Indian Penal Code in India

LAW OF CRIMESLAW OF CRIMES

ByBy
Dr.P.R.L.RAJAVENKATESANDr.P.R.L.RAJAVENKATESAN
Assistant Professor(Senior)Assistant Professor(Senior)
VIT Law SchoolVIT Law School
ChennaiChennai

INDIAN PENAL CODEINDIAN PENAL CODE
 Sec.1. Title and extent of operation of the CodeSec.1. Title and extent of operation of the Code
 Sec.2.Punishment of offences committed withinSec.2.Punishment of offences committed within
IndiaIndia
 Mobarak Ali v. State of Bombay,AIR 1957 SCMobarak Ali v. State of Bombay,AIR 1957 SC
857857
 Pakistani citizen staying at karachi made flasePakistani citizen staying at karachi made flase
representation and instructed to give money torepresentation and instructed to give money to
his agents for the purpose of importing tohis agents for the purpose of importing to
India . Actually rice did not supplied.India . Actually rice did not supplied.

 Art.361 of the Constitution of IndiaArt.361 of the Constitution of India
 ““no criminal proceedings shall be institutedno criminal proceedings shall be instituted
against the president or governor of a state , inagainst the president or governor of a state , in
any court during his term of office”any court during his term of office”
 Statham v. Statham and the Gaekwad ofStatham v. Statham and the Gaekwad of
Baroda,(1912) IA 92.Baroda,(1912) IA 92.
 head of the state enjoyed all the attributes ofhead of the state enjoyed all the attributes of
sovereignty and so could not be prosecuted onsovereignty and so could not be prosecuted on
criminal charge of adultery.criminal charge of adultery.

 Section.3.Punishment of offences committedSection.3.Punishment of offences committed
beyond, but which by law may be tried withinbeyond, but which by law may be tried within
,India. Extra territorial operation of the code.,India. Extra territorial operation of the code.
 Sec.4.Extension of the code to extra territorialSec.4.Extension of the code to extra territorial
jurisdictionjurisdiction

Admiralty JurisdictionAdmiralty Jurisdiction


Indian Penal CodeIndian Penal Code
 Sec.5.Certain Laws not to be affected by thisSec.5.Certain Laws not to be affected by this
Act.Act.
 Punishing mutiny and desertion ofPunishing mutiny and desertion of
officers,soldiers,sailors or airman in the serviceofficers,soldiers,sailors or airman in the service
of the government of india or the provision ofof the government of india or the provision of
any special or local law.any special or local law.
 Special law-Applicable to a particular part ofSpecial law-Applicable to a particular part of
indiaindia
 Local law-Particular part of indiaLocal law-Particular part of india
 Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes ActMaharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act

General ExplanationsGeneral Explanations
 Sec.19.Judge: Person who is officiallySec.19.Judge: Person who is officially
designated as judge,designated as judge,
 JudgementJudgement
 CollectorCollector
 MagistrateMagistrate
 Member of PanchayatMember of Panchayat
 A magistrate exercising jurisdiction in respect ofA magistrate exercising jurisdiction in respect of
a charge on which he has power only to commita charge on which he has power only to commit
for trail to another court , is not a judgefor trail to another court , is not a judge

 Abboy Naidu v Kannianppa Chettiar ,AIR 1929Abboy Naidu v Kannianppa Chettiar ,AIR 1929
Mad 175.Mad 175.
 The Madras High Court has defined the termThe Madras High Court has defined the term
‘legal proceeding’ as a proceeding regulated or‘legal proceeding’ as a proceeding regulated or
prescribed by law in which a judicial decision isprescribed by law in which a judicial decision is
accorded.accorded.

 Sec.20. “Court of Justice”Sec.20. “Court of Justice”
 Denote a judge who is empowered by law to actDenote a judge who is empowered by law to act
judicially alone, or a body of judges which isjudicially alone, or a body of judges which is
empowered by law to act judicially as a body, whenempowered by law to act judicially as a body, when
such judge or body of judges is acting judicially.such judge or body of judges is acting judicially.
 King palaceKing palace
 Court means a place where justice is judiciallyCourt means a place where justice is judicially
administeredadministered
 When a judge is merely performing administrativeWhen a judge is merely performing administrative
function he is not a court of justicefunction he is not a court of justice

 Section.22. “Movable property”Section.22. “Movable property”
 The word movable property are intended toThe word movable property are intended to
include corporeal property of every description ,include corporeal property of every description ,
except land and things attached to the earth orexcept land and things attached to the earth or
permanently fastened to anything which ispermanently fastened to anything which is
attached to earth.attached to earth.

 Sec.23. “Wrongful gain” is gain by unlawfulSec.23. “Wrongful gain” is gain by unlawful
means of property to which the person gainingmeans of property to which the person gaining
is not legally entitled.is not legally entitled.
 ““Wrongful loss” is the loss by unlawful meansWrongful loss” is the loss by unlawful means
of property to which the person losing it isof property to which the person losing it is
legally entitled.legally entitled.



General ExplanationGeneral Explanation

 Sec.24.Dishonestly- Whoever does anythingSec.24.Dishonestly- Whoever does anything
with the intention ofwith the intention of causing wrongful gaincausing wrongful gain toto
one person orone person or wrongful loss to another personwrongful loss to another person,,
is said to do that thing “dishonestly”.is said to do that thing “dishonestly”.

 Sec.25. Fraudulently- A person is said to do aSec.25. Fraudulently- A person is said to do a
thing fraudulently if he does that thing withthing fraudulently if he does that thing with
intent tointent to defrauddefraud but not otherwise.but not otherwise.
 There can be no fraud unless there was anThere can be no fraud unless there was an
intention tointention to defraud.defraud.
 Dr.Vimala v. Delhi AdministrationDr.Vimala v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1963, AIR 1963
SC 1572SC 1572
 Defraud involves two elements, namely,deceitDefraud involves two elements, namely,deceit
and injury.and injury.

 Dr.S.Dutt v. State of Uttar PradeshDr.S.Dutt v. State of Uttar Pradesh,1966 Cr LJ,1966 Cr LJ
459 (SC)459 (SC)
 The supreme court said that a person is said toThe supreme court said that a person is said to
do a thingdo a thing fraudulentlyfraudulently , if he does that thing, if he does that thing
with intent to defraud and not otherwise.with intent to defraud and not otherwise.
 Secs.242-43-counterfeit coinsSecs.242-43-counterfeit coins
 Secs.463 to 464: Offences relating toSecs.463 to 464: Offences relating to
Documents and property marks includingDocuments and property marks including
electronic records.electronic records.

PRINCIPLES OF PENAL LAWPRINCIPLES OF PENAL LAW
 Nulla Poena Sine Lege-NoNulla Poena Sine Lege-No
Penalty(Punishment) without law.Penalty(Punishment) without law.
 Nullum Crimen Sine Lege-No crime withoutNullum Crimen Sine Lege-No crime without
law.law.
 Mens Rea-Guilty Mind.Mens Rea-Guilty Mind.
 Intentionally,volutarily ,willfully , KnowinglyIntentionally,volutarily ,willfully , Knowingly
 Ravule Hariprasada Rao v.StateRavule Hariprasada Rao v.State,(1951) SCR 322.,(1951) SCR 322.
 Men’s Rea-NecessaryMen’s Rea-Necessary

PRINCIPLES OF PENAL LAWPRINCIPLES OF PENAL LAW
 Ranjit D Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra,Ranjit D Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra,AIRAIR
1965 SC 881.1965 SC 881.
 Person prosecuted under section 292 of IPCPerson prosecuted under section 292 of IPC
 Selling a book by the name Lady Chatterley’sSelling a book by the name Lady Chatterley’s
LoverLover
 Men’s reaMen’s rea

IntentionIntention
 Intention is the state of mindIntention is the state of mind
 Wrongdoer intent to commit actWrongdoer intent to commit act
 Sec.39.Sec.39. “Voluntarily”-“Voluntarily”- A person is said to causeA person is said to cause
an effect “voluntarily” when he causes it byan effect “voluntarily” when he causes it by
means whereby he intended to cause it , or bymeans whereby he intended to cause it , or by
means which, at the time of employing thosemeans which, at the time of employing those
means, he knew or had reason to believe to bemeans, he knew or had reason to believe to be
likely to cause it.likely to cause it.

MOTIVEMOTIVE
 Motive means ulterior intent or inner driveMotive means ulterior intent or inner drive
which signifies the reason for a man’s conduct.which signifies the reason for a man’s conduct.
 Chief moving force and moves the manChief moving force and moves the man
towards a particular actiontowards a particular action
 Motive of the person doing the act isMotive of the person doing the act is
immaterial.immaterial.
 if it is lawful act, ill motive might be, he hasif it is lawful act, ill motive might be, he has
right to do it. If its an unlawful act, howeverright to do it. If its an unlawful act, however
good motive might be, he would have no rightgood motive might be, he would have no right
to do it. Motive and intention in such ato do it. Motive and intention in such a
question is absolutely irrelevantquestion is absolutely irrelevant

Intention and MotiveIntention and Motive
 Sec.298 of the IPCSec.298 of the IPC
 Uttering of words or making gestures orUttering of words or making gestures or
exhibitions with deliberate intent to wound theexhibitions with deliberate intent to wound the
religious feeling punishablereligious feeling punishable. The words. The words
deliberate intention meandeliberate intention mean premeditated intentionpremeditated intention
to wound the religious feelings.to wound the religious feelings.
 Intention is theIntention is the aim of the actaim of the act..
 Motive is theMotive is the reason for the action.reason for the action.

KNOWLEDGEKNOWLEDGE
 Knowledge is an awareness of theKnowledge is an awareness of the
consequences of the act.consequences of the act.
 Jai Prakash v Delhi AdministrationJai Prakash v Delhi Administration (1991) 2(1991) 2
SCC 32,1991 (1) SCALE 114.SCC 32,1991 (1) SCALE 114.
 Knowledge is premised on knowledge of theKnowledge is premised on knowledge of the
facts and circumstances and the effects of one’sfacts and circumstances and the effects of one’s
conduct.conduct.

NegligenceNegligence
 Mens rea is not a unitary concept.Mens rea is not a unitary concept.
 A person is negligent if he fails to exercise suchA person is negligent if he fails to exercise such
care ,skill or foresight as a reasonable man in hiscare ,skill or foresight as a reasonable man in his
situation would exercise.situation would exercise.
 Strictly speaking negligence may not be a formStrictly speaking negligence may not be a form
of mens rea.of mens rea.

TADATADA
 State of Tamil Nadu v NaliniState of Tamil Nadu v Nalini AIR 1999 SCAIR 1999 SC
26402640
 Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention)
ActAct,1987,1987
 There was no evidence to establish that it wasThere was no evidence to establish that it was
the intention of the accused to strike terror.the intention of the accused to strike terror.

Burden of ProofBurden of Proof
 Every person accused of a crime is presumedEvery person accused of a crime is presumed
to be innocent , unless and until proved guilty byto be innocent , unless and until proved guilty by
the prosecution.the prosecution.
 Mens rea is an exception with regard to publicMens rea is an exception with regard to public
welfare legislation.welfare legislation.
 SC and STSC and ST
 Nathulal v State of Madhya PradeshNathulal v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1966AIR 1966
SC 43SC 43
 Mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminalMens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal
offence…(U)nless the statute expressly or byoffence…(U)nless the statute expressly or by
necessary implication excluded mens rea.necessary implication excluded mens rea.

 Sec.26.Reason to believe- A person is said toSec.26.Reason to believe- A person is said to
have reason to believe a thing, if he hashave reason to believe a thing, if he has
sufficient cause to believe that thing but notsufficient cause to believe that thing but not
otherwise.otherwise.
 Sec.28.CounterfeitSec.28.Counterfeit
 Causing one thing to resemble to another thingCausing one thing to resemble to another thing
 Sec.29.DocumentSec.29.Document
 Cheque, Power of attorneyCheque, Power of attorney
 direction and instructiondirection and instruction

 Sec.29 A. Electronic record.Sec.29 A. Electronic record.
 Sec.30.Valuable security-passport,bank accountsSec.30.Valuable security-passport,bank accounts
 lottery ticketlottery ticket
 Sec.31.willSec.31.will

 Sec.34.Sec.34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance ofActs done by several persons in furtherance of
common intention.common intention. – When a criminal act is done by– When a criminal act is done by
several persons in furtherance of the common intentionseveral persons in furtherance of the common intention
of all , each of such persons is liable for that act in theof all , each of such persons is liable for that act in the
same manner assame manner as if it were done by him alone.if it were done by him alone.
 Sec.120 A and 121 A- Charged of a criminal conspiracySec.120 A and 121 A- Charged of a criminal conspiracy
 Sec.396.Commission of dacoity commit murder.Sec.396.Commission of dacoity commit murder.
 Sec.460. Where persons are jointly concerned inSec.460. Where persons are jointly concerned in
committing the offence of lurking house-tresspass orcommitting the offence of lurking house-tresspass or
house breaking by night.house breaking by night.

 Reg v. CruseReg v. Cruse 1838 C& P 5411838 C& P 541
 A police constable along with his assistantsA police constable along with his assistants
went to A’s house in order to arrest him.went to A’s house in order to arrest him.
 Group attackedGroup attacked

Case LawCase Law
 Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King EmperorBarendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor AIRAIR
1925 PC 11925 PC 1
 The accused was the only person apprehendedThe accused was the only person apprehended
for the murder of the Postmaster offor the murder of the Postmaster of
Shankaritola Post Office on 3 August 1923. OnShankaritola Post Office on 3 August 1923. On
that day, several person appeared at the door ofthat day, several person appeared at the door of
the backroom of the Post Office where the postthe backroom of the Post Office where the post
master was counting his money and demandedmaster was counting his money and demanded
the money. They fired pistols at him and he diedthe money. They fired pistols at him and he died
almost immediately.almost immediately.

Case LawCase Law
 Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King EmperorBarendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor AIRAIR
1925 PC 11925 PC 1
 While all the accused fled the place withoutWhile all the accused fled the place without
taking any money, the accused,Barendra Kumar,taking any money, the accused,Barendra Kumar,
alone was chased and caught by the Post Officealone was chased and caught by the Post Office
Assistants with a pistol in Hand. It was hisAssistants with a pistol in Hand. It was his
defense that he was only standing guard outsidedefense that he was only standing guard outside
the Post Office, and that he was actuallythe Post Office, and that he was actually
compelled to stand so by the other accused andcompelled to stand so by the other accused and
thus he did not have the intention to kill thethus he did not have the intention to kill the
Postmaster. His conviction was confirmed.Postmaster. His conviction was confirmed.

 Mahboob Shah v. EmperorMahboob Shah v. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 118.AIR 1945 PC 118.
 Allah Dad , the deceased , and a few othersAllah Dad , the deceased , and a few others
were going to the Indus river in a native boat towere going to the Indus river in a native boat to
cut and collect reeds on the banks of the river.cut and collect reeds on the banks of the river.
When they had travelled a mile downstream ,When they had travelled a mile downstream ,
they saw mohammad shah and shah warnedthey saw mohammad shah and shah warned
them collecting reeds from land belonging tothem collecting reeds from land belonging to
them.them.
 Trial court -7 yearsTrial court -7 years
 Lahore High Court-convicted for murderLahore High Court-convicted for murder
 Privy Council-No pre arranged plan.Privy Council-No pre arranged plan.

COMMON INTENTIONCOMMON INTENTION
 The Common intention should be shown to beThe Common intention should be shown to be
premeditated.premeditated.
 Proof of common intention will rarely beProof of common intention will rarely be
availableavailable directly. It has to bedirectly. It has to be culled outculled out fromfrom
the facts and circumstances of the case.the facts and circumstances of the case.
 Unless common intention is proved, individualUnless common intention is proved, individual
offenders will be liable only for their individualoffenders will be liable only for their individual
acts.acts.

 Kripal Singh v. State of Uttar PradeshKripal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1954AIR 1954
SC 706SC 706
 The Supreme Court held that a commonThe Supreme Court held that a common
intention may develop on the spot after theintention may develop on the spot after the
offender have gathered there. A previous plan isoffender have gathered there. A previous plan is
not necessary. Common intention can benot necessary. Common intention can be
inferred from theinferred from the conduct of the accusedconduct of the accused andand
the circumstances of the case.the circumstances of the case.

 Sheoram Singh v. State of Uttar PradeshSheoram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIRAIR
1972 SC 25551972 SC 2555
 The supreme court held that common intentionThe supreme court held that common intention
may develop suddenly during the course of anmay develop suddenly during the course of an
occurrence , but still unless there isoccurrence , but still unless there is cogentcogent
evidenceevidence and clear proof of such commonand clear proof of such common
intention , an accused cannot be vicariously heldintention , an accused cannot be vicariously held
guilty under section 34 of IPC.guilty under section 34 of IPC.

Case LawCase Law
 Nadodi Jayaraman v. State of Tamil NaduNadodi Jayaraman v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR, AIR
1993 SC 7771993 SC 777
 The SC held that in cases where large numberThe SC held that in cases where large number
of persons are involved and in the commotion,of persons are involved and in the commotion,
injuries were caused to the prosecutioninjuries were caused to the prosecution
witnesses , it becomes the duty of the court towitnesses , it becomes the duty of the court to
determine the common intention which coulddetermine the common intention which could
be attributed to those accused who standbe attributed to those accused who stand
convicted , where some of the co-accused areconvicted , where some of the co-accused are
acquired.acquired.

Case LawCase Law
 Nadodi Jayaraman v. State of Tamil NaduNadodi Jayaraman v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR, AIR
1993 SC 7771993 SC 777
 In this regard nature of the weapon used, theIn this regard nature of the weapon used, the
nature of the incident, the background to thenature of the incident, the background to the
incident should be properly considered to helpincident should be properly considered to help
determine common intention.determine common intention.
 The common intention had not beenThe common intention had not been
established beyond doubt and Five of the co-established beyond doubt and Five of the co-
accused had been acquitted.accused had been acquitted.
 Below 2 person-No common intention.Below 2 person-No common intention.

VICARIOUS LIABILITYVICARIOUS LIABILITY
 Liabilities for the offences done by othersLiabilities for the offences done by others
 The Protection of Civil Rights Act,1955The Protection of Civil Rights Act,1955
 The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled TribesThe Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.
 Provide for collective fines.Provide for collective fines.
 Libel-PublicationLibel-Publication
 Nuisance committed by his servantNuisance committed by his servant
 Qui facit per alium facit per se-Qui facit per alium facit per se-(he who acts(he who acts
through another acts through himself)through another acts through himself)

Liability under StatuteLiability under Statute
 Sarjoo Prasad v. State of Uttar PradeshSarjoo Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIRAIR
1961 SC 6311961 SC 631
 The Appellant who was an employee , wasThe Appellant who was an employee , was
convicted under the Prevention of Foodconvicted under the Prevention of Food
Adulteration Act 1954 for the master in sellingAdulteration Act 1954 for the master in selling
adulterated oil.adulterated oil.
 Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat & OrsMaksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat & Ors (2008)(2008)
5 SCC 668.5 SCC 668.
 No person can be vicariously liable if aNo person can be vicariously liable if a
provision to this effect does not exist in theprovision to this effect does not exist in the
statute concerned.statute concerned.

LicenseesLicensees
 Emperor v. Mahadevappa HanmantappaEmperor v. Mahadevappa Hanmantappa AIRAIR
1927 Bom 2091927 Bom 209
 Accused held a licence under the IndianAccused held a licence under the Indian
Explosives Act 1884 to manufactureExplosives Act 1884 to manufacture
gunpowder.gunpowder.
 Servant manufactured partly in house.Servant manufactured partly in house.
 The accused was held liable for the same, inThe accused was held liable for the same, in
view of the fact that what the servant did was inview of the fact that what the servant did was in
furtherance of her master’s business and not infurtherance of her master’s business and not in
pursuance of anypursuance of any purpose of her own.purpose of her own.

RIOTRIOT
 Secs.154 and 155 of the Indian Penal CodeSecs.154 and 155 of the Indian Penal Code
 Sec.154- whenever any unlawful assembly orSec.154- whenever any unlawful assembly or
riot takes place in the land of any person , theriot takes place in the land of any person , the
owner or occupier of the land, or any personowner or occupier of the land, or any person
having orhaving or claiming any interest in the landclaiming any interest in the land isis
criminally liable.criminally liable.
 Owner liable in case of fail to use all lawfulOwner liable in case of fail to use all lawful
means to prevent ,disperse or suppress the riotmeans to prevent ,disperse or suppress the riot
or unlawfully assembly.or unlawfully assembly.
 One thousand rupees as fineOne thousand rupees as fine

RIOTRIOT
 Sec.155 – Person who has derived any benefitSec.155 – Person who has derived any benefit
from the riots or for whose benefit it has beenfrom the riots or for whose benefit it has been
carried out, is madecarried out, is made criminally liablecriminally liable..
 Punishment is left to decision of the court andPunishment is left to decision of the court and
fine depending on the facts and circumstancesfine depending on the facts and circumstances
of the case in question.of the case in question.
 Respondent Superior- Master criminally liableRespondent Superior- Master criminally liable
for the act or omission of his servant.for the act or omission of his servant.
 The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954
 The Standards of Weights and Measures ActThe Standards of Weights and Measures Act
19561956
 Master liable even without mens rea.Master liable even without mens rea.

CorporationCorporation
 General rule corporation can not be prosecuted.General rule corporation can not be prosecuted.
 Now-Board of Directors are theNow-Board of Directors are the brains of thebrains of the
companycompany which is the body , and the companywhich is the body , and the company
can and does act only through them.can and does act only through them.
 The person who was directing mind and will ofThe person who was directing mind and will of
corporation can be held liable.corporation can be held liable.
 State of Maharashtra v. Syndicate TransportState of Maharashtra v. Syndicate Transport
Company Ltd AIR 194 Bom 195.Company Ltd AIR 194 Bom 195.

CorporationCorporation
 The Essential Commodities Act,1955The Essential Commodities Act,1955
 The prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954The prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954
 The Negotiable Instruments Act,1881The Negotiable Instruments Act,1881
 The Environment (Protection) Act,1986The Environment (Protection) Act,1986
 Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board v. ModiUttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board v. Modi
DistilleryDistillery , AIR 1988 SC 1128., AIR 1988 SC 1128.
 Accused has to prove that the offence wasAccused has to prove that the offence was
committed without his knowledge or that hecommitted without his knowledge or that he
exercisedexercised due diligencedue diligence to prevent theto prevent the
commission of the offence.commission of the offence.

Strict LiabilityStrict Liability
 Mens rea applies to all criminal offences isMens rea applies to all criminal offences is
subject to certain exceptions.subject to certain exceptions.
 Social and economic offences, offences relatingSocial and economic offences, offences relating
toto food and drugs, weights and measuresfood and drugs, weights and measures..
 Public Nuisance, libel and contempt of courtPublic Nuisance, libel and contempt of court
 cases of violations of municipal laws andcases of violations of municipal laws and
regulations.regulations.
 Professor Jerome Hall has preferred to callProfessor Jerome Hall has preferred to call
strict liability offences as offences relating tostrict liability offences as offences relating to
economic laweconomic law or administrative regulations ,or administrative regulations ,
instead of penal offences.instead of penal offences.

 There are certain wrongs that may fall under theThere are certain wrongs that may fall under the
category of tort as well as crime, such ascategory of tort as well as crime, such as
deceit,trespass,maliciousprosecution,defamation,deceit,trespass,maliciousprosecution,defamation,
nuisance etcnuisance etc
 Doctrine of Double JeopardyDoctrine of Double Jeopardy
 Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State ofSangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of
GujaratGujarat AIR 2012 SC 2844AIR 2012 SC 2844
 Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881
 Secs.406 and 420 read with section 114 of IPCSecs.406 and 420 read with section 114 of IPC
 Sec.114. Abettor present when offence isSec.114. Abettor present when offence is
committed.committed.

Joint LiabilityJoint Liability
 A crime may be committed by an individual orA crime may be committed by an individual or
in collaboration with others.in collaboration with others.
 English Law- 1.Principle in the First DegreeEnglish Law- 1.Principle in the First Degree
 2.Principal in the Second Degree2.Principal in the Second Degree
 3.Accessory Before the fact(Commission of3.Accessory Before the fact(Commission of
Crime)Crime)
 4. Accessory after the fact4. Accessory after the fact

 An abettor is a person who directly or indirectlyAn abettor is a person who directly or indirectly
aids,assists,counsels,procures or encouragesaids,assists,counsels,procures or encourages
another to commit a crime.another to commit a crime.
 The Indian Penal Code 1860.ss.The Indian Penal Code 1860.ss.
130,136,157,201,212 and 216.130,136,157,201,212 and 216.
 The IPC has made aiding escape of, rescuing orThe IPC has made aiding escape of, rescuing or
harboring an offender, a deserter etc,punishable.harboring an offender, a deserter etc,punishable.

 Sec.130- Aiding escape of, rescuing or harbouring suchSec.130- Aiding escape of, rescuing or harbouring such
prisoner.prisoner.
 Sec.136.Harbouring deserter-Harbouring soldierSec.136.Harbouring deserter-Harbouring soldier
 It is not applicable to the cases where the harbour isIt is not applicable to the cases where the harbour is
given by a wife to her husband.given by a wife to her husband.
 Sec.157.Harbouring persons hired for an unlawfulSec.157.Harbouring persons hired for an unlawful
assemblyassembly
 Sec.201. Causing disappearance of evidence ofSec.201. Causing disappearance of evidence of
offence , or giving false information to screen offender.offence , or giving false information to screen offender.
 Sec.212.Harbouring offender- Sec.52.A.Harbour.NotSec.212.Harbouring offender- Sec.52.A.Harbour.Not
only hiding but food, clothing and other amenities.only hiding but food, clothing and other amenities.
 Sec.216.Harbouring offender who has escaped fromSec.216.Harbouring offender who has escaped from
custody or whose apprehension has been ordered.custody or whose apprehension has been ordered.

 Sections. 34 to 38 of IPC- Where the offence isSections. 34 to 38 of IPC- Where the offence is
committed with the common intention of thecommitted with the common intention of the
group.group.
 Sections.120 A and 120 B-Where the accused isSections.120 A and 120 B-Where the accused is
a member of a conspiracy to commit an offence.a member of a conspiracy to commit an offence.
 Section.149.Where the offence is committedSection.149.Where the offence is committed
with the common object of an unlawfulwith the common object of an unlawful
assembly.assembly.

PUNISHMENTPUNISHMENT
 Sanction imposed on an accused by a court ofSanction imposed on an accused by a court of
law for violation of the rules and regulations oflaw for violation of the rules and regulations of
society according to norms and establishedsociety according to norms and established
procedures of law.procedures of law.
 CHAPTER-III of the Indian Penal Code 1860CHAPTER-III of the Indian Penal Code 1860
(ss 53 to 75) has laid down the general(ss 53 to 75) has laid down the general
provisions relating to theprovisions relating to the punishments.punishments.

FIVE TYPES OFFIVE TYPES OF
PUNISHMENTSPUNISHMENTS
 Death Sentence-(Judicial Murder & JudgeDeath Sentence-(Judicial Murder & Judge
Centric)Centric)
 Imprisonment for LifeImprisonment for Life
 Imprisonment with or without hard labourImprisonment with or without hard labour
 Forfeiture of PropertyForfeiture of Property
 FineFine
 Sec.64 of IPC. Fine has been provided as theSec.64 of IPC. Fine has been provided as the
only punishment for minor offences as anonly punishment for minor offences as an
alternative to imprisonmentalternative to imprisonment

Death Sentence and IPCDeath Sentence and IPC
 Sec.121.Waging or attempting to wage war orSec.121.Waging or attempting to wage war or
abetting waging of war against the Governmentabetting waging of war against the Government
of India.of India.
 Sec.132.Abeting mutiny, if committed inSec.132.Abeting mutiny, if committed in
consequence thereof.consequence thereof.
 Sec.194.Giving or fabricating false evidenceSec.194.Giving or fabricating false evidence
upon which an innocent person suffers death.upon which an innocent person suffers death.
 Sec.302. MurderSec.302. Murder

Death Sentence and IPCDeath Sentence and IPC
 Sec.305.Abetment of suicide of a minor orSec.305.Abetment of suicide of a minor or
insane or intoxicated person who commitsinsane or intoxicated person who commits
suicide in consequences thereof.suicide in consequences thereof.
 Sec.307.Attempt to murder by life convict ifSec.307.Attempt to murder by life convict if
hurt is caused.hurt is caused.
 Sec.364.A.Kidnapping for ransom.Sec.364.A.Kidnapping for ransom.

Commutation of Death SentenceCommutation of Death Sentence
 Sections.54 and 55 of IPC empowers theSections.54 and 55 of IPC empowers the
appropriate government.appropriate government.
 Sections.432 to 434 of Cr.PC to commute ,Sections.432 to 434 of Cr.PC to commute ,
(suspend or substitute) the sentence of death to(suspend or substitute) the sentence of death to
any other punishment. The government mayany other punishment. The government may
exercise the powers on its own initiative withoutexercise the powers on its own initiative without
any prayer to that effect by the accused.any prayer to that effect by the accused.

Imprisonment for LifeImprisonment for Life
 State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh AIRState of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh AIR
1976 SC 15521976 SC 1552
 Imprisonment of life technically means aImprisonment of life technically means a
sentence of imprisonment running throughoutsentence of imprisonment running throughout
the remaining period of a convict’s natural life.the remaining period of a convict’s natural life.
 KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra AIR 1962KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra AIR 1962
SC 605SC 605
 Sentence of imprisonment in case of charge ofSentence of imprisonment in case of charge of
murder means rigorous imprisonment for life ,murder means rigorous imprisonment for life ,
and not for simple imprisonment.and not for simple imprisonment.

Imprisonment for LifeImprisonment for Life
 As per section 57, IPC for the purpose ofAs per section 57, IPC for the purpose of
calculating remission , a life sentence is treatedcalculating remission , a life sentence is treated
as a sentence of 20 years.as a sentence of 20 years.
 Section 55,which is a supplement to s 54 of IPCSection 55,which is a supplement to s 54 of IPC
empowers the appropriate government toempowers the appropriate government to
commute the sentence of imprisonment for lifecommute the sentence of imprisonment for life
to imprisonment of either description for a termto imprisonment of either description for a term
not exceeding 14 years.not exceeding 14 years.
 Executive in natureExecutive in nature

Case LawCase Law
 TV Vatheeswaran v State of Tamil Nadu AIRTV Vatheeswaran v State of Tamil Nadu AIR
1983 SC 3611983 SC 361
 Since more than two years has passed from theSince more than two years has passed from the
time the petitioners had been sentenced to deathtime the petitioners had been sentenced to death
by the trial court , they are entitled to demandby the trial court , they are entitled to demand
that the said sentence should be quashed, andthat the said sentence should be quashed, and
substituted by the sentence of life imprisonment.substituted by the sentence of life imprisonment.
 Courts are to dispense justice, not to dispenseCourts are to dispense justice, not to dispense
with justice.with justice.

Case LawCase Law
 Muthuramalingam v. State Rep by Inspector ofMuthuramalingam v. State Rep by Inspector of
Police, Criminal Appeal No.233/2009Police, Criminal Appeal No.233/2009
 The Court said that the logic behind lifeThe Court said that the logic behind life
sentences not running consecutively lies in thesentences not running consecutively lies in the
fact that imprisonment for life impliesfact that imprisonment for life implies
imprisonment till the end of the normal life ofimprisonment till the end of the normal life of
the convictthe convict

Indian Penal Code in India

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Indian Penal Code in India

Similar to Indian Penal Code in India (20)

More from VIT LAW SCHOOL,CHENNAI

More from VIT LAW SCHOOL,CHENNAI (6)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Indian Penal Code in India