Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

4. Ipc > Intro > Flashcards

Intro Flashcards

1
Q

Actus non facit reum nisi mensitrea

A

Both must concur to constitute a crime

ACTUS REA

  1. Kenny- physical condut of the man that law seeks to prevent
  2. Prohibited by criminal law . Executioner, army man
  3. Physical assault, murder, destruction of property
  4. Omission of legally bound - hospital

MENS REA

  1. guilty mind
  2. Prosecution must prove - actively and knowingly
Therefore as per contemporaneity rule. Not sufficient that mentally innocent act was followed by mens rea
Illustration
1. Buy poison- no actus rea
2. Wrestling match - sec 87
3. Sec 378- dishonesty, moves
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Various degree of mensrea

A
  1. Intention
  2. Knowledge
  3. Reckless/ rashness
  4. Negligence
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Difference between knowledge and intention

A

Intention -

  1. foresee+ desire,
  2. Synonyms- voluntarily, wilfully, deliberately
  3. Not same as motive. Motive prompts to form intention. Man steals for wife
  4. Absence of intention- defence in trial. But not motive. Deep seated and unfathomable

KNOWLEDGE

  1. Mental cognition
  2. Highest degree of speculative faculties

Table

  1. Awareness of consequences vs desire to achieve
  2. Bare awareness vs know with certainty that certain consequences should ensue

Mother jumps. K but not I

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

A corporate aggregate cannot be fastened with criminal liablity

A

Sec 11- person- any company, association, body of persons whether incorporated or not.
Sec 2- all persons liable for punishment under this code

Standard chartered bank case - punished for offences which has mandatory punishment of imprisonment and fine. In case found guilty, imprisonment cannot be imposed, but fine acc to judicial discretion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Men’s rea not required

A

Mens rea is not essential in respect of five offences in I.P.C., namely:

Sec. 121 (waging war),

Sec. 124 A (sedition),

Secs. 359 and 362 (kidnapping and abduction), and

Sec. 232 (counterfeiting coins)

Sec 292. – sale of obscene books

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Evolution of menserea in criminal offences

A
  1. R vs Prince - 16 yr. Belief 18. Held liable bcoz inherently immoral

Lord brett- dissenting opinion - no convicton w/o criminal intent

2 R vs Faulkner - rum stealing

Held - intended to do something criminal that might have reasonably led to the crime charged for

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Statutory offences

A
  1. Not inherently wrong. Motor vehicle act
  2. Dissenting opinion of regina vs prince - in malum prohibitum prosecution must prove mens rea
  3. R vs tolson- doctrine of mensrea in stat off

Followed in independent india
1. Nathulal vs state - mensrea essential ingredient unless statute prohibits

  1. MH George vs state- check the following for absolute liablity - phraseology, objective, nature of public purpose, kind of mischief

Statutory offences that do not require mens rea
1. Social right. Pca
2. Industrial law. Factories act
3. Ecomoic Or fiscal offence
4 public welfare - food adulteration, narcotics,
5. Contempt of court - RAJENDRA SAIL VS MP BAR ASSOCIATION

Roscoe Pound: Such statutes are not meant to punish vicious will, but to put pressure on the thoughtless and inefficient to do their duty in the interest of public health

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Note on life imprisonment

A
  1. Sec 53
  2. Entire life span
  3. 51 sections
  4. Always rigorous
  5. Sec 433 of crpc prez Or governor can commute if 14 years
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Evolution of nuanced death penalty

A
  1. Loksabha 1962 . Referred it to LC. Retention
  2. 14,19 , 21 — JAGMOHAN vs STATE. Upheld. 354(3) of crpc. Judges must state special reasons
  3. Bachan singh - rarest if rare. Principled sentencing.
  4. Machi singh - crimes which shock the collective conscience
  5. Rameshbhai rathode case - look into the nature of criminal rather than crime itself. Cannot prioritize sentiments of outrage
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Against death penalty

A
  1. 2016 DEATH PENALTY INDIA REPORT by project 39A–
  2. santhosh bariyar – judge centric
  3. Bachan singh - bhagwati justice – hardly see a rich man going to the gallows

Manoj vs state - psychiatric evaluation, conduct in jail, info regarding socio economic background
Progress towards reformation while incarceration + guiding towards mitigating factors of bachao Singh case

Alternate in Shivakumar vs state (2023) - leniency - public confidence- fixed term sentence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Sec 107 - 3 acts of abetment

A
  1. ABETMENT BY INSTIGATION - wilful misrepresentation or wilful concealment of material fact, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause a thing to be done

Police x, c as z

Sheo mal case - letter

  1. Conspiracy- engaging with one or more person in a conspiracy of doing tht thing, act or illegal ommission in pursuance
    Followed a sati shouting ram ram
  2. Abetment by aid. - does anything to facilitate the commission of that act

Emp vs umi- priest of bigamous marriage

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Exp 1 of 108

A

Abetment of illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence, although the abettir may not himself be bound to do that act

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

An act abetted was not commited. Is there an offence

A

Exp 2 of sec 108

Not necessary- commited Or necessary effect be caused.

  1. Its the intention of the abettor that is sought to be punished here
  2. Doesn’t matter if the abetted - refused, failed, or brought forth an outcome which was not intended
  3. even if the person alleged to have commited the offence in consequence of abetment has been aquitted.

Ill. - a asking b to kill c - 2 outcomes

A asked B help to loot his master, b with master permission aids A in order to apprehend A. Held that though theft not commited, A liable for abetment of theft

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Key ingredients of sec 120A

A

Criminal law amendment act 1913

Mensrea and not the actus rea

Glanville Williams - LAW IS FEARFUL OF NUMBERS

  1. 2 or more people recahes an agreement
  2. To do an illegal act
  3. Obtain a legal object through illegal means
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Core element of conspiracy sec 120A

A
  1. Agreement of object or purpose. Multiplicity of means
  2. Purpose of the agreement should be to break the law by doing an illegal act
  3. Power an offence gets through combination of minds. 2 or more
  4. No need of overt act. Wrong mens rea
  5. But however if the agreement is to obtain a lawful object through illegal means, there ought to be some overt act by 1 or more of the participants
  6. Direct or indirect evidence
  7. Volatile entity.

State of tn vs Nalini

Punished under 120B

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Sec 120 A vs sec 34

A
  1. Substabtive offence vs rule of evidence
  2. Mere agreement vs some overt act
  3. Actual offence may or may not follow vs offence must follow

However in both all are equally liable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Sec 120A vs sec 108

A
  1. A form of abetment vs 3 ways
  2. 2 or more persons vs one person enough
  3. Each of the accused is the principal offender vs abettor is not the principal offender
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Illusttative case of sedition

A

Balwant singh vs state - person who shouted khalistan zindabad outside a cinema in market few hours after IG died

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Affray section

A

159

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Key ingredients of sec 153 A and 2 cases

A
  1. Whoever by w/s/vr promotes enimity between 2 groups of people on ground of relegion, race etc
  2. Commits any act which is prejudicail to the harmony of 2 groups and disturbs or is likely to disturb public tranquillity
  3. Organizes Excericse or drill etc in order to exercise force against any group

Above 3 offences, imprisonment up to 3 years or fine or both

  1. If the above offences in a place of worship, imprisonment up to 5 years

Struck down in Tara Singh
Gopal vinayak godse case - upheld

Babu rao patel case - if intention was to case hate and enimity, no defence that it is true account of history

At least 2 groups should be involved. Bilal ahmed kaloo case

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Mistake of fact

A
  1. Sec 76 - bound by law, mistake of fact, good faith

Charan das vs state - Police party surrounding a tent - suspicion of gamblin

Emperor vs gopalia - accused under warrnat - reasonable enquiry — arrests c believing him to be Z

  1. SEC 79- justified by law, mistake of fact, good faith
  2. Dakhi singh vs state - shoot
  3. Waryam singh vs emperor- kills a ghost
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Necessity

A
  1. Sec 81

Ingredients

  1. Done without criminal intent ( emperor vs dhania dhaji - poison in toddy pot)
  2. Knowledge - act likely to cause harm
  3. Good faith
  4. To prevent the other harm to person or property
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What are the principles of sec 81

A

Necessity

  1. Quad necessitas non habet leegam
  2. Privileged mens rea, though actus rea is an offence

Sir JD maynes - legislative sanction to the principle that in situation of extreme emergency if one of the 2 evils is inevitable —- Smaller evil

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Doctrine of self preservation

A

Dudley vs stevenson

  1. Self sacrifice bigger duty than self preservation
  2. Human lives equally valuable
  3. No defence of necessity for willful homicide of other person
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Liablity of children between 7 and 12 in IPC

A
  1. Sec 83
  2. No blanket immunity of doli incapax
  3. Malatia supplet octatum
  4. Decided on the basis of - nature, words spoken, preceeding and following, congruence of physical and mental ability

Abdul sattar vs crown - 2 boys broke open lock of the shop to commit crime. Act of breaking open sufficient proof of maturity of understanding

Bop -accused

Punishment- jj act- no death or rigourous imprisonment

42nd LC- rather than punish – treat

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Introduction of insanity -maxim- 3 elements - bop

A
  1. Maxim - a mad man cannot have the will and thus he cannot have mens rea

3 elements

  1. At the time of doing an act
  2. By the reason of unsoundness of mind
  3. Is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that act is contrary to law

Bop- accused

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Intoxication sections? Test?

A
  1. Sec 85- involuntary
  2. Sec 86- voluntary

Sec 85 - foreseeability test - The foreseeability test checks all the actions of an intoxicated person collectively to see whether he crossed the limit after which a man loses self-control and cannot foresee the consequences of his acts.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Land mark case that gave guidelines wrt drunkeness

A

DPP vs BEARd

  1. Insannity caused due to drunkeness is a defence to crime charged
  2. Evidence if drunkeness should be taken into consideration along with other facts to determine whether he had the intent or not
  3. Mere establishment of the fact that mans mind was so affected by drink that he readily gave way to violent passion–> no protection
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Consent

A

Sec 90
Consent is not consent if given by a person
1. Under fear of injury
2. Misconception of facts
3. With unsoundness of mind or intoxication
4. Under 12 years of age

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Under which section will a harm caused while playing fencing be protected 🤺

A

Sec 87 act done

  1. With no intention to cause death or grevious hurt
  2. Not known to cause grievous hurt or death
  3. Consent given by >18 years

In such a case harm can be caused (including death)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Sec that protects surgeons

A 
Sec 88- 
Act 
1. Not intended to cause death 
2. Done by consent 
3. In good faith 
4. For the benifit of person giving consent

Any harm can be caused by such an act

32
Q

Act done in good faith for the benifit of child

A

Sec 89

  1. In good faith
  2. For benifits of child less than 12 years or insane person
  3. By consent of guardian

Exceptions
1. Intentional causing death
2 cant extent to act known to be likely to casuse death for any purpose other than– preventing death or grievious hurt, curing disease or infirmity
3. Can’t extend to causing gr hurt other than

Sec 92- mere pecuniary benifit, not benifit

33
Q

Bonafide act done for the benifit of other without consent

A
  1. Sec 92
  2. Act in good faith
  3. For the benifit of that person
  4. Without his consent ( impossible, incapable, no guardian)

Donit extend to

  1. Intentional killing or attempt to cause death
  2. Not for an act with knowledge that likely to cause death – except
  3. Not for voulntarily causing grievious hurt except
  4. Not abetment of offence
34
Q

What are the sections pertaining to good faith

A

Sec 52 - nothing is an offence if done in good faith by due and reasonable care

  1. Sec 88- surgeon
  2. Sec 89- infant
  3. Sec 92- bonafide act for benifit of other without consent
  4. Communication made in good faith sec 93
35
Q

An act done by me against my will is not my act

A
  1. Sec 94
  2. except murder or offenses against state punishable with death
  3. Compelled by threats
  4. Which causes reasonable apprehension of instant death

Shouldn’t voluntarily place himself in such a situation.

  1. Voluntarily or on threat of being beaten up joints dacoits
  2. seized by gang of dacoits. Fear of instant death to break open lock
36
Q

Rule of triviality laid down in which case

A

Sec 95

VEEDA MENEZES vs YUSUF KHAN

  1. nature of injury
  2. Position of parties and relationship
  3. Knowledge or intention
  4. other related circumstances
37
Q

Jurisprudence of RPD

A
  1. Natural instinct of self preservation
  2. Rt to protect ones on person and property against unlawful agression
  3. Bentham - absolute Neccessity. The vigilance of magistrate…..
  4. YOGENDRA MORARJI vs STATE - law abiding citizen to act like a rank coward in face of imminent danger,, perfectly legal to counter attack,,, not totally disproportionate
  5. Need not modulate each step. As long as assault continues
38
Q

Propositions of right to private defence

A
  1. There is no RPD against an act which is not an offence. No RPD agaist PD, bcoz PD is not an offence
  2. Not available for initial aggressor ( dilabagh singh case)
  3. Sheild for defence and not a weapon for offencece
  4. No preemptive self defence
  5. Even if accused doesn’t plead.. Court free to consider
  6. No RPD in retaliation or retribution
39
Q

Sec 97

A

Every person has the rpd to protect

  1. His body
  2. Any other persons body
  3. His propety ( movable or immovable)
  4. Any other persons propert

Against TMRC or attempted TMRC

40
Q

One case for RPD

A

Dhansingh nath vs state - tresspassed into the field to take away crops. Bet sis and daughter with iron rod. One blow with dao

41
Q

Can RPD exercised only against offenders

A
  1. Sec 98 - youth (<7), youth for wnt of maturity of understanding (7-12), unsoundness of mind, intoxication , misconception

Every person has the RPD against such acts which he would have had if the act were an offence

  1. Sec 106- risk of harm to innocent person, reasonable apprehension of death, cannot exercise rpd without risk of harm
42
Q

James Martin vs state of Kerala – lakshmana rekha to sec 96

A

Sec 99

  1. Act done by a public servant, good faith, color of his office not causing reasonable apprehension of gr hurt /death
  2. Direction of public servant
  3. Time to recourse to public authorities
  4. Excess propprtion

Exp- unless reason to believe or know that he is PS

Emperor vs MAMMUM
5 accused, armed with clubs, assaulted a man cutting rice in their fields. Died of skull fracture

43
Q

When can RPD be exercised against a PS

A
  1. When reasonable apprehension of death or grievious hurt
  2. Not Good faith or color of his office
  3. Person exercising pd doesn’t know or has reason to believe that the attacker os a PS

Public prosecutor vs surya narayan - smuggled from yanam, attacked PS,

44
Q

When can someone exercise RPD to cause death

A 
S100-
\When the assault causes reasonable apprehension of
1. Death
2. Gr hurt 
3. Intention of commiting rape
4. Gratifying unnatural lust
5. Kidnapping or abducting 
6. Wrongful  confinement 
7. Acid attack

Gurligapa case - 2 accused - armed mob - kitchen - broke - hacked one assailant.. Rpd

Sec 103
1. Robbery
2. House breaking by night
3  mischief by fire 
4. Theft, mischief or house tresspass- reasonable apprehension of death or GH as a consequence

Illn - accused killed a weak old woman stelaing at night

Kala singh case - man of dangerous character attacked a weakling. Ptook up a light hatchet and struck. Died

45
Q

When does RPD begin and continue . 2 cases

A

102- reasonable apprehension of danger to body from attempt / threat to commit the offence
Continue - as long as such danger

Anticipation tinged with fear = reasonable apprehension

Sec 105
Commencement- reasonable apprehension of danger commences

Continuane

  1. Theft- offender effected his retreat, public authority, property recovered
  2. Robbery - cause or attempt to cause D/H/WR or fear of instant death/hurt/instant personal restraint
  3. Michief of CT- as long as the commission
  4. House breaking by night – till continues
46
Q

Ch vs murder (299 vs 300 )

A
  1. CH- Intention of causing death
    M - same

2 CH - intention of causing such bodily injury which is likely to cause death
M- which is likely to cause death of THAT PERSON, BI which in ordinary course of nature is sufficient

  1. CH - knowledge that it is LIKELY to cause death
    M- k that act is so IMMINENTLY dangerous that in all probability
47
Q

Exception where Culpable homicide doesn’t amount to murder - grave and sudden provocation

A

Grave and sudden provocation -
1. Both G and S. And act must be done under immediate impulse of provocation

  1. Prov must be such that it would upset a person of ordinary sense and calmness
  2. If there is enough time for passion to subside

Proviso 1- voluntarily sought as an excuse
Proviso 2- not caused by anything done under obedience of law, any public servant
Proviso 3- not by anything done in exercise of RPD

KM Nanavati case test

  1. Reasonable man belonging to sane class, same situations would be so provoked
  2. Words and gestures in certain circumstances can cause GSP
  3. Mental background caused by previous act of victim.. To see if subsequent act
  4. Fatal blow traced to influence of passion. Not after it has cooled down. Scope of premeditation
48
Q

Exception to sec 300 exceeding RPD

A
  1. In good faith
  2. W/o premeditation
  3. W/o any intention of doing more harm than necessary for the purpose of defencee
49
Q

Exception to sec 300 - PS exceeds his power

A
  1. PS or the aiding - exceeds
  2. For advancement of justice
  3. Without illwill
    4 in good faith

If the act is illegal or not authorized by law.
Glaringly exceeds

50
Q

Exception to sec 300 – sudden fight or quarrel under heat of passion

A
  1. W/o offender taking UA or acting in a cruel manenr
  2. Immaterial who initiated the quarrel
  3. The sudden fight which mitigates the offence should be between the deceased and the accused -

Surain sigh - irrigating field. Took out his kirpan.

51
Q

Transfer of malice

A

Sec 301
1. Intends or knows to likely cause death
2. Commits CH - Of any other person- he neither intended nor knows
3 CH would be of the same description as it would have been had he caused death of the person who he intended to kill

Emp Vs jeoli- intrigue with a man. Who gave her poison. Mixed in sweet meat. Husband plus 5. One died. Guilty

52
Q

Sec 304 A

A

Causes death

  1. By rash or negligent act
  2. Not amounting to culpable homincide

Imp of 2 yrs/fine/ both

  1. Directed to situations where there is no intention and no knowledge. So outside the contours of 299 and 300
  2. Not amounting to CH - understood that intentionally or wilfully influcting violence excluded
  3. Acts which are rash or negligent direct cause of death ie cause causans

Rash —> Over hasty act as opposed to deliberate act - w/o due care and caution , knowing that it may result in some undesirable/ illegal consequences but hoping that it will not occur. Negligent- connotes want of proper care

Ambalal bhatt vs state - dispatched different concentration of chemicals alloting the same batch number

53
Q

304B

A
  1. Dowry prohibition act - property or valuable directly or indirectly agreed to be given by one party to another
  2. 304B- burns or bodily injury, otherwise than under normal circumstances, within 7 years of marriage, soon b4 subjected to cruelty or harassment by husband or relatives connected to dowry
  3. 498A- CRUELTY- harrasing a woman to coerce to fulfill unlawful demand or on account of failure to fulfill such demand

Soon before means a live and proximate link
In kaliyaperumal vs state - if the alleged incident of cruelty happened long ago and has become stale enough not to affect the mental equilibrium of the woman , then conditions under under this section will not be satisfied

  1. SATBIR SINGH CASE- pestiferous crime
    A. Soon before doesn’t pertain to immediately before
    B. Otherwise than under normal circumstances also calls for liberal interpretation

STATE vs NIKKU RAM - dowry demand can rise In 3 stages - prior, during or after marriage

54
Q

Abetment to suicide

A

2 sections of IPC

  1. 305 - abetment of suicide of a minor or person with unsound mind
  2. 306- abetment of suicide

Key ingredients

  1. Should have committed suicide
  2. Instigated or intentionally aaided
  3. Alleged abetment should have directly resulted in suicide

Key elements
1. instigation - series of acts of abettor- no other choice - RAMESH KUMAR vs state

  1. Priximate test - mere threat of falsely accusing a family for a particular offence was held to be not proximate enough ( RASTOGI vs state)
  2. SATVIR SINGH CASE – Only if suicide commited
  3. Intention of the accused is important. Words in heat of moment or intense anger do not come under this section (SANTISREE vs SANTISREE)
  4. Burden of proof on prosecution

309 decriminalized

55
Q

Attemot to murder

A
  1. Sec 307
  2. Such that if not prevented would lead to death of victim
  3. If injured 10 years + fine , can extend to imprisonment for life , if by life convicts - punishment can extend to life penalty

Prandutt vs UP - to prove intent of accused check nature of injury, prep taken, weapon used, evidence of doctor
Thus injury caused is one of the many factors.

It is the intention and knowledge that is being punished here

56
Q

Hurt vs grevious hurt

A
  1. 319 - HURT- bodily pain, disease, infirmity
  2. 320 - grevious hurt - emasculation, privation eye sight, hearing, member/joint, permanent impairing, disfiguration of face, fracture, endangers life
57
Q

Acid attack

A

326A - throwing acid which leads to grevious hurt
326 B- Throwing or attempting to throw acid

LAXMI vs UOI

  1. Ban
  2. Record maintenance
  3. Customer id, purpose
  4. Seller with 3 days inform police
  5. Not less than 18
58
Q

Analyze death penalty under various theories

A
  1. Deterrent theory :- emotion of fear, hegel, protection of society and detterring the criminal is the avowed object of law.
    Criticism- many cases heat of passion without thinking of consequence,
  2. Retributive thoery- kant, eye for an eye, primitive nature of vegence, punishmt in proportion to crime., sc time and again said it’s not proper and desirable
    Criticism- salmond “ Retribution in itself not a remedy, rather an aggravation of it “
  3. Preventive theory- putting the criminal away. Theory of disablement. So as to not commit the crime again
    Criticism- if under extraordinary circumstances then very little chance of committing it again, can also be prevented by reforming the criminal
  4. Reformative theory- crime is a mental disease caused by different anti social elements. Rehabilitation. Curavtive or corrective rather than retribution.
    Criticism- hardenend criminals, heavy budget on prisions, poor people will commit crime,

So no cut and dry formula
Bachan singh

59
Q

Preparation vs attempt — headings for table

A
  1. Definition
  2. Elements- preparation is an indifferent act, no clear indication of criminality. Attempt indicates mensrea
  3. Proximate
  4. Possibility of repentance ( theory of locus peonitentae)
  5. Punished
  6. Unequivocal
60
Q

Common intention under section 34

A

A rule of evidence and not a substantive offence. Used to meet situation wherein it’s difficult to decipher the exact role played by
1. 3 elements - criminal act , several person, furtherance of common intention
2. Common intention
A. Pre arranged plan
B. Act done in furtherance of plan
C. Mere presence in the scene of crime without doing any positive act which would indicate common intentition - not liable
D. CI should be anterior. Can be generated on spot also ( but b4)
E. Can be deciphered from weapon used, conduct ( before and after crime ), role played ( vital / non vital )

  1. BK gosh case - held liable under 302 read with section 34
61
Q

5 types of common object

A

Enlisted in 141
1. Overawe by criminal force arms of the govt
2. Prevent execution of law
3. Commit criminal mischief or trespass
4. Obtain possession of property,or deprive enjoyment of rt of way or other incorporeal rights
5. To compel a person to do what he is not legally bound to do

62
Q

Common intention ( sec 34) vs common object ( sec 149)

A
  1. Need not be of any specific type vs 5
  2. 2 or more vs 5 or more
  3. Active membership vs passive
  4. Rule of evidence vs substantive offence
  5. Pre arranged plan vs no such requirements

Thus common object and corresponding section 149 is longer in its sweep and wider in its reach

63
Q

Guiding principles applicable to mistake of fact

A

76, 79

  1. If the act in itself an offence and the circumstances just make it more severely punishable, ignorance of circumstances- not a good defence
  2. If the act itself is innocent, circumstances make it criminal - then good defence
  3. State of mind - should be of complete ignorance of the existing circumstances
  4. Wordings and objectives of the statute must be studied to see of it was the duty of their person who does the act to ascertain if the circumstances exist
64
Q

Sec 80 accident

A

Fortuitous unexpected incidents in certain cases exception to the criminal liability of the defendant

Element
1. Accident
2. No criminal intention
3. Outcome of a lawful act done in lawful manner by lawful means
4. Proper care and caution

  1. Accident - unintentional, out of ordinary course, unexpected nature
    Working with hatchet , head flies off
  2. No criminal intention - picks up a gun, loads, shots in point blank
  3. Tundra vs Rex
  4. One taken by a prudent man
    Picks up gun, without checking if loaded —sportingly points at B
65
Q

Mcnaughtens case

A

Laid down guidelines regarding legal insanity

  1. Assumption is of sanity, until contrary proved
  2. Must be clearly proved that the accused was under such defect of reason due to disease of mind due to which he cannot understand the nature or that it’s contrary to law
  3. If same at the time of commission of offence , then guilty
  4. In normal circumstances, should have a medical history of insanity
66
Q

Medical negligence

A

Great care should be taken before imputing rashness and negligence to a professional man in course of his prof duties. Supreme Court has set a different standard of negligence to prof, especially doc

SURESH GUPTA vs GOVT OF NCT
1. Criminal only when gross lack of incompetence or wanton indifference to the safety of his patients, arising from gross igmorance and gross negligence.
2. Mere error of judgment or an accident - not medical negligence

JACOB MATHEW vs STATE - negligence in 2 case
1. When he doesn’t possess the requisite skill he profess to possess
2. When he doesn’t excercise with reasonable care the above skills

67
Q

Euthanasia

A
  1. Greek meaning - ‘ good death’
  2. Gian Kaur case - sec 306 is constitutionally valid and therefore euthanasia is illegal
  3. Aruna shanbaug case : paved way for passive euthanasia in exceptional circumstances. Carved out the difference between passive and active euthanasia. Recognized termination of life passively in a permanently vegetative state .
  4. Common causes vs UOI ( 2018) - court declared the legal validity of passive euthanasia and at the same time recognised the importance of LIVING WILL. Advance directive regarding one’s wish about medical treatment ( or to refuse the same ) if one becomes incompetent or unable to communicate.
  5. Chandrakant vs state (2020): active euthanasia illegal. Petition for active euthanasia not allowed
68
Q

Grievious hurt vs culpable homicide

A

In a 1917 case BAIJIBA vs emperor - diff between 299 and 320- former causes death while latter doesn’t

In the latter years , more nuanced approach to the difference between 2. 299- intented or knows likely to cause death. While 320- life endangered due to grieveous hurt

Thus when the act neither intended nor knew likelihood of death may amount to grievous hurt even when death might occur ( Dayal vs UOI )

Ex: blow with fist to a man with enlarged spleen

Palani Goudon case- act directed what he believed to be a lifeless body. So culpable only of grevious hurt

69
Q

Xplanation 3 of section 108

A

To constitute an offence of abetment, not necessary that the person abetted should
1. Capable under law to commit an offence
2. Same guilty intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge

Rationale- if a man does, by the means of an innocent agent, an act which amounts to crime, it’s the employer and not the agent who is to be punished

I’ll - a instigates b , a mad man to set dwelling house on fire

Ram Charan case

70
Q

Explanation 4 of section 108

A

Abetment of abetment of an offence is an offence

  1. A instigates b to instigate c to kill z.
  2. Servant aiding thief with the knowledge of master
  3. Mother in law asked daughter to give her position to murder her son in law. MIL instigated doctor for abetment of sil murder
71
Q

108 vs 34

A
  1. Substantive vs rule of evidence
  2. Abetter need not be present vs presence is an indispensable element
  3. Crime need not be committed vs offence must follow
72
Q

Affray vs riot

A
  1. Less serious vs more
  2. 2 persons vs unlawful assembly of 5 or more required
  3. Common object
  4. Public vs pub/ pvt
  5. Both are offences against public peace
73
Q

What are the essentials of 153A

A
  1. Baburao Patel case
    - not necessary to prove that enmity or hatred occurred
    - not necessary to prove intention. It’s assumed that a person would know the natural consequences
    - shouldn’t consider stray passage. Should be read as a whole
    - can consider the class of readers for whom the book is meant
    - if intention was to cause hate, no defence that it’s a true account of history
  2. 153A cannot be used if the article intented to create enmity between political classes, ex: naxal article
  3. Atleast 2 groups
74
Q

121-123 —> waging war

A

121- whoever wages, abets, attempts to wage war against the state
121 A - conspiracy to wage war
122- collecting arms, men, etc with the intention of waging war
123- concealing with intent to facilitate design to wage war

75
Q

What constitutes war under 121-123

A
  1. Group of people rises against govt, public objective, achievement of the said objective through violence
  2. Act strikes at the root of sovereign functioning
  3. Mohd Afzal vs state - directly targeting govt institutions with arms, thereby creating war like situations is enough to constitute offence under this section
  4. Ajmal Kasab vs UOI - 2008 Mumbai attack was waging war
    - stopping proper functioning, hence root
    - Mumbai financial capital- hence economic collapse
    - foreigners killed in Indian soil, tarnish India’s intl image
  5. I’ll - merely stating that we should take up arms to establish socialist govt, not an offence, everyone entitled to their political opinion

4. Ipc (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions