GFYFYU

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
BY- SHRI BISWARANJAN ROUT
ASST. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (CADRE)
BHUBANESWAR

2.  Crime
a) Case Laws
b) Elements
c) Examples
 Historical
Backdrop

4.  What is a crime: Let us analyze few examples
1. R Vs. Prince :–
 Facts – Defendant was convicted for taking a 14-year-old
unmarried girl out of the possession and without the consent
of her parents. At trial, the jury found that although the girl
was 14 at the time, she had told Defendant and he had
reasonably believed that she was 18. The statute he was
convicted under was silent as to the mental state required to
make the act a crime. Defendant appeals.
 Held – No. Conviction affirmed. Mistake of fact does not
stand as a defense to a crime where the statute making the
act a crime contains no requirement of knowledge of that fact
to begin with. In this case the forbidden act is wrong in itself
and the legislature has enacted that if anyone does this act,
he does so at his own risk.

5. 2. The Queen Vs. Tolson – Does second marriage on a
reasonable beliefof death of the husband amounts to bigamy
on his return?
Facts – The appellant and defendant were married in
September 1880. The appellant went missing as the ship he
was in had got lost into the sea in December 1881. The
defendant waited for six years for her husband (the
appellant) with the hope that he shall return. Eventually,
believing her husband to be dead, the defendant remarries.
Eleven months later the appellant returned and on the
knowledge of the remarriage of his wife (the defendant) he
filed the appeal of bigamy against her.
Held – The appeal court said that despite the absence of
words such as “knowingly committing bigamy” or
“intentionally committing bigamy”, which would have
excused her, Ms. Tolson was saved in this situation by an
old common law rule. An “honest and reasonable belief” in
the existence of circumstances that, if true, would make the
accused’s acts innocent, was a proper defense, the court
ruled.

6. 3. R. Vs. Dudley and Stephens.
Facts – The two defendants and a boy between the ages of
seventeen and eighteen were cast away in an open boat at
sea following a storm. The boat drifted in the ocean and was
considered to be more than one thousand miles from land.
After seven days without food and five without water, S
suggested that lots should be drawn with the loser being
put to death to provide food for the remaining two.
Subsequently however, D and S colluded to the extent that
the boy should be killed so that they could survive. On the
twentieth day, with the agreement of S, D killed the boy and
both the defendants ate him for the following four days until
rescue. It was argued that the defendants believed that in
the circumstances they would die unless the boy was killed.

7. Decision/Outcome – The defence of necessity was not
available as a defence to murder on these facts. It is not
possible to justify the killing of one individual in order to save
the life of another on the basis that the killing is necessary to
do so. Although the judgment is generally accepted and
followed (see Buckole v Greater London Council [1971] Ch
655), the judgment implies that the jury’s finding that there
was no greater justification for killing the boy than for any of
the castaways, suggests that the unavailability of the defence
may have resulted from the collusion between the
defendants.

8. Law
Definition
Object
Law has created certain rights & duties for the
citizens

10. crime
Definition – Crime has not been defined any where under
IPC. But it has been defined differently by different jurists at
different time. Few definitions are given below:-
 John Austin defines crime as: “A wrong which is pursued by
the Sovereign or his subordinate is a crime (public wrong). A
wrong which is pursued at the discretion of the injured party
and his representatives is a civil wrong (private wrong)”.
 Prof. Kenny defined crime as: “Crimes are wrongs whose
sanction is punitive, and is in no way remissible by any
private person, but is remissible by the crown alone, if
remissible at all.”
 Russell, in his classic work, On Crimes says that crime is the
result of human conduct which the penal policy of the state
seeks o prevent.

11. IPC
1. History – Warren Hasting made demand for U.P. Code in
India.
 1883 – Magna Carta of IPC as Uniform Penal Code made
appeal to India.
 1834 – 1st Law Commission Constitute
 Lord Thomas Bobbington Macaulay was the Chairman
2. Architect – Oldest law

12. Thank you