Date:-21/04/2024 Retrieved Rubrics -DEATH ------------------------ Retrieved Rubrics - from : SELECTED LEGISLATION ------------------------------------------------ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... 1. Subs. by Act 27 of 1870, sec. 1, for the original section.> Section 35. When such an act is criminal by reason of its being done with a criminal knowledge or intention Whenever an act, which is criminal only be reason of its being done with a criminal knowledge or intention, is done by several persons, each of such persons who joins in the act with such knowledge or intention is liable for the act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone with that knowledge or intention. Section 36. Effect caused partly by act and partly by omission Wherever the causing of a certain effect, or an attempt to cause that effect, by an act or by an omission, is an offence, it is to be understood that the causing of that effect partly by an act and partly by an omission is the same offence. Illustration A intentionally causes Z's death, partly by illegally omitting to give Z food, and partly by beating Z. A has committed murder. Section 37. Co-operation by doing one of several acts constituting an offence When an offence is committed by means of several acts, whoever intentionally co-operates in the commission of that offence by doing any one of those acts, either singly or jointly with any other person commits that offence. Illustrations (a) A and B agree to murder Z by severally and at different times giving him small doses of poison. A and B administer the poison according to the agreement with intent to murder Z. Z dies from the effects of the several doses of poison so administered to him. Here A and B intentionally co-operates in the commission of murder and as each of them does an act by which the death is caused, they are both guilty of the offence though their acts are separate. (b) A and B are joint jailors, and as such have the charge of Z, a prisoner, alternately for six hours at a time. A and B, intending to ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Section 37. Co-operation by doing one of several acts constituting an offence When an offence is committed by means of several acts, whoever intentionally co-operates in the commission of that offence by doing any one of those acts, either singly or jointly with any other person commits that offence. Illustrations (a) A and B agree to murder Z by severally and at different times giving him small doses of poison. A and B administer the poison according to the agreement with intent to murder Z. Z dies from the effects of the several doses of poison so administered to him. Here A and B intentionally co-operates in the commission of murder and as each of them does an act by which the death is caused, they are both guilty of the offence though their acts are separate. (b) A and B are joint jailors, and as such have the charge of Z, a prisoner, alternately for six hours at a time. A and B, intending to cause Z's death, knowingly co-operate in causing that effect by illegally omitting, each during the time of his attendance, to furnish Z with food supplied to them for that purpose. Z dies of hunger. Both A and B are guilty of the murder of Z. (c) A, a jailor, has the charge of Z, a prisoner. A, intending to cause Z's death illegally omits to supply Z with food in consequence of which Z is much reduced in strength, but the starvation is not sufficient to cause his death. A is dismissed from his office, and B succeeds him. B, without collusion or co-operation with A, illegally omits to supply Z with food, knowing that he is likely thereby to cause Z's death. Z dies of hunger. B is guilty of murder, but, as A did not co-operate with B. A is guilty only of an attempt to commit murder. Section 38. Persons concerned in criminal act may be guilty of different offences Where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act. Illustration ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... sufficient to cause his death. A is dismissed from his office, and B succeeds him. B, without collusion or co-operation with A, illegally omits to supply Z with food, knowing that he is likely thereby to cause Z's death. Z dies of hunger. B is guilty of murder, but, as A did not co-operate with B. A is guilty only of an attempt to commit murder. Section 38. Persons concerned in criminal act may be guilty of different offences Where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act. Illustration A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z. Here, though A and B are both engaged in causing Z's death, B is guilty of murder, and A is guilty only of culpable homicide. Section 39. Voluntarily A person is said to cause an effect "voluntarily" when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it. Illustration A sets fire, by night, to an inhabited house in a large town, for the purpose of facilitating a robbery and thus causes the death of a person. Here, A may not have intended to cause death; and may even be sorry that death has been caused by his act; yet, if he knew that he was likely to cause death, he has caused death voluntarily. Section 40. Offence 140 "Offence".- Except in the 2[Chapters] and sections mentioned in clauses 2 and 3 of this section, the word "offence" denotes a thing made punishable by this code. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... 3. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, sec. 3 and Sch., for "the States" which had been subs. by the A.O. 1950, for "the Provinces". Section 43. Illegal, Legally bound to do The word "illegal" is applicable to everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action; and a person is said to be "legally bound to do" whatever it is illegal in him to omit. Section 44. Injury The word "injury" denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation or property. Section 45. Life The word "life" denotes the life of a human being, unless the contrary appears from the context. Section 46. Death The word "death" denotes the death of a human being unless the contrary appears from the context. Section 47. Animal The word "animal" denotes any living creature, other than a human being. Section 48. Vessel The word "vessel" denotes anything made for the conveyance by water of human beings or of property. Section 49. Year, Month Wherever the word "year" or the word "month" is used, it is to be understood that the year or the month is to be reckoned according to the British calendar. Section 50. Section ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Section 52A. Harbour 152A "Harbour".- Except in Section 157, and in Section 130 in the case in which the harbour is given by the wife or husband of the person harboured, the word "harbour" includes the supplying a person with shelter, food, drink, money, clothes, arms, ammunition or means of conveyance, or the assisting a person by any means, whether of the same kind as those enumerated in this section or not, to evade apprehension. ---------- 1. Ins. by Act 8 of 1942, sec. 2 (w.e.f. 14-2-1942). Section 53. Punishment The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code are- First.- Death; 1[Secondly.-Imprisonment for life;] 2[***] Fourthly. -Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions, namely:- (1) Rigorous, that is, with hard labour; (2) Simple; Fifthly. -Forfeiture of property; Sixthly. -Fine. Comments Compensation of victims of crime Punishment and sentence both are clubbed together for their similarity in between; Ramesh Chandra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1999 (1) JCJ 223. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... (b) If the expression means transportation for any shorter term, be deemed to have been omitted. comments Transportation for life A person sentenced to transportation for life, or any other term before the enactment of the impugned section, was to be treated as a person sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life or for a lesser period as the case might be; Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1961 SC 600. --------- 1. Ins. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch. (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). 2. Subs. by Act 36 of 1957, sec. 3 and Sch. II, for "1954" (w.e.f. 17- 9-1957). Section 54. Commutation of sentence of death In every case in which sentence of death shall have been passed, 1[the appropriate Government] may, without the consent of the offender, commute the punishment for any other punishment provided by this code. ----------- 1. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for "the Central Government or the Provincial Government of the Province within which the offender shall have been sentenced". The words in italics were subs. by the A.O. 1937, for "the Government of India or the Government of the place". Section 55. Commutation of sentence of imprisonment for life In every case in which sentence of 1[imprisonment] for life shall have been passed, 2[the appropriate Government] may, without the consent of the offender, commute the punishment for imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding fourteen years. ---------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation" ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... In every case in which sentence of 1[imprisonment] for life shall have been passed, 2[the appropriate Government] may, without the consent of the offender, commute the punishment for imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding fourteen years. ---------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). 2. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for "the Provincial Government of the Province within which the offender shall have been sentenced". The words in italics were subs. by the A.O. 1937, for "the Government of India or the Government of the place". Section 55A. Definition of appropriate Government 155A. Definition of "appropriate Government".- In sections fifty-four and fifty-five the expression "appropriate Government" means, - (a) In case where the sentence is a sentence of death or is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends, the Central Government; and (b) In case where the sentence (whether of death or not) is for an offence against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends, the Government of the State within which the offender is sentenced. ----------- 1. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for section 55A which had been ins. by the A.O. 1937. Section 56. Sentence of Europeans and Americans to penal servitude. Proviso as to sentence for term exceeding ten years but not for life [Rep. by the Criminal Law (Removal of Racial Discriminations) Act, 1949 (17 of 1949) (w.e.f. 6-4-1949).] Section 57. Fractions of terms of punishment ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... [Rep. by the Code of Criminal procedure(Amendment) Act, 1955(26 0f 1955), s.117 and Sch.. (w.e.f. 1.1.1956).] Section 60. Sentence may be (in certain cases of imprisonment) wholly or partly rigorous or simple In every case in which an offender is punishable with imprisonment which may be of either description, it shall be competent to the Court which sentences such offender to direct in the sentence that such imprisonment shall be wholly rigorous, or that such imprisonment shall be wholly simple, or that any part of such imprisonment shall be rigorous and the rest simple Section 61. Sentence of forfeiture of property [Rep. by the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1921 (16 of 1921), sec. 4.] Section 62. Forfeiture of property, in respect of offenders punishable with death, transportation or imprisonment Rep. by the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1921 (16of 1921), sec. 4. Section 63. Amount of fine Where no sum is expressed to which a fine may extend, the amount of fine to which the offender is liable is unlimited, but shall not be excessive. Section 64. Sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of fine 1[In every case, of an offence punishable with imprisonment as well as fine, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine, whether with or without imprisonment, and in every case of an offence punishable 2[with imprisonment or fine, or] with fine only, in which the offender is sentenced to a fine,] it shall be competent to the Court which sentences such offender to direct by the sentence that, in default of payment of the fine, the ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... term of imprisonment suffered in default of payment is not less than proportional to the part of the fine still unpaid, the imprisonment shall terminate. Illustration A is sentenced to a fine of one hundred rupees and to four month' imprisonment in default of payment. Here, if seventy-five rupees of the fine be paid or levied before the expiation of one month of the imprisonment. A will be discharged as soon as the first month has expired. If seventy-five rupees be paid or levied at the time of the expiration of the first month, or at any later time while A continues in imprisonment. A will be immediately discharged. If fifty rupees of the fine be paid or levied before the expiration of two months of the imprisonment, A will be discharged as soon as the two months are completed. If fifty rupees be paid or levied at the time of the expiration of those two months, or at any later time while A continues in imprisonment, A will be immediately discharged. Section 70. Fine levied within six years, or during imprisonment- Death not to discharge property from liability The fine, or any part thereof which remains unpaid, may e levied at any time within six years after the passing of the sentence, and if, under the sentence, the offender be liable to imprisonment for a longer period than six years, then at any time previous to the expiration of that period; and the death of the offender does not discharge from the liability any property which would, after his death, be legally liable for his debts. Section 71. Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such his offences, unless it be so expressly provided. 1[Where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, or where several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute, when combined, a ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Section 83. Act of a child above seven and under 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 attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion Section 84. Act of a person of unsound mind Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing 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. COMMENTS Insanity needs to be proved The accused was charged and committed under section 302, I.P.C. for having caused the death of his wife and a female child with a chopper. Rejecting the plea of insanity the Supreme Court observed that the law presumes every person of the age of discretion to be sane unless the contrary is proved. It would be most dangerous to admit the defence of insanity upon arguments derived merely from the character of the crime. The mere fact that no motive was proved as to why the accused murdered his wife and child nor the fact that he made no attempt to run away when the door was broken open, could not indicate that he was insane or that he did not have the necessary mens rea for the commission of the offence; Seralli Wali Mohammed v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1972 SC 2443. Section 85. Act of a person incapable of judgment by reason of intoxication caused against his will Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is, by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong, or contrary to law: provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will. COMMENTS ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... committed by one who is intoxicated In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will. COMMENTS Ingredients (i) The prosecution has to prove that in spite of drunkenness the accused had intention to commit the act forbidden by law; Mirza Ghani Baig v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 2 Crimes 19 (AP). (ii) Sometimes intention on the part of the person who is drunk can also be assessed from the nature of weapon used in the commission of the offence. If a person uses a weapon which is not dangerous and the attack results in death, a malicious intention cannot be drawn against him even though drunkenness is no excuse; Mirza Ghani Baig v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 2 Crimes 19 (AP). Section 87. Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent Nothing which is not intended to cause death, or grievous hurt, and which is not known by the doer to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, to any person, above eighteen years of age, who has given consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm; or by reason of any harm which it may be known by the doer to be likely to cause to any such person who has consented to take the risk of that harm. Illustration A and Z agrees to fence with each other for amusement. This agreement implies the consent of each to suffer any harm which, in the course of such fencing, may be caused without foul play ; and if A, while playing fairly, hurts Z, A commits no offence. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Section 87. Act not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent Nothing which is not intended to cause death, or grievous hurt, and which is not known by the doer to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, to any person, above eighteen years of age, who has given consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm; or by reason of any harm which it may be known by the doer to be likely to cause to any such person who has consented to take the risk of that harm. Illustration A and Z agrees to fence with each other for amusement. This agreement implies the consent of each to suffer any harm which, in the course of such fencing, may be caused without foul play ; and if A, while playing fairly, hurts Z, A commits no offence. Section 88. Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith for person's benefit. Nothing which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause, or be known by the doer to be likely to cause, to any person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, and who has given a consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm, or to take the risk of that harm Illustration A, a surgeon, knowing that a particular operation is likely to cause the death of Z, who suffers under a painful complaint, but not intending to cause Z's death, and intending in good faith, Z's benefit performs that operation on Z, with Z's consent. A has committed no offence. comments Scope Consent is good defence to all offences in general. But if once it is ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Consent is good defence to all offences in general. But if once it is proved in a case of rape that the girl in question was below 16 years, her consent becomes wholly irrelevant and the accused is liable for the offence as if no consent were obtained; Harpal Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 361. Section 89. Act done in good faith for benefit of child or insane person, by or by consent of guardian Nothing which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age, or of unsound mind, by or by consent, either express or implied, of the guardian or other person having lawful charge of that person, is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause, or be intended by the doer to cause or be known by the doer to be likely to cause to that person : Provisos-Provided- First.- That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or to the attempting to cause death; Secondly.-That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity; Thirdly.- That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of grievous hurt, or to the attempting to cause grievous hurt, unless it be for the purpose of preventing death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity; Fourthly.-That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend. Illustration A, in good faith, for his child's benefit without his child's consent, has his child cut for the stone by a surgeon. Knowing it to be likely that the operation will cause the child's death, but not intending to cause the child's death. A is within the exception, inasmuch as his object was the cure of the child. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... saving the life of the woman) is an offence independently of any harm which it may cause or be intended to cause to the woman. Therefore, it is not an offence "by reason of such harm"; and the consent of the woman or of her guardian to the causing of such miscarriage does not justify the act. Section 92. Act done in good faith for benefit of a person without consent Nothing is an offence by reason of any harm which it may cause to a person for whose benefit it is done in good faith, even without that person's consent, if the circumstances are such that it is impossible for that person to signify consent, or if that person is incapable of giving consent, and has no guardian or other person in lawful charge of him from whom it is possible to obtain consent in time for the thing to be done with benefit: Provisos - Provided- First.- That this exception shall not extend to the intentional causing of death, or the attempting to cause death; Secondly.-That this exception shall not extend to the doing of anything which the person doing it knows to be likely to cause death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous hurt, or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity; Thirdly.-- That this exception shall not extend to the voluntary causing of hurt, or to the attempting to cause hurt, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or hurt; Fourthly.-That this exception shall not extend to the abetment of any offence, to the committing of which offence it would not extend. Illustrations (a) Z is thrown from his horse, and is insensible. A, a surgeon, finds that Z requires to be trepanned. A, not intending Z's death, but in good faith, for Z's benefit, performs the trepan before Z recovers his power of judging for himself. A has committed no offence. (b) Z is carried off by a tiger. A fires at the tiger knowing it to be likely that the shot may kill Z, but not intending to kill Z, and in ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... be likely that the fall may kill the child, but not intending to kill the child, and intending, in good faith, the child's benefit. Here, even if the child is killed by the fall, A has committed no offence. Explanation Mere pecuniary benefit is not benefit within the meaning of Sections 88, 89 and 92. Section 93. 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. Illustration A, a surgeon in good faith, communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The patient dies in consequence of the shock. A has committed no offence, though he knew it to be likely that the communication might cause the patient's death. Section 94. Act to which a person is compelled by threats Except murder, and offences against the State punishable with death, nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence: Provided the person doing the act did not of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant death, place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint. Explanation 1 A person who, of his own accord, or by reason of a threat of being beaten, joins a gang of dacoits, knowing their character, is not entitled to the benefit of this exception, on the ground of his having been compelled by his associates to do anything that is an offence by law. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... it by threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence: Provided the person doing the act did not of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant death, place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint. Explanation 1 A person who, of his own accord, or by reason of a threat of being beaten, joins a gang of dacoits, knowing their character, is not entitled to the benefit of this exception, on the ground of his having been compelled by his associates to do anything that is an offence by law. Explanation 2 A person seized by a gang of dacoits, and forced, by threat of instant death, to do a thing which is an offence by law ; for example, a smith compelled to take his tools and to force the door of a house for the dacoits to enter and plunder it, is entitled to the benefit of this exception. Section 95. Act causing slight harm Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm. Section 96. Things done in private defence Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence. COMMENTS Harm The fraternity of the non-gazetted employees, who were on strike, sought to make fun of the complainant, who was a loyalists co-worker ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence. Illustrations (a) Z, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill A; Z is guilty of no offence. But A has the same right of private defence which he would have if Z were sane. (b) A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled to enter Z, in good faith, taking A for a house-breaker, attacks A. Here Z, by attacking A under this misconception, commits no offence. But A has the same right of private defence against Z, which he would have if Z were not acting under that misconception. Section 99. Act against which there is no right of private defence There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonable cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act, may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonable cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities. Extent to which the right may be exercised The right to private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm that it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. Explanation 1 A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant, as such, ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Explanation 2 A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant, unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is acting by such direction, or unless such person states the authority under which he acts, or if he has authority in writing, unless he produces such authority, if demanded. Comments Time to have recourse to the protection of the public authority Where there is an element of invasion or aggression on the property by a person who has right to possession, then there is obviously no room to have recourse to the public authorities and the accused has the undoubted right to resist the attack and use even force if necessary; Puran Singh v. State of Punjab, 1975 Cr LJ 1479 SC. Section 100. When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:- First.- Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault; Secondly.-Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault; Thirdly.- An assault with the intention of committing rape; Fourthly.-An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust; Fifthly.- An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting; Sixthly.- An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault; Thirdly.- An assault with the intention of committing rape; Fourthly.-An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust; Fifthly.- An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting; Sixthly.- An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release. 1[Seventhly.-- An act of throwing or administering acid or an attempt to throw or administer acid which may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such act] COMMENTS Appreciation of death or grievious hurt cases If the accused had already dealt several blows on the deceased, he could not have been in a position to shoot at the accused persons. Having regard to some of the admissions made by the witnesses, it appears that the accused took forcible possession of the land some days ago. Therefore, even assuming that they came into possession after committing trespassing, if the deceased and others had gone to the land they cannot be held to be aggressors as pleaded by the defence; Khuddu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1993 SC 1538 (1540). Ingredients (i) Self inflicted injuries not explained by prosecution except the reliance on medical evidence acquittal of accused not justified; Chuhar Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1999 SC 1052: 1991 SCC (Cr) 1066: 1998 (4) JT 449. (ii) The inmates clearly had a right of private defence against the intruders who tried to extract money by force; Kishore Shambhudatta Mishra v. State of Maharashtra, (1989) Cr LJ 1149: AIR 1989 SC 1173. Right of private defence to cause death ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... (i) Under what circumstances accused gave knife blow to the deceased could not be explained by accused, acquittal on ground of self defence not justified; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Laeeg, AIR 1999 SC 1942: 1999 (5) SCC 588. (ii) While being chased by deceased appellant attacked on deceased caused fire incised wound, held exceeded the right of private defence, conviction under section 304 Part I proper; Suresh Singh v. State, AIR 1999 SC 1773: 1999 (2) Crimes 42. (iii) Attack by single blow on the neck of deceased proved fatal. Held accused exceeded right of private defence; Amar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1997 SCC (Cr) 630. ----------------------- 1. Inserted by Section 2 of 'The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013' Section 101. When such right extends to causing any harm other than death If the offence be not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section, the right of private defence of the body does not extend to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant, but does extend, under the restrictions mentioned in Section 99, to the voluntary causing to the assailant of any harm other than death. Section 102. Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues. Section 103. When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death The right of private defence of property extends, under the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the wrong-doer, if the offence, the ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Section 103. When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death The right of private defence of property extends, under the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the wrong-doer, if the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right, be an offence of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:- First.- Robbery; Secondly.-House-breaking by night; Thirdly.- Mischief by fire committed on any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or as a place for the custody of property; Fourthly.-Theft, mischief, or house-trespass, under such circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the consequence, if such right of private defence is not exercised. STATE AMENDMENTS Karnataka (1) In section 103, in clause Thirdly,- (i) after the words "mischief by fire", insert the words "or any explosive substance"; (ii) after the words "as a human dwelling, or" insert the words "as a place of worship, or". (2) After clause Fourthly, insert the following clause, namely:- "Fifthly.-Mischief by fire or any explosive substance committed on any property used or intended to be used for the purpose of Government or any local authority, statutory body or company owned or controlled by Government or railway or any vehicle used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward." ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... namely:- "Fifthly.-Mischief by fire or any explosive substance committed on- (a) Any property used or intended to be used for the purpose of Government, or any local authority or other corporation owned or controlled by the Government, or (b) any railway as defined in clause (4) of section 3 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890 or railways stores as defined in the Railways Stores (Unlawful Possession) Act, 1955, or (c) any transport vehicle as defined in *clause (33) of section 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939." [Vide Uttar Pradesh Act 29 of 1970, sec. 2 (w.e.f. 17-7-1970)]. * See clause (47) of sec. 2 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Section 104. When such right extends to causing any harm other than death If the offence , the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right of private defence, be theft, mischief, or criminal trespass, not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section, that right does not extend to the voluntary causing of death, but does extend, subject to the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing to the wrong -doer of any harm other than death. Comments Right of private defence short of death Section 104 will apply if the wrong doers commit or attempt to commit any of the following offences: (1) theft, (2) mischief or trespass not of the description which is covered under section 103, subject of course to restrictions mentioned in section 99; and in such a case the right of private defence of property would extend only to causing harm other than death to him; Jai Bhagwan v. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 1083. Section 105. Commencement and continuance of the right of private ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Section 104 will apply if the wrong doers commit or attempt to commit any of the following offences: (1) theft, (2) mischief or trespass not of the description which is covered under section 103, subject of course to restrictions mentioned in section 99; and in such a case the right of private defence of property would extend only to causing harm other than death to him; Jai Bhagwan v. State of Haryana, AIR 1999 SC 1083. Section 105. Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of property The Right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences. The right of private defence of property against theft continues till the offender has effected his retreat with the property or either the assistance of the public authorities is obtained, or the property has been recovered. The right of private defence of property against robbery continues as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint of as long as the fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant personal restraint continues. The right of private defence of property against criminal trespass or mischief continues as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass or mischief. The right of private defence of property against house-breaking by night continues as long as the house-trespass which has been begun by such house-breaking continues. Section 106. Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is risk of harm to innocent person If in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person his right or private defence extends to the running of that risk. Illustration ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... (b) A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers from the wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit murder. Explanation 3 It is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. Illustrations (a) A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic to commit an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committed an offence, and having the same intention as A. Here A, whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of abetting an offence. (b) A, with the intention of murdering Z, instigates B, a child under seven years of age, to do an act which causes Z's death. B, in consequence of the abetment, does the act in the absence of A and thereby causes Z's death. Here, though B was not capable by law of committing an offence. A is liable to be punished in the same manner as if B had been capable by law of committing an offence, and had committed murder, and he is therefore subject to the punishment of death. (c) A instigates B to set fire to a dwelling-house, B, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of A's instigation. B has committed no offence, but A is guilty of abetting the offence of setting fire to a dwelling house, and is liable to the punishment provided for that offence. (d) A, intending to cause a theft to be committed, instigates B to take property belonging to Z out of Z's possession. A induces B to believe that the property belongs to A. B takes the property out of Z's possession, in good faith, believing it to be A's property. B, acting under this misconception, does not take dishonestly, and therefore does not commit theft. But A is guilty of abetting theft, and is liable to the same punishment as if B had committed theft. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Explanation An act or offence is said to be committed in consequence of abetment, when it is committed in consequence of the instigation or in pursuance of the conspiracy, or with the aid, which constitutes the abetment. Illustrations (a) A offers a bribe to B, a public servant, as a reward for showing A some favour in the exercise of B's official functions. B accepts the bribe. A has abetted the offence defined in Section 161. (b) A instigates B to give false evidence. B, in consequence of the instigation, commits that offence. A is guilty of abetting that offence, and is liable to the same punishment as B. (c) A and B conspire to poison Z. A in pursuance of the conspiracy, procures the poison and delivers it to B in order that he may administer it to Z. B in pursuance of the conspiracy, administers the poison to Z in A's absence and thereby causes Z's death. Here B is guilty of murder. A is guilty of abetting that offence by conspiracy, and is liable to the punishment for murder. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Same as for offence abetted-According as offence abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable-According as offence abetted is bailable or non-bailable-Triable by court by which offence abetted is triable- Non-compoundable. Section 110. Punishment of abetment if person abetted does act with different intention from that of abettor Whoever abets the commission of an offence shall, if the person abetted does the act with a different intention or knowledge from that of the abettor, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence which would have been committed if the act had been done with the intention or knowledge of the abettor and with no other. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Same as for offence abetted-According as offence abetted is ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... distress, and the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, B is liable to punishment for both these offences; and, if A knew that B was likely voluntarily to cause grievous hurt in resisting the distress A will Also be liable to punishment for each of the offences. Section 113. Liability of abettor for an effect caused by the act abetted different from that intended by the abettor When an act is abetted with the intention on the part of the abettor of causing a particular effect, and an act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment, cause a different effect from that intended by the abettor, the abettor is liable for the effect caused, in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had abetted the act with the intention of causing that effect, provided he knew that the act abetted was likely to cause that effect. Illustration A instigates B to cause grievous hurt to Z. B, in consequence of the instigation, causes grievous hurt to Z. Z dies in consequence. Here, if A knew that the grievous hurt abetted was likely to cause death, A is liable to be punished with the punishment provided for murder. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Same as for offence committed-According as offence abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable-According as offence abetted is bailable or non-bailable-Triable by court by which offence abetted is triable-Non-compoundable. Section 114. Abettor present when offence is committed Whenever any person, who is absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Same as for offence committed-According as offence abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable-According as offence abetted is bailable or non-bailable-Triable by court by which offence abetted is triable-Non-compoundable. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Punishment-Same as for offence committed-According as offence abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable-According as offence abetted is bailable or non-bailable-Triable by court by which offence abetted is triable-Non-compoundable. Section 114. Abettor present when offence is committed Whenever any person, who is absent would be liable to be punished as an abettor, is present when the act or offence for which he would be punishable in consequence of the abetment is committed, he shall be deemed to have committed such act or offence. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Same as for offence committed-According as offence abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable-According as offence abetted is bailable or non-bailable-Triable by court by which offence abetted is triable-Non-compoundable. Section 115. Abetment of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life-if offence not committed Whoever abets the commission of an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], shall, if that offence be not committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; If act causing harm be done in consequence- and if any act for which the abettor is liable in consequence of the abetment, and which causes hurt to any person, is done, the abettor shall be liable to imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine. Illustration A instigates B to murder Z. The offence is not committed. If B had murdered Z, he would have been subject to the punishment of death or 1[imprisonment for life]. Therefore A is liable to imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and also to a fine; and if any hurt be done to Z in consequence of the abetment, he will be liable to ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Whoever abets the commission of an offence by the public generally or by any number or class of persons exceeding ten, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Illustration A affixes in a public place a placard instigating a sect consisting of more than ten members to meet at a certain time and place, for the purpose of attacking the members of an adverse sect, while engaged in a procession. A has committed the offence defined in this section. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both-According as offence abetted is cognizable or non-cognizable-According as offence abetted is bailable or non-bailable-Triable by court by which offence abetted is triable-Non-compoundable. Section 118. Concealing design to commit offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life Whoever intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life]; 2[Voluntarily conceals by any act or omission or by the use of encryption or any other information hiding tool, the existence of a design] to commit such offence or makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design, If offence be committed-if offence be not committed.-shall, if that offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or, if the offence be not committed, with imprisonment of either description, for a term which may extend to three years; and in either case shall also be liable to fine. Illustration A, knowing that dacoity is about to be committed at B, falsely informs the Magistrate that a dacoity is about to be committed at C, a place ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... any act or illegal omission,, the existence of a design". Section 119. Public servant concealing design to commit offence which it is his duty to prevent Whoever, being a public servant, intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence which it is his duty as such public servant to prevent; 1[Voluntarily conceals by any act or omission or by the use of encryption or any other information hiding tool, the existence of a design] to commit such offence or makes any representation which he knows to be false respecting such design, If offence be committed.-shall, if the offence be committed, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the longest term of such imprisonment, or with such fine as is provided for that offence, or with both; If offence be punishable with death, etc.-or, if the offence be punishable with death or 2[imprisonment for life], with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years; If offence be not committed.-or if the offence be not committed, shall be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of such imprisonment or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both. Illustration A, an officer of police, being legally bound to give information of all designs to commit robbery which may come to his knowledge, and knowing that B designs to commit robbery, omits to give such information, with intent to facilitate the commission of that offence. Here A has by an illegal omission concealed the existence of B's design, and is liable to punishment according to the provision of this section. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... COMMENTS Appraisal of law of conspiracy The prosecution is not required to prove that perpetrators agreed to do or cause to be done the illegal act; Mohd. Usman Mohd. Hussain Maniyar v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1981 SC 162: (1981) SC Cr 381: (1981) Cr LJ 597. The evidence as to transmission of thoughts sharing the unlawful design may be sufficient; Kehar Singh v. State (Delhi Admn.), (1989) Cr LJ 1: AIR 1988 SC 1883. -------- 1. Ins. by Act 8 of 1913, sec. 3. Section 120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy 1[120B. Punishment of criminal conspiracy.-(1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death, 2[imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if he had abetted such offence. (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I Punishment-Same as for abetment of the offence which is the object of the conspiracy-According as the offence which is the object of conspiracy is cognizable or non-cognizable-According as offence which is object of conspiracy is bailable or non-bailable-Triable by court by which abetment of the offence which is the object of conspiracy is triable-Non-compoundable. Para II ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... 1999 (1) JT 716. (iii) To bring home the charge of conspiracy within the ambit of section 120B it is necessary to establish that there was an agreement between the parties for doing an unlawful Act. It is difficult to establish conspiracy by direct evidence; Vijayan v. State of Kerala, 1999 (3) SCC 54: AIR 1999 SC 1086. -------- 1. Ins. by Act 8 of 1913, sec. 3. 2. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). Section 121. Waging, or attempting to wage war, or abetting waging of war, against the Government of India Whoever wages war against the 1[Government of India], or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war, shall be punished with death, or 2[imprisonment for life] 3[and shall also be liable to fine]. 4[Illustration] 5[***] A joins an insurrection against the 6[Government of India]. A has committed the offence defined in this section. 7[* * *] CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Death or imprisonment for life and fine-Cognizable-Non- bailable-Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable. --------- 1. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for "Queen". 2. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). 3. Subs. by Act 16 of 1921, sec. 2, for "and shall forfeit all his ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... 10. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, sec. 3 and Sch., for "the Indian Army Act, 1911". 11. Now see the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957). 12. The words "or that Act as modified by" omitted by the A.O. 1950. 13. Subs. by Act 14 of 1932, sec. 130 and Sch., for "or the Air Force Act". 14. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, sec. 3 and Sch., for "the Indian Air Force Act, 1932". Section 132. Abetment of mutiny, if mutiny is committed in consequence thereof Whoever abets the committing of mutiny by an officer, soldier, 1[sailor or airman] in the Army, 2[Navy or Air Force] of the 3[Government of India], shall, if mutiny be committed in consequence of that abetment, be punished with death or with 4[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Death, or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable-Non-bailable-Triable by Court of Session- Non-compoundable. ------------- 1. Subs. by Act 10 of 1927, sec. 2 and Sch. I, for "or sailor". 2. Subs. by Act 10 of 1927, sec 2 and Sch. I, for "or Navy". 3. Subs. by the A.O. 1950, for "Queen". 4. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). Section 133. Abetment of assault by soldier, sailor or airman on his superior officer, when in execution of his office ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Section 142. Being member of unlawful assembly Whoever, being aware of facts which render any assembly an unlawful assembly, intentionally joins that assembly, or continues in it, is said to be a member of an unlawful assembly. Section 143. Punishment Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six month, or with fine, or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine, or both-cognizable- Bailable-Triable by any Magistrate-Non-compoundable. Section 144. Joining unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapon Whoever, being armed with any deadly weapon, or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, is a member of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both-Cognizable- Bailable-Triable by any Magistrate-Non-compoundable. Section 145. Joining or continuing in unlawful assembly, knowing it has been commanded to disperse Whoever joins or continues in an unlawful assembly, knowing that such unlawful assembly has been commanded in the manner prescribed by law to disperse, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both-Cognizable- Bailable-Triable by any Magistrate-Non-compoundable. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Section 146. Rioting Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting. Section 147. Punishment for rioting Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both-Cognizable- Bailable-Triable by any Magistrate-Non-compoundable. Section 148. Rioting, armed with deadly weapon Whoever is guilty of rioting, being armed with a deadly weapon or with anything which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both-Cognizable- Bailable-Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. COMMENTS Unlawful Assembly to cause death Where the presence of injured eye witnesses at the place of occurrence was undoubtful and their evidence corroborated by medical evidence supported by prompt FIR against all 16 accused, merely non-explanation of injuries sustained by accused persons by these witnesses is not fatal for prosecution and as such common object of unlawful assembly to cause death is established; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhagwan Singh, 2000 Cr LJ 123 (MP). Nexus between common object and offence ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... to be hired, engaged or employed, to join or become members of an unlawful assembly, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine, or both-Cognizable- Bailable-Triable by any Magistrate-Non-compoundable. Section 158. Being hired to take part in an unlawful assembly or riot Whoever is engaged, or hired, or offers or attempts to be hired or engaged, to do or assist in doing any of the acts specified in Section 141, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both, or to go armed.- and whoever, being so engaged or hired as aforesaid, goes armed, or engages or offers to go armed, with any deadly weapon or with anything which used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I Punishment-Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine, or both-Cognizable- Bailable-Triable by any Magistrate-Non-compoundable. Para II Punishment-Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both-Cognizable- Bailable-Triable by any Magistrate-Non-compoundable. Section 159. Affray When two or more persons, by fighting in a public place, disturb the public peace, they are said to "commit an affray". Section 160. Punishment for committing affray Whoever commits an affray, shall be punished with imprisonment of ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Section 177. Furnishing false information Whoever, being legally bound to furnish information on any subject to any public servant, as such, furnishes, as true, information on the subject which he knows or has reason to believe to be false, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both; or, if the information which he is legally bound to give respects the commission of an offence, or is required for the purpose of preventing the commission of an offence, or in order to the apprehension of an offender, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Illustrations (a) A, a landholder, knowing of the commission of a murder within the limits of his estate, willfully misinforms the Magistrate of the district that the death has occurred by accident in consequence of the bite of a snake. A is guilty of the offence defined in this section (b) A, a village watchman, knowing that a considerable body of strangers has passed through his village in order to commit a dacoity in the house of Z, a wealthy merchant residing in a neighbouring place, and being being bound under clause 5, section VII, 1[Regulation III, 1821], of the Bengal Code, to give early and punctual information of the above fact to the officer of the nearest police-station, willfully misinforms the police-officer that a body of suspicious characters passed through the village with a view to commit dacoity in a certain distant place in a different direction. Here A is guilty of the offence defined in the later part of this section. 2Explanation In section 176 and in this section the word "offence" includes any act committed at any place out of 3[India], which, if committed in 3[India], would be punishable under any of the following sections, namely, 302, 304, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458, 459 and 460; and the word "offender" includes any person who is alleged to have been guilty of any such act. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Triable by any Magistrate. --------- 1. The words "or before a Military Court of Request" omitted by Act 13 of 1889, sec. 2 and Sch. Section 194. Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence Whoever gives or fabricates false evidence, intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any person to be convicted of an offence which is capital 1[by the law for the time being in force in 2[India]] shall be punished with 3[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; if innocent person be thereby convicted and executed.- and if an innocent person be convicted and executed in consequence of such false evidence, the person who gives such false evidence shall be punished either with death or the punishment hereinbefore described. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I Punishment-Imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Non-cognizable-Non-bailable-Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable. Para II Punishment-Death or as above-Non-cognizable-Non-bailable-Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable. ---------- 1. Subs. by the A.O. 1948, for "by the law of British India or England". 2. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, sec. 3 and Sch., for "the States". 3. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... -------- 1. Subs. by the A.O. 1948, for "by the law of British India or England". 2. Subs. by Act 3 of 1951, sec. 3 and Sch., for "the States". 3. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). Section 195A. Threatening any person to give false evidence 1[195A. 2[Threatening any person to give false evidence].- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause that person to give false evidence shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both; and if innocent person is convicted and sentenced in consequence of such false evidence, with death or imprisonment for more than seven years, the person who threatens shall be punished with the same punishment and sentence in the same manner and to the same extent such innocent person is punished and sentenced.] CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I Punishment-Imprisonment for 7 years or fine or both-Cognizable-Non- bailable-Triable by Court by which offence of giving false evidence is triable-Non-compoundable. Para II Punishment-Same as for the offence for which the false evidence was given-Cognizable-Non-bailable-Triable by Court by which offence of giving false evidence is triable-Non-compoundable. --------- 1. Ins. by Act 2 of 2006, sec. 2 (w.e.f. 16-4-2006). ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... A declaration which is inadmissible merely upon the ground of some informality, is a declaration within the meaning of sections 199 to 200. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-The same as for giving or fabricating false evidence-Non- cognizable-Bailable-Triable by court by which offence of giving false evidence is triable-Non-compoundable. Section 201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence.-shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life.-and if the offence is punishable with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years' imprisonment.-and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. Illustration A, knowing that B has murdered Z, assists B to hide the body with the intention of screening B from punishment. A is liable to imprisonment of either description for seven years, and also to fine. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). Section 202. Intentional omission to give information of offence by person bound to inform Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 6 months, or fine, or both-Non-cognizable- Bailable-Triable by any Magistrate-Non-compoundable. COMMENTS Ingredients Assuming that the prosecution has not positively proved that the death was homicidal yet from the medical evidence it is clear that it was not a natural death and consequently the death should at least be noted as one of suicide. Even in the cause of suicide an offence of abetment punishable under section 306 is inherent. Therefore, even in the case of suicide there is an obligation on the person who knows or has reason to believe that such a suicidal death has occurred, to give information; Bhagwan Swarup v. State of Rajasthan, (1991) Cr LJ 3123 (3133) (SC). Section 203. Giving false information respecting an offence committed Whoever knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, gives any information respecting that offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two year, or with fine, or with both. 1[Explanation.-In sections 201 and 202 and in this section the word "offence", includes any act committed at any place out of 2[India], which, if committed in 2[India], would be punishable under any of the following sections, namely, 302, 304, 382, 392 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458, 459 and 460.] ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... satisfied, or fraudulently suffers or permits any such act to be done in his name, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both-Non-cognizable- Bailable-Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. Section 211. False charge of offence made with intent to injure Whoever, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I Punishment-Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both-Non-cognizable- Bailable-Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. Para II Punishment-Imprisonment for 7 years and fine-Non-cognizable-Bailable- Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. Para III Punishment-Imprisonment for 7 years, and fine-No n-cognizable-Bailable-Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Punishment-Imprisonment for 7 years and fine-Non-cognizable-Bailable- Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. Para III Punishment-Imprisonment for 7 years, and fine-No n-cognizable-Bailable-Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable. -------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). Section 212. Harbouring offender Whenever an offence has been committed, whoever harbours or conceals a person whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the offender, with the intention of screening him from legal punishment; if a capital offence.-shall, if the offence is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment.-and if the offence is punishable with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, and not to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. 2["Offence" in this section includes any act committed at any place out of 3[India], which, if committed in 3[India], would be punishable under any of the following sections, namely, 302, 304, 382, 392, 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458, 459 and 460; and every such act shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be punishable as if the accused person had been guilty of it in 3[India].] ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... --------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). 2. Ins. by Act 3 of 1894, sec. 7. 3. The words "British India" have successively been subs. by the A.O. 1948, the A.O. 1950 and Act 3 of 1951, sec. 3 and Sch., to read as above. Section 213. Taking gift, etc., to screen an offender from punishment Whoever accepts or attempts to obtain, or agrees to accept, any gratification for himself or any other person, or any restitution of property to himself or any other person, in consideration of his concealing an offence or of his screening any person from legal punishment for any offence, or of his not proceeding against any person for the purpose of bringing him to legal punishment, if a capital offence.-shall, if the offence is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment.-and if the offence is punishable with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I Punishment-Imprisonment for 7 years and fine-Cognizable-Bailable- Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Punishment-Imprisonment for a quarter of the longest term, provided for the offence, or fine, or both-Cognizable-Bailable-Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. --------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). Section 214. Offering gift or restoration of property in consideration of screening offender Whoever gives or causes, or offers or agrees to give or cause, any gratification to any person, or 1[restores or causes the restoration of] any property to any person, in consideration of that person's concealing an offence, or of his screening any person from legal punishment for any offence, or of his not proceeding against any person for the purpose of bringing him to legal punishment; if a capital offence.-shall, if the offence is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment.-and if the offence is punishable with 2[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. 3[Exception.-The provisions of sections 213 and 214 do not extend to any case in which the offence may lawfully be compounded.] 4[***] CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both-Cognizable- Bailable-Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. Section 216. Harbouring offender who has escaped from custody or whose apprehension has been ordered Whenever any person convicted of or charged with an offence, being in lawful custody for that offence, escapes from such custody; or whenever a public servant, in the exercise of the lawful powers of such public servant, orders a certain person to be apprehended for an offence, whoever, knowing of such escape or order for apprehension, harbours of conceals that person with the intention of preventing him from being apprehended, shall be punished in the manner following that is to say,- if a capital offence.-if the offence for which the person was in custody or is ordered to be apprehended is punishable with death, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment.-if the offence is punishable with 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, with or without fine; and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year and not to ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for such offence, or with fine, or with both. 2["Offence" in this section includes also any act or omission of which a person is alleged to have been guilty out of 3[India], which, if he had been guilty of it in 3[India], would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to extradition, 4[***] or otherwise, liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in 3[India]; and every such act or omission shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be punishable as if the accused person had ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 7 years, or fine, or both-Non-cognizable- Bailable-Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. Section 221. Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend Whoever, being a public servant, legally bound as such public servant to apprehend or to keep in confinement any person charged with or liable to apprehended for an offence, intentionally omits to apprehend such person, or intentionally suffers such person to escape, or intentionally aids such person in escaping or attempting to escape from such confinement, shall be punished as follows, that is to say:- with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, was charged with, or liable to be apprehended for, an offence punishable with death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, was charged with, or liable to be apprehended for, an offence punishable with 1[imprisonment for life] or imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, was charged with, or liable to be apprehended for, an offence punishable with imprisonment for a term less than ten years. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I Punishment-Imprisonment for 7 years, with or without fine-According as the offence in relation to which such omission has been made in cognizable or non-cognizable-Bailable-Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... -------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). Section 222. Intentional omission to apprehend on the part of public servant bound to apprehend person under sentence or lawfully committed Whoever, being a public servant, legally bound as such public servant to apprehend or to keep in confinement any person under sentence of a Court of Justice for any offence 1[or lawfully committed to custody], intentionally omits to apprehend such person, or intentionally suffers such person to escape, or intentionally aids such person in escaping or attempting to escape from such confinement, shall be punished as follows, that is to say :- with 2[imprisonment of life] or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended, is under sentence of death; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, with or without fine, if the person in confinement or who ought to have been apprehended, is subject, by a sentence of a Court of Justice, or by virtue of a commutation of such sentence, to 2[imprisonment for life]3[***] 4[***] 5[***] 6[***] or imprisonment for a term of ten years or upwards; or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, if the person in confinement, or who ought to have been apprehended is subject, by a sentence of a Court of Justice, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding to ten years 7[or if the person was lawfully committed to custody]. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I Punishment-Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 14 years, with or without fine-Cognizable-Non-bailable-Triable by Court of Session- Non-compoundable. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Section 225. Resistance or obstruction to lawful apprehension of another person Whoever intentionally offers any resistance or illegal obstruction to the lawful apprehension of any other person for an offence, or rescues or attempts to rescue any other person from any custody in which that person is lawfully detained for an offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; or, if the person to be apprehended, or the person rescued or attempted to be rescued, is charged with or liable to be apprehended for an offence punishable with 1[imprisonment for life] or imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; or, if the person to be apprehended, or the person attempted to be rescued, is charged with or liable to be apprehended for an offence punishable with death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; or, if the person to be apprehended or rescued, or attempted to be rescued, is liable under the sentence of a Court of Justice, or by virtue of a commutation of such a sentence, to 1[imprisonment for life] 2[***] 3[***] 4[***] or imprisonment, for a term of ten years or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; or, if the person to be apprehended or rescued, or attempted to be rescued, is under sentence of death, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life] or imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I Punishment-Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both-Cognizable- Bailable-Triable by any Magistrate-Non-compoundable. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... person or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 1 year, or fine, or both-Non-cognizable- Bailable-Triable by any Magistrate-Compounded by the person whose religious feelings are intended to be wounded. State Amendment Andhra Pradesh In Andhra Pradesh offence under section 298 is cognizable. [Vide A.P.G.O. Ms. No. 732, dated 5th December, 1991]. Section 299. Culpable homicide Who ever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. Illustrations (a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of there by causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide. (b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z's death, induces B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide. (c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable homicide, as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... (a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of there by causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide. (b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z's death, induces B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide. (c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable homicide, as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death. Explanation 1 A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death. Explanation 2 Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented. Explanation 3 The causing of the death of child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born. COMMENTS Death caused of person other than intended The accused, with the intention of killing A or whose life he had taken out considerable insurance without latter's knowledge, in order to obtain the insured amount gave him some sweets mixed with a well ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... taken out considerable insurance without latter's knowledge, in order to obtain the insured amount gave him some sweets mixed with a well known poison like arsenic. The intended victim ate some of the sweets and threw the rest away which were picked up by two children who ate them and died of poisoning. It was held that the accused was liable for the murder of the children though he intended only to kill A; Public Prosecutor v. Mushunooru Suryanarayana Moorty, (1942) 2 MWN 136: (1912) 13 Cr LJ 145. Murder distinguished from culpable homicide "Culpable homicide" is genus, and "murder" is the specie. All "murder" are culpable homicide but not vice-versa; Narasingh Challan v. State of Orissa, (1997) 2 Crimes 78 (Ori). Presumption regarding intention or knowledge The accused struck his wife a violent blow on the head with the plougshare which rendered her unconscious and hanged his wife soon afterwards under the impression that she was already dead intending to create false evidence as to the cause of the death and to conceal his own crime. It was held that the intention of the accused must be judged not in the light of the actual circumstances, but in the light of what he supposed to be the circumstances. Hence, the accused cannot be convicted either of murder or culpable homicide, he could of course be punished both for his original assault on his wife and for his attempt to create fake evidence by hanging her; Palani Gaindan v. Emperor, (1919) 42 Mad 547. Provocation caused by act The assault for murder cannot be said to be sudden and without meditation as the deceased was not armed; State of Maharashtra v. Krishna Murti Lazmipatti Naidu, AIR 1981 SC 617: (1981) SC Cr R 398: (1981) Cr LJ 9: (1981) SCC (Cr) 354. Section 300. Murder Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or- Secondly.-If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... of what he supposed to be the circumstances. Hence, the accused cannot be convicted either of murder or culpable homicide, he could of course be punished both for his original assault on his wife and for his attempt to create fake evidence by hanging her; Palani Gaindan v. Emperor, (1919) 42 Mad 547. Provocation caused by act The assault for murder cannot be said to be sudden and without meditation as the deceased was not armed; State of Maharashtra v. Krishna Murti Lazmipatti Naidu, AIR 1981 SC 617: (1981) SC Cr R 398: (1981) Cr LJ 9: (1981) SCC (Cr) 354. Section 300. Murder Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or- Secondly.-If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or- Thirdly.-If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or- Fourthly.-If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. Illustrations (a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder. (b) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Fourthly.-If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. Illustrations (a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder. (b) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health. But if A, not knowing that Z is labouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as would not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a sound state of health, here A, although he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause death, or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause death. (c) A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club-wound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here, A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z's death. (d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated design to kill any particular individual. Exception 1.-When culpable homicide is not murder.-Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self- control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. The above exception is subject to the following provisos:- First.-That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... First.-That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person. Secondly.-That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant. Thirdly.-That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Explanation Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact. Illustrations (a) A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills. Y, Z's child. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was not given by the child, and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act caused by the provocation. (b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y, neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight. A kills Z. Here A has not committed murder, but merely culpable homicide. (c) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done by a public servant in the exercise of his powers. (d) A appears as witness before Z, a Magistrate, Z says that he does not believe a word of A's deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these words, and kills Z. This is murder. (e) A attempts to pull Z's nose, Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills Z. This ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... (d) A appears as witness before Z, a Magistrate, Z says that he does not believe a word of A's deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these words, and kills Z. This is murder. (e) A attempts to pull Z's nose, Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence. (f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending to take advantage of B's rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B's hand for that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only culpable homicide, but A is guilty of murder. Exception 2.-Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence. Illustration Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder, but only culpable homicide. Exception 3.-Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused. Exception 4.-Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... but only culpable homicide. Exception 3.-Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused. Exception 4.-Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault. Exception 5.-Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent. Illustration A, by instigation, voluntarily causes, Z, a person under eighteen years of age to commit suicide. Here, on account of Z's youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death; A has therefore abetted murder. Comments Act by which the death is caused, to done with intention of cuasing death (i) Statement by a child witness who was son of deceased, that his father tied hands and legs of his mother and burnt her cannot be discarded on the basis of stray statement in cross-examination where he has stated that when his mother caught fire he was in his grand mother's house, is fairly reliable on the factum of the incident and the same cannot be discarded, held accused was liable to be convicted; State of Karnataka v. Shariff, AIR 2003 SC 1074. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... 34; Banta Singh v. State of Punjab, (1991) Cr LJ 1342 (SC). (iv) The totality of the injuries caused to the victim clearly supports the finding of both the courts below that the accused/appellants went on belabouring the deceased till he died on the spot. In the circumstances, the contention that the accused did not intend to cause the murder of the deceased cannot be upheld by the Supreme Court; Prabhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1991) Cr LJ 1373 (1373-1374) (SC). (v) Where the accused set fire to the single room hut, in which the deceased was sleeping, after locking the door of the room from outside and also prevented the villagers from going to the rescue of the helpless inmate of the room, it was held that the intention of the accused to kill the deceased was clear and they were liable for murder; Rawalpenta Venkalu v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC 171. 'And commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death' Merely causing death, by doing an act with the knowledge that is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability cause death, is not murder. In order that an act, done with such knowledge, should constitute murder, it is necessary that it should be committed without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing the death or bodily injury. An act, done with the knowledge of its consequences, is not prima facie murder, it becomes murder only if it can be positively affirmed that there was no excuse. The requirements of the section are not satisfied by the act of homicide being one of extreme recklessness. It must, in addition, be wholly in inexcusable. When a risk in incurred even a risk of the gravest possible character which must normally result in death, the taking of that risk is not murder unless it was inexcuatble to take it; Emperor v. Dhirajia, AIR 1940 All 486; Gyarsibai w/o Jagannath v. State, AIR 1953 MB 61. Clause 'thirdly' of section 300 distinguished from the second clause of section 299 The difference between the second clause of section 299 and clause 'thirdly' of section 300 to one of degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. To put it more broadly, it ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability cause death, is not murder. In order that an act, done with such knowledge, should constitute murder, it is necessary that it should be committed without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing the death or bodily injury. An act, done with the knowledge of its consequences, is not prima facie murder, it becomes murder only if it can be positively affirmed that there was no excuse. The requirements of the section are not satisfied by the act of homicide being one of extreme recklessness. It must, in addition, be wholly in inexcusable. When a risk in incurred even a risk of the gravest possible character which must normally result in death, the taking of that risk is not murder unless it was inexcuatble to take it; Emperor v. Dhirajia, AIR 1940 All 486; Gyarsibai w/o Jagannath v. State, AIR 1953 MB 61. Clause 'thirdly' of section 300 distinguished from the second clause of section 299 The difference between the second clause of section 299 and clause 'thirdly' of section 300 to one of degree of probability of death resulting from the intended bodily injury. To put it more broadly, it is the degree of probability of death which determines whether a culpable homicide is of the gravest, medium, or lowest degree. The word likely in second clause of section 299 conveys the sense of probable as distinguished from a mere possibility. The words 'bodily injury ............ sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death', in clause thirdly of section 300, mean that death will be the most probable result of the injury having regard to the ordinary course of nature; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarpu Punayya, AIR 1977 SC 45. Consent Circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to convict accused when possibility of deceased receiving fatal injury by fall cannot be ruled out; State of Rajasthan v. Kamla, (1991) Cr LJ 602 (SC). Essential of murder (i) Having regard to the number of injuries inflicted on the deceased it was not possible to uphold the contention that there was no intention to kill; Prabhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1991) Cr LJ 1373 (1373-1374) (SC). ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... probable as distinguished from a mere possibility. The words 'bodily injury ............ sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death', in clause thirdly of section 300, mean that death will be the most probable result of the injury having regard to the ordinary course of nature; State of Andhra Pradesh v. Rayavarpu Punayya, AIR 1977 SC 45. Consent Circumstantial evidence is not sufficient to convict accused when possibility of deceased receiving fatal injury by fall cannot be ruled out; State of Rajasthan v. Kamla, (1991) Cr LJ 602 (SC). Essential of murder (i) Having regard to the number of injuries inflicted on the deceased it was not possible to uphold the contention that there was no intention to kill; Prabhu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1991) Cr LJ 1373 (1373-1374) (SC). (ii) When there was no evidence as to how death came about, evidence relating to charge of murder was held to be insufficient and unacceptable; Kedar Nath v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1991) Cr LJ 989 (SC). Exception 4: Heat of passion Mere sudden quarrel would not entitle the accused to seek for Exception 4 to section 300; Samuthram alias Samudra Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 Crimes 185 (Mad). Exception 4: Scope and applicability of To invoke Exception 4 to section 300, four requirements must be satisfied, namely (i) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner... The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... the benefit of this Exception provided he has not acted cruelly; Samuthram alias Samudra Rajan v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1997) 2 Crimes 185 (Mad). Fight Where a mutual conflict develops and there is no reliable and acceptable evidence as to how it started and as to who was the aggressor, it will not be correct to assume private defence for both sides. Such a case will be a case of sudden fight and conflict and has to be dealt with under Exception 4 to section 300 of the Code; Januram v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1997) 2 Crimes 582 (MP). Injuries on vital and non-vital parts of body of the deceased Infliction of the injury on the vital part of the body with the agricultural instrument by the enraged accused in a sudden quarrel- Held, accused did not cause the injury intentionally; Patel Rasiklal Becharbhai v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1992 SC 1150. Injury which is likely to cause death and injury which is sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death (i) Accused inflicted 18 injuries in the arms and legs of the deceased with a gandasa. None of the injuries was on a vital part of the body of the deceased. The obvious motive was revenge because the deceased's son had caused a serious leg injury which resulted in the amputations of the leg of P, the son of appellant. The Court held that one of the injuries inflicted by the appellant was on a vital part of the body of the deceased whom the appellant had no intention to kill, at the same time though he had no intention to kill, the appellant must have known that he was inflicting such bodily injuries as were likely to cause death as a consequence of which death did happen. The appellants conviction for murder was accordingly altered to one for culpable homicide; Kapur Singh v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 654. (ii) It was held by the Supreme Court that whether the injury intended by the accused and actually inflicted by him is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or not, must be determined in each case on the basis of the facts and circumstances. In the instant case, the injury caused was the result of blow with a knife in the stomach which was given with such force that the weapon had penetrated the abdomen and had injured the bowels. According to the doctor the ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... (i) Accused inflicted 18 injuries in the arms and legs of the deceased with a gandasa. None of the injuries was on a vital part of the body of the deceased. The obvious motive was revenge because the deceased's son had caused a serious leg injury which resulted in the amputations of the leg of P, the son of appellant. The Court held that one of the injuries inflicted by the appellant was on a vital part of the body of the deceased whom the appellant had no intention to kill, at the same time though he had no intention to kill, the appellant must have known that he was inflicting such bodily injuries as were likely to cause death as a consequence of which death did happen. The appellants conviction for murder was accordingly altered to one for culpable homicide; Kapur Singh v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 654. (ii) It was held by the Supreme Court that whether the injury intended by the accused and actually inflicted by him is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or not, must be determined in each case on the basis of the facts and circumstances. In the instant case, the injury caused was the result of blow with a knife in the stomach which was given with such force that the weapon had penetrated the abdomen and had injured the bowels. According to the doctor the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Therefore, in the absence of any circumstances to show that the injury was caused accidentally or unintentionally, it had to be presumed that the accused had intended to cause the inflicted injury and the condition of cl. (3) of section 300, I.P.C. were satisfied. Conviction under section 302 was upheld; Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1958 SC 465. (iii) The appellant had given six blows with a lathi stick on the head of the deceased, one of which fractured his skull. The deceased died three weeks after the incident. The injury which broke the skull had caused a depression in the brain and death was due to brain hemorrhage. It was held that the accused was liable under section 304 for culpable homicide. The Court held that even though the blows were inflicted by the appellant on the head of the deceased with force, the lathi not being an iron rod and the deceased being a young man strongly built the appellant could not under the circumstances be held to have been actuated with the intention of causing the death of the deceased nor do one could think despite the medical evidence that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Seeing that he survived for three weeks and looking on the doctor's admission that an injury of that kind is not incurable; Inder Singh Bagga Singh v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1955 SC 439. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... SC 465. (iii) The appellant had given six blows with a lathi stick on the head of the deceased, one of which fractured his skull. The deceased died three weeks after the incident. The injury which broke the skull had caused a depression in the brain and death was due to brain hemorrhage. It was held that the accused was liable under section 304 for culpable homicide. The Court held that even though the blows were inflicted by the appellant on the head of the deceased with force, the lathi not being an iron rod and the deceased being a young man strongly built the appellant could not under the circumstances be held to have been actuated with the intention of causing the death of the deceased nor do one could think despite the medical evidence that the injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Seeing that he survived for three weeks and looking on the doctor's admission that an injury of that kind is not incurable; Inder Singh Bagga Singh v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1955 SC 439. Intention and knowledge It is fallacious to contend that when death is caused by a single blow, clause thirdly is not attracted and, therefore, it would not amount to murder. The ingredient 'intention' in that clause gives clue in a given case whether offence involved is murder or not; Jai Prakash v. State (Delhi Administration), (1991) 1 Crimes 474 (SC). Proof of sufficiency of the injury to cause death (i) Where evidence of both eye witnesses reliable and well corroborated by medical and other evidence on record inspires confidence that accused had intention to kill deceased then conviction is liable to be sustained; Robba Ramanna Dora v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 2000 Cr LJ 118 (AP). (ii) Where the ocular evidence is explicit and fully supported by medical evidence and evidence of other witnesses and evidence of witnesses who apprehended the accused after some hours of occurrence with blood stained weapon then absence of proof of motive will not render the entire prosecution case unbelievable, therefore, charge of murder against accused proved beyond all reasonable doubt; Ram Nath Novia v. State of Bihar, 2000 Cr LJ 318 (Pat). (iii) Where the evidence of eye witnesses regarding assault to ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... The accused, a naval officer, was charged with the murder of P, a businessman of Bombay, for having illicit intimacy with his wife. On coming to know from his wife about the illicit relationship with the deceased, he went to the ship, took from the stores a semi-automatic revolver and six cartridges on a false pretext, loaded the same, went to the flat of P entered in his bedroom and shot him dead after a heated exchange of words. The court held that the test to be applied is that of the effect of the provocation on a reasonable man; and in applying that test it is of particular importance to consider whether a sufficient interval has elapsed since the receiving of the information which caused the provocation to allow a reasonable man to cool down; K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharasthra, AIR 1962 SC 605. Scope It is now well settled principle of law that if two views are possible, one in favour of the accused and the other adversely against it, the view favouring the accused must be accepted; Raghunath v. State of Haryana, AIR 2003 SC 165. With the knowledge that he is likely, by such act, to cause death (i) In case of murder in which the conclusion of guilt is drawn by prosecution it must be fully established beyond all reasonable doubt and consistent with the guilt of the accused; S.D. Soni v. State of Gujarat, (1991) Cr LJ 330 (SC). (ii) Legislature had advisedly used the words: "bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death". Therefore, from an understanding of the legislative intent of section 300, I.P.C., a culpable homicide becomes murder if the attacker causes an injury which he knows is likely to cause death and, of course, consequent to such injury, the victim should die; State of Rajashtan v. Dhool Singh, AIR 2004 SC 1264. Section 301. Culpable homicide by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had caused the death of ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... prosecution it must be fully established beyond all reasonable doubt and consistent with the guilt of the accused; S.D. Soni v. State of Gujarat, (1991) Cr LJ 330 (SC). (ii) Legislature had advisedly used the words: "bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause death". Therefore, from an understanding of the legislative intent of section 300, I.P.C., a culpable homicide becomes murder if the attacker causes an injury which he knows is likely to cause death and, of course, consequent to such injury, the victim should die; State of Rajashtan v. Dhool Singh, AIR 2004 SC 1264. Section 301. Culpable homicide by causing death of person other than person whose death was intended If a person, by doing anything which he intends or knows to be likely to cause death, commits culpable homicide by causing the death of any person, whose death he neither intends nor knows himself to be likely to cause, the culpable homicide committed by the offender is of the description of which it would have been if he had caused the death of the person whose death he intended or knew himself to be likely to cause. COMMENTS Accused is punishable for murder under doctrine of transfer of malice under section 301 when he aimed at one person but killed another person; Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (1991) Cr LJ 597 (SC). Section 302. Punishment for murder Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Death, or imprisonment for life, and fine-Cognizable-Non- bailable-Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable. COMMENTS Alteration of conviction ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... worthiness; Sawai Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (1997) 2 Crimes 148 (Raj). (iv) Crime of murder committed against public servant doing official duties must be discouraged and dealt with firm hand; Gayasi v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1160: (1981) ALJ 441: (1981) Cr LJ 883: (1981) SCC (Cr) 590: (1981) Cr App R (SC) 385: (1981) 2 SCC 713. Effect of acquittal of some accused on conviction of others Though section 34 is not added to section 302, the accused had clear notice that they were being charged with the offence of committing murder in pursuance of their common intentions to put an end to the life of deceased. Hence, the omission to mention section 34 in the charge had only an academic significance, and has not in any way misled the accused; Rawalpenta Venkalu v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC 171. Importance of motive (i) In dowry deaths motive for murder exists and what is required of courts is to examine as to who translated it into action as motive viz., whether individual or family; Ashok Kumar v. State of Rajasthan, (1991) 1 Crimes 116 (SC). (ii) Accused committed murder in professional manner with planned motivation, accused deserved no sympathy even when the accused had no personal motive; Kuljeet Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 1572: (1981) Cr LJ 1045: (1981) Cr LR (SC) 328. Intention of causing death When the appellant dealt a severe knife blow on the stomach of deceased without provocation and when deceased was unarmed and had already been injured by co-accused the appellant cannot be held that he had no intention to cause a murderous assault by mere fact that only one blow was inflicted; Nashik v. State of Maharashtra, 1993 (1) Crimes 1197 (SC). Medical evidence - importance Mere variance of prosecution story with the medical evidence, in all cases, should not lead to conclusion inevitably to reject the ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Medical evidence - importance Mere variance of prosecution story with the medical evidence, in all cases, should not lead to conclusion inevitably to reject the prosecution story. Court to make out efforts within judicial sphere to know truth; Mohan Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1999 SC 883: 1999 (2) SCC 428. Mental derangement short of insanity Where feeling life unbearable on account of domestic quarrels, a woman (accused) jumped into a well with her children, it was held that the only sentence that could be passed, was the lesser sentence of imprisonment for life; Gyarsibai w/o Jagannath v. State, AIR 1953 MB 61. Rarest of the rare cases (i) Undoubtedly brutality is involved in every incidence of murder but that brutality by itself will not bring it within the ambit of the rarest of the rare cases, for the purposes of the death penalty; Subhash Ramkumar Bina @ Vakil v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2003 SC 269. (ii) It is alleged that all the four accused expressed their resentment and held Mrs. Gandhi responsible for operation 'Blue Star' at Amritsar. To avenge they entered into a conspiracy to kill Mrs. Gandhi. In pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, two accused being security guards, who had prior knowledge that Smt. Gandhi was scheduled to go on the morning of 31st October, 1984 from her residence at Safdar Jang Road to her office at Akbar Road via TMC gate for an interview with Irish Television team, got manipulated their duties in such a way that one of the accused would be present at the TMC gate and another at TMC sentry booth between 7.00 AM to 10.00 AM. While Mrs. Gandhi was approaching to TMC gate towards her office one of the accused fired five rounds and another accused 25 shots at her from their respective weapons. Smt. Gandhi sustained injuries and fell down and succumbed to her injuries same day at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. The Supreme Court confirmed the death sentence awarded by the trial Court and maintained by High Court to three appellants for entering into conspiracy and committing murder of leader under sections 302, 120B, 34, 107 and 109 of the Penal Code and held that the murder by the security guards is one of the rarest of ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... (ii) It is alleged that all the four accused expressed their resentment and held Mrs. Gandhi responsible for operation 'Blue Star' at Amritsar. To avenge they entered into a conspiracy to kill Mrs. Gandhi. In pursuance of the aforesaid conspiracy, two accused being security guards, who had prior knowledge that Smt. Gandhi was scheduled to go on the morning of 31st October, 1984 from her residence at Safdar Jang Road to her office at Akbar Road via TMC gate for an interview with Irish Television team, got manipulated their duties in such a way that one of the accused would be present at the TMC gate and another at TMC sentry booth between 7.00 AM to 10.00 AM. While Mrs. Gandhi was approaching to TMC gate towards her office one of the accused fired five rounds and another accused 25 shots at her from their respective weapons. Smt. Gandhi sustained injuries and fell down and succumbed to her injuries same day at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi. The Supreme Court confirmed the death sentence awarded by the trial Court and maintained by High Court to three appellants for entering into conspiracy and committing murder of leader under sections 302, 120B, 34, 107 and 109 of the Penal Code and held that the murder by the security guards is one of the rarest of rare case in which extreme penalty of death is called for to assassin and his conspirators; Kehar Singh v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1988 SC 1883. (iii) On the night of 21st May, 1991 a diabolical (wicked) crime was committed. It stunned the whole nation. Rajiv Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India, was assassinated by a human bomb. With him 15 persons including a policeman perished and 43 suffered grievous or simple injuries. Assassin Dhanu one of the LTTE activist, who detonated (exploded) the belt bomb concealed under her waist and Haribabu, a photographer (and also a conspirator) engaged to take photographs of the horrific sight, also died in the blast. A camera was found intact on the body of Haribabu at the scene of the crime. Film of the camera when developed led to unfolding of the dastardly act committed by the accused and others. A charge of conspiracy for offences under TADA, I.P.C., Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Arms Act, 1959, Passport Act, 1967, Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 was laid against 41 persons, 12 of whom were already dead having committed suicide and three absconded. Out of these 26 faced the trial before the Designated Court. Prosecution examined 288 witnesses and produced numerous documents and material objects. The Court found them guilty of the offences charged ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... (iii) On the night of 21st May, 1991 a diabolical (wicked) crime was committed. It stunned the whole nation. Rajiv Gandhi, former Prime Minister of India, was assassinated by a human bomb. With him 15 persons including a policeman perished and 43 suffered grievous or simple injuries. Assassin Dhanu one of the LTTE activist, who detonated (exploded) the belt bomb concealed under her waist and Haribabu, a photographer (and also a conspirator) engaged to take photographs of the horrific sight, also died in the blast. A camera was found intact on the body of Haribabu at the scene of the crime. Film of the camera when developed led to unfolding of the dastardly act committed by the accused and others. A charge of conspiracy for offences under TADA, I.P.C., Explosive Substances Act, 1908, Arms Act, 1959, Passport Act, 1967, Foreigners Act, 1946 and the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933 was laid against 41 persons, 12 of whom were already dead having committed suicide and three absconded. Out of these 26 faced the trial before the Designated Court. Prosecution examined 288 witnesses and produced numerous documents and material objects. The Court found them guilty of the offences charged against them and awarded death sentence to 21 of them on the charge of conspiracy to murder under section 120B read with section 203, I.P.C. The apex Court by a unanimous verdict set at liberty 19 accused for charges under section 120B read with section 302, I.P.C. and confirmed the death sentence awarded by the trial Court. As regards the extreme penalty of death to Nalani was concerned it was confirmed by a majority of 2 to 1. Considering the fact that she belonged to the weaker section and she was led into the conspiracy by players on her feminine sentiments, she became an obedient participant without doing any dominator's role. She was persistently brainwashed by A3 who became her husband and then the father of her child and her helplessness in escaping from the cobweb of Sivarasan and company. The mere fact that she became obedient to all the instructions of Sivarasan, need not be used for treating her conduct as amounting to rarest of the rare cases. The President of India commuted the death sentence of Nalani to life imprisonment on humanitarian ground, as she was mother of an infant child; State of Tamil Nadu through Superintendent of Police CBI/SIT v. Nalani, AIR 1999 (5) SC 2640. Relevant factors to ascertain murder The basic constituent of an offence under section 302, is homicidal death; Sangarabonia Sreenu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 4 ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... weaker section and she was led into the conspiracy by players on her feminine sentiments, she became an obedient participant without doing any dominator's role. She was persistently brainwashed by A3 who became her husband and then the father of her child and her helplessness in escaping from the cobweb of Sivarasan and company. The mere fact that she became obedient to all the instructions of Sivarasan, need not be used for treating her conduct as amounting to rarest of the rare cases. The President of India commuted the death sentence of Nalani to life imprisonment on humanitarian ground, as she was mother of an infant child; State of Tamil Nadu through Superintendent of Police CBI/SIT v. Nalani, AIR 1999 (5) SC 2640. Relevant factors to ascertain murder The basic constituent of an offence under section 302, is homicidal death; Sangarabonia Sreenu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 4 Supreme 214. Sentence - General Provisions of death sentence being an alternative punishment for murder is not unreasonable; Bachhan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC 898: (1980) 2 SCC 864: (1980) Cr LJ 636 : (1980) Cr LR (SC) 388: 1980 (2) SCJ 475. Strangulation, throttling and hanging cases Where post mortem report showed that there was ligaltive mark on the neck of the deceased wife which was anti-mortem, the opinion of the doctor was clear and definite that such ligaltive mark of 5 cm width in horizontal position could not be caused by strangulation, the medical evidence, therefore, completely pacified the case of the accused husband that on his return from the field to his house he had found his wife hanging, and thus she had committed suicide; Madhari v. State of Chattisgarh, 2002 Cr LJ 2630 (SC). ------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). Section 303. Punishment for murder by life-convict ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Strangulation, throttling and hanging cases Where post mortem report showed that there was ligaltive mark on the neck of the deceased wife which was anti-mortem, the opinion of the doctor was clear and definite that such ligaltive mark of 5 cm width in horizontal position could not be caused by strangulation, the medical evidence, therefore, completely pacified the case of the accused husband that on his return from the field to his house he had found his wife hanging, and thus she had committed suicide; Madhari v. State of Chattisgarh, 2002 Cr LJ 2630 (SC). ------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). Section 303. Punishment for murder by life-convict Whoever, being under sentence of 1[imprisonment for life], commits murder, shall be punished with death. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Death-Cognizable-Non-bailable-Triable by Court of Session- Non-compoundable. -------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). Section 304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Punishment-Death-Cognizable-Non-bailable-Triable by Court of Session- Non-compoundable. -------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). Section 304. Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I Punishment-Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable-Non-bailable-Triable by Court of Session-Non- compoundable. Para II Punishment-Imprisonment for 10 years, or fine, or both-Cognizable-Non- bailable-Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable. COMMENTS Alteration of conviction (i) Where the accused, who inflicted fatal injury on head of deceased which caused his death, without intention to kill him is liable to be ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... COMMENTS Alteration of conviction (i) Where the accused, who inflicted fatal injury on head of deceased which caused his death, without intention to kill him is liable to be convicted under section 304 Part II while other accused who inflicted sword injury liable to be convicted under section 324 IPC; Asu v. State of Rajasthan, 2000 Cr LJ 207 (Raj). (ii) Where the accused was about 80 years at the time of occurrence and is totally bedridden, sentence reduced to period already under gone for the ends of justice; Dev Singh v. State of Punjab, 2000 Cr LJ 347 (Punj). Punishment (i) Where there were contradictions in evidence of prosecution witnesses on major issues including location of place of occurrence, number of persons participating in commission of offence and non- examination of doctor to establish cause of death and also non- examination of i.o., conviction of accused cannot be sustained; Sahdeo Prasad Sao v. State of Bihar, 2000 Cr LJ 242 (Pat). (ii) Whether the plea of drunkenness can be taken as defence for claiming acquittal or for lessening sentence depends upon 'intention' and 'knowledge' of the accused; Mirza Ghani Baig v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 2 Crimes 19 (AP). Scope (i) Before an accused is held guilty and punished under first part or second part of section 304 a death must have been caused by the assailant under any of the circumstances mentioned in the five exceptions to section 300; Harendra Nath Mandal v. State of Bihar, (1993) 1 Crimes 984 (SC). (ii) The accused inflicted bodily injuries on the deceased which were of such nature that they were likely to cause death. There can be no doubt that the accused intended to cause and did cause the injuries, therefore liable to be punished under the first part of section 304 of Indian Penal Code; Shanmugam alias Kulandaivelu v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 209. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Scope (i) Before an accused is held guilty and punished under first part or second part of section 304 a death must have been caused by the assailant under any of the circumstances mentioned in the five exceptions to section 300; Harendra Nath Mandal v. State of Bihar, (1993) 1 Crimes 984 (SC). (ii) The accused inflicted bodily injuries on the deceased which were of such nature that they were likely to cause death. There can be no doubt that the accused intended to cause and did cause the injuries, therefore liable to be punished under the first part of section 304 of Indian Penal Code; Shanmugam alias Kulandaivelu v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 209. -------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). Section 304A. Causing death by negligence 1[304A. Causing death by negligence.-Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.] CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both-Cognizable- Bailable-Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. Comments Automobile accidents If there is an accident because of the negligence of the gateman in keeping the gate open and inviting the vehicles to pass, the driver of the bus cannot be held guilty of negligence; S.N. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 685. Distinction between rash and negligent act ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.] CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both-Cognizable- Bailable-Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. Comments Automobile accidents If there is an accident because of the negligence of the gateman in keeping the gate open and inviting the vehicles to pass, the driver of the bus cannot be held guilty of negligence; S.N. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 685. Distinction between rash and negligent act The appellant was charged with an offence under section 304A for causing death of one M by contact with the electrically charged copper wire which he had fixed up at the back of his house with a view to prevent the entry of intruders into his latrine. It was held that the voltage of the current passing through the naked wire being high enough to be lethal, there could be no dispute that charging it with current of that voltage was a rash act done in reckless disregard of the serious consequences to people coming into contact with it for which the accused is solely responsible under section 304A; Cherupin Gregory v. State of Bihar, 1964 (1) Cr LJ 138: AIR 1965 SC 205. Scope In order to impose criminal liability on the accused, it must be found as a fact that collusion was entirely or mainly due to the rashness or negligence; Munile Sao v. State of Bihar, (1997) 3 Crimes 200 (Pat). -------- 1. Ins. by Act 27 of 1870, sec. 12. Section 304B. Dowery death 1[304B. Dowry death.-(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... current of that voltage was a rash act done in reckless disregard of the serious consequences to people coming into contact with it for which the accused is solely responsible under section 304A; Cherupin Gregory v. State of Bihar, 1964 (1) Cr LJ 138: AIR 1965 SC 205. Scope In order to impose criminal liability on the accused, it must be found as a fact that collusion was entirely or mainly due to the rashness or negligence; Munile Sao v. State of Bihar, (1997) 3 Crimes 200 (Pat). -------- 1. Ins. by Act 27 of 1870, sec. 12. Section 304B. Dowery death 1[304B. Dowry death.-(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death", and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation For the purpose of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.] CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment of not less than 7 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life-Cognizable-Non-bailable-Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable. COMMENTS ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.] CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment of not less than 7 years but which may extend to imprisonment for life-Cognizable-Non-bailable-Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable. COMMENTS Applicability It was argued that the husband or any of his relative could be guilty of the offence only if he or she directly participated in the actual commission of the offence. This contention was rejected by the Andhra Pradesh High Court. It observed that in its real import, section 304B of the Indian Penal Code would be applicable if cruelty or harassment was inflicted by the husband on any of his relative for, or in connection with demand for dowry, immediately preceding the death by bodily injury or by burning. In short she should have died in abnormal circumstances within seven years of the marriage. In such circumstances the husband or the relative, as the case may be, will be deemed to have caused her death and will be liable to punishment; Vadde Rama Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1990 Cr LJ 1666. Burden of Proof The prosecution under section 304B of Indian Penal Code cannot escape from the burden of proof that the harassment to cruelty was related to the demand for dowry and such was caused "soon before her death". The word "dowry" has to be understood as it is defined in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. Thus, there are three occasions related to dowry, i.e., before marriage, at the time of marriage and at an unending period. The customary payment in connection with the birth of child or other ceremonies, are not involved within ambit of "dowry"; Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 2001 SC 2828: (2001) 8 SCC 633. Dowry (i) Where the evidence revealed that accused-husband killed deceased- wife for not satisfying his dowry demand but nothing on record to show ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... (i) Where the evidence revealed that accused-husband killed deceased- wife for not satisfying his dowry demand but nothing on record to show involvement of co-accused in-laws with the offence committed by the accused, co-accused in-laws are not guilty of offence under sections 304B; Patil Paresh Kumar Jayanti Lal v. State of Gujarat, 2000 Cr LJ 223 (Guj). (ii) The parties were married on 24-5-1962. After staying in the matrimonial home for two months, she returned to her parents' house and told them that her husband wanted a television set and a fridge. Her father gave her a sum of Rs. 6,000 and she left for the matrimonial home. Her husband again demanded a sum of Rs. 25,000 for purchasing a plot. Thereafter the husband took his wife to her parents' home saying that he would not take her back unless a sum of Rs. 25,000 was paid to him. After one year he took her back but he did not give up the demand for Rs. 25,000. Soon thereafter she left for her parents' home and came back with a sum of Rs. 15,000 with a promise that the rest of the amount would be paid later on. In her husband's home she died of strangulation. The trial court found the accused guilty. The death of the deceased took place within seven years of marriage and persistent demands of dowry were made on her and she died under mysterious circumstances. The trial court framed charge under section 304B. The Supreme Court held that no ground for quashing the charge was made out; Nem Chand v. State of Haryana, (1994) 3 Crimes 608 (SC). Essential ingredients To attract the provisions of section 304B, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that "soon before her death" she was subjected to cruelty and harassment "in connection with the demand of dowry"; Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, AIR 2003 SC 11. Expression 'soon before her death': meaning of The expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive section 304B, I.P.C. and section 113B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity text. No definite period has been indicated and the expression 'soon before her death' is not defined. The determination of the period which can come within the term 'soon before' is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Crimes 608 (SC). Essential ingredients To attract the provisions of section 304B, one of the main ingredients of the offence which is required to be established is that "soon before her death" she was subjected to cruelty and harassment "in connection with the demand of dowry"; Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, AIR 2003 SC 11. Expression 'soon before her death': meaning of The expression 'soon before her death' used in the substantive section 304B, I.P.C. and section 113B of the Evidence Act is present with the idea of proximity text. No definite period has been indicated and the expression 'soon before her death' is not defined. The determination of the period which can come within the term 'soon before' is left to be determined by the courts, depending upon facts and circumstances of each case. Suffice, however, to indicate that the expression 'soon before would normally imply that the interval should not be much between the concerned cruelty or harassment and the death in question. There must be existence of a proximate and live-link between the effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and the concerned death. If alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence; Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828. See also Yashoda v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2004) 3 SCC 98. Presumption: Applicability (i) The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials:- (1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... alleged incident of cruelty is remote in time and has become stale enough not to disturb mental equilibrium of the woman concerned, it would be of no consequence; Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828. See also Yashoda v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2004) 3 SCC 98. Presumption: Applicability (i) The presumption shall be raised only on proof of the following essentials:- (1) The question before the court must be whether the accused has committed the dowry death of a woman. (2) The woman was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relatives. (3) Such cruelty or harassment was for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry. (4) Such cruelty or harassment was soon before her death. Kaliyaperumal v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 2003 SC 3828. (ii) In dowry death cases and in most of such offences direct evidence is hardly available and such cases are usually proved by circumstantial evidence. This section as well as section 113B of the Evidence Act enact a rule of presumption, i.e., if death occurs within seven years of marriage in suspicious circumstances. This may be caused by burns or any other bodily injury. Thus, it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to show that death occurred within seven years of marriage. If the prosecution would fail to establish that death did not occur within seven years of marriage, this section will not apply; Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1994 Cri LJ 1684. See also, N.V. Satyanandam v. Public Prosecutor, AP High Court, AIR 2004 SC 1708. Section 304B and Section 498A - Distinction Section 304B is a substantive provision creating a new offence and not merely a provision effecting a change in procedure for trial of a pre- existing substantive offence. As a consequence, accused cannot be tried and punished for the offence of dowry death provided in section ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... (ii) In dowry death cases and in most of such offences direct evidence is hardly available and such cases are usually proved by circumstantial evidence. This section as well as section 113B of the Evidence Act enact a rule of presumption, i.e., if death occurs within seven years of marriage in suspicious circumstances. This may be caused by burns or any other bodily injury. Thus, it is obligatory on the part of the prosecution to show that death occurred within seven years of marriage. If the prosecution would fail to establish that death did not occur within seven years of marriage, this section will not apply; Ratan Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1994 Cri LJ 1684. See also, N.V. Satyanandam v. Public Prosecutor, AP High Court, AIR 2004 SC 1708. Section 304B and Section 498A - Distinction Section 304B is a substantive provision creating a new offence and not merely a provision effecting a change in procedure for trial of a pre- existing substantive offence. As a consequence, accused cannot be tried and punished for the offence of dowry death provided in section 304B with the minimum sentence of seven years' imprisonment for an act done by them prior to creation of the new offence of dowry death; Soni Devrajbhai Babubhai v. State of Gujarat, 1991 Cr LJ (313) (SC). Scope (i) A perusal of section 304B clearly shows that if a married woman dies otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused the death. The conditions precedent for establishing an offence under this section are as follows: (a) that a married woman had died otherwise than under normal circumstances; (b) such death was within seven years of her marriage; and (c) the prosecution has established that there was cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death; Baljit Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 1714: (2004) 3 SCC 122. (ii) Offence under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is triable by the Court of Session. It is a cognizable and non-bailable offence. The minimum punishment for the offence is seven years imprisonment which ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... (i) A perusal of section 304B clearly shows that if a married woman dies otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband in connection with demand for dowry, such death shall be called "dowry death" and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused the death. The conditions precedent for establishing an offence under this section are as follows: (a) that a married woman had died otherwise than under normal circumstances; (b) such death was within seven years of her marriage; and (c) the prosecution has established that there was cruelty and harassment in connection with demand for dowry soon before her death; Baljit Singh v. State of Haryana, AIR 2004 SC 1714: (2004) 3 SCC 122. (ii) Offence under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code is triable by the Court of Session. It is a cognizable and non-bailable offence. The minimum punishment for the offence is seven years imprisonment which may extend to life imprisonment. Section 304B applies not only when death is caused by her husband or in-laws but also when death occurs unnaturally whoever might have caused it. The section will apply whenever the occurrence of death is preceded by cruelty or harassment by husband or in-laws for dowry and death occurs in unnatural circumstances. It may be emphasised that occurrence of death in such circumstances is enough though death might not have been in fact caused by the husband or in-laws. Thus the intention behind the section is to fasten death on the husband or in-laws though they did not in fact caused the death. Thus a fiction has been created. It is because in these circumstances, the misery and agony created thereby which compels the unfortunate married woman to end her life; Premwati v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1991 Cr LJ 263. Unnatural death In-laws insisted dowry demands on one married young woman. Ultimately, it appeared that she was done to death and her body was cremated without sending any information to her parents or any relatives. The Supreme Court held that, if it was natural death, there was no need for the appellants to act in such unnatural manner and cremate the body in great and unholy haste without even informing the parents. In the result it was an unnatural death, either homicidal or suicidal. But even assuming that it is a case of suicide even then it would be ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... by husband or in-laws for dowry and death occurs in unnatural circumstances. It may be emphasised that occurrence of death in such circumstances is enough though death might not have been in fact caused by the husband or in-laws. Thus the intention behind the section is to fasten death on the husband or in-laws though they did not in fact caused the death. Thus a fiction has been created. It is because in these circumstances, the misery and agony created thereby which compels the unfortunate married woman to end her life; Premwati v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 1991 Cr LJ 263. Unnatural death In-laws insisted dowry demands on one married young woman. Ultimately, it appeared that she was done to death and her body was cremated without sending any information to her parents or any relatives. The Supreme Court held that, if it was natural death, there was no need for the appellants to act in such unnatural manner and cremate the body in great and unholy haste without even informing the parents. In the result it was an unnatural death, either homicidal or suicidal. But even assuming that it is a case of suicide even then it would be death which had occurred in unnatural circumstances. Even in such a case, section 304B is attracted and this position is not disputed. Therefore, the prosecution has established that the appellants have committed an offence punishable under section 304B beyond all reasonable doubts; Shanti v. State of Haryana, AIR 1991 SC 1226. --------- 1 Ins. by Act 43 of 1986, sec. 10 (w.e.f. 19-11-1986). Section 305. Abetment of suicide of child or insane person If any person under eighteen years of age, any insane person, any delirious person, any idiot, or any person in a state of intoxication, commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with death or 1[ imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Death, or imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable-Non-bailable-Triable by Court of Session- Non-compoundable. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable-Non-bailable- Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable. Comments Abetment of attempt to commit suicide (i) It has been held that once the offence of abatement of committing suicide is clearly made out against accused, despite the fact that specific charge under section 306 was not framed against accused, would not preclude court from convicting accused for offence found proved; Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, AIR 2003 SC 11. (ii) The basic constituents of an offence under section 306, are suicidal death and abetment thereof; Sangarabonia Sreenu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 4 Supreme 214. (iii) To attract the ingredients of abetment, the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide is necessary; Pallem Deniel Victoralions Victor Manter v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 1 Crimes 499 (AP). Sec. 302 and Sec. 306 - Basic distinction Two offences under section 302 and section 306 are of distinct and different categories; Sangarabonia Sreenu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1997) 4 Supreme 214. Sentence For offence under section 306 the sentence may extend to ten years. In case the husband is found to have harassed his wife to such an extent as to drive her to commit suicide, sentence of five years would be proper sentence for the crime with the amount of fine of Rs. 20000 to be paid to the parents of the deceased; Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, AIR 2003 SC 11. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Srinivasa Rao, AIR 2003 SC 11. Suicide-Meaning of The 'suicide' is stated to mean as the intentional killing of oneself. As per Concise Oxford Dictionary, 9th Edition, p. 1393 A finding of suicide must be on evidence of intention. Every act of self destruction is, in common language described by the word 'suicide' provided it is an intentional act of a party knowing the probable consequence of what he is about. Suicide is never to be presumed. Intention is the essential legal ingredient. As per Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth Edition, Ninth Volume, pg. 686. Section 307. Attempt to murder Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to 1[imprisonment for life], or to such punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned. Attempts by life convicts.-2[When any person offending under this section is under sentence of 1[imprisonment for life], he may, if hurt is caused, be punished with death.] llustrations (a) A shoots at Z with intention to kill him, under such circumstances that, if death ensued. A would be guilty of murder. A is liable to punishment under this section. (b) A, with the intention of causing the death of a child of tender years, exposes it in a desert place. A has committed the offence defined by this section, though the death of the child does not ensue. (c) A, intending to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it. A has not yet committed the offence. A fires the gun at Z. He has committed the ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... same with food which remains in A's keeping; A has not yet committed the offence defined in this section. A places the food on Z's table or delivers it to Z's servant to place it on Z's table. A has committed the offence defined in this section. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I Punishment-Imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable-Non-bailable- Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable. Para II Punishment-Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable-Non-bailable-Triable by Court of Session-Non- compoundable. Para III Punishment-Death, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable- Non-bailable-Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable. COMMENTS Knowledge The intention of knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder; Hari Kishan and State of Haryana v. Sukhbir Singh, (1989) Cr LJ 116: AIR 1988 SC 2127. Scope and applicability (i) The question of intention to kill or the knowledge of death in terms of section 307, is a question of fact and not one of law. It would all depend on the facts of a given case; Vasant Virthu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 2 Crimes 539 (Bom). (ii) The important thing to be borne in mind in determining the question whether an offence under section 307, is made out is the intention and not the injury (even if simple or minor); Vasant Virthu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 2 Crimes 539 (Bom). ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... COMMENTS Knowledge The intention of knowledge of the accused must be such as is necessary to constitute murder; Hari Kishan and State of Haryana v. Sukhbir Singh, (1989) Cr LJ 116: AIR 1988 SC 2127. Scope and applicability (i) The question of intention to kill or the knowledge of death in terms of section 307, is a question of fact and not one of law. It would all depend on the facts of a given case; Vasant Virthu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 2 Crimes 539 (Bom). (ii) The important thing to be borne in mind in determining the question whether an offence under section 307, is made out is the intention and not the injury (even if simple or minor); Vasant Virthu Jadhav v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 2 Crimes 539 (Bom). (iii) It is not necessary that injury, capable of causing death, should have been inflicted. What is material to attract, the provisions of section 307 is the guilty intention or knowledge with which the all was done, irrespective of its result. The intention and knowledge are the matters of inference from totality of circumstances and cannot be measured merely from the results; Ansarudin v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1997) 2 Crimes 157 (MP). -------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). 2. Ins. by Act 27 of 1870, sec. 11. 3. Ins. by Act 12 of 1891, sec. 2 and Sch. II. Section 308. Attempt to commit culpable homicide Whoever does any Act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that Act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amount to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). 2. Ins. by Act 27 of 1870, sec. 11. 3. Ins. by Act 12 of 1891, sec. 2 and Sch. II. Section 308. Attempt to commit culpable homicide Whoever does any Act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, if he by that Act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amount to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both, and if hurt is caused to any person by such Act, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. Illustration A, on grave and sudden provocation, fires a pistol at Z, under such circumstances that if he thereby caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. A has committed the offence defined in this section. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I Punishment-Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both-Cognizable-Non- bailable-Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable. Para II Punishment-Imprisonment for 7 years, or fine, or both Cognizable-Non- bailable-Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable. Section 309. Attempt to commit suicide Whoever attempts to commit suicide and does any act towards the commission of such offence, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for term which may extend to one year 1[ or with fine, or with both]. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Bailable-Triable by any Magistrate-Non-compoundable. COMMENTS 'Attempts to commit suicide' as under sections 306 and 307 A person who jumps into a well in order to avoid and escape from her husband and subsequently comes out of the well herself, cannot be convicted under this section if there is no evidence to show that she wanted to commit suicide; Emperor v. Dhirajia, AIR 1940 All 486. Right to die vis-a-vis Right not to die The Supreme Court has set aside its earlier judgment in P. Rathinam/ Nagbhushan Patnaik v. Union of India, JT 1994 (3) SC 392, wherein the Court had struck down section 309 as unconstitutional. In a country where one-half of its population still live below the poverty line, the right to die by suicide cannot be granted to any person. Article 21 of the Constitution, which gives right to life and personal liberty, by no stretch of imagination can be said to impliedly include right to death by committing suicide. The section is also not violative of article 14. There is no requirement of awarding any minimum sentence. The sentence of imprisonment or fine is not compulsory but discretionary; Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, JT 1996 (3) SC 339. ---------- 1. Subs. by Act 8 of 1882, sec. 7, for "and shall also be liable to fine". Section 310. Thug Whoever, at any time after the passing of this act, shall have been habitually associated with any other or others for the purpose of committing robbery or child-stealing by means of or accompanied with murder, is a thug. Section 311. Punishment Whoever is a thug, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life] and shall also be liable to fine. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section without the consent of the woman, whether the woman is quick with child or not, shall be punished with 1[ imprisonment for life] or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I Punishment-Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable-Non-bailable-Triable by Court of Session-Non- compoundable. -------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). Section 314. Death caused by act done with intent to cause miscarriage- Whoever, with intent to cause the miscarriage of woman with child, does any act which causes the death of such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. If act done without woman's consent.- And if the act is done without the consent of the woman, shall be punished either with 1[imprisonment for life] or with the punishment above mentioned Explanation It is not essential to this offence that the offender should know that the act is likely to cause death. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I Punishment-Imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable-Non-bailable- Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). Section 315. Act done with intent to prevent child being born alive or to cause it to die after birth Whoever before the birth of any child does any act with the intention of thereby preventing that child from being born alive or causing it to die after its birth, and does by such act prevent that child from being born alive, or causes it to die after its birth, shall, if such act be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 10 years, or fine, or both-Cognizable- Non-bailable-Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable. Section 316. Causing death of quick unborn child by act amounting to culpable homicide Whoever does any act under such circumstances, that if he thereby caused death he would be guilty of culpable homicide, and does by such act cause the death of a quick unborn child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Illustration A, knowing that he is likely to cause the death of a pregnant woman, does an act which, if it caused the death of the woman, would amount to culpable homicide. The woman is injured, but does not die, but the death of an unborn quick child with which she is pregnant is thereby caused. A is guilty of the offence defined in this section. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable-Non-bailable- Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable. Section 317. Exposure and abandonment of child under twelve years, by ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Whoever being the father or mother of a child under the age of twelve years, having the care of such child, shall expose or leave such child in any place with the intention of wholly abandoning such child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years; or with fine, or with both. Explanation This section is not intended to prevent the trial of the offender for murder or culpable homicide, as the case may be, if the child dies in consequence of the exposure. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 7 years, or fine, or both-Cognizable- Bailable-Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. Section 318. Concealment of birth by secret disposal of dead body. Whoever, by secretly burying or otherwise disposing of the death body of a child whether such child die before or after or during its birth, intentionally conceals or endeavours to conceal the birth of such child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both-Cognizable- Bailable-Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. Section 319. Hurt. Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. Section 320. Grievous hurt. The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":- First.- Emasculation. Secondly.-Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... comments Essential ingredients of an offence If hurt actually caused is simple, a person cannot be held guilty of voluntarily causing grievous hurt even if it was in his contemplation. If he intended, or knew himself to be likely to cause only simple hurt, he cannot be convicted for the offence under section 325 even if the resultant hurt was grievous. In other words, to constitute the offence of voluntarily causing hurt, these must be complete correspondence between the result and the intention or the knowledge of the accused; Ramkaran Mohton v. State, AIR 1958 Pat 452. Section 324. Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 334, voluntarily causes hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body to inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both-Cognizable-Non- Bailable-Triable by any Magistrate-Compoundable by the person to whom hurt is caused with the permission of the court. Section 325. Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Section 325. Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 7 years, and fine-Cognizable-Bailable- Triable by any Magistrate-Compoundable by the person to whom hurt is caused with the permission of the court. Section 326. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means Whoever, except in the case provided for by section 335, voluntarily causes grievous hurt by means of any instrument for shooting, stabbing or cutting, or any instrument which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, or by means of fire or any heated substance, or by means of any poison or any corrosive substance, or by means of any explosive substance, or by means of any substance which it is deleterious to the human body inhale, to swallow, or to receive into the blood, or by means of any animal, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable-Non-bailable-Triable by Magistrate of the first class- Non-compoundable. --------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). Section 326A. Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid etc. 1[326A. Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or burns or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable-Non-bailable-Triable by Court of Session- Non-compoundable. --------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). 2. The words "British India" have successively been subs. by the A.O. 1948, the A.O. 1950 and Act 3 of 1951, sec. 3 and Sch. to read as above. Section 364A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc. 1[364A. Kidnapping for ransom, etc.-Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person or keeps a person in detention after such kidnapping or abduction and threatens to cause death or hurt to such person, or by his conduct gives rise to a reasonable apprehension that such person may be put to death or hurt, or causes hurt or death to such person in order to compel the Government or 2[any foreign State or international inter-governmental organization or any other person] to do or abstain from doing any act or to pay a ransom, shall be punishable with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine]. Classification of Offence Punishment-Death, or imprisonment for life and fine-Cognizable-Non- bailable-Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable. --------- 1. Ins. by Act 42 of 1993, sec. 2 (w.e.f. 22-5-1993). 2. Subs. by Act 24 of 1995, for "any other person" (w.e.f. 26-5-1995). Section 365. Kidnapping or abducting with intent secretly and wrongfully to confine person Whoever kidnaps or abducts any person with intent to cause that person ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or (b) inserts, to any extent, any object or a part of the body, not being the penis, into the vagina, the urethra or anus of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or (c) manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus or any part of body of such woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person; or (d) applies his mouth to the vagina, anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person, under the circumstances falling under any of the following seven descriptions:- First.-Against her will. Secondly.-Without her consent. Thirdly.-With her consent, when her consent has been obtained by putting her or any person in whom she is interested, in fear of death or of hurt. Fourthly.-With her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be lawfully married. Fifthly.-With her consent when, at the time of giving such consent, by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication or the administration by him personally or through another of any stupefying or unwholesome substance, she is unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which she gives consent. Sixthly.-With or without her consent, when she is under eighteen years of age. Seventhly.-When she is unable to communicate consent. Explanation 1.-For the purposes of this section, "vagina" shall also include labia majora. Explanation 2.-Consent means an unequivocal voluntary agreement when the woman by words, gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... (c) "police officer" shall have the same meaning as assigned to the expression "police" under the Police Act, 1861; (d) "women's or children's institution" means an institution, whether called an orphanage or a home for neglected women or children or a widow's home or an institution called by any other name, which is established and maintained for the reception and care of women or children.] ---------- 1. Inserted by Section 9 of 'The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013'. Section 376A. Intercourse by a man with his wife during separation 1[376A. Whoever, commits an offence punishable under sub-section (1) or subsection (2) of section 376 and in the course of such commission inflicts an injury which causes the death of the woman or causes the woman to be in a persistent vegetative state, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than twenty years, but which may extend to imprisonment for life, which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, or with death.] -------- 1.Inserted by Section 376A of 'The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013'. Section 376B. Intercourse by public servant with woman is his custody 1[376B. Whoever has sexual intercourse with his own wife, who is living separately, whether under a decree of separation or otherwise, without her consent, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than two years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation.-In this section, "sexual intercourse" shall mean any of the acts mentioned in clauses (a) to (d) of section 375.] ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, and with fine: Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and rehabilitation of the victim: Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.] -------- 1. Inserted by Section 9 of 'The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013'. Section 376E. Punishment for repeat offenders 1[376E. Whoever has been previously convicted of an offence punishable under section 376 or section 376A or section 376D and is subsequently convicted of an offence punishable under any of the said sections shall be punished with imprisonment for life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of that person's natural life, or with death.'] ----------------- 1. Inserted by Section 9 of 'The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013'. Section 377. Unnatural offences Whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animal, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Explanation Penetration is sufficient to constitute the carnal intercourse necessary to the offence described in this section. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable-Non-Bailable-Triable by Magistrate of the first class- Non-compoundable. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Provided that the court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than two years." [Vide Tamil Nadu Act 28 of 1993, sec. 2 (w.e.f. 13-7-1993)]. Section 381. Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master Whoever, being a clerk or servant, or being employed in the capacity of a clerk or servant, commits theft in respect of any property in the possession of his master or employer, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 7 years and fine-Cognizable-Non-bailable- Triable by any Magistrate-Compounded by the owner of the property stolen with the permission of the court. Section 382. Theft after preparation made for causing death, hurt or restraint in order to the committing of the theft Whoever commits theft, having made preparation for causing death, or hurt, or restrain, or fear of death, or of hurt, or of restraint, to any person, in order to the committing of such theft, or in order to the effecting of his escape after the committing of such theft, or in order to the retaining of property taken by such theft, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Illustrations (a) A commits theft on property in Z's possession; and, while committing this theft, he has a loaded pistol under his garment, having provided this pistol for the purpose of hurting Z in case Z should resist. A has committed the offence defined in this section. (b) A picks Z's pocket, having posted several of his companions near him, in order that they may restrain Z, if Z should perceive what is passing and should resist, or should attempt to apprehend A. A has committed the offence defined in this section ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... fine or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 3 years, or fine, or both-Cognizable-Non- bailable-Triable by any Magistrate-Non-compoundable. Section 385. Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both-Cognizable- Bailable-Triable by any Magistrate-Non-compoundable. Section 386. Extortion by putting a person in fear of death or grievous hurt Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt o that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable-Non-bailable- Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. Section 387. Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable-Non-bailable- Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. Section 387. Putting person in fear of death or of grievous hurt, in order to commit extortion Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of death or of grievous hurt to that person or to any other, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 7 years and fine-Cognizable-Non-bailable- Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. Section 388. Extortion by threat of accusation of an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, etc. Whoever commits extortion by putting any person in fear of an accusation against that person or any other, of having committed or attempted to commit any offence punishable with death, or with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years or of having attempted to induce any other person to commit such offence, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence be one punishable under section 377 of this Code, may be punished with 1[imprisonment for life]. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable-Bailable- Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. -------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). Section 389. Putting person in fear of accusation of offence, in order ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence be one punishable under section 377 of this Code, may be punished with 1[imprisonment for life]. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable-Bailable- Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. -------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). Section 389. Putting person in fear of accusation of offence, in order to commit extortion Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts or attempts to put any person in fear of an accusation, against that person or any other, of having committed, or attempted to commit an offence punished with death or with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence be punished under section 377 of this Code, may be punished with 1[imprisonment for life]. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I Punishment-Imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable-Non-bailable- Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. Para II Punishment-Imprisonment for life-Cognizable-Bailable-Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. -------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. Para II Punishment-Imprisonment for life-Cognizable-Bailable-Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. -------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). Section 390. Robbery In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. When theft is robbery.-Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. When extortion is robbery.-Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted. Explanation The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. Illustrations (a) A holds Z down and fraudulently takes Z's money and jewels from Z's clothes without Z's consent. Here A has committed theft, and in order to the committing of that theft, has voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to Z. A has therefore committed robbery. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Illustrations (a) A holds Z down and fraudulently takes Z's money and jewels from Z's clothes without Z's consent. Here A has committed theft, and in order to the committing of that theft, has voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to Z. A has therefore committed robbery. (b) A meets Z on the high roads, shows a pistol, and demands Z's purse. Z in consequence, surrenders his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z by putting him in fear of instant hurt, and being at the time of committing the extortion in his presence. A has therefore committed robbery. (c) A meets Z and Z's child on the high road. A takes the child and threatens to fling it down a precipice, unless Z delivers his purse. Z, in consequence delivers his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z, by causing Z to be in fear of instant hurt to the child who is there present. A has therefore committed robbery on Z. (d) A obtains property from Z by saying-"Your child is in the hands of my gang, and will be put to death unless you send us ten thousand rupees". This is extortion, and punishable as such; but it is not robbery, unless Z is put in fear of the instant death of his child. COMMENTS In order that theft may constitute robbery, prosecution has to establish- (a) if in order to the committing of theft; or (b) in committing the theft; or (c) in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft; (d) the offender for that end i.e. any of the ends contemplated by (a) to (c); (e) voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... In order that theft may constitute robbery, prosecution has to establish- (a) if in order to the committing of theft; or (b) in committing the theft; or (c) in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft; (d) the offender for that end i.e. any of the ends contemplated by (a) to (c); (e) voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint. In other words, theft would only be robbery if for any of the ends mentioned in (a) to (c) the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint. If the ends does not fall within (a) to (c) but, the offender still causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or fear of instant death or of instant hurt or instant wrongful restraint, the offence would not be robbery. That (a) or (b) or (c) have to be read conjunctively with (d) and (e). It is only when (a) or (b) or (c) co-exist with (d) and (e) or there is a nexus between any of them and (d), (e) would amount to robbery; State of Maharashtra v. Joseph Mingel Koli, (1997) 2 Crimes 228 (Bom). Section 391. Dacoity When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit "dacoity". COMMENTS Dacoity - Defined ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Witness Where the presence of informant and other witnesses at the time and place of incident was established and their positive evidence regarding the way in which the dacoity was committed found reliable having no previous enmity with accused, no case of false implication established therefore, conviction of accused under section 395 was just and proper; Chhedu v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2000 Cr LJ 78 (All). --------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec.117 and sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f.1-1-1956). Section 396. Dacoity with murder If any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or 1[imprisonment for life], or rigorous imprisonment for term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Death, imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable-Non-bailable-Triable by Court of Session- Non-compoundable. COMMENTS Ingredients When prosecution failed to establish any nexus between death and commission of dacoity charge under section 396 will fail; Wakil Singh v. State of Bihar, (1981) BLJ 462. In circumstantial evidences utter importance is of linking of chain, as soon as the chain of link is broken, the value of circumstantial evidence gets reduced; State v. Lakshmisher Das, 1999 Cr LJ 2839 (Kant). ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... (Kant). Punishment On considering special facts of the case, i.e., the age of accused persons and their status in life as also their antecedents, sentence of 10 years in place of sentence of life imprisonment would meet the ends of justice; K.M. Ibrahim alias Bava v. State of Karnataka, 2000 Cr LJ 197 (Karn). When it is evidentially proved that accused were participating in loot and murder during transaction of offence, each of them is liable to be punished under section 396; Kunwar Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1999 Cr LJ 3632 (MP). -------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). Section 397. Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Rigorous imprisonment for not less than 7 years- Cognizable-Non-bailable-Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable. COMMENTS Deadly weapon (i) There can be no quarrel that knife is a deadly weapon within the meaning of section 397; State of Maharashtra v. Vinayak Tukaram Utekar, (1997) 2 Crimes 615 (Bom). (ii) An act would only fall within the mischief of this section if at ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Rigorous imprisonment for not less than 7 years- Cognizable-Non-bailable-Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable. COMMENTS Deadly weapon (i) There can be no quarrel that knife is a deadly weapon within the meaning of section 397; State of Maharashtra v. Vinayak Tukaram Utekar, (1997) 2 Crimes 615 (Bom). (ii) An act would only fall within the mischief of this section if at the time of committing robbery or dacoity the offender- (a) uses any deadly weapon; or (b) causes grievous hurt to any person; or (c) attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person; Shravan Dashrath Datrange v. State of Maharashtra, (1997) 2 Crimes 47 (Bom). Purport behind word 'uses' What is essential to satisfy the word "uses" for the purposes of section 397, I.P.C. is the robbery being committed by an offender who was armed with a deadly weapon which was within the vision of the victim so as to be capable of creating a terror in the mind of victim and not that it should be further shown to have been actually used for cutting, stabbing, shooting, as the case may be; Ashfaq v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), AIR 2004 SC 1253. Recovery of weapon When identification of articles alleged to have been recovered from accused is not properly proved nor victim could identify accused in identification parade or in court accused cannot be convicted under section 397; Bhurekhan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1982 SC 948: (1982) Cr LJ 818: (1982) 1 SCC 174: (1982) SCC (Cr) 128. Section 398. Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Bailable-Triable by any Magistrate-Compoundable by the owner of the property misappropriated with the permission of the court. comments Dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property The words 'converts to his own use' necessarily connote the use or dealing with the property in derogation of the rights of the owner; Ramaswami Nadar v. State of Madras, AIR 1958 SC 56. Ingreidents It has been held that the word 'dishonestly' and 'misappropriate' are necessary ingredients of an offence under section 403. Any dispute being about recovery of money is purely of civil nature. Hence a criminal complaint regarding such a matter is not maintainable, U. Dhar v. State of Jharkhand, AIR 2003 SC 974. Section 404. Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use property, knowing that such property was in the possession of a deceased person at the time of that person's decease, and has not since been in the possession of any person legally entitled to such possession, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offender at the time of such person's decease was employed by him as a clerk or servant, the imprisonment may extend to seven years. Illustration Z dies in possession of furniture and money. His servant A, before the money comes into the possession of any person entitled to such possession, dishonestly misappropriates it. A has committed the offence defined in this section. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 3 years and fine-Non-Cognizable-Bailable- Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). Section 439. Punishment for intentionally running vessel aground or ashore with intent to commit theft, etc Whoever intentionally runs any vessel aground or ashore, intending to commit theft of any property contained therein or to dishonestly misappropriate any such property, or with intent that such theft or misappropriation of property may be committed, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable-Non-bailable- Triable by Court of Session-Non-compoundable. Section 440. Mischief committed after preparation made for causing death or hurt Whoever commits mischief having made preparation for causing to any person death, or hurt, or wrongful restraint, or fear of death or of hurt, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 5 years and fine-Cognizable-Bailable- Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. Section 441. Criminal trespass Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass". ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Comments Mere vague allegations are not sufficient for conviction under section 447 for criminal trespass; Bhaskar Chattoraj v. State of West Bengal, (1991) Cr LJ 429 (SC). Section 448. Punishment for house-trespass Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine or which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for one year, or fine of 1,000 rupees, or both-Cognizable-Bailable-Triable by any Magistrate-Compoundable by the person in possession of the property trespassed upon. Section 449. House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with death Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with death, shall be punishable with 1[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable-Non-bailable-Triable by Court of Session- Non-compoundable. ---------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). Section 450. House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment for life Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with 1[imprisonment for life], shall be punished ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... Section 458. Lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night after preparation for hurt, assault, or wrongful restraint Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for 14 years and fine-Cognizable-Non-bailable- Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. Section 459. Grievous hurt caused whilst committing lurking house trespass or house-breaking Whoever, whilst committing lurking house-trespass or house-breaking, causes grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, shall be punished with 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for 10 years and fine-Cognizable-Non-bailable-Triable by Court of Session-Non- compoundable. --------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). Section 460. All persons jointly concerned in lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night punishable where death or grievous hurt caused by one of them If, at the time of the committing of lurking house-trespass by night or house-breaking by night, any person guilty of such offence shall voluntarily cause or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt to any ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... 5. Subs. by A.O. 1950 for "of Her Majesty or in the Imperial Service Troops". The words "or in the Royal Indian Marine" occurring after the words "Majesty" were omitted by Act 35 of 1934, sec. 2 and Sch. 6. Subs. by Act 41 of 1961, sec. 4, for "two years" (w.e.f. 12-9- 1961). 7. Ins. by Act 35 of 1969, sec. 3 (w.e.f. 4-6-1969). 8. Subs. by A.O. 1950 for "of Her Majesty or in the Imperial Service Troops". The words "or in the Royal Indian Marine" occurring after the words "Majesty" were omitted by Act 35 of 1934, sec. 2 and Sch. Section 506. Punishment for criminal intimidation Whoever commits, the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; If threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, etc.-And if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable with death or 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, or to impute, unchastity to a woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Para I Punishment-Imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or both-Non-cognizable- Bailable-Triable by any Magistrate-Compoundable by the person intimidated. Para II Punishment-Imprisonment for 7 years, or fine, or both-Non-cognizable- Bailable-Triable by Magistrate of the first class-Non-compoundable. State Amendment ........................................................ SEARCH RUBRICS :DEATH ..................... SELECTED LEGISLATION :INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860 .....................:...................... (b) A makes an attempt to pick the pocket of Z by thrusting his hand into Z's pocket. A fails in the attempt in consequence of Z's having nothing in his pocket. A is guilty under this section. CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCE Punishment-Imprisonment for life or imprisonment not exceeding half of the longest term provided for the offence, or fine, or both-According as the offence is cognizable or non-cognizable-According as the offence attempted by the offender is bailable or not-Triable by the court by which the offence attempted is triable-Non-compoundable. comments Moral guilt and injury Section 511 is a general provision dealing with attempts to commit offences not made punishable by other specific sections. It makes punishable all attempts to commit offences punishable with imprisonment and not only those punishable with death. An attempt is made punishable, because every attempt, although it falls short of success, must create alarm, which by itself is an injury, and the moral guilt of the offender is the same as if he had succeeded. Moral guilt must be united to injury in order to justify punishment. As the injury is not as great as if the act had been committed, only half the punishment is awarded. Attempt to commit an offence can be said to begin when the preparations are complete and the culprit commences to do something with the intention of committing the offence and which is a step towards the commission of the offence. The moment culprit commences to do an act with the necessary intention, he commences his attempt to commit the offence. The word "attempt" is not itself defined, and must, therefore, be taken in its ordinary meaning. This is exactly what the provisions of section 511 require; Koppula Venkat Rao v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2004) 3 SCC 602. -------- 1. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for "transportation for life" (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). 2. Subs. by Act 26 of 1955, sec. 117 and Sch., for certain original words (w.e.f. 1-1-1956). ........................................................