Ipc - INDIAN PENAL CODE - QUESTION ANSWERS ACCORDING TO KSLU SYLLABUS PDF

Preview

Summary

In the case of State of orissa v. Nirupama Panda [29], the victim entered into the house of accused and tried to rape her. There was a scuffle between them and the accused lady finally stabbed the man and he died. She was not held liable because she was acting in her right of private defence.Kampars...

Description

In the case of State of orissa v. Nirupama Panda [29], the victim entered into the house of accused and tried to rape her. There was a scuffle between them and the accused lady finally stabbed the man and he died. She was not held liable because she was acting in her right of private defence. Kamparsare vs Putappa: Where a boy in a street was raising a cloud of dust and a passer-by therefore chased the boy and beat him, it was held that the passer-by committed no offence. His act was one in exercise of the right of private defence. Qthe ingredients of the offence relating to criminal conspiracy with illustrations Introduction Criminal conspiracy and joint liability are terms that go hand in hand. Joint liability is the liability that is shared by people who conspired to an unlawful act. All the people who have agreed on doing an unlawful act, with criminal intent, will be jointly liable for the conspiracy. Criminal Conspiracy Criminal Conspiracy can be defined as an act when two or more persons agree to do or cause to do: 1. Any illegal act. 2. Any act which is done through illegal means. It is important to note that the objective to do such a crime is very important in this act. In the case of Mulcahy v. Regina, it was said that the criminal intent of doing an act is very indispensable from constituting an act of conspiracy. In Rex v. Jones, it was first held that “Criminal Conspiracy ought to charge a conspiracy, either to do an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means”. The idea of intent extends in various cases in national and international law. Many have argued on the constitution of the ‘unlawful’ act. The real meaning to that is still getting scrutinised by the courts, however, we can still count that as anything which is against the law. Ingredients of Section 120A, Indian Penal Code 1860 In Rajiv Kumar v State of UP, the court took out some basic necessary ingredients in order to constitute conspiracy,

There must be two or more persons; There must be an illegal act or an act in an illegal way; There must be a meeting of minds; There must be an agreement regarding the same thing. Two or more person: One of the most important thing in the criminal conspiracy is that there has to be two or more person because as we all know that one cannot conspire about the things to himself there has to be two or more person to conspired about something. It was held in the state of H.P vs Krishan lal that the criminal conspiracy consists in a meeting of minds of two or more person for agreeing to do or causing to done an illegal act or an act which is not illegal but by illegal means. Illegal act: To constitute the offence under this section there must be an agreement to do an act which is contrary to or forbidden by law. It may be noted that it is illegal to conspire with another an act which may not crime if done alone. The main motive of this section is to make even the basic stage of a crime punishable. Illegal means: Also, the agreement to do an act which may not be illegal but the means to do an act is unlawful is punishable under this section. The end does not justify the means, for e.g if a man wants to marry a girl but to marry her he tries to abduct the girl forcefully here the motive of the man is legal but the way or means to commit an act make it punishable. The ingredients must be present in any act in order to constitute it as a crime of criminal conspiracy. In Pratapbhai Hamirbhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat and another, the apex court held that the most important ingredient is the intent to cause an illegal act. Nature and Scope of the Law of Conspiracy in Section 120A, Indian Penal Code 1860 The nature and scope of Criminal Conspiracy are limited to conspiring to do an illegal act by two or more persons. No one person can constitute the offence. It requires two or more persons to agree to do some act. The underlying purpose of the Sections was to prevent any illegal act from happening before the constitution of a criminal act. The nature of the

sections is preventive. It helps in the prevention of any criminal activity. The next step after this stage is the performance of the act. So, the scope of the law is only limited to agreement and meeting of minds with regards to a criminal act. For example- Persons A, B, C and D conspire to rob the local bank for which they decide that A and B would threaten the bank manager at the counter, C would take care of the situation at the gate and D would keep the car ready for A, B, and C when they successfully rob the bank. Here, there is a criminal conspiracy between A, B, C and D to rob the bank and they shall all be liable for the act. In Ram Narayan Popli v CBI, the court laid down several aspects of Criminal Conspiracy, (a) an object to be accomplished, (b) a plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object, (c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused persons whereby, they become definitely committed to cooperate 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 required an overt act.

Proof of Conspiracy The crime is inherently psychological in nature. The proof of such an act is also difficult. It can be ascertained by the fact that some act was kept a secret. However, this does not constitute an essential element of the conspiracy. It can be done through: 1. Direct Evidence or; 2. Circumstantial Evidence It was held in the case of Quinn v. Leathern, that inference is generally deduced from the acts of the parties in pursuance of the predetermined acts. In such a crime, circumstantial evidence and direct evidence turn out to be the same because there has not been an act, yet. The act is only being conspired. The Doctrine of Agency also comes into play in this scenario. The fact that there was an agency in the conspiracy may prove that there was

involvement of this person in the act. This was held in Bhagwan Swaroop Lai Bishan Lai v. State of Maharashtra. Nature and Scope of Section 120B Section 120B specifies the punishment given to the persons convicted for the crime of conspiracy. They may be punished with death or rigorous imprisonment. The nature of this section is punitive. The scope of this section is limited to providing punishments after the accused has been convicted. Effect of Acquittal of Accused In the case of Topan Das v State of Bombay, the court held that the person must not be alone in conspiring for the offence. The accused was acquitted from the case because he was the sole person who had conspired for the crime. The acquittal of this case meant that the person was liable for all the other offences that had been committed and proved. Framing of Charge Charges are framed on the basis of the nature and magnitude of the crime. The accused is often charged with a substantive offence and along with that, is also charged for criminal conspiracy. In State of Maharashtra & Ors. v. Som Nath Thapa & Ors., it was said that the charges will be framed only if the person was aware of the co-conspirators and their motives. Since there is no way that the crime can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, it is necessary to understand that there is a deemed presumption of the offence if there are overt actions to prove it. Difference between Section 120B and Section 107, Indian Penal Code 1860 Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 states the offence of Abetment. The section states that: 1. If a person is aiding in an illegal act; 2. Instigates a person to do an illegal act; 3. Engages in a conspiracy and an act is performed in pursuance of the conspiracy. Section 120B is suggestive of the punishment of conspiracy. The basic difference lies in the fact that in one case, there just needs to be a meeting of minds in order to do an illegal act, abetment requires an act in pursuance of the agreement. Another point is that abetment involves aiding in a crime or a conspiracy, whereas criminal conspiracy just requires a meeting of minds.

Q liabilitiy for acts done in furtherance of common intention

Scope of ‘Common Intention’ Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, specifies that there must be a common intention along with the unlawful act. The section holds the people in the act of unlawful assembly jointly liable for the act done through a common intention. In the case of Queen v Sabib Ali, common intention was viewed as a pathway to complete the unlawful action. In the case of Ganesh Singh v Ram Raja, the court said that the common objective must be achieved through a common intention of doing the task. It is generally ascertained by prior meetings, meeting of minds and prearranged plans of doing something which is not legal. In Kripal Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh, the court said that the common intention is supposed to be ascertained from the facts and the circumstances of the case. The scope of common intention is also supposed to be ascertained by the facts and circumstances of the case. What is Common intention? Guiding Principles Common intention is guided by several principles: 1. Mere surrender is not derivative of the fact that it will be counted as common intention. 2. It is necessary that there has been a been a prior conspiracy relating to that act. 3. When the offence is proved only on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the allegations of common intention cannot be established in the absence of meeting of minds. 4. Section 34 is only a rule of evidence and does not create a substantive offence. 5. The common intention should be prior or antecedent to the occurrence. 6. Common intention may develop during the course of the occurrence and could develop on the spot. 7. Common intention is different from same or similar intention. Section 33. ‘Act’, ‘Omission’. – The term ‘ act’ also denotes a sequence of acts as a single act: the term ‘ omission ‘ indicates as well a sequence of omissions as a single omission. Section 34 and Section 33 clearly indicate that the word “criminal act” relates to more than one act and would cover a whole sequence of acts.

Section 34 to Section 38 of Chapter Two of the Indian Penal Code on’ General Explanation ‘ sets out the circumstances under which an individual may be constructively held responsible for the acts committed by the other group members. Ingredients of Section 34 Criminal Act Done By Several Persons: The said criminal act must have been performed by more than one person. If the criminal act was a fresh and independent act that springs entirely from the doer’s mind, the others will not be liable simply because they intended to be involved with the doer in another criminal act when it was done. The acts committed in the criminal action by different confederates may be different, but they all have to participate and engage in the criminal enterprise in one way or another. Common intention: The core of joint liability under Section 34 resides in the presence of a common intention to commit a criminal act in support of the common goal of all group members. The term ‘ common intention’ means a prior concert, i.e. a meeting of minds and involvement of all group members in the execution of that plan. The acts performed by each participant may vary in personality but must be carried out with the same common intention. Participation in The Criminal Act: Participation in a criminal act of a group is a precedent condition for fixing joint liability and there must be some overt act indicative of a common intent to commit an offense. The law requires the accused to be present on the spot during the crime and participate in its commission; it is sufficient if he is present somewhere nearby. In the case of Mahboob Shah v. Emperor, appellant Mahboob Shah was 19 years old and was convicted of the murder of Allah Dad by the Session Judge of the charge Section 302 with Section 34. He was convicted for death by the Session tribunal. The death sentence was also upheld by the High Court of Judicature. The conviction for murder and death sentence was overturned on appeal to the Lordship. It was argued before the appellant that–”when Allah Dad and Hamidullah attempted to run away, Wali Shah and Mahboob Shah came next to them and fired” and thus there was proof at the spur of the time that they formed a common intention. The lordship was not happy with this perspective and cordially advised his Majesty that his appeal had been successful, the appeal must be allowed

and the conviction of him for murder and death sentence should be set aside. QHurt and Grievous Hurt: Everything you need to know about it Introduction Presently, a large share of criminal cases, more specifically, in the Courts of Judicial Magistrate First Class in India, is ‘Hurt’ cases. For example offences culpable under Section 323, 324, and 326 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. There is no criminal Court without these cases. ‘Hurt’ is known as influence damage to, prompt torment to, harm, debilitate, harm, wound, cripple, weaken, harm. In different words, it implies ‘be unfavourable to’. In the event that a delineation utilizes “wounds” as an action word, it doesn’t separate between the damage of “simple nature” or ”grievous nature”. The designers thought that it was hard to draw a line between those substantial damages which are serious in nature and those which are slight. They say that to draw such a line with great precision was totally impossible. Therefore, specific sorts of hurt were assigned as grievous. Simple Hurt Hurt may be described as the bodily pain that is resulting from real contact with the frame by an aggravated assault. There’s no radical difference between assault and harm. Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”) defines hurt as: “whoever reasons bodily pain, disorder or disease to any man or woman is said to have caused harm.” The section does not outline the offence of inflicting harm. It defines best the time period hurt and does not describe the situations underneath which it can be brought on. To constitute any one or more of essentials of simple hurt must be present:

 Bodily Pain  Infirmity to another  Disease Bodily Pain According to Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code, whoever causes bodily ache, disorder or disease to any individual is said to cause hurt. The expression ‘physical pain’ means that the pain must be physical instead of any mental pain. So mentally or emotionally hurting anyone will no longer be ‘harm’ inside the meaning of Section 319. However, to be covered under

this section, it isn’t always important that any visible injury should be precipitated at the sufferer. All that the section contemplates is the inflicting of bodily pain. The diploma or severity of the ache or pain isn’t a fabric element to decide whether Section 319 will apply or not. The duration of ache or pain is immaterial. Pulling a girl with her hair would amount to hurt. In the State vs Ramesh Dass on 22 May 2015 In a hospital, passing through the corridor, in the new surgical block location, an unknown public individual came from the front and attacked the woman. That individual pulled her hair and threw her to the ground. He hit her on her head together with his hand. Accused was convicted for the offences under Section 341 and 323 of the IPC and acquitted for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC. Infirmity to another Infirmity denotes the bad state of frame of mind and a state of transient intellectual impairment or hysteria or terror would constitute disease inside the meaning of this expression inside the section. It is an incapability of an organ to carry out its everyday function, whether temporarily or completely. It may be delivered through the administration of a toxic or poisonous substance or by means of taking alcohol administered by way of any other person. Jashanmal Jhamatmal vs Brahmanand Swarupanand [AIR 1944 Sind 19]:In this situation, the respondent has been evicted with the aid of the owner. He attempts to get revenge via vacating others from that constructing too. Respondent later confronted with A’s spouse with a pistol in his hand.

Disease A communication of ailment or disease from one individual to another through the way of touch would constitute hurt. But, the idea is unclear with respect to the transmission of sexual sicknesses from one individual to every other. For instance, a prostitute who had intercourse with a person and thereby communicated syphilis changed into held in charge under Section 269 of the IPC for spreading infection and not for inflicting hurt due

to the fact that the interval between the act and sickness turned into too far away to attract Section 319 of the IPC.

In Raka vs. Emperor, the accused was a prostitute and she inflicted syphilis to her customers. It was held that accused, the prostitute was liable under Section 269 of IPC- negligent act likely to spread infection of any disease dangerous to the life of another person. Intention or Knowledge Intention or knowledge is an important aspect of causing hurt to an individual. A person who intentionally sets out to purpose shock to somebody with a weak coronary heart and succeeds in doing so, he is said to have caused hurt. Any bodily ache due to management of capsules can be protected under ‘harm’. Whilst the harm isn’t always severe and there is no purpose to cause death, or grievous hurt, the accused could be guilty of inflicting harm most effective, despite the fact that death is caused. In Marana Goundan v. R [AIR 1941 Mad. 560] the accused demanded money from the deceased which the latter owed him. The deceased promised to pay later. Thereafter the accused kicked him at the abdomen and the deceased collapsed and died. The accused changed into held guilty of causing hurt as it couldn’t be stated that he meant or knew that kicking at the abdomen become in all likelihood to hazard existence. Section 321 of the IPC defines voluntarily causing harm as whoever does any act with the intention of thereby causing harm to any person, or with the expertise that he’s likely thereby to reason hurt to any individual, and does thereby motive harm to any person, is stated: “voluntarily to motive hurt”. What constitutes a selected offence relies upon the character of the act achieved (actus reus) but additionally upon the character of aim or know-how (mens rea) with which it’s far carried out. Section 319 defined the nature of the actus reus, which might constitute the offence of voluntarily causing harm, punishable under Section 323, and Section 321 describes the mens rea necessary to represent that offence. Goal and information need to be proved. The person in reality hurt wants now not always be the person who becomes intended to be hurt. Section 321 describes the situations that dress the act with factors of criminal activity, making it an offence. The instances are: 1. doing of an act, 2. to any person,

3. with the goal or know-how of causing harm. Grievous Hurt The draftsman of IPC found it tough to draw a line among those physical hurts, which can be severe, and people who are moderate. However, they special certain types of hurts as grievous hurt. The following kinds of hurt only are termed as “grievous”: 1. Emasculation, 2. Permanent injury to eyesight or either of the eye, 3. Permanent deafness or injury to either of the eye, 4. Privation of any member or joint (loss of limb), 5. Impairing of Limb, 6. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face, 7. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth, 8. Any hurt which risks life or which causes the victim to be during the time of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. (a) Emasculation: The first type of grievous hurt is depriving a person of his virility. This clause is confined to men and was inserted to counteract the practice commonplace in India for women to squeeze men’s testicles at the slightest provocation. Emasculation can be resulting from causing such harm to the scrotum of a person as has the effect of rendering him impotent. The impotency prompted ought to be permanent, and no longer simply temporary and curable. (b) Injuring eyesight: Some other injury of identical gravity is the permanen...