Defamation – Defamation is saying false things about another in order to malign that other. The things said can be by way of oral means or by written or even pictographic means. It can also be published, i.e. it can be communicated to some person other than the person it is about.

Section 499 provides that whoever causes harm to another’s reputation by way of written or said word is said to have committed the crime of defamation.

The explanations to the Section are also relevant

Explanation 1. It will count as defamation if anything is said about a deceased that hurts his family or close relatives.

Explanation 2. It will count as defamation if anything is said about a company or an association or collection of persons.

Explanation 3.- An assertion in the form of an alternative opinion or even something said ironically may also amount to defamation.

Explanation 4.- An imputation can be said to harm a person’s reputation if it directly or indirectly lowers the moral or intellectual character of a person or of his caste or of his calling, or the credit of that person in the eyes of others, or causes others to believe that the body of that person is in a disgusting or disgraceful state.

Exceptions

Assertion of truth required to be made for public betterment.
Opinion regarding the conduct or character of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions,
Opinion regarding the conduct of a person on a
Publication of reports of court proceedings.
Expression in good faith of opinion regarding the merits of a civil or criminal case decided by a Court, or regarding the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent in such case.
Opinion as to the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or regarding the character of the author as it appears in such performance.
Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another by contract or otherwise.
Accusation preferred in good faith to the legally authorised person
Accusation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s interests.
Warning intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public ine good

Punishment for defamation

As per Section 500 the punishment for defamation is simple imprisonment for a term of two years, or with fine, or with both.

Question.18: What are the defences an accused under IPC can raise?
Answer:

The defences an accused under IPC can raise

The general exceptions are contained in Sections 76 to 106 of the IPC. The common factor in all these exceptions to criminal liability there will be the absence of mens rea on the part of the accused.

The burden of proof lies on the accused, when preferring general defense in a criminal case, as per Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The exceptions are as under –

Mistake of Fact: If any one commits any act which he is legally bound to do or mistakenly believes in good faith that he is bound to do it, he is not guilty. Such a mistake or ignorance must be of fact, but not of law. [Section 76]

Act of Judge when acting judicially: Any judge acting in his legal capacity and within his authority and in good faith, no offence is made under this Act. [Section 77]

Act done pursuant to the judgment or order of Court: When any act is done on the order of a Court, it does not constitute an offence even if such order is without any jurisdiction, and even though the person who executes the judgment and order believes that the Court had the relevant jurisdiction. [Section 78]

Mistake of Fact: If a person commits any act justified by law or by reason of mistake of fact and not by reason of mistake of law believes
himself to be justified by law, he is exempt. [Section 79]ti Walt

Accident in doing a lawful act: If anyone commits an offence by accident or mistake, without a malafide intention, he commits no offence. [Section 80]

Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm: Any act done by anyone without any criminal intent for saving or preventing harm to third person or to his property is no offence. It should be done with a good intention and with no ulterior motive. [Section 81]

Act of a child under seven years of age: If any child who is below seven years of age commits an offence he is not deemed to be guilty because it is the presumption of law that a child below 7 years of age is incapable to having a criminal intention that is a prerequisite to the commission of a crime. [Section 82]

Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding: If any minor/child is of 7-12 years of age, he is deemed no to have gained an understanding of what is right or wrong, and hence, 1ed is not liable to be convicted and punished. [Section 83]

Act of a person of unsound mind: Nothing done by any person of unsound mind is an offence if at the time of commission of the act, he was incapable of judging its legality.[Section 84]

Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will: Nothing done by a person who was incapable of knowing the nature of the act, if, at the time of doing it, he was under the effect of intoxication, provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will. [Section 85]

Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated: If the accused himself takes and consumes the intoxicating material with full knowledge or intention and under its effects commits any offence, he is liable for punishment. [Section 86]

Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent: When anyone commits any act without any intention of causing death or grievous harm to any person who is more than eighteen years of age and has consented to take the risk of that harm, the person doing the act has committed no offence. [Section 87]

Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person’s benefit: No act is an offence if it causes harm or fatal injury to another when there was no such intention to cause it.

Such act should 191 have been done by the doer believing it to be beneficial to another, and 100 should be done in good faith, and that other should have given free consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm. [Section 88]

On consent of guardian if any act is done in good faith to it: This section gives power to the guardian of a child under 12 years of age or a person of unsound mind to consent to an act done by a third person for the benefit of the child or a person of unsound mind.

Anything so done by the third person will not be an offence provided that it is done in good faith and for the benefit of the child or a person of unsound mind. [Section 89]

Consent: Consent obtained under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact is not valid. Consent is also not valid if given by a person who, from unsoundness of mind, or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his 10 consent.

The consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of in exceptional circumstances.[Section 90].

Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent: Nothing done in good faith constitutes an offence, even if it may cause harm to a person for whose benefit it is done, even if it without that person’s consent if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to indicate consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent. [Section 92]

Communication made in good faith: No communication made in good faith is an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is that person. [Section 93]

Act to which a person is compelled by threats: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threat or apprehension of death. [Section 94]

Act causing slight harm: Nothing that is known to cause any harm is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause the harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense or prudence would complain of such harm. [Section 95].

Question.19: Comment on dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of property to prevent distribution among creditors.
Answer:

This is contained in Section 421 of the Act. This Section provides that if a person “dishonestly or fraudulently removes, conceals or delivers to any person, or transfers or causes to be transferred to any person, without adequate consideration, any property, intending thereby to prevent, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby prevent, the distribution of that property according to law among his creditors or the creditors of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

In the case of Ramautar Chaukhany v Hari Ram Todi & another, it was determined by the Guwahati High Court that for an offence to be deemed to have occurred under this Section, the following ingredients are needed:

The removal, concealment, delivery or transfer of the property to someone by the accused;
The transfer should be without adequate consideration;
The main intention of the accused was to prevent the distribution of that property amongst his creditors or creditors of another person, as per law.
He should have acted dishonestly and fraudulently.

Question.20: What does the Act provide for dishonestly or fraudulently preventing debt being available for creditors?
Answer:

The provisions for this are made in Section 422 of the Act. It says that any person who, with a malicious intent, prevents any debt or demand due to himself or to any other person from being made available for payment of his lawful debts or the debts of such other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

The intention of the debtor here is to deliberately ‘mask’ or hide his property either by conversion or fraudulent transfer, thereby ensuring that the creditors are not able to make their recoveries from such property.

‘Debt’ here carries the meaning as defined in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax v G.D. Naidu, where it was held that the essential ingredients of debt are

The amount should be ascertained or ascertainable,
It should be an absolute liability – present or future, but not doubtful, and
The obligation should be accrued and subsisting.

Question.21: What are the provisions for dishonest or fraudulent execution of deed of transfer containing false statement of consideration?
Answer:

Section 423 of the Act says that if anyone “dishonestly or fraudulently signs, executes or becomes a party to any deed or instrument which purports to transfer or subject to any charge on property, or any interest therein, and which contains any false statement relating to the consideration for such transfer or charge, or relating to the person or persons for whose use or benefit it is really intended to operate, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

This Section is concerned mainly with deceptive and fictitious conversions of properties and their transfers to defraud the other party. The chief requirement of an offence under this Section is that the sale deed or a deed creating a liability or charge on an immovable property must necessarily contain a false statement relating to the consideration or relating to the
transferee or beneficiary for whose benefit the transfer is so made.

Question.22: What constitutes an offence for dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of property?
Answer:

This is covered in Section 424 of the Act. The Section says that if any person “dishonestly or fraudulently conceals or removes any property of himself or any other person, or dishonestly or fraudulently assists in the concealment or removal thereof, or dishonestly releases any demand or claim to which he is entitled, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Hence, the Section punishes any fraudulent suppression or hiding of property, so that it may not be recovered or discovered and put to legal use. The Section requires the following ingredients for it to be operational

There should be a property;
Concealed, suppressed or removed by the accused or by his assistance;
And that the act done was done dishonestly or fraudulently. Or,
A demand or claim was due to the accused;
That was released by the accused;
With a dishonest or fraudulent intention (Section 424).

CS Executive JIGL – Indian Penal Code 1860 Question and Answers