Law of Crimes important topics given in short

Important topics of IPC

1. Indian Penal Code TYBLS / FYLLB – SEMESTER VI

2. What is crime ? “Crime is what society says is crime by saying that an act is in violation of criminal law. Without law there can be no crime at all although there maybe moral indignation which results in law being enacted.” – Terrence Morris The concept of crime has always been dependent on public opinion of the time. Law is a command requiring a course of conduct by all members of society and is backed by a sanction

3. Crime maybe defined as both forbidden by law and also against the moral sentiments of a society. But MORALS ARE RELATIVE, AND MORALITY IS RELATIVE changing with societies and the times. Eg . SATI, ADULTERY, LIVE INS, HOMOSEXUALITY Joseph Shine Vs. UOI On 27th September 2018, a five-judge Bench unanimously  struck down  Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), thereby decriminalising adultery. It struck down  Section 497 IPC  on the grounds that it violates Articles  14 ,  15  and  21  of the Constitution. The Bench held that the section is an archaic and paternalistic law, which infringes upon a woman's autonomy and dignity. The Bench also read down Section 198 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code ( CrPC ).  198(2) CrPC  specifies that only a husband can file charges for offences under Section 497.

4. Navtej Singh Jauhar Vs UOI https:// globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu /cases/ navtej - singh - johar -v-union- india / Distinction between civil and criminal wrong Crime does not only affect the happiness of an individual but also of others. A civil wrong is limited to the individual Blackstone calls crimes a public wrong and and civil injuries as private wrongs. A criminal is treated more seriously with repurcussions raging from death to imprisonment, in case a civil ojuries paying of damages is the main aim.

5. They are dealt with by separate courts In criminal acts the intent matters in civil wrongs the intent does not matter. ELEMENTS OF CRIME A human being under a legal obligation to act in a particular way and a fit subject for the infliction of appropriate punishment. An evil intent on the part of such a human being. An act committed or ommited in furtherance of such an intent An injury to another human being or to society at large by such an act.

6. Human Being – Act by a person who understands good bad. Animals accused in the past however ancient hindu jurisprudence never put on trial as they lacked evil intention. Mens Rea Actus Non Facit Nisi Mens sit rea – The Act itself does not make the person guilty unless his intentions were so. Actus me invito factus non est mens actus - An act done by me against my will is not my act at all. Words denoting mens rea are corruptly, malignantly and maliciously, dishonestly, rashly and negligently.

7. Two types of cases where mens rea maybe exempted 1) Where the act with their consequences are so harmful that it is believed expedient to give punishment irrespective of intention eg . Waging war, sedition, kidnapping. 2) Act is of such character that there is a presumption of intention eg . Counterfeiting of coins Actus Reus Evil Intention is not enough an act has to be committed or omitted . “Injury” The word “injury” denotes any harm whatever ille­gally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or proper­ty. – S 44.

8. Volition, Intention, Motive The wish which precedes an act is volition. INTENTION is the MEANS MOTIVE is the ulterior object. A steals food from a store because he is hungry. B kills C out of revenge. D abducts E for ransom.

9. THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT To inflict something ill or unpleasant as a response to a disapproved act by authority. Punishment is inflicted on the wrong doer or someone who is responsible for his wrong doings. DETERRANT THEORY An ancient form of punishment. Jeremy Bentham was the founder of this theory. This theory considers punishment a necessary evil. The deterrant theory seeks to create fear by providing exemplary punishment to offenders and keep them away from criminality

10. The rigour of punishment also deters and warns not only offenders but other commoners from committing crime. The theory does not work on hardened criminals as they return to crime even after punishment. Also crimes can be sudden and committed as an act of passion to which the deterrant theory is ineffective. It’s object is usually defeated. An archaich and old form of punishment. Eg . Salem witch hunting, public hanging and linching

11. RETRIBUTIVE THEORY Retributive theory is considered an end in itself. Based on the concept of “eye for an eye”. An ancient theory of punishment which believed that punishment would be justice. Eg . BOT, COMBAT The pain of punishment should outweigh the pleasure received from the crime. Emmanuel Kant – He believed that retribution ( veangance ) is a natural justification. This theory is based on animalistic instinct i.e. to retaliate when hurt.

12. Based on the equation crime(guilt) + punishment = innocence PREVENTIVE THEORY Based on the philosophy “ not to avenge crime but to prevent it” Fitche “ when a landowner puts up a notice ‘ trespassers will be prosecuted’ he does not want an actual trespasser and to have the trouble and expense of setting the law into motion against him. He hopes that the threat will render an action unnecessary his aim is not to punish trespass but to prevent it .” Prisons were an outcome of preventive theory. Eg . Mutilation, amputation, imprisonment, hanging.

13. Reformative Theory Individualized treatment of offenders is the principle on which reformatic theory is based. Unlike other theories the aim of this theory is to bring about a change in the attitude of the criminal and rehabilitate them in society Punishment is used as a measure to reform him not to torture him. Its against corporal forms of punishments. It is a modern theory and favoured by penologists.

14. Useful for juveniles in conflict with laws, women and first time offenders. Does not work on habitual offenders. The theory believed that punishment is not an end it is a means of social security and rehabilitation of the offender in society KIRAN BEDI- for other prisoners, Bedi arranged vocational training with certificates, so that they could find a job after their release. During her tenure,  Indira Gandhi National Open University  and  National Open School  set up their centers inside the prison .  Legal cells were set up to help the undertrial .   Bedi banned smoking in the prison. The move faced a lot of resistance from the staff as well as the prisoners. She introduced yoga and  Vipassana meditation  classes to change the prisoners' attitudes. She organized additional activities such as sports, prayer, and festival celebrations. She also established a de-addiction center, and pulled up or imprisoned the staff members involved in drug supply. A bank was also opened inside the prison. A bakery and small manufacturing units, including carpentry and weaving units, were set up in the jail. The profits from the products sold were put into the prisoners' welfare fund . https:// timesofindia.indiatimes.com / india /Recruitment-drive-in-Tihar-jail-Inmate-offered-Rs-35000-per-month/ articleshow /34745638.cms

15. TYPES OF PUNISHMENT “ The risk of penalties is the cost of crime which the offender has to pay. When this cost is high enoughas compared with the benefit which the crime is expected to yeild , it will deter a considerable number of people.” Death Penalty Art. 21 – No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law. Principle – “ to be applied in rarest of the rare cases.”

16. Bachhan Singh Vs. State of Punjab Pre-requisites to be fulfilled for death penalty are: It shall be applicable only in the rarest of the rare cases. It shall follow section 354(3) and 235(2) CRPC which require the court to give reasons for awarding the death penalty and shall give a chance to the accused to be heard. Mandation to death penalty has been removed and the court has discretion to award either death penalty or life imprisonment. It is the judiciary that shall have the final say and not the legislation

17. Offences punishable with Death Penalty: Waging war against the state s. 121 Abetment of Mutiny Sec 132 Murder S. 302 Abetment to suicide committed to a child or insane person S 305 Attempt by life convict to murder S. 307 Kidnapping for Ransom S 364 A Dacoity with murder S. 396 Rape resulting in death, leaving rape victim in vegetative state and gang rape

18. Constiutionality of death sentence Bachhan Singh Vs. State of Punjab Hanging by Rope- Deena Vs. UOI PUBLIC HANGING DISAPPROVED Right against delayed execution – Triveni Ben Vs. State of Gujarat S 54 Commutation of Death sentence can be done by appropriate government S. 53 enlists the types of punishment levied on a person who commits an offence under IPC. LIFE IMPRISONMENT TERM TRANSPORTATION FOR LIFE to mean LIFE IMPRISONMENT

19. A life sentence can also be commuted but to serve a life sentence a minimum of 14 years has to be served. Also remittance of sentence requires to be given by the appropriate authority S57. in calculating fractions of life imprisonment it should be reckoned as 20 years of imprisonment https:// www.thehindu.com/news/national/Life-imprisonment-means-jail-term-for-entire-life-SC/article15619409.ece https:// blog.ipleaders.in /life-imprisonment-for-lifetime/ 51 sections under the IPC provide for life imprisonment. S433. Allows appropriate authority to commute death penalty to life imprisonment. In such cases life imprisonment is for life . However in certain cases the sentences can be remitted by the appropriate authority but a minimum of 14 years has to be served.

20. USA – SENTENCE CONTINUES THROUGHTOUT LIFE they also practise disproportionate sentencing. Eg . 300 years of imrprisonment . Howver after 10 years can be released on parole. Mexico term between 20 to 40 yrs Germany- min. 15 yrs subsequently can be granted parole. India indeterminate min. 14 years. Gopal Godse vs. state of Maharashtra Kartik Biswas Vs. UOI Jessicalal Murder Case Tandoor Killer Case aka Sushil Sharma Vs. State

21. SOLITARY CONFINEMENT Complete isolation of the prisoner. Kept in small cells without windows or light. Most often results in insanity or death United Nations declares prolonged solitary confinement as psychological torture. Considered preventive rather than reformative. Usually leads to increase in agression and ferocity.

22. The practice of solitary confinement traces its origins back to the 19th century when Quakers in Pennsylvania used this method as a substitution for public punishments. When the new prison discipline of separate confinement was introduced at the  Eastern State Penitentiary  in Philadelphia in 1829, commentators attributed the high rates of mental breakdown to the system of isolating prisoners in their cells.  Charles Dickens , who visited the Philadelphia Penitentiary during his travels to America, described the "slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body”. Neeraj Bawanas case

23. Mohammad Ahmed Khan’s case Forms of Torture restricted by the UN Indefinite Solitary Confinement Prolonged Solitary Confinement beyond 15 days Placemet of a prisoner in a dark cell. Solitary confinement to be used as a last resort and should be subject to review from independent authority . Should be prohibited for people with physical and mental disabilities.

24. SECTION 73 OF IPC TERM OF IMPRISONMENT DURATION OF SOLITARY CONFINEMENT UPTO 6 MONTHS 1 MONTH 6 MONTHS TO 1 YEAR 2 MONTHS ABOVE 1 YEAR 3 MONTHS SECTION 74 A MAXIMUM OF 14 DAYS IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT CAN BE GIVEN AT OE GO. A INTERVAL OF SAME PERIOD OF TIME IS REQUIRED. IN CASE THE IMPRISONMENT IS ABOVE 3 MONTHS. ONLY 7 DAYS PER MONTH CAN BE IN SOLITARY CONFINEMENT.

25. SIMPLE AND RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT SIMPLE -THERE IS AN OPTION TO OR LACK OF COERCION TO WORK. MOST OFTEN GIVEN WHEREVER FINE DOES NOT SUFFICE AND WHEN THE CONVICT IS A FIRST TIME OFFENDER OR COMMITTED A SMALLER CRIME CONVICTS CAN BE DIVIDED INTO SKILLED, UNSKILLED AND SEMI SKILLED

26. Labour could be divided into hard, medium and soft. Gender also plays a role. In simple labour is elective in rigorous it is mandatory. In both cases wages are given. https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/how-jails-pay-and-deduct-prisoners-wages-tihar-jail-delhi-high-court-5478731 /

27. GENERAL EXCEPTIONS MISTAKE OF FACT ( ACTS BOUND BY LAW) S. 76 R. VS. TOLSON S. 77 ACT OF JUDGE https://www.indialegallive.com/top-news-of-the-day/legal-eye-articles/judges-protection-high-court-president / ESSENTIALS NOTHING is an offence

28. Done by a judge acting in JUDICIAL capacity When exercising any power which he has OR Which he believes in GOOD FAITH is given to him by law. MEGH RAJ VS. ZAKIR. S . 78 ACT IN PERSUANCE TO JUDGEMENT OR ORDER The section gives immunity to the officers under the authority of the judiciary. ESSENTIALS Nothing done in PURSUANCE OR WARRANTED by a judgement or order of a court of Justice is an offence

29. When such order or judgment is in force. Whether or not the court has jurisdiction PROVIDED that such officer should believe that the court has jurisdiction.

30. Offence Committed by a Child Sec 82 when child below the age of 7 yrs. They are considered to be infants and therefore immune from punishment. It is considered a natural disability amongst to not be able to distinguish between good and evil. Based on the concept of doli incapax - deemed incapable of forming the intent to commit a crime or tort, especially by reason of age. Evidence of age is conclusive proof of immunity and innocence of the child.  

31. Sec 83. Child between 7-12 yrs of age. It is a section w hich provides qualified immunity. Such person is presumed to be Doli Capax . Thus burden of proof is on defence to establish s 83. Test of qualified The nature of the act done Subsequent conduct of the offender Demeanour and appearance of offender in court. Musammat Aimona

32. The judge has to establish under sec 83. “ quia malitia supplet actatem ” meaning malice makes up for age. Eg . Boy threatening with knife. Mariamutha

33. SEC 84 Unsound Mind R VS Arnold, 1724: Defendant was tried for wounding and making an attempt on the life of Lord Oslow . Held: If under “visitation of God a person is unable to decipher between good and evil he cannot be held guilty for the crime. Also Known as the wild beast test. Insane Delusion Test, 1800 Hadfield’s Case: Hadfield attempts to assasinate King George III. Under insane delusion which is of permanent nature that overpowers his general faculties. Thus not guilty. However it is mentioned that in some cases delusions can be momentary or not overpowering faculties and in that scenario such person is guilty.

34. M, Naghten’s Rules: M’ Naghten Tries to assisnate PM Robert Peel. He is under a delusion that RP will harm him. He mistakenly kills his Private Secretary Edward Drummond. He is held not guilty. Rules established under M’ Naghten’s Rules: Each person is presumed to be sane. If such person was aware that the act is something he ought not to do and also knows that it is contrary to law he is punishable. If the accused labours under some delusion such delusion should be considered real when levying responsibility on the accused. To establish the ground of insanity it must be clearly established that at the time of committing the crime he must be laboring under the disease of mind which renders him unable to understand what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law.

35. 5. A medical witness who has not seen the accused before the trial cannot be asked to give his opinion whether on evidence he thinks that the accused is punishable. Non compos Mentis means not to be in sane mind. Shrikant Anand Rao Bhosale Vs. State of Maharashtra. Idiot : Not sane by birth Lunatic : Person afflicted by mental disorder afflicted only at periodic intervals. Delerium Tremens caused by intoxification can give the benefit of section 84 if such person is unable to distinguish between right and wrong due to madness. S. K. Nair vs. State of Punjab – AT THE TIME OF DOING IT , LUCID INTERVAL - KHUKRI

36. Burden of Proof: When a person takes the plea of insanity under section 84 the burden of proving the same is on the accused at the time of commission of the offence. Such person need not prove beyond reasonable doubt. It is sufficient if his case is established from the circumstances that preceded, attended or followed the crime. Mere absence of motive does not amount to insanity. THE PLEA OF IRRESISTABLE IMPULSE: If A PERSON IS PROVED insane puts forward a plea of irresistible impulse he is excused not because the impulse was irresistible but because the disease had so far weakened his mind that he if resistance to impulse was weakened. Durhum Rule. This rule was first adopted by New Hampshire in 1871. It became more widespread after a 1954 U.S. Court of Appeals decision ( Durham v. United States ) in which the court found the existing tests for legal insanity inadequate. At the time, insanity was based on either the inability to know right from wrong or the inability to control impulses (also, both tests required a clinical diagnosis of insanity). The court decided that this approach failed to account for certain mentally defective individuals charged with crimes, suggesting the following test instead: The Durhum test means the simple fact that a person has a mental disease or defect is not enough to relieve him from responsibility for a crime there must be a causal relation between the crime and the disease for the exemption.

37. Defence of Intoxification S. 85 -86 Director Public prosecution Vs. Beard R vs. Meade. Northern Ireland Vs. Galagher

38. Harm caused out of consent S. 87 to 94 Volenti Non Fit Injuria means The one who voluntarily agrees to suffer harm is not allowed to complain. It means that there is no injury to any right when the owner of the right himself consents to the harm. Property rights are alienable rights and therefore and therefore all offences against property can be consented to and are complete defenses in both civil and criminal suits. Offences against body on the other had or NOT completely alienable. Man not only has a right to live but also a duty to live and therefore himself cannot consent to death or to being subject to grievous hurt.

39. Difference between consent and submission. Consent can include submission but not vice versa. These provisions are based on 2 principles: Every person is the best judge of his own interest. No man will consent to what is hurtful to himself. Section 300 exception 5. Sports requires FAIR PLAY AND PROPER CAUTION to be used for the defence .

40. Theft , Robbery, Dacoity , Extortion Theft Extortion Robbery Dacoity One Person One person Robbery by theft or extortion 5 or more persons Dishonestly Intentionally putting fear of injury into a person or any other hereby dishonestly induces Voluntarily causes or attempts t cause to ANY person death or grievous hurt or wrong ful restraint or fear of the same offences instantly Commit or attempt to commit robbery Movable property Property or valuable security or anything signed sealed which can be converted to valuable security Same as previous section for thet and extortion Either commit conjointly or aiding and committing and conjointly amount to more than five

41. Theft Extortion Robbery Dacoity Without consent Without consent Without consent Without consent Moves property to TAKE it To DELIVER such property Taking in theft delivering in extortion Taking in theft delivering in extortion 3 yrs or fine or both 3 yrs or fine or both 10yrs, after sunset and before sunrise 14 yrs. Life imprisonment or Rig. Imprisonment upto 10 yrs

42. CULPABLE HOMICIDE S299. CULPABLE HOMICIDE ANSWERABLE/ BLAMABLE KILLING OF MAN BY MAN LAWFUL HOMICIDE PRIVATE DEFENCE/ EXCUSABLE-ACCIDENT MINOR UNLAWFUL HOMICIDE STABBING SHOOTING POISONING

43. CULPABLE HOMICIDE (GENUS)299 MURDER(SPECIES)300 NOT AMOUNTING TO MURDER (SPECIES)300 EXCEPTIONS CULPABLE HOMICIDE MURDER CAUSES DEATH BY DOING AN ACT (INCLUDING OMISSIONS) INTENTION OF CAUSING DEATH OR INTENTION CAUSING SUCH BODILY INJURY AS LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH OR WITH KNOWLEDGE THAT HE IS LIKELY TO CAUSE DEATH

44. Kidnapping and Abduction ( S. 359) Kidnapping is of 2 kinds : 1. From India (S. 360) 2. From Lawful Gaurdianship (S.. 361) Kidnapping From India (360)- Victim can be Male or Female , major or minor. Requires CONVEYING of such victim/ person. It should be beyond the limits of India Without the consent of such person/ victim/ guardian.

45. KIDNAPPING FROM LAWFUL GAURDIANSHIP (361) – Whoever takes or entices away “take” implies absence of consent of the person so taken. Some active steps must be taken by the accused to either entice or persuade such victim. When a minor accompanies another is it kidnapping? Varadarajan Vs. State of Madras T. D. Vadgama Vs. State of Gujarat When taking is complete? – when victim is out of the keeping of the guardian. Nemai Chattoraj , Rekha Rai

46. Meaning of the term “keeping” by “lawful guardian” “entrustment” It is not a continuing offence and is complete as soon as the taking away from keeping is done. Punisment 7 yrs and fine Kidnapping Abduction For minors or those of unsound mind Includes anyone Removed from lawful gaurdian Person need not be in the keeping of anybody Taking or enticing Actual force or deceit Consent of victim irrelevant Consent of person relevant if adult Intent is irrelevant Intent is relevant s. 364 Offence does not continue Abduction is a continuing offence Substantive offence Auxillary offence

47. LAWS FOR WOMEN UNDER IPC 2012 GANG RAPE CASE (NIRBHAYA) This heinous incident took place on the night 16th December, 2012 near Munirka , a neighbourhood located in the southern part of New Delhi when a 23-year-old female physiotherapist intern was brutally gang-raped while she was returning home on a private bus with her male friend by 6 other men who were travelling in the same bus including the driver. Both the victims were brutally beaten up when they raised suspicions regarding the change of route. Later the main victim i.e. Nirbhaya was brutally raped by 6 men repeatedly and the medical report suggested that she was penetrated by a blunt object like a rod that caused extensive damages to her internal organs like intestine, uterus, vagina, and abdomen. Later both of them were thrown out in a partly naked state. Then the female victim died 6 days later on 22nd December in spite of being treated in both India and Singapore. Including the juvenile, all the 6 accused were arrested by the Delhi Administration within one day of the commission of the crime. One of the accused Ram Singh was found dead in the prison and the other four accused were sentenced to capital punishment by the Special Fast-track Court and the juvenile was awarded three years imprisonment on a reform home by the Juvenile Justice Board.

48. JUSTICE VERMA COMMITTEE 1. Punishment for Rape: The committee recommended 7 years rigorous imprisonment punishment for rape and 20 years rigorous imprisonment for causing death or persistent vegetative state. For gang rape , it recommends a punishment of imprisonment for 20 years which may extend to life imprisonment in case of causing death and persistent vegetative state. The committee did not recommend for the death penalty in case of rape . 2. The committee recommended for an increased period of imprisonment for offences like human trafficking, stalking, voyeurism, acid attacks .

49. The Justice J. S. Verma Committee recommended 20 years imprisonment for gang-rape and life imprisonment for rape and murder but refrained from using the term “death penalty” though there was public outcry to sentence rapists with death sentence following the brutal gang-rape and murder of a 23-year-old medical student in Delhi on December 16, 2012. Verma panel reccomended criminalization of marital rape but the ordinance rejected it . The Justice J. S. Verma Committee recommended restriction of politicians facing sexual offence charges from contesting elections. Ordinance rejected this recommendation. The panel recommended that the senior police or army officials be held responsible for sexual offences committed by their junior but the ordinance rejected it. The Justice J. S. Verma Committee wanted to make v ideography of recording statement from victim mandatory but the ordinance made it optional.