Module 1-4

Question 1

**

Sections describing essiantials of crime?

Answer 1

1. Section 11- entitity, person or corporation, includes Iridium v Motorola- corporate criminal liability
2. Mens Rea - voluntary (section 39 IPC)
3. Actus reas- section 32
4. Injury- section 44

Question 2

Actus Non Facit Reum Nisi Mens Sit Rea:

Answer 2

“An act does not render a man guilty of a crime unless his mind is equally guilty,”

Question 3

Intention, Knowledge, reason to believe

reason to beleive section

Answer 3

knowledge- intention used interchangeably-
Reason to beleive= Section 26 A person is said to have “reason to believe” a thing, if he has sufficient
cause to believe that thing but not otherwise
Om Prakash vs Punjab
Defendant does not give the food to his wife for several weeks and he is now liable for murder because Act must be done with intent or knowledge of the scarcity of food.

Question 4

Territorial jurisdiction

Answer 4

Intra Territorial Jurisdiction of IPC (Section 2): includes indians and foreigners- as long as crime committed in india
Extra Territorial Offences under the IPC (Sections 3-4)
 Any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India;
 Any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India, wherever it may be;
 Any person in any place without and beyond India committing an offence targeting a computer
resource located in India.
Cases: Mubarak Ali vs state of Bombay, State of Maharashtra vs Mayer Hans George

Question 5

what persons are excluded from section 3/4?

Answer 5

presidents, PMs, diplomats, governors, foreign sovereigns, ambassadors, alien enemy, foriegn army, warships

Question 6

theories of punishment

Answer 6

RETRIBUTIVE THEORY.- lex talonis eye for an eye, state beelives its important to inflict pain on criminal and generally doesnt consider factors behind the crime such as motive.

DETERRENT THEORY.- attempts to show futility of crime and teach the wrongdoes that crime is never profitiable

PREVENTIVE THEORY.- like the detterent theory but in the sense that instead of education to stop ppl or making them think 2 times b4 they act, preventative simply incapacitates them by killin them/confining them

REFORMATIVE THEORY. The reformative theory was born out of the positive theory that the focal point of crime is positive thinking. Thus, according to this theory, the objective of punishment needs to be reformation by the offender.- rather a rehabilitative process.

Question 7

Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab

Answer 7

reaffirmed that death penalty is constitutional it is not the norm - to be used in the rarest of rare cases and to be the exception rather than the norm.

Question 8

chapter for general exceptions ipc - ?

Answer 8

chapter IV = 4
sections 76-95

Question 9

section 76 and 79 ipc

Answer 9

Under Section 76: Act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing, himself to be bound by law in included.

Under Section 79: Act done by a person justified or by mistake of fact believing, himself justified, by law is included.

excusable acts

Question 10

sec80

Answer 10

Accident under sec 80 Accident committed while doing a lawful act. Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention or knowledge

King Emperor v. Timmappa

excusable

Question 11

sec80

Answer 11

Accident under sec 80 Accident committed while doing a lawful act. Nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention or knowledge

King Emperor v. Timmappa

excusable

Question 12

Section 82 and 83

Answer 12

Infancy
Section 82: It includes an act of a child below seven years
of age. Nothing is an offence done by a child under seven years of age.

Section 83: It includes an act of a child above seven and below twelve of immature understanding Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not yet attained sufficient maturity

excusable

Krishna Bhagwan v. State of Bihar

Question 13

section 84

Answer 13

Act of a person of unsound mind. Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who at that time of performing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law

Ashiruddin Ahmed vs. State

excusable

Question 14

Section 85 and 86

Answer 14

Section 85- involuntary intoxication
Section 86: Offence requiring a particular intent or knowledge committed by one who is intoxicated.

basudev v state of pepsu not accepted 86

excusable

Question 15

Section 77 and 78

Answer 15

Nothing is an offence - Section 77, 78: Act of Judge when acting judicially. in pursuance of judgement

justifiable

Question 16

sec81

Answer 16

Necessity under 81
Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm.

In Bishambher v. Roomal

justifiable

Question 17

sec87,89, 92

Answer 17

Section 87: Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent.
88-Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person’s benefit.
Section 89: Act done in good faith for the benefit of a child or insane person, by or by consent of the guardian
Section 92: Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent. - good samaritan/

87- Poonai Fattemah v. Emp, 88- R.P Dhanda V. Bhurelal

justifiable

Question 18

sec90

Answer 18

Section 90: Consent known to be given under fear or misconception. A consent is not such a consent as is intended by any section of this Code- includes consent from children- uner 12, also consent from unsound mind or intoxicated ppl who cant understand consequence of consent

Jakir Ali v. State of Assam

Question 19

sec93

Answer 19

Communication made in good faith. No communication made in good faith is an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is made if it is made for the benefit of that person.
ex: doc telling bad news and person gets heart attack

Question 20

94

Answer 20

Act to which a person is compelled by threats. Except murder, and offences against the state punishable with death, nothing is an offence which done by a person compelled to do it under threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death

Question 21

sec95

Answer 21

court doesnt deal with trifle matters

Mrs. Veeda Menezes v. Khan

durig argument papers were thrown homegirl got paper cut- this is no case and sc said not guilty