IPC

Chanderprabhu Jain College of Higher Studies & School of Law
Plot No. OCF, Sector A-8, Narela, New Delhi – 110040
(Affiliated to Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University and Approved by Govt of NCT of Delhi & Bar Council of India)
Semester: THIRD SEMESTER
Name of the Subject:
IPC -205
IPC LAWS IN INDIA

Many prominent jurists have made attempts to define Crime.
1. Sir William Blackstone
In his 'Commentaries on Law of England', Sir William Blackstone defined
Crime as "an act committed or omitted in violation of Public Law forbidding or
commanding it".
2. Sir James Stephen
"Crime is an act forbidden by law and revolting to the moral sentiments of the
society".
3. Kenny
"Crimes are wrongs whose sanction is punitive and in no way remissible by an
private person, but is remissble by the Crown alone, if remissible at all"
4. Stephen
"Crime is an act which is forbidden by law and revolting to the moral
sentiments of the society".
5. Paul W. Tappen
"An intentional act or omission in violation of criminal law, committed, without
defense or justification and sanctioned by law as felony or misdemeanor."

CRIME
A crime is a wrongdoing classified by the state or Congress
as a felony or misdemeanor.
A crime is an offence against a public law. This word, in its
most general sense, includes all offences, but in its more
limited sense is confined to felony.
The term offence may be considered as having the same
meaning, but is usually understood to be a crime not
indictable but punishable, summarily or by the forfeiture of a
penalty.

Crimes are defined and punished by statutes
and by the common law. Most common law
offences are as well known and as precisely
ascertained as those which are defined by
statutes; yet, from the difficulty of exactly
defining and describing every act which ought
to be punished, the vital and preserving
principle has been adopted; that all immoral
acts which tend to the prejudice of the
community are punishable by courts of justice.

Crimes are 'mala in se,' or bad in themselves, and these
include all offences against the moral law; or they are 'mala
prohibita,' bad because prohibited, as being against sound
policy which, unless prohibited, would be innocent or
indifferent. Crimes may be classed into such as affect:
Religion And Public Worship: 1. Blasphemy. 2. Disturbing
public worship.
The Sovereign Power: 1. Treason. 2. Misprision of treason.
The Current Coin: 1. Counterfeiting or impairing it.

Public justice: 1. Bribery of judges or jurors, or
receiving the bribe. 2. Perjury. 3. Prison
breaking. 4. Rescue. 5. Barratry. 6.
Maintenance. 7. Champerty. 8. Compounding
felonies. 9. Misprision of felonies. 10.
Oppression. 11. Extortion. 12. Suppressing
evidence. 13. Negligence or misconduct in
inferior officers. 14. Obstructing legal process.
15. Embracery.

Public Peace: 1. Challenges to fight a duel. 2. Riots, routs and
unlawful assemblies. 3. Affrays. 4. Libels.
- Public Trade: 1. Cheats. 2. Forestalling. S. Rerating. 4.
Engrossing. 5. Monopolies.
- 7. Chastity: 1. Sodomy. 2. Adultery. 3. Incest. 4. Bigamy. 5.
Fornication.
- Decency And Morality: 1. Public indecency. 2.
Drunkenness. 3. Violating the grave.
- Public Police And Economy: 1. Common nuisances. 2.
Keeping disorderly houses and bawdy houses. 3. Idleness,
vagrancy, and beggary.
- Public Policy: 1. Gambling. 2. Illegal lotteries.

1. Individuals: 1. Homicide, which is justifiable, excusable or
felonious. 3. Mayhem. 3. Rape. 4. Poisoning, with intent to
murder. 5. Administering drugs to a woman quick with child to
cause, miscarriage. 6. Concealing death of bastard child. 7.
Assault and battery, which is either simple or with intent to
commit some other crime. 8. kidnapping. 9. False
imprisonment. 10. Abduction.
Private Property: 1. Burglary. 2. Arson. 3. Robbery. 4.,
Forgery. Counterfeiting. 6. Larceny. 7. Receiving stolen goods,
knowing them to have been stolen, or theft-bote. 8. Malicious
mischief.
The Public, Individuals, Or Their Property, According To The
Intent Of The Criminal: 1. Conspiracy.

Fundamental Elements Of
Crime: There are four elements which
go to constitute a crime, these are:-
· Human being
· Mens rea or guilty intention
· Actus reus or illegal act or omission
· Injury to another human being

There are Four stages in commission
of a Crime.
A.Intention
B.Preparation
C.Implementation
D.Accompolishment

UNIT - II
Abuse of the Right of
Private Defence

Right of self defense revolves around the general adage that “necessity
knows no law” and “it is the primary duty of man to first help himself”. The
right of self-preservation is inherent in every person but to achieve that end
nothing could be done which militates against the right of another person.
The Supreme Court in a case held that right of private defense given by the
Penal Code was essentially one of defense or self-protection and not a right
of reprisal or punishment. That right was subject to the restrictions indicated
in Section 99, which were as important as the right itself. One of them was
that harm inflicted in self-defence should be no more than that was
legitimately necessary for the purpose of defence. Further, the right was co-
terminus with the commencement and existence of a reasonable
apprehension of danger to body from an attempt or a threat to commit the
offence as stated in Section 102 of IPC.

This right proves to be a shield against the evil elements of
the society but the problematic area regarding it is what if
this shield will be used a sword. The right of private
defence is subject to certain restrictions, first one is that
harm inflicted in self-defence must be no more than is
legitimately necessary for the purpose of defence an
important modification in this restrictions is earlier the main
focus was on the weapon used but now the focus is on the
part of the body which is attacked therefore in DeoNarain’s
Case it has been held that the accused was justified in using
his spear though the other party had aimed only a lathi blow
on the head, which being a vulnerable part even a lathi blow
can prove to be dangerous

In Hamsa v. State of Kerela, the deceased who
was the aggressor hit the head of the father of the
accused hard by the stick. The father summoned
for help and the accused to deter the victim gave
him a stab wound with an ordinary knife. Till
this time the accused was well within the ambit
of self-defence. But, when the accused stabbed
him again, he exceeded the right of self defence
and his intention to save transformed into
intention to kill.

Also as according to Section 97 this right vests
even in strangers for the defence of the body and
property of others. As Bentham said: “It is a noble
movement of the heart, that indignation which
kindles at the sight of the feeble injured by the
strong. It is noble movement which makes us forget
our danger at the first cry of distress…. It concerns
the public safety that every honest man should
consider himself as the natural protector of every
other.”

In a very recent judgment of Darshan Singh vs State Of Punjab
, A dispute arose in a family. Deceased Gurcharan Singh was
the brother of Bakhtawar Singh and uncle of Darshan Singh.
The appellant Darshan Singh fired only after the serious incised
wound by a Gandasa was inflicted on his father Bakhtawar
Singh and at that time in order to save his life he fired 2 shots
which hit the deceased Gurcharan Singh leading to his death.
The trial court after marshalling the entire evidence came to the
conclusion that, the probabilities of the case are much more in
favour of the defence than in favour of the prosecution. The
possibility of the injuries having been caused to Gurcharan
Singh by Darshan Singh in exercise of private defence cannot
be ruled out.

This proposition of law in itself is
contradictory to the basic
philosophical justification of the right
to self-defence. This right has been
granted to protect oneself from any
harm which is probable to be inflicted
by a person but how is it justified to
kill the other for the same.

Biggest lacuna of Section 100 of Indian Penal
Code is that it makes it clear that Right of
private defence can also be claimed against
unarmed assailant also, therefore the accused
has a proper justification even if he has given
a perfect shape to his criminal intent. Such an
extended ambit makes it a little unjustifiable
but every coin has two sides and this provision
also has its merits attached to it.

Thus the right of private defence is beyond doubt necessary but
it is not a necessary evil. For Pollock observes:
It would be a grave mistake to regard self-defence as a necessary
evil suffered by the law because of the hardness of men’s hearts.
The right is a just and perfect one. To “repel force by force” , as
already stated, is the common instinct of every creature that has
means of defence. And when the original force is unlawful, this
natural right or power of man is allowed, nay approved by the
law. Sudden and strong resistance to unrighteous attack is not
merely a thing to be tolerated; in many eases it is a moral

David M. Walker gave a more descriptive account of self-defence
by saying:
“It is permissible to cause harm or even death in order to defend
oneself or another person from unlawful violence, provided that the
person causing the harm or death did what he could to avoid the
violence, as by retreating where possible, and inflicts to greater
injury than he, in good faith and on reasonable grounds, believes to
be necessary to protect himself or the other. If the defence is made
out, the accused escape liability entirely, the injury or death being
justified, if not he may be guilty of assault, or even murder. The
defence of his own life, but extends to defence against rape,
possibly against sodomy, and defence of another whom one
reasonably should protect, such as a child.”

Self-Preservation and Self-defence Self-defence is based
upon the concept of self-preservation. Self preservation is the
natural instinct in every living creature. It was employed
against forces-natural and physical and self-defence is used
only against man made calamities. It is found both in human
beings and animals. It is based on the struggle for existence.
We eat, drink and breathe to sustain and preserve ourselves.
Once a living creature is assured of self-preservation within
the environment surrounding it, there are still a number of
forces both physical and natural against which it has to
combat to exist, and the right of private defence is
contemplated to meet one of those situation. Thus, the
necessity of self-preservation gives birth to the notion of self
defence.

Hale observed that if a person killing was attacked in a
manner which was imminently dangerous to life or if a
violent felonious attack was made on a person or property,
the killing was justifiable on the principle of self defence. It
is only just that one, who is unlawfully attacked by another
and who has no opportunity to resort to the law for his
defence, should be able to take reasonable steps to defend
himself from physical harm. When the steps taken by him
were reasonable he had a complete defence to such crimes
against the person as murder and man slaughter. His
intentional infliction of physical harm upon the other, or his
threat to inflict such harm, was said to be justified when he
acted in self-defence, so that he was not guilty of any crime

We think it right, however to say that there is no part of
the code with which we feel less satisfied than this. We
cannot accuse ourselves of any want of diligence or
care. No portion of our work has caused us more
anxious thought or has been more frequently rewritten.
Yet we are compelled to hold that we leave it still in a
very imperfect state; and though we do not doubt that it
may be far better executed than it has been by us, we are
inclined to think that it must always be one of the least
exact parts of every system of criminal law.

A reasonable apprehension of death or
serious bodily injury justifies the taking of
life. The justification of taking life,
according to Edward Miron Dange
depends upon
(i) the actor’s honest belief that he is in
danger, and
(ii) (ii) such belief is reasonable warranted
by the conduct of the victim and the
surrounding circumstances

In George Dominic Vareky v. State of Kerala, it
was held by the Supreme Court that the right of
private defence rests on following ideas: (i) there
must be no use of more harm inflicted than is
necessary for the purpose of defence; (ii) there
must be reasonable apprehension of danger to the
body from the attempt or threat to commit some
offence and (iii) right does not com in to existence
commence until there is a reasonable apprehension
of danger.

UNIT - III
CRIMINAL
CONSPIRACY

In English law, "if two or more
persons agree together to do
something contrary to law, or wrongful
and harmful towards another person,
or to use unlawful means in the
carrying out of an object not otherwise
unlawful, the persons wh o so agree
commit the crime of conspiracy."

In Mulcahy v. R.the Hous e of Lords stated, "A
conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two
or more but in the agreement of two or more to do an
unlawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a
design rests in intention only it is only indictable.
When two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is
an act in itself and the act of each of the parties
promise against promise actus contra actum capable of
being enforced if lawful, punishable if for a criminal
object or for the use of criminal means."

Glanville Williams writes: If the mere
intention of one person to commit a crime is
not criminal, why should the agreement of two
people to do it make it criminal? The only
possible reply is that the law (or, if you prefer,
the Establishment) is fearful of numbers, and
that the act of agreeing to offend is regarded as
such a decisive step as to justify its own
criminal sanction.

Section 120-A defines criminal conspiracy and
S. 120-B provides the punishment for it. Ss.
120-A & 120-B apply only where there is a
conspiracy between two or more persons, i.e., an
agreement or meeting of the minds between
them to do an act. The definition of criminal
conspiracy in S. 120-A has been taken from
Lord Brampton who defined conspiracy

In Lennart v. Director of Enforcement the Supreme Court observed:" The
first of the offence defined in S. 120-A, penal code, which is itself
punishable as a substantive offence is the very agreement between two or
more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or a legal act by
illegal means subject, however, to the proviso that where the agreement is
not an agreement to commit an offence the agreement does not amount to
a conspiracy unless it is followed up by an overt act done by one or more
persons in pursuance of such an agreement. There must be a meeting of
the minds in the doing of an illegal act or the doing of a legal act by
illegal means. If in the furtherance of the conspiracy certain persons are
induced to do an unlawful act without the knowledge of the conspiracy or
the plot, they cannot be held to be conspirators though they may be guilty
of an offence pertaining to the specific unlawful act. The offence of
conspiracy is complete when two or more conspirators have agreed or
cause to be done an act which is itself an offence, in which case no overt
act need be established.

In Mohd. Khalid v. State of W.B. and Davender Pal
Singh v. State of NCT of Delhi, the Supreme Court
after referring to the American and the English legal
position on the law of conspiracy summarized the
broad essential elements of conspiracy thus:a (a) an
object to be accompanied; (b) a plan or scheme
embodying means to accomplish that object; (c) an
agreement or understanding between two or more
accused persons whereby, they become definitely
committed to corporate for the accomplishment of the
object by the means embodied in the agreement, or by
any effectual means; and (d) in the jurisdiction where
the statute requires, an overt act.

In State of Maharashtra v. Somnath Thapa Supreme Court
explained the ingredients of conspiracy and observed:[T]o
establish a charge of conspiracy, knowledge about indulgence in
either an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means is necessary. In
some cases intent of unlawful use being made of the goods or
services in question may be inferred from the knowledge itself...
Finally when the ultimate offence consists of a chain of actions, it
would not be necessary for the prosecution to establish, to bring
home the charge of conspiracy, that each of the conspirators had
to know of what the collaborator would do, so long as it is known
that the collaborator would put the goods or services to an
unlawful use.

It is necessary that they should agree for a design
or object of the conspiracy. Conspiracy is
conceived as having three elements;
(1)agreement;
(2) between two or more persons by whom the
agreement is effected; and
(3) a criminal object, which may be either the
ultimate aim of the agreement, or may constitute
the means, or one of the means by which that aim
is to be accomplished. It is immaterial whether
this is found in the ultimate objects

In State(Delhi Admn) v. V.C.Shuklathe court observed:
[I]n order to prove a criminal conspiracy which is
punishable under S. 120-B of IPC, there must be direct or
circumstantial evidence to show that there was an
agreement between two or more persons to commit an
offence. This clearly envisages that there must be meeting
of minds resulting in an ultimate decision taken by the
conspirators regarding the commission of an offence. It is
true that in most cases it will be difficult to get direct
evidence of an agreement to conspire but a conspiracy
can be inferred even from circumstances giving rise to a
conclusive or irresistible inference of an agreement
between two or more persons to commit an offence

T h e essential ingredient of the offence of the conspiracy y
is the agreement to commit an offence. In a case where e
the agreement is for accomplishment of an act which by
itself constitutes an offence, then in that event n o overt act
is necessary to be proved by the prosecution because in
such a situation, criminal l conspiracy is established by
proven g such an agreement. A criminal conspiracy may
persist as long as the persons in agreement continue to act
in pursuance of the agreement. The conspiracy can be
terminated either by abandonment, accomplishment or
detection and resultant rout by law enforcement. It is a
continuing offence.

UNIT - IV
Capital punsihment

MEANING OF CAPITAL PUNISHMENT Capital
punishment, also called death penalty, execution of an
offender sentenced to death after conviction by a court
of law for a criminal offense. Capital punishment should
be distinguished from extrajudicial executions carried
out without due process of law. The term death penalty
is sometimes used interchangeably with capital
punishment, though imposition of the penalty is not
always followed by execution (even when it is upheld
on appeal), because of the possibility of commutation to
life imprisonment

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Capital punishment is an
ancient sanction. There is practically no country in the
world where the death penalty has never existed. History of
human civilization reveals that during no period of time
capital punishment has been discarded as a mode of
punishment5 . Capital punishment for murder, treason,
arson, and rape was widely employed in ancient Greece
under the laws of Draco (fl. 7th century BCE), though Plato
argued that it should be used only for the incorrigible. The
Romans also used it for a wide range of offenses, though
citizens were exempted for a short time during the republic

For offences where the death penalty was
an option, Section 367(5) of the CrPC 1898
required courts to record reasons where the
court decided not to impose a sentence of
death: If the accused is convicted of an
offence punishable with death, and the court
sentences him to any punishment other than
death, the court shall in its judgment state
the reason why sentence of death was not
passed.

The Code of Criminal Procedure was re-
enacted in 1973 (‘CrPC’), and several changes
were made, notably to Section 354(3): When
the conviction is for an offence punishable with
death or, in the alternative, with imprisonment
for life or imprisonment for a term of years, the
judgment shall state the reasons for the
sentence awarded, and, in the case of sentence
of death, the special reasons for such sentence.

These amendments also introduced the
possibility of a post-conviction hearing on
sentence, including the death sentence, in
Section 235(2), which states: If the accused
is convicted, the Judge shall, unless he
proceeds in accordance with the provisions
of section 360, hear the accused on the
question of sentence, and then pass sentence
on him according to law

Criteria for Rarest of Rare The principles as to what would constitute the “rarest
of rare” has been laid down by the top Court in the landmark judgment in
Bachan Singh vs State of Punjab (1980)
Supreme Court formulated certain broad illustrative guidelines and said it
should be given only when the option of awarding the sentence of life
imprisonment is “unquestionably foreclosed”. It was left completely upon the
court’s discretion to reach this conclusion. However, the apex court also laid
down the principle of weighing, aggravating and mitigating circumstances. A
balance-sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in a particular case
has to be drawn to ascertain whether justice will not be done if any
punishment less than the death sentence is awarded. Two prime questions, the
top court held, may be asked and answered. First, is there something
uncommon about the crime which renders the sentence of imprisonment for
life inadequate and calls for a death sentence? Second, are there circumstances
of the crime such that there is no alternative but to impose the death sentence
even after according maximum weight age to the mitigating circumstances
which speak in favour of the offenders

CLEMENCY POWERS If the Supreme Court
turns down the appeal against capital
punishment, a condemned prisoner can submit a
mercy petition to the President of India and the
Governor of the State. Under Articles 72 and
161 of the Constitution, the President and
Governors, respectively have the power “to
grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions
of punishment or to suspend, remit or commute
the sentence of any person convicted of any
offence

JUDICIAL REVIEW OF EXERCISE OF MERCY POWERS The
Supreme Court in Shatrughan Chauhan case has recorded that the Home
Ministry considers the following factors while deciding mercy petitions:
a) Personality of the accused (such as age, sex or mental deficiency) or
circumstances of the case (such as provocation or similar justification); b)
Cases in which the appellate Court expressed doubt as to the reliability of
evidence but has nevertheless decided on conviction; c) Cases where it is
alleged that fresh evidence is obtainable mainly with a view to see
whether fresh enquiry is justified; d) Where the High Court on appeal
reversed acquittal or on an appeal enhanced the sentence; e) Is there any
difference of opinion in the Bench of High Court Judges necessitating
reference to a larger Bench; f) Consideration of evidence in fixation of
responsibility in gang murder case; g) Long delays in investigation and
trial etc

Swamy Shraddhanand case laid the foundation of this emerging penal option in following
terms: “The matter may be looked at from a slightly different angle. The issue of
sentencing has two aspects. A sentence may be excessive and unduly harsh or it may be
highly disproportionately inadequate. When an appellant comes to this Court carrying a
death sentence awarded by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court, this Court may
find, as in the present appeal, that the case just falls short of the rarest of the rare category
and may feel somewhat reluctant in endorsing the death sentence. But at the same time,
having regard to the nature of the crime, the Court may strongly feel that a sentence of life
imprisonment subject to remission normally works out to a term of 14 years would be
grossly disproportionate and inadequate. What then should the Court do? If the Court's
option is limited only to two punishments, one a sentence of imprisonment, for all intents
and purposes, of not more than 14 years and the other death, the Court may feel tempted
and find itself nudged into endorsing the death penalty. Such a course would indeed be
disastrous. A far more just, reasonable and proper course would be to expand the options
and to take over what, as a matter of fact, lawfully belongs to the Court i.e. the vast hiatus
between 14 years' imprisonment and death. It needs to be emphasized that the Court would
take recourse to the expanded option primarily because in the facts of the case, the
sentence of 14 years' imprisonment would amount to no punishment at all.

LAW COMMISSION OF INDIA's REPORT ON
DEATH PENALTY The Law Commission of
India in its 262nd Report (August 2015)
recommended that death penalty be abolished for
all crimes other than terrorism related offences
and waging war. Complete recommendations of
the Report are as follows: The Commission
recommended that measures suggested that police
reforms, witness protection scheme and victim
compensation scheme should be taken up
expeditiously by the government.

Although there is no valid penological justification for
treating terrorism differently from other crimes, concern
is often raised that abolition of death penalty for
terrorism-related offences and waging war, will affect
national security. However, given the concerns raised by
the law makers, the Commission did not see any reason
to wait any longer to take the first step towards abolition
of the death penalty for all offences other than terrorism
related offences.

The Commission accordingly
recommended that the death penalty
be abolished for all crimes other than
terrorism related offences and waging
war. Further, the Commission
sincerely hopes that the movement
towards absolute abolition will be
swift and irreversible

THANK YOU

IPC

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to IPC

Similar to IPC (20)

More from cpjcollege

More from cpjcollege (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

IPC