CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION TO CRIMINAL LAW

SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW

- Statutes - Statutes are written laws enacted by a legislative body. In India, these are passed by
Parliament at the national level or by state legislatures (eg- IPC, CPC, CRPC, IT, CPA etc)
- Judgements - Judgments refer to the decisions made by courts in legal cases. These are
significant as they interpret and apply statutes, and can also create precedents for future cases.
For eg- SC decisions on constitutional matters, HC decision on state law matters
- International Conventions - International conventions are treaties or agreements between
countries that establish international laws and standards. India, as a signatory to various
international conventions, incorporates these into domestic law. Eg - UNCRC, CEDAW, ICCPR
- Constitution of India 1950 - supreme law of the land, adopted on January 26, 1950. It lays down
the framework defining the political principles, establishes the structure, procedures, powers,.
Includes Preamble, FR (Part 3), DPSP (Part 4), FD (Part 4A), Schedules and Amendments.
- State Amendments (IPC Sec 498 - Madhya Pradesh Act - Gang rape) - Different states in India
can amend certain central laws to address specific local needs. For example:
• IPC Section 498A: This section deals with cruelty by husband or his relatives. States may
have additional provisions or interpretations.
• Madhya Pradesh Act: Speci c state amendments may include stringent punishments or
additional provisions for crimes such as gang rape, re ecting local legislative priorities and
social conditions.
- Special and Local Laws - These are laws enacted to address specific issues or applicable in
certain regions. eg - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, SC ST atrocities act
- Common Law Principles - derived from judicial decisions and customs rather than statutes. Key
principles include:
• Doctrine of Precedent: Decisions of higher courts bind lower courts.
• Principle of Natural Justice: Fair hearing and impartiality.
• Equity and Good Conscience: Applying fairness in the absence of speci c laws.

PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW

- Nullum Crimen Sine Lege Nullum Crimen Poena Lege (Doctrine of Principle of Legality) - No
crime without law, no punishment without law. It ensures that no one can be punished for an act
that was not defined as a crime at the time it was committed.
- 4 sub principles:
1. PNR - states that laws cannot be applied to actions that were committed before the laws were
enacted. Penal Laws always given prospective effect alone. Eg - Nirbhaya sec 376 D.
2. PLC - ensuring that laws are clear, predictable, and stable and offence should have proper
ingredient of the act. crucial for maintaining trust in the legal system, as it allows individuals
and businesses to understand their rights and obligations and to plan their actions accordingly
3. PSC - means that legal texts, especially criminal statutes, should be interpreted strictly
according to their explicit wording. Courts should not extend the meaning of the law beyond
what is clearly stated. Eg - shall and may
4. PSI - Interpretation in favor of the Accused. Burden of proof, right against self inc, right to be
presumed innocent, benefit of doubt.

- Mala In Se and Mala Prohibita -

1 of 35
fi
fl
fi
- Mala In se - act inherently immoral or wrong by their very nature, regardless of whether they are
prohibited by law. Eg- murder, rape, assault, theft.
- Mala Prohibida - act not inherently immoral but considered wrong bcoz prohibited by law. Eg -
traffic
CLASSIFICATION OF OFFENCES
1. Cognizable and Non Cognizable - unless court grants authority i.e arrest warrant.
2. Bailable and Non Bailable - if less grieve than bail and vice versa then no bail. Eg art 19(1),
ANTICIPATORY BAIL - non - bailable only. (Matter of discretion of court) - believe not guilty
3. Compoundable and Non Compoundable - settle outside court or vice versa and more grieve. Eg
- rape, murder.
4. Warranty and Summon Case - subdivided

- WARRANTY
4 (a) warranty trial - anything above 2 years upto death sentence or life imp, more grave in nature
and more repercussions to society in comparison to summon
4 (b) session trial - it is the lengthiest trial which could take 1 year or more, eg:- procedure estd by
law, more time consuming

- SUMMON
4(a) summon trial - order coming from court of law asking person to appear before court for a
particular reason. - every criminal court issues it, 1st summon then warrant - max 2 upto 10 years
4 (b) summary trial - 5 or more pages of trial summarised in short doc. It may end up within the
same day or 6 months, less time consuming

(Summon is a court order requiring a person to appear in court, while a Warrant is a court order
authorising a law enforcement to conduct specific action, such as search or arrest.)

NOTE
- Retrospective - looks backward, analysing past events or data
- Retroactive - applies a new rule or change to past events or actions
- Prospective - looks forward, dealing with future events or outcomes

JURISDICTIONAL APPLICATION OF BNS

- Applicable to every person, citizen or otherwise provided in this Sanhita.
- Even the act committed by foreigner also to be held liable.
- If Indian instigate offence abroad or foreign sitting abroad instigate in India also liable in ambit
- Auth to hear on 3 app - entertain, hear, adjudicate and find.
- 12 types of jurisdiction - ORIGINAL, APPELLATE, ADVISORY, WRIT, SUPERVISORY,
CIVIL, CRIMINAL, CONSTITUTIONAL, TERRITORIAL, PECUNIARY, SUBJECT
MATTER, SPECIAL, EXCLUSIVE, CONCURRENT, SUMMARY, ADMIRALTY

INTRA-TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
- Applicable to all person, citizens - for every act - under the provisions of Sangita
- If foreigner commit act under India then cant plead ignorance under bnss
- Person in india instigate offence outside India also under bnss

JURISDICTION OVER TERRITORIAL WATERS

- Every state have this over water adjacent to land boundaries
2 of 35
- International law - state exert authority (12 nautical miles or 22 kms)

ACTIVE NATIONALITY PRINCIPLE

- Principle to understand expression of any person
- Based on the idea that a nation made up of its citizens and therefore law apply to them wherever.
- A state enjoys the right to exercise its jurisdiction over its nationals, even in foreign territory
- Recognised under international law - sovereign right govern its national even outside country
under criminal law
- Imposing on its citizen making their conduct crime even committed the act may not be illegal

CHAPTER 2 - FUNDAMENTAL CONCEPTS OF CRIMINAL LAW

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIME AND OFFENCE

- Crime is an act affecting pub interest (causing some injury or damage), eg- marital rape (women
can claim damages but not as offence) - No PLC required - sec 63 bns - crime socio legal def
and there’s no universal definition
- Offence - act punishable by law, eg- Gang rape - PLC required - sec 70 bns
- Sir William backstone, sir James Stephen, sir John Salmond, professor Kenny.

CONCEPT OF CRIME AND HOW WE PERCEIVED IT

- Crime as moral wrong - because it can cause avoidable suffering to victims - perspective not just
as violation of legal code but of moral principles - violate ethical standards, social norms,
fundamental human values etc regardless of whether they are codified under law or not
- Crime as conventional wrong - usually involves physical force or the threat of physical force. Eg
- theft, assault, burglary etc
- Crime as social wrong - an act that violates social norms and causes harm. It's also considered a
public wrong that affects society as a whole, and is worthy of serious condemnation.
- Crime as legal wrong - a severe action that violates society's rules and is punishable by the
state. Crimes are also known as public wrongs and can be committed by individuals, groups, or
businesses against other individuals, businesses, or governments.

INGREDIENTS OF CRIME (ar + mr = def )

1. Actus reus - culpable physical act
A. ACT 2 (1) - physical act done may or may not resulted in prohibited outcome - Involuntary act
- find reasonable test in tort law with case laws
- Automatism - person behaviour unconscious and unaware - act taking place there are 2 kinds
- Insane automatism - intrinsic and connected to the mind of person
- Non insane automatism - intrinsic to the mind of person but still may be connected to his body.
Eg - somnambulism (involuntary act)
- R v quick - appellant nurse hyperglycaemia - took insulin not eaten in a day and imbibed alcohol
- episodes of black out and charged for assault and battery for bruises and black eyes - later
passed out and denies recollection of events- question whether defence of automatism or
insanity?- held can take defence of automatism as caused by insulin and is an external factor
rather than diabetes as internal factor. No defence for self induced hyperglycaemia however

3 of 35
- Reflex Action - respond to something with spontaneous reflex actions over which no exercise
control - Involuntary act
- Hill v baxter - driver attacked by swarm of bees - cause swerve into other cars - person before
250 m crossing road injured - held defendant’s action was reflex - actions involuntary - not
negligent or rash

- 3rd Party Act/ Physical Force - given power to 3rd parties in certain circumstances confer benef
- Leichester v Pearson - c1 driving failing to give precedents to the pedestrian on zebra crossing
but was acquitted when it was estd that his car been pushed by another c4 hitting it from behind

B. OMISSION - negation of an act - refrain from legally bound +ve duty. This legal duty
contractual or statutory or duty owed in accordance with E,J,G.
- R v pittwood - def employed in railways comp to operate gate when train crossing - failed to put
it back down before lunch break - his absence horse and cart crossed and died by hitting train -
held def been under contractual duty to close gate - liable for acts reps of murder - duty breached
with gross and criminal negligence. Permission to appeal conviction refused

- Duty under equity justice and good conscience - family member, voluntary assumption
- Family member - r v proctor and gibbons - P and G husband and wife - marital rship not good
but not divorced - had 6-8 years child - father contended it his mother’s duty to take care child
and vice versa - child died due to starvation - hospital said child internal organ not damaged and
would not have died if took proper care - held parent’s resp till they get divorce and equal resp
comes from equity, justice and good conscience

C. STATE OF AFFAIRS - the circumstances surrounding them and their environment in relation to
a criminal offences. In some cases, a person can still be found guilty of a crime even if they
didn't knowingly or intentionally commit the illegal act
- R v larsonneur - L had French passport had expiry and to come back after that - from England
went to Ireland but deported from England back to Ireland the time her expiry date came -
registered under alien restriction act then leave the land refused under Irish custody - convicted
at 2nd trial - held women alien - authority had power to put such restriction - circumstances to
bring back immaterial - not allowed in eng for certain date but was there - reason doesn’t matter -
violated the act.

2. Mens rea - evil intent on the part of human - forbidden by law - possessed by ind at comm of cri
- Will/volition - working of nervous sys - produce certain kind of motion, force-eg slap w/o mental
- Motive - ulterior reason/state of mind for particular conduct- Nanavati v state of maha (rustom)
- Intention - most gravest form of men era - reasonable forgeability and desire for conseq to occur
- Knowledge - awareness of conseq - person makes direct appeal to his sense, reason to believe
eg-rolex watch
- Reason to believe - accept particular fact as real and certain w/o immediate prior knowledge
- Rashness/Recklessness - mental attitude of person showing conscious indiff to obvious risk of act
- Negligence - inability of person forsee conseq - pursues course of conduct being oblivious to
conseq of action
- Dishonestly and Fraudulently - applied in prop - offence relating to doc, weight and measures,
counterfeit coins and currencies. 2(7) dis means doing anything with intention of causing
wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person - 2(9) Frau means doing
4 of 35
 anything with intention to defraud and not otherwise - 2(36) wrong gain means gain by unlawful
means of prop to which person gaining is not legally untitled - 2(37) wrong loss means of prop
to which person losing it is legally entitled.

- Difference between intention and motive?

- Intention - imm virtual certainty, fix culpability of omission - more graver than motive
- Motive - later stage of act, fix quantum of person - less grave than intention
3. Injury/harm - 2(14) any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation,
property.
4. Person - bns - 2(19)man, 2(35)woman, 2(10)gender, 2(3)child, tort’s vicarious liability, tortious
liability with case laws
5. Punishment - study chapter 3 of syllabus and 2 of bns

CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY

PROBLEMS
- Mens rea
- Right of trial in presence of the company
- What kind of punishment imposed - sec 64, sec 137, sec 136
- Nature of offence impossible to commit by comp - sec 63
- How to execute punishment?

DOCTRINE OF RESPONDENT SUPERIOR

- Company vicariously liable for the actions of employees wherever it commits illegal act and
harm individual and society or vice versa like Bhopal gas tragedy, cheating scams like Vijay
Mallya & Nirav Modi
- People v corporation of Albany - mode of attributing liab is employee’s mens rea offence during
the course of employment - comp punished - 2 cases of corp crime liab is (a) when crime nature
cant be committed by comp like rape, (b) crime punished with forms of punisht other than fines -
theory of alter ego (will or ego of emp) - theory of identification (emp and comp treated as one
enemy) i.e. bipartite rship, comp as entity and third party other entity- held corp liable criminally
if emp mind, will is the ego and will of the comp.
- Zee telefilms ltd v sahara india corp ltd - whether comp can form mens rea?, whether comp can
be imposed punisht for life imp - held if comp capable of committing crime then mens rea is
essential element but since comp cant form mens rea as it can’t have personality so can’t have
mind and mens rea then it is wrong on the part of the court to even have initiated the case against
comp.
- Standard chartered bank and other v director of enforcement - whether corp prosecuted for life
imp and if not then fines?
- Iridium india telecom comp ltd v motorola incorporated ltd - 5 principles of CCL.

CHAPTER 3 - PUNISHMENT (5TH INGREDIENT OF CRIME)

- Civil law - penalty, criminal law - punishment
- Punishment in the (BNS) is the penalty imposed by the state on those who violate criminal law
- Based on the idea of Pain and Pleasure theory i.e. the idea that people act to maximise pleasure
and minimise pain but pain id directly proportional to pleasure

THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT (criminal is to punished)

5 of 35
- Retributive theory - simply punished as committed crime, based on revenge, personalised and
legalised vengeance
- Deterrent theory - justification is punisht before and the chief end of law set to make evil doer as
eg and warning to all like minder with him (Salmond) - 2 kinds (general - The idea that
punishing individuals for crimes will discourage others from committing similar crimes)
(specific - The idea that punishing an individual will discourage them from re-offending) - 3
ways to control crime is (a) make impossible to commit again, (b) deterring general pub, (c)
providing opp to offender to reform quantum and certainty.
- Preventive theory - theory of incapacitation, aims preventing by disabling criminal from
repeating same act or by preventing from opp. - detention (a)punitive, (b)preventive.
- Reformative theory- reformation of offenders - aim is to make offenders better citizen by ethical
and moral training (upright and meaningful citizen) - RACIDIVISM (the tendency of
a convicted criminal to reoffend.) - reformative based on the premise that crime not result of
original sin but more of better envt and lack of pop for better living

PUNISHMENT (SEC 4)
- Sec 4 liable under death, life imp, imp (rig and simple), forfeiture, community service
- Comm service - something awarded to convicted person by court of law, intd for no recidivism
- Added by reformative theory - 5 offence in bns - form of crime def - pub servant issues summons
for non compliance of summons or warrants - when threaten to attempt to suicide.

- Concurrent and consecutive sentence (sec 25 bnss) (LATER)

- Fines as form of punishment (sec 8) (rules)

- When amt not specified - unlimited not excessive
- In case not paid then impri in addition alongwith fine (DI)
- If both awarded then DI not exceed 1/4th punishment
- DI shall be of any description to which the offender shall be subjected to under subs law
- DI applicable on default of payment and comm service (fine+commservice)- DI upper limit
• Upto 5000 - 2 month DI
• 5000 to 10,000 - 4 month DI
• 10,000 to Comm Service - 12 month DI
• Harmonius construction - 2 moths comm service not done then 2 month DI
- DI Termination - payment of fine
- DI Termination - payment of proportional part of fine , eg - 5 yrs + 5000 - DI 5 months
- Fine leviable - during 6 yrs imp from the time of sentence of pronouncement

FRACTION OF TERMS OF PUNISHMENT (sec 6)

- Life imp reckoned as equivalent to imp for 20 yrs unless otherwise provided
- Gopal Vinayak Godse v state of mh - sc gave def for life imp 1st time - hc said life imp does not
mean 14-20 yrs but involved in killing Gandhi so violated FR and sc held him LI for remaining
part of natural life.
- Swami shraddhanand c state of Maharashtra - death sentence equivalent to LI without remission
- Before bacchan singh era - DP was rule and LI was exception - no need to justify DP over LI
would provide reasons (deterring and retributive)
- Jagmohan singh v state of up - sc held death sentence constitutionally valid and given all kind of
benefits court expected to give benefit of doubt for this. state can also use the power of checks
and balances
6 of 35
- Bacchan singh v state of punjab

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY DOCTRINE OF RAREST OF RARE CASE?

1. Not inflicted except in gravest cases of extreme culpability
2. Before opting - circumstances of offender taken into account with circum of crime
3. LI as rule and DP as exception - impose only when LI appears altogether to be inapp
4. Balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating circumstances

- Macchi singh v state of punjab - 5 postulates of doctrine of rarest of rare case

- Shatrughan chauhan v uoi - sc gave 12 guidelines and argument based on double jeopardy
- Davinder pal singh huller v state (nct of Delhi), Navneet kaur v state (nct of Delhi)

SOLITARY CONFINEMENT (sec 11 and 12) - watch YouTube

- Concept based on introspection, remorsefulness, conscience
- Applied to all kinds of offence - nowhere written only in DP or grevious offence
- Upper limit - 3 months

- Sec 11 - Applicable only when LI rigorous

- <6 months - max 1 month
- <6 months but >12 month/1 year - max 2 months
- <12 month/1year - max 2 months

- Sec 12 limit - if punishment for 3 months or exceeding 3 months

- Not exceed 14 month but also with interval (not less than such duration or period) (min 14) - 3
month punishment
- Not exceed 7 days (if more than 3 months with interval not less than such duration/period)

CHAPTER 4 - CAUSATION
- Causal rship btw act and result
- Types - (a)factual -, (b)legal - Also known as "proximate cause.
- 2 kinds of crimes - (a)conduct - The crime is the conduct itself, and there is no required
result. For example, theft, (b) result- The crime requires a specific result to occur. For example,
murder is a result crime
- Causation considered only in result crimes - prosecution must establish factual and legal causatio
- Factual causation - factual link btw conduct of accused and result-alleged caused by conduct
- Legal causation - sufficient cause in law btw conduct of accused and prohibited result

TEST FOR REASONABLE FORESEEABILITY

1. But for (R v White) - not convicted for attempt to murder

DOCTRINE OF TRANSFERRED MALICE

- Sec 100 (CP) - cause death with intention to cause death, bodily injury likely to cause death, with
knowledge to cause death likely.
- Sec 101 (M)
- Intended victim - intended to kill someone but killed someone else
- Actual victim - who got killed or shoot or poisoned
7 of 35
- Doctrine - covered under sec 102 - intention to harm intended victim but harm transfers to actual
victim
- Public prosecutor v m sooryanarayana moorthy - halwa case (refer notes)

LIABILITY UNDER CRIMINAL LAW

- 3 KINDS - strict, vicarious, joint
- Penal - This type of liability is when a person is held accountable for a crime or wrongdoing and
is punished by law. This punishment can include fines or imprisonment. The maxim actus non
facit reum, nisi mens sit rea states that an act alone is not enough to be considered guilty, a guilty
mind is also required.
- Remedial - This type of liability involves remedies that are not punitive in nature. For example, a
defendant may be ordered to pay damages or make a specific performance. The maxim ubi jus ibi
remedium states that "Where there is a right there is a remedy”

STRICT LIABILITY
- Regina v prince (provided 3 principles to construct strict liability)

VICARIOUS LIABILITY
- Respondent superior principle
- Qui facit per alium facit per se - he who acts through another does the act himself

GROUP LIABILITY
- Also known as joint, composite and constructive liability
- Logic - GL arises in a scenario where 2 or more person engage in comm of offence in diff
capacities - each party facilitated achievements of ultimate goal - each person held liable as if he
did act alone
- Presence of accomplice gives encouragement, protection and support - for this presence held
liable

PARTIES TO A CRIME
1. Principal: The criminal actor.
• Primary - who is the person who actually commits the crime.
• Secondary - who is criminally responsible for the crime as a result of their actions

2. Accomplices: Those who aid, abet, or assist in the commission of a crime. In many
jurisdictions, an accomplice can be prosecuted even if the principal is not.

3. Accessories: Those who help a party to the crime avoid detection and escape prosecution or
conviction.
• Before the act - person who helps plan or facilitate a crime by providing assistance or
encouragement before the crime occurs, while not being present at the crime scene
• After the act - someone who knowingly assists a criminal in avoiding capture or prosecution after
the crime has been committed;

DIFFERENT KINDS OF CRIMES UNDER GROUP LIABILITY IN INDIAN CRIMINAL

LAW

8 of 35
- Common intention - S 3(5) - when criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of
common intention - each of such person liable for that act in the same manner as if it were
done by him alone - does not create an offence but create rule of evidence
- Common object - S 190 - offence committed by member of unlawful assembly in prosecution
of common object - knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution - every person who at
the time of committing of that offence us member of same assembly is guilty
- Common conspiracy - S 61 applies where accused is a member of criminal conspiracy to commit
an offence

- INGREDIENTS OF COMMON INTENTION

does not create an offence but create rule of evidence
- There must be CI btw parties
- Overt act must be done by several parties
- Min of 2 persons to form CI
- Active participation of all persons in furtherance of CI

- Barendra kumar ghosh v king emperor - privy council laid down 7 principles to construct CI
- state of up v shahrunnisa - daughter provoked father to kill 2 younger brother/son
- Mehboob shah v king emperor - how CI concept changed or evolved - refer barendra ghosh
- Virendra singh v state of mp - whether mere presence enough?

COMMON OBJECT
- Maan singh v state of Uttarakhand - riot (ua + violence) - purposive construction liberal int

INGREDIENTS OF COMMON OBJECT

1. Assembly of 5 or more persons
2. Assembly - unlawful common object
3. Must be one amongst 5
• Overawe central or state govt or its servant or pub servant (pub not always govt servant)
• Resistance to execution of legal process
• Commission of mischief, criminal trespass or other offence
• Forceable possession or dispossession of prop
• Illegal compulsion (gheras)
4. Offence committed at least one member of unlawful assembly
5. Offence committed in the pursuance of CO or other member had knowledge of likelihood of its
commission, eg-booth capturing during elections

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CO AND CI

1. Statutory Provisions:
• Common Intention is dealt with under Section 34 IPC.
• Common Object is covered under Section 149 IPC.

2. Nature of Group:
• Common Intention (Section 34):
◦ There is no need for a specific number of people to be present. Even if two or more
people are involved in a crime with a shared intention, Section 34 can apply.
• Common Object (Section 149):

9 of 35
 ◦ It applies only when there is an unlawful assembly of five or more persons. If
fewer than five people are involved, Section 149 cannot be applied.

3. Mental Element:
• Common Intention:
◦ Requires prior concert or a pre-arranged plan where the accused acted in
furtherance of a shared intention. It must be proven that all the accused agreed to
act together and were aware of the plan before committing the act.
◦ The focus is on shared intention or mental unity to commit the offense.
• Common Object:
◦ Does not necessarily require prior concert or a detailed pre-arranged plan. The
members of an unlawful assembly must share a common object to achieve a
particular criminal goal, but it can develop spontaneously during the course of
events.
◦ The focus is on being part of an unlawful assembly with the object of committing a
crime, even if all members do not participate in the specific act.

4. Degree of Participation:
• Common Intention:
◦ Requires active participation by the accused, even if the specific act of the offense
is done by one person, all others sharing the common intention are equally liable.
◦ The concept applies to situations where everyone in the group takes part in some way
to achieve the intended crime.
• Common Object:
◦ Even if a person is passive or does not actively participate in the crime, they can be
held liable as long as they are part of the unlawful assembly and share the common
object of the group.
◦ The liability extends to all members of the group for any offense committed in
furtherance of the common object, even if the offense was not intended by all.

5. Type of Criminal Acts:

• Common Intention:
◦ Covers cases where the specific act that caused the offense was in the mind of all the
co-accused. It applies where each individual’s actions are linked by an intention to
commit the particular offense.
• Common Object:
◦ Can apply to situations where the specific offense was not premeditated by all
members of the unlawful assembly, but it was a natural consequence of their
common object.

6. Example:
• Common Intention (Section 34): If two people plan together to rob a shop, and during the
robbery, one of them shoots the shopkeeper, both are equally liable for the murder because
they had a common intention to commit the crime.
• Common Object (Section 149): If five people assemble with the object of attacking a rival
group, and during the attack one of them kills someone, all members of the group may be
held liable for the murder, even if the killing was not part of the original plan but arose from
the common object of violence.
10 of 35
Conclusion:
• Common Intention requires active participation and a pre-arranged plan or mental unity
among the accused to commit a particular offense.
• Common Object requires the accused to be part of an unlawful assembly, and they can be
held liable for offenses committed in furtherance of the group’s common object, even if they
did not actively participate in the act itself.
Both doctrines extend liability to individuals who did not personally commit the offense but were
sufficiently involved in a group setting. However, common intention focuses on premeditated
criminal acts, while common object relates to spontaneous actions arising within an unlawful
assembly.

- baladdin v state of up (Dalai Lama refugees)

CHAPTER 5 - GENERAL DEFENCES/GENERAL EXCEPTIONS

- Meaning of defence - justification put forth by an accused person to deny or justify their
criminal behaviour - disprove charges or diminish legal consequences
- Impact on criminal liability- either completely exonerates (like self defence) or reduce severity
of punishment (like mental illness)

Kinds of defences -
1. General defences
- Given under sec 14-44 - mistake of fact (not of law), accident, insanity, consent, coercion, self
defence, act done in good faith, judicial acts - apply to all offences universally w/o any
limitations - based on principles that apply across various situations where person may not be
held criminally liable because of certain special circumstances.
- Why some defences general? - as sec 3(1) of BNS explains that these exceptions apply to all
crimes under BNS without specific limitations or [Link] means that the defenses like self-
defense or mistake of fact can be raised regardless of the particular offense committed.

2. Special defences
- only for special offences - more restricted - eg murder(sudden provocation), criminal defamation
(truth used in certain contexts)
- Only applicable to specific offences - are tied to certain criminal actions
- Sec 101 (murder) exception 1 to 5 - outline certain circumstances like sudden provocation to
reduce charges
- Sec 356 (criminal defamation) exception 1 to 10 - include situations like expressing an opinion
on public conduct, or reporting on judicial proceedings. - have truth as an element.
- Why some defences general? - tied to specific offenses and cannot be used universally. -
recognize unique factors involved - offer limited defences - recognise not all killings are equally
blameworthy and can happen under certain circumstances that justify reduction in severity -
recognise not all criminal defamation equally blameworthy if acknowledge truth, free speech,
report on matters of public interest may sometimes conflict with personal reputations.

Classification of general defences

- Both types negate criminal liability, but they do so based on different legal principles.

11 of 35
1. Excusable defences - person excused from liability even though act ordinarily an offence - key
factor is absence of mens rea (criminal intent) - lacking mental state and lack understanding
the nature of act they committing - eg - infancy and insanity
2. Justifiable defences - focus on absence of actus reus - based on the idea that person’s actions are
deemed lawful in certain situations. - eg - private defence (as long as force used in reasonable)
and necessity (commits crime to prevent greater harm)

Absence of conjunction between actus reus and mens rea - on both, crime is not constituted
when there is absence of actus reus and mens rea - not criminally held liable - based on principle of
Actus me invito factus non est mens actus - An act done against one’s will is not truly their act -
means if someone forced or unable to control their actions - not criminally blamed.

Introductory provisions - S 3(1) of BNS - outlines the general principles regarding the applicability
of exceptions in criminal law. S 24 of BNS - deals with provisions of criminal liability and the
interpretation of exceptions under BNS. - do joint reading.

Section 108 - Burden of proof

- Relies on the party claiming whether general or specific defences/exceptions
- Court may assume absence of mens rea unless accused prove certain circumstances fall under
this category
- Accused need to provide standard of proof/evidence - standard may not be high as proving guilt
but may need to convince the court of the exception's validity.

Excusable defences - Mistake(S14, S17), Accident(S18), Incapacity(infancy(S20, S21,),

insanity(S21), intoxication(S23, 24))

Mistake as defence
- Mistake as a defence - Ignorantia facti excusat (ignorance of fact is excuse) - Ignorantia juris
non excusat (ignorance of law not excuse) - mistake of fact can provide a defense, but a mistake
of law generally cannot.
- Types of mistake - mistake of fact(excusable), mistake of law(not excusable)
- Ingredients of mistake - order legal and binding, good faith reasonably believed, of facts not
law
- S11 (Good Faith) - mistake of fact done in good faith means genuinely believes acc to law done
- S14 (bound by law) - legally bound but mistakenly believes facts true - must have legal
obligation to do act - simply following orders not valid if act is inherently illegal
- S15 (legally bound to do) - mistake - order must legal and binding - good faith - of fact not law
- S17 (justification of acts) - authorised by law to perform act - acted in good faith to justify their
actions - genuinely believed their actions are justified according to law.

CASE - RAJ KAPOOR V LAXMAN - raj renowned filmmaker accused of violating censorship
laws for exhibiting a film without proper certification. - obscene scenes against public morality, -
court held good faith in complying with legal requirements was relevant - ruled in favour of raj as
there was reasonable connections btw his actions and believe acting in accordance with law -
defence of mistake of fact accepted. As he genuinely believed he acted under law.

CASE - R V PRINCE - Prince charged with taking an unmarried girl under the age of 16 out of her
father's possession which was crime that time, prince believed she is 18 as girl said she is older than
12 of 35
16 - held prince cant use mistake of fact as the act itself inherently wrong or criminal (the law is
specially designed to protect young girls thus it doesn’t matter if prince had mens rea or not) - also
prince didn’t inquire properly girls age so not acted in good faith.

CASE - R V TOLSTOY - mrs tolstoy charges for bigamy as she genuinely believed her husband
died in island after waiting for 7 years and claimed mistake of fact - held tolstoy not guilty of
bigamy as she took reasonable inquiry before marriage I.e. waited 7 years (presume unknown
person dead rule) - court accepted mistake of fact as reasonable believed he died but turned it out to
be untrue - didn’t have mens rea

CASE - R V WHEAT - wheat (def) charged for bigamy and was illiterate and due to
miscommunication he thought the divorce had been accepted and signed by earlier wife - court held
that no defence available to wheat as a mistake of fact occurs when someone is wrong about a
situation or fact - In contrast, a mistake of law occurs when someone misunderstands or is unaware
of the legal consequences of their actions. - court made it clear mistake of law is not an excuse.

CASE - STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V MH GEORGE - def charger under FERA for carrying
34 kg gold in secret pockets w/o proper authorisation - court held mens rea not applicable in FERA
as offence is economic in nature and strict liability applied - also mistake of law is not a valid
excuse thus cant claim he was unaware of the law as defence - he violated FERA.

CASE - STATE OF WB V SHEW MANGAL SINGH - 2 conflicting version of events by

prosecution and defence. - [Prosecution - 4 police officer encountered 2 brothers - recognised those
2 by name then identified before engaging with them - once confirmed they open fired which leads
to riot - instigation done by 3rd brother of 2 brothers - alleged that unlawfully opened fire without
justifiable cause leading to a fatal outcome] - [Defence - 4 officers on patrol in area where they
attacked by one brother and during confrontation R2 was injured which lead to open fire as self
defence resulting in riot/mob violence and death of one of 2 brothers] - TC convicted all 4 officers -
HC overturned acquittal and held initiation of prosecution unsatisfactory as brothers were the one
who initiated the act by first attacking them leading to mob violence - officer’s decision to open fire
as self defence is justified - CASE OF SPECIAL OFFENCES DEFENCE

CASE - CHIRANGILAL V STATE - chirangilal with 12 year old sone went into forest for
collecting beedi leaves and killed him accidentally believing him to be tiger - chirangilal’s nephew
instigated 12 year old son and found the bloody axe on chirangi’s axe and found he killed him - LC
held conviction of chirangilal on the ground that his act was intentional so defence of mistake of
fact or insanity not adequate - SC overturned LC and held that act was indeed on mistake of
insanity as he genuinely believed him to be tiger and was defending himself from him so he acted in
good faith - court also took the account of possibility of temporary insanity or memory loss due
to high stress situation in forest which leads to fatal error.

Accident as defence
- Refers to situation where unintended and unforeseeable event happens during performance of
lawful act - not criminally liable
- Ingredients
1. Lawful act, lawful means, proper care and caution - eg - cutting a tree with an axe, act is lawful
2. Unintended consequences - eg - while chopping tree, axe slips, someone nearby accidentally
hurt
13 of 35
3. No criminal knowledge or intention - eg - you were not trying to harm anyone; the injury
happened purely by accident during lawful activity

CASE - TUNA V REX - tunda (def) Munshi (deceased) had wrestling match where Munshi got
injured accidentally died - court determined the act of throwing Munshi was accidental and part of
the usual wrestling activity - no evidence of rashness, negligence, or intention to harm - Tunda’s
action lacked intentional knowledge - concluded that Tunda did not act negligently, as wrestling
inherently involves some risk, and due care was exercised.

CASE - ATMENDRA V STATE OF KARNATAKA - ishika, the mediator settled the dispute
over collecting coconuts from tress between 2 brothers granting Ganapathi the right to collect
coconuts that fell to the ground but not to pluck them - one bitthal came and plucked which Ashoka
didn’t knew personally but everyone does which lead to heated arguments of ongoing ownership -
Ganapathi said son Ashoka’s big ego needed to be "dealt with" to end the matter. - during heated
altercation, gun Atmendra was holding discharged, leading to Ashoka's death. - both HC and TC
convicted Ganapathi and atmendra as they found their both words and actions taken together,
demonstrated a deliberate intention to harm Ashoka. - claim of accidental discharge was rejected
based on witness accounts and the circumstances of the incident.

Incapacity as a defence
- Refers to situations where individuals cant be held responsible for their actions due to a lack of
mental or physical ability - 3 kinds - infancy, insanity, intoxicating

Infancy as a defence
- protects children from being held criminally liable as they lack mens rea or maturity
- 2 key principles - doli incapax (Incapable of committing a crime due to immaturity) and doli
capax (Capable of committing a crime, depending on maturity)
- Sec 20 - age limit is below 7 years - irrefutable presumption is that they lack the mental ability to
understand the difference between right and wrong, so they get automatic protection - and cant
form mens rea
- Sec 21 - age btw 7-14 yrs - rebuttable presumption is that they may be capable of forming
criminal intent depending on their intellectual maturity and their ability to understand the
nature and consequences - if lacks maturity then to be held criminally liable.

CASE - SALIL BALI V UNION OF INDIA - Facts: The case involved a challenge to the
provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act regarding the age limit of juveniles in criminal cases. Issues:
Whether the age limit for criminal responsibility should be reduced due to the involvement of
juveniles in heinous crimes. Decision: The court upheld the age limit and emphasized that the law
presumes children under 18 lack the maturity to fully comprehend their actions.

CASE - SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY V RAJU THROUGH JJB - Facts: This case questioned the
age of criminal responsibility in the context of a juvenile involved in a heinous crime. Issues:
Should juveniles involved in serious crimes be tried as adults? Decision: The Supreme Court
maintained that the existing law for juveniles was adequate, considering their intellectual and
emotional maturity while emphasizing the need for rehabilitation.

CASE - C V DPP - C committed unlawful act prosecution needed to prove whether child’s
maturity understands the nature and consequences of the act - court emphasized that criminal
14 of 35
responsibility in children is subjective and varies depending on the child’s age, intelligence, and
understanding. - prosecution must provide evidence to prove if child’s action was seriously wrong -
subjective understanding of consequences and wrongfulness is sufficient for criminal liability.

CASE - HIRALAL MALLICK V STATE OF BIHAR - Hiralal of 12 yrs accused homicide - HC

reduced charge and sentenced him for 4 yrs of rigorous punishment - case appealed to SC by special
leave - court upheld the conviction and stated Hiralal’s actions showed intent and awareness of the
consequences of his actions. - use of sharp/dangerous weapon to stab neck was causing grievous
hurt - court emphasized the importance of rehabilitation over punishment for juvenile offenders. -
sentence was reduced considering his age and the need to avoid physical trauma and social
stigmatization associated with long-term imprisonment.

CASE - KAKOO V STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH - 13 yr old convicted for rape of 2 yr

old and sentence for 4 yrs - case appealed to SC with special leave questioning the severity of the
sentence and the appropriateness of incarceration for a juvenile.- SC reduced Kakoo’s sentence to 1
year acknowledging his young age and the lack of juvenile justice infrastructure in Himachal
Pradesh at the time. - rejected the proposal to release into his father’s custody - SC agreed that
prolonged imprisonment of a child alongside adult criminals could lead to further moral corruption
rather than rehabilitation.

Insanity as a defence
- Refers to person who is mentally ill ("a mad man") lacks the will to understand the nature of their
actions and cannot be held criminally responsible.
- Ingredients - unsound mind and incapacity to know (nature, wrong or right, recognising act)
- Insanity - refers to a state of mental illness
- Kinds of insanity - mental (Involves any mental illness, regardless of its impact on judgment.)
and legal (if their mental illness impairs their reasoning ability and understanding of their
actions.)

CASE - R V M’NAGHTEN - M suffered from delusions that Robert peel(PM) conspiring against
him and one day while attempting to kill him he killed his secretary accidentally - held that M not
be held guilty by reason of insanity - case delivered by 15 judges and got 3 rules - 1 is
presumption of sanity i.e. Every person is presumed sane and responsible for their actions unless
proven otherwise. 2 is test of sanity i.e. it must be shown that individual suffering from mental
illness and did not know the nature and quality of the act they commit - 3 is moral or legal wrong -
whether the accused understood that their actions were contrary to law or morality.

CASE - HARI SINGH GOND V STATE OF MAHARASHTRA - Hari charged with crime by
lathi harm to victim - his defence was claiming of insanity - judgement analysis - 1 is legal insanity
v medical insanity (provide difference) - 2 is absence of legal insanity i.e. defence rejected
because no medical evidence or prior history of him but showing signs of irrational behaviour and
didn’t display any symptoms of insanity during or after the crime - 3 is test of legal insanity i.e.
preparation of act, concealment of crime, post crime behaviour - 4 is reasonable men test i.e. Hari
behavior did not indicate a lack of understanding of his actions. - held that Hari Singh was not
legally insane at the time of the act.

15 of 35
Intoxication as a defence
- state of mind where a person loses self-control and the ability to judge their actions responsibly.
- may arise due to the consumption of alcohol, drugs, or other substances
- Types - voluntary(knowingly and willingly) and involuntary (w/o their knowledge and will )
- S23 - involuntarily - complete defense, akin to unsoundness of mind. - ingredients are 1.
Incapacity to understand- 2 is incapacity to act responsibly- 3 is involuntary nature through
forcefully or induced by someone
- S24 - voluntarily - not complete defence as they put themselves on their own - based on legal
premise "A person who sins when drunk must be punished when sober.” - seen as "voluntary
species of madness - exception is to mitigate punishment if it significantly impairs the person’s
judgment, but the defense is not absolute
- Applications in practice - 1 is burden of proof (is on the accused and are asked on question of
fact) - 2 is w/o knowledge (unaware) and against will (coercion/deceit)
- Judicial perspective - carefully assess mental state of the accused and for involuntary tox tests
as in cases of unsoundness of mind

CASE - BASDEV V STATE OF PEPSU - based, a retired military personnel at wedding feast
intoxicated and hit a child of 15 yrs and shot him - he claimed defence of insanity - held his
voluntary intoxication is not defence and should bear the consequences of their actions - intended
to cause the death of the boy, as evidenced by his deliberate use of the gun and thus convicted.

CASE - SHANKAR JAISWARA V STATE OF WB - Shankar killed 12 yrs old on some petty
issue with anger with sharp weapon - held was no clear evidence of unsoundness of mind - had the
necessary mens rea (intention) - upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC (murder) -
defense of intoxication was also considered but rejected as it was voluntary.

JUSTIFIABLE OFFENCES
1. Judicial acts
- objective- purpose is to protect judges so they can perform their judicial duties without fear of
personal consequences or legal liability.
- Essentials - judicial authority (S16) + acted judicially (within jurisdiction)
- Scope - act carried out during the performance of judicial duties or while executing a court order
+ Protection for Officers as defence if complied with judicial duties
- Additional considerations - oral orders (fall within the purview of judicial protection) +
jurisdictional issues (If acts beyond their jurisdiction without good faith, the protection may not
apply)

2. Necessity
- Principle - doctrine implies "necessity knows no law” means allows individuals to justify an act
done to prevent a greater harm.
- Essentials - avoidance of greater harm + proportionality (must justify the risk of the harm
caused) + good faith (without criminal intent to cause harm)
- CASE - R V DUDLEY - Self-preservation is not an absolute necessity + No right to take
another’s life to save one’s own: + No necessity justifies homicide.

3. Consent
- voluntary agreement by a person with capacity
- Doctrine of volenti non fit injuria
16 of 35
• Premise - person best judge of their interests + no one consent to harm themselves + right to
allow harm to themselves or their property
• Protects - doctors performing surgeries + Philanthropists or others acting for the welfare of
individuals.

4. Communication
- made in good faith and for the benefit of the recipient is protected
- Example: Doctor-patient confidentiality, where communication is necessary for treatment and
made in the patient’s interest.

5. Duress
- Protects acts done under compulsion or threat.
- Actus me invito factus non est meus act: An act done against one's will is not their act
- Essentials - threat of instant death + threat present when act committed

6. Trivial act
- De minimis non curat lex: The law does not concern itself with trifles.
- Minor or insignificant acts that cause negligible harm are not offences.
- CASE - RUPAN DEO BAJAJ V KS GILL - IAS officer alleged DGP outraged her modesty at
social gathering - allegedly slapped her posterior in a public setting - initially dismissed as a
trivial matter - Court reaffirmed that modesty is an attribute associated with women and any act
that violates her sense of privacy, dignity, or self-respect can be considered an outrage to modesty
- judiciary emphasized that acts perceived as trivial by society can significantly impact an
individual’s dignity and are subject to legal scrutiny. - landmark judgement on women modesty

7. Private defence
- Cardinal principles - Self-preservation as primary instinct + State provides security in most
situations, but in exceptional case + force used in private defence must be proportionate to the
injury intended to be averted.
- General rule - Defensive in nature, not punitive (right is preventive and intended to avoid
harm, not inflict punishment) + Protection extends to the body and property of oneself or
another.
- Restrictions/limitations - public servants act + Proportionality + Time to Seek Public Authority
+ No Right to Aggressors + Free Fights (no defence here )
- Features - Preventive, Not Punitive + Reasonable Apprehension of harm + irght ends as soon as
the apprehension ceases. + applies to one's own body and property or that of another person +
Burden of Proof: Lies with the accused claiming exception

- Private defence to body - S38 S39 S40 S44 - bare act

- CASE - JAMES MARTIN V STATE OF KERELA - The right to private defence is valid only if
the force used is necessary and proportionate. Actions exceeding the reasonable limits of
private defence lose legal protection.

- Private defence to property - S41 - S44 - bare act

17 of 35
CHAPTER 6 - STAGES OF CRIMES AND INCHOATE OFFENCES
STAGES OF CRIME
Introduction - Crimes committed on the spur of the moment + Crimes that are premeditated
and executed.

STAGES -IPAC

STAGE 1 - intention
- Meaning - mental process where an individual directs their will towards a specific object/goal -
initial stage of crime
- Liability - doesn’t attract punishment bcoz - Unascertainable intent + Proving Intention in Court
+ Unnecessary complications in maintaining law and order.

STAGE 2 - preparation
- Meaning - refers to devising or arranging the means to commit the intended crime -
intermediary stage btw overt act and mere intention
- Liability - not punishable when - Establishing proof often challenging. + Mere preparation may
not directly disturb public order or security.

STAGE 3 - attempt
- Meaning - involves a direct movement towards the commission of a crime after completing the
preparatory acts - characterised as overt act + constitute execution but stop due to unavoidable
circumstances
- CASE - K Venkata rao v state of AP - characterised as overt act + constitute execution but stop
due to unavoidable circumstances
- Key distinction btw preparation and attempt - preparation is means and resources to commit
the crime; falls short of a direct act. Attempt is direct act or series of acts in execution of the
crime; moves beyond preparation but stops short of completion.
- Liability - Why attempt punishable? - Threat to Body or Property, Threat to Peace and Order,
State Interest
- Constituent element - intention, overt act, interruptions beyond control

TEST FOR DEMARCATION BETWEEN PREPARATION AND ATTEMPT

1. Penultimate act/proximity test - examines whether the overt act committed was close enough
to the actual commission of the offence. - need not be the penultimate but must done in course
2. Locus Poenitentiae Test / Time for Repentance Test - act amounts to mere preparation if the
individual voluntarily abandons the criminal design before committing the substantive crime
3. Unequivocality Test - it unequivocally demonstrates the intention of the perpetrator to
accomplish the criminal objective. - must leave no room for doubt about the criminal intent
4. Social Danger Test - focuses on the seriousness of th
5. e offence and the potential threat it poses to society. - more severe the social repercussions he
greater the justification for treating it as a punishable attempt.
6. Test of Impossibility - whether an act that appears to be an attempt but fails due to
impossibility—either physical, legal, or due to ineptitude—can still qualify as an attempt.
- Legal impossibility - act attempted is not a crime by law. Eg - Attempting to commit a crime
under a law that does not exist.
18 of 35
- Physical impossibility - act is inherently unachievable due to factual impossibility. Eg - Trying to
pick the pocket of someone who has no wallet.
- Impossibility Due to Ineptitude: - perpetrator lacks the required skills or resources to accomplish
the crime. Eg - Adding insufficient poison to cause harm.

Legal Position on Impossibility:

• Earlier, courts were reluctant to punish attempts where impossibility was evident.
• However, modern jurisprudence recognizes that a person attempting an impossible act may
still be liable if they had the requisite intent and made a substantial effort toward committing
the offence.
• Key Consideration: A person is held liable if they do everything in their capacity to
accomplish the crime, but their objective remains unachievable due to factors beyond their
control.

4. Completion

INCHOATE OFFENCES
SECTION 45 - DEFINITION OF ABETMENT
1. Instigation - if abets/instigate another + involves actively provoking, inciting, or encouraging
another person to commit the act.
2. Engagement in conspiracy - with one or more individuals + in pursuance of + to achieve
3. Intentional aiding + that directly facilitates crime + illegally perform act
4. Explanation 1 - abetment by Wilful Misrepresentation or Concealment - are duty bound to
disclose - if not then instigated - eg - A public officer (A) is tasked to apprehend Z. B, knowing
that C is not Z, misrepresents that C is Z. B’s actions result in A mistakenly apprehending C.
Here, B abets by instigation
5. Explanation 2 - facilitation of act - before/during commission + must have directly facilitated

SECTION 46 - ABETMENT OF AN OFFENCE

- Abetment of an offence - instigate +. Facilitate like sec 45
1. Abetment w/o offence being committed - exp 2 - even if act abetted/intended not carried out -
eg - A instigate B to kill C, if B refuse still A abetted
2. Abetment of acts by incapable persons - exp 3 - is incapable like child/unsound person +
lacks intent - eg is A abets child C to kill D, C cant be criminally liable but A abetted.
3. Abetment of illegal omission - exp 1 - even if the abettor is not legally bound to act.
4. Abetment of abetment - exp 4 - extends liability to the abetment of another’s abetment - eg is
A instigate B to Instigate C for murder. A is liable as if they directly abetted the murder.
5. Abetment by conspiracy w/o direct contract - exp 5 - direct contact between conspirators is
not necessary for abetment by conspiracy. - eg is A and B conspire to poison Z. B involves C,
who delivers the poison to A. Though A and C do not directly conspire, both are liable for
abetment.

SECTION 47 - ABETMENT OF OFFENCE BEYOND INDIA

1. Abetment with cross border implications - abetment occurs within india + act abetted outside
india = considered as offence as if committed in india

19 of 35
2. Extension of jurisdiction - ensures that the Indian Penal framework applies to acts of
abetment having transnational dimensions, reinforcing accountability.
3. Illustration - A, residing in India, instigates B, a foreigner in country X, to commit murder in
country X - A guilty of abetment.

SECTION 48 - ABETMENT OF OFFENCE IN INDIA FROM OUTSIDE

1. Abetment originating outside india - abetment from outside + act abetted inside + considered
offence as in india
2. Cross border - ensures that foreign nationals or individuals operating outside Indian territory
are not immune.
3. Illustration - A, residing in country X, instigates B, residing in India, to commit a murder in
India - A guilty of abetment.

SECTION 49 - PUNISHMENT FOR ABETMENT WHEN THE ACT IS COMMITTED

1. General rule for abetment - instigation, conspiracy, aiding
2. Applicability - when actually committed + not expressly prescribe a distinct punishment BNS
3. Explanation - said to be committed "in consequence of abetment" if it directly results from the
instigation, conspiracy, or aid provided by the abettor
4. Illustration 1 - A instigates B to give false evidence - B (forgerer) A (abettor)
5. Illustration 2 - A and B conspire to poison Z - B (murderer) A (abettor)

Sections 50 and 51: Liability for Variance in Intention or Act in Abetment

SECTION 50 - LIABILITY FOR DIFFERENT INTENTION/KNOWLEDGE

1. Focus on abettor’s intention/knowledge - not the actual intent or knowledge of the person
abetted.
2. Example - A instigates B to commit murder with intent to harm Z, but B harms Z accidentally
without intent to kill, A will still be punished as if the act was done with A’s intention.
3. Legal implications - ensures that abettors cannot escape liability simply because the person
abetted acted with a different state of mind.

SECTION 51 - LIABILITY FOR DIFFERENT ACT DONE

1. Act done was of probable consequence of act abetted.
2. committed under the influence of the abetment (instigation, aid, or conspiracy).
3. Illustration 1 - A instigates a child to poison Z’s food but the child mistakenly poisons Y’s
food. - if A’s instigation was probable consequence of Y food poison then held liable
4. Illustration 2 - A instigates B to burn Z’s house. During the act, B also commits theft. - A not
liable for robbery but burn - not probable consequences
5. Illustration 3 - A instigates B and C to rob an inhabited house, and provides them with arms.
During the robbery, Z (an occupant) resists, and B and C murder Z. - murder as probable
SECTION 52 - LIABILITY OF ABETTOR FOR CUMULATIVE OFFENCES
- abettor liable when multiple offenses are committed as a consequence of the abetment if -
additional act of abetment committed + both acts includes distinct offence
1. Cumulative liability - abettor is punished for each distinct offense resulting from the abetment.
2. Knowledge of likely consequence - if abettor knew or could reasonable foresee additional act
would be committed

20 of 35
3. Illustration - A instigates B to resist a public servant’s attempt to seize property (distress).
While resisting B cause previous hurt to public servant - 2 distinct offences - Resisting distress
+ Voluntarily causing grievous hurt. A may held liable for both cumulative offences.

SECTION 53 - LIABILITY OF AN OFFENDER FOR UNINTENDED BUT FORESEEABLE

CONSEQUENCES
1. Intention of the abettor - instigates or intentionally aids - eg previous hurt
2. Different act from intended - actual result of the act is different from the intended effect eg -
death from grevious hurt
3. Knowledge of likely consequences - that the act abetted was likely to cause the resulting
effect (e.g., death).
4. Liability - held liable for the actual effect caused (e.g., death), as if they had intended to cause
that effect
5. Illustrations - A instigates B to cause grievous hurt to Z. B in consequence lead to death also. A
is liable for murder.
• Section 51 governs cases where the act committed matches the intention of the abettor.
• Section 53 governs cases where the act committed leads to an unintended but foreseeable
consequence, based on the abettor’s knowledge.

Aspect Section 51 Section 53

Liability for the act directly Liability for an unintended effect of the abetted act,
Focus
resulting from abetment, provided provided the abettor knew it was likely.
Effect it matches
Covers thethe intention
effect intendedof the
by the Covers a different effect, not intended by the abettor but
abettor. foreseeable.
Knowle No explicit requirement of Requires that the abettor knew the act abetted was
dge knowledge about the likely likely to cause the unintended consequence.
Require -consequences
Illustra A instigates Bbeyond
to stealthe
Z'sabetted - A instigates B to cause grievous hurt to Z. B causes
tion jewelry. B steals the jewelry; A is grievous hurt, leading to Z’s death. If A knew
Intent liable
Focusesforon
theft.
the intended act and grievous
Focuses onhurt could cause
foreseeable death,
but A is liable
unintended for
outcomes
vs. its execution. of the abetted act.
Outcom
Liabilit Limited to the intended act and its Extends to unintended but foreseeable consequences
y effects. of the act.
Extent
Section 54 and Section 55 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS): Key Provisions
and Explanation

SECTION 54 - PRESENCE OF THE ABETTOR AT THE SCENE OF THE OFFENCE

1. Applicability - applied to person punishable even if abettor is absent + such person present at
the scene when offence committed, treated as if they committed the offence.
2. Legal fiction - abettor's presence elevates their liability from indirect (abetment) to direct
commission of the offence.
3. Illustration - A instigates B to commit robbery and is present during the robber. A liable for
robbery even though B is principal actor.

SECTION 55 - PUNISHMENT FOR ABETTOR OF GRAVE OFFENCE W/O THEIR

COMMISSION
1. General punishment for abetment - if abetted offence not committed then 7 yrs imp
2. If hurt is caused - if abetted offence committed with grievous hurt not death - 14 yrs
21 of 35
3. Offence punishable with DP/LI
4. Illustration - A instigates B to murder Z. If If B does not commit the murder then A (7 yrs) and
if did with grievous hurt then A (14 yrs)

SECTION 56 - PUNISHMENT FOR ABETMENT OF OFFENCE PUNISHABLE WITH

IMPRISONMENT
1. General punishment - if abetted offence not committed and no specific provision shall be
punished with - imp of 1/4 term or fine or both
2. Abettor as public servant - whose duty it is to prevent the commission of the offence, the
punishment increase - imp of 1/2 term or fine or both
3. Illustration of general punishment - A instigates B to give false evidence. If B doesn’t give -
A liable for 1/4 term or fine or both
4. Illustration of public servant - A, a police officer duty-bound to prevent robbery, abets the
commission of robbery or B abets a robbery by A, who is a police officer responsible for
preventing robbery. - imp for 1/2 term or fine or both

Sections 57 and 58 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS): Provisions and

Illustrations

SECTION 57 - ABETMENT OF OFFENCE BY LARGE GROUP OR PUBLIC

1. Scope of abetment - involving the public or any group exceeding ten individuals + whether
the group comprises a specific sect, class, or general public.
2. Punishment - 7 yrs imp or fine
3. Illustration - A places a placard in a public area urging a sect of more than ten members to
attack members of a rival sect during a procession. A liable under 57.

SECTION 58 - CONCEALING OR MISLEADING ABOUT DESIGNS TO COMMIT

GRAVE OFFENCES
1. Facilitation of grave offence - Concealing designs to commit offences punishable with death
or life imprisonment, by any means - act/omissions + use of tool + false rep
2. Punishment - if offence committed then 7 yrs + if not committed then 3 yrs
3. Illustration - A, knowing of a planned dacoity at B, misleads the Magistrate by reporting that a
dacoity will occur at C, an unrelated location. If occur at B then 58 (a) otherwise 58 (b).

SECTION 59 - CONCEALMENT OF DESIGN BY PUBLIC SERVANT

1. Applicability - Includes acts of concealment or false representations. Includes public servants
2. Punishment - If committed then 1/2 of the long term or fine or both + if offence punishable
under LI then may extend to 10 yrs. and if not then 1/4 of term or fine or both.
3. Illustration - A, a police officer legally bound to report designs of robbery, knowingly omits to
report B's plan to commit robbery, with intent to facilitate the offence. Guilty of illegal
omission.

SECTION 60 - GENERAL CONCEALMENT OF DESIGN

1. Applicability - Includes acts of concealment or false representations. Includes any individuals
2. Punishment - if committed then 1/4 or fine or both and if not then 1/8 or fine or both
Key Takeaways
22 of 35
 • Section 59 places a higher duty of responsibility and stricter punishment on public servants
due to their legal obligations to prevent crimes.
• Section 60 applies broadly to anyone who facilitates or fails to disclose plans for criminal
acts.

SECTION 61 - CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

1. Definitions - act done by 2 or more persons with common object - illegal act + illegal means
2. Key points - agreement reqt - sufficient for the act to qualify as a criminal conspiracy for
other illegal purpose + It is irrelevant whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of the
agreement or merely incidental to it.
3. Punishments - for grave offence is DP or LI or 2 yrs rig imp or more + for other CC is 6 month
imp or fine or both

SECTION 62 - ATTEMPT TO COMMIT AN OFFENCE

1. Key points - Applies to attempts with offence under LI or other imp + must perform an act that
demonstrates clear intent and moves beyond mere preparation.
2. Punishments - half the imprisonment term or life imprisonment prescribed for the offence,
or fine, or both.
3. Illustration - attempt to steal - A breaks open a box intending to steal jewels but finds the box
empty. A has performed an act towards theft and is guilty of attempt.
4. Illustration - attempt to pickpocket - A attempts to pick Z's pocket by putting his hand into it
but finds the pocket empty. A is guilty of an attempt.
Key Takeaways

• Section 61 emphasizes the mental agreement and group intention behind illegal acts,
treating the mere agreement as punishable.
• Section 62 penalizes the physical actions or direct steps toward committing an offence,
even if the nal act remains unful lled.

CASE - SANJU V STATE OF MP

- (Sanju) was accused of abetting the suicide of his brother-in-law (the deceased). - said go die if
you want to and he committed suicide by hanging himself - fir lodged - court reiterated abetment
involves initiation, encouragement, aid - mere casual remarks or utterances made in anger or
frustration, without any intention to instigate, do not amount to “instigation’ like go die if you
want to - must be a direct link between the accused’s instigation and the suicide. - burden of
proof (prosecution must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused’s conduct was the
proximate cause of the suicide.) - mens rea was absent.

CASE - ARNAB MANORANJAN GOSWAMI V STATE OF MH

- arrest of Arnab Goswami under abetment of suicide and common intention, a journalist and the
editor-in-chief of Republic TV, in connection with the alleged suicide of Anvay Naik, an interior
designer, and his mother which they left in suicide note - mom HC denied his bail then he went
art 32 of SC - Court underscored that personal liberty is a fundamental right under Article 21
and cannot be curtailed without sufficient justification. - Court held that the police must follow
due process while making arrests and cannot act arbitrarily - reiterated that bail is the rule, and
jail is the exception. - judiciary must act as a sentinel on the qui vive (vigilant protector) of
fundamental rights. - Supreme Court granted interim bail to Arnab Goswami.

23 of 35
fi
fi
CHAPTER 7 - OFFENCES AFFECTING HUMAN BODY
[Link]
ipc/

Culpable homicide (S100) and murder (S101)

Culpable homicide
- Definition - cause of death of human being - mens rea is absent
- Essentials - with intention of causing death, causing bodily injury likely to cause death, with
knowledge that doer is likely, by such an act, to cause death

Murder
- Definition - Here mens rea is present which differentiates with murder
- Essentials - premeditation, no provocation whatsoever, absence of heat/passion, undue
advantage taken by offender or cruel and unusual manner of execution of death crime

Defences that are for culpable homicide but not murder

1. Grave and sudden provocation
2. Self defence
3. Act of public servant in good faith
4. Insanity
5. Accident
6. Consent of deceased

Punishments - for CH in 1st degree is life imp or death penalty (rarest of rare case), for CH in 2nd
degree is imp which may extend to 10 yrs or fine, for CH in 3rd degree is life imp or imp not less
than 7 yrs which may extent to life imp

3 step inquiry to different CH with murder

1. Whether act of accused caused death of another
2. Whether act of accused cause CH
3. Whether facts, as proved during the trial, brings the case within 4 corners of the definition of
the murder

Abetment ?

Abetment of suicide
Act performed by
1. Person abetting or inciting another person
2. Engage with one or more people in any conspiracy for abetting/inciting person
3. Intentionally aiding illegal act/omission for abetting/inciting person
4. By wilfull misrepresentation concealing material fact that he is obligated to disclose or attempts
to cause or procure voluntarily comes within the act of instigation
- State of Gujarat v gautambhai devkubhai Vala held that prosecution must full requirements of
abetment in order establish offence under abetment.

24 of 35
Ingredients of abetment
1. Abetment
2. Intention of accused to aid, instigate, or abet the individual to commit suicide

Interpretation of instigation (burden of proof) [Link]

of-suicide/
- Accused abetted the act of suicide of person, must establish that
1. Accused continue to irritate/annoy deceased through words, deeds, wilful omission or conduct,
including wilful silence until deceased reacted/pushed/forced to commit suicide
2. Accused intended to provoke, urge, encourage the deceased to commit suicide while acting in
the manner above mentioned - presence of mens rea is crucial condition for instigation

CHAPTER 8 - OFFENCES AGAINST WOMEN AND CHILD

SEC 63 - Key elements of rape
1. Forms of Penetration (Acts):
- Penile Penetration - into the vagina, mouth, urethra, or anus.
- Insertion of Objects or Body Parts - into the vagina, urethra, or anus.
- Body Manipulation - to cause penetration into the vagina, urethra, anus, or any part of her body.
- Oral Acts - Applying the mouth to a woman's vagina, anus, or urethra.

2. Circumstances (Seven Descriptions):

- Against her will
- Without her consent:
- Consent obtained through fear - hurt to her or someone she cares about.
- Consent obtained under false pretenses - misrepresents himself as her lawful husband.
- Consent given due to incapacity - due to unsoundness of mind, intoxication, or stupefying
substances).
- When the woman is under 18 years old - Consent is irrelevant for minors.
- When the woman cannot communicate consent - Due to physical or mental incapacity.

Explanations:
• Vagina Includes Labia Majora: The term "vagina" is extended to include the external
genitalia (labia majora).
• Consent Defined:
◦ Unequivocal Voluntary Agreement: Consent must be clear and voluntary,
communicated through words, gestures, or other means.
◦ Resistance Not Mandatory: The absence of physical resistance does not imply
consent.

Exception
1. Medical Procedure
2. Marital Exception - not rape except she is less than 18
This section attempts to provide a broad and inclusive definition of rape, addressing multiple
scenarios and ensuring clarity in the context of consent. However, certain provisions, like the
marital exception, may remain controversial due to their implications on gender justice and equality.

SEC 64 - PUNISHMENT FOR RAPE IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES

25 of 35
 1. Sub sec 1 - general punishment
- Basic punishment - rig imp not less than 10 yrs may extend to life imp or fine
- Life imp

2. Sub sec 2 - Aggravated Forms of Rape and Punishments

- Enhanced punishments - Applicable to offenders in positions of authority, trust, or
circumstances involving increased vulnerability or cruelty - 10 yrs to life imp or fine.
- By police officers - Within station's limits where the officer is posted on women in custody
- By Public Servants - On a woman in their custody or the custody of their subordinate.
- By Armed Forces - During deployment in a specific area (by the Central or State Government).
- By Management or Staff - jail, remand home, or other custodial inst - on women/children of inst
- By Hospital Staff - Committed within the precincts of a hospital or related institution.
- By Relatives, Guardians, Teachers, or Persons in Authority - someone in a position of trust or
authority
- During Communal or Sectarian Violence - committed amidst violence targeting specific
communities or groups.
- On Vulnerable Women - pregnant, incapable of giving consent, mental/physical diagnosis
- Causing Severe Harm - grievous bodily harm, maims, disfigures, or endangers life.
- Repeated Rape - on the same woman.

Explanations
• Armed Forces: Includes all forces under the control of the Central or State Government,
such as paramilitary and auxiliary forces.
• Hospital: Includes facilities for medical treatment, convalescence, or rehabilitation.
• Police Of cer: De ned as per the Police Act, 1861.
• Women’s or Children’s Institution: Includes facilities like orphanages, homes for
neglected women, or widows.

SEC 65 - PUNISHMENT FOR RAPE AGAINST MINORS

1. Sub sec 1 - Rape of a Woman Under 16 Years of Age
- Punishment - 20 yrs to life imp and fine (just and reasonable, covering the victim’s medical
expenses and rehabilitation. - pay directly to victim)
2. Sub-section (2): Rape of a Woman Under 12 Years of Age
- Punishment - same as sub sec 1 but also death penalty

SEC 66 - PUNISHMENT CAUSING DEATH/RESULTING IN PERSISTENT VEGITATIVE

STATE OF VICTIM
1. Provision applied to 64(1) includes - Police, public ser, armed force per, or person in authority
2. Additional outcome - section triggers when in course of committing causes death or
vegetative state (permanent state of unconsciousness where the victim loses cognitive
function.)
3. Punishment - 20 yrs to life imp and death penalty

SEC 67 - PUNISHMENT FOR NON-CONSENSUAL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH

WIFE LIVING SEPARATELY
1. Offence defined - man engage sexual intercourse with wife living separately under decree of
separation or through informal arrangements or estrangement or w/o consent
2. Definition of sexual intercourse - same as sec 63 clause a to d

26 of 35
fi
fi
3. Punishment - 2-7 yrs and may liable to pay fine, the quantum of which is at the court’s
discretion.

SEC 68 - ABUSE OF AUTHORITY TO INDUCE SEXUAL INTERCOURSE (NOT

AMOUNTING TO RAPE)
1. Offence defined - abuse of authority or fiduciary relationship by person of authority under sec
64 . Abuse must be to induce/seduce women in his custody/charge/premises
2. Sexual Intercourse: - same as sec 63
3. Punishment: - 5 to 10 yrs along with fine
4. Exclusions: - does not amount to rape under the law but is still deemed criminal due to the
misuse of power and the exploitation of a vulnerable woman.

SEC 69 - SEXUAL INTERCOURSE BY DECEITFUL MEANS/FALSE PROMISE TO

MARRY
1. Offence defined - sex int conducted by false promise to marry or deceitful means - act must not
meet legal requirements of rape under 64 or related sections.
2. Sexual Intercourse - same as 63
3. Punishment - 10 yrs or fine

Explanation
- False promise of employment/promotion - Using professional opportunities as pretext
- Suppressing identity - Misrep of one's identity, such as concealing religious, marital, or personal
details to gain consent.
- False promise of marriage - Explicitly promising to marry without intending

SEC 70 - GANG RAPE

1. Offence defined - occurs when one or more act in furtherance of CI or as group
2. Punishment - when adult women (20 yrs to life imp), when minor under 18 (LI or DP)
3. Deemed liability - each member of grp liable regardless of their individual roles based on
doctrine of common intention.
4. Severity of Punishment - in adult and minors underscores the gravity of the offense.
5. Fine Provisions - ensuring the punishment is not solely punitive but also restorative.

SEC 71 - PUNISHMENT FOR REPEATED OFFENDERS OF HEINOUS SEXUAL

OFFENCES
1. Applicability - 64,65,66,70
2. Subsequent Conviction - convicted again for another offense under any of the aforementioned
sections.
3. Punishment - LI/DP
4. Zero Tolerance for Repeat Offenders
5. Deterrence - example
6. Societal Protection

SEC 72 - PROHIBITION ON DISCLOSING THE IDENTITY OF SEXUAL OFFENCE

VICTIMS
- Sub sec 1 prohibition of disclosure - offence to print/publish that could reveal identity of
victims under 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, or 71.
- Punishment - rig/simple imp of 2 yrs and may fine
27 of 35
- Sub sec 2 Exception - Police Authorization (acted in good faith), Victim’s Consent, Next of
Kin's Consent (If the victim is dead, a child, or of unsound mind, the next of kin may authorize
the publication)
- Rationale behind the Provision - Protection of Privacy and Dignity, Prevention of Media
Sensationalism, Balancing the Public Interest.
- The authorization must be given in writing and may only be given to recognized welfare
organizations or their officials (such as the chairman or secretary).
- Case Law: - Courts have emphasized the confidentiality of sexual assault cases and the
importance of anonymity for victims to prevent secondary harm. For instance, in State of
Maharashtra v. Madhukar Narayan Mardikar (1991), the Supreme Court recognized the need
for a fair trial and the rights of victims to be protected from the media spotlight.

SEC 73 - PROHIBITION ON PUBLISHING MATTER RELATED TO COURT

PROCEEDINGS W/O PERMISSION
1. (Sub-section 1) - prohibit to print/publish w/o prior court permission
2. Punishment - rig or sim imp of 2 yrs along with fine
3. (Sub sec 2) Exception for Published Judgments (Explanation) - publication from SC/HC,
4. Implications and concerns
- Media Freedom vs. Fair Trial - strikes a balance between press freedom and the right to a fair
trial.
- Discretionary Power of the Court - leading to concerns over the inconsistency in how these
decisions are made.
- Challenges in Enforcement - Given the digital age, where information spreads rapidly through
social media and other online platforms, it may be difficult to enforce these restrictions
effectively.

SEC 74 - CRIMINAL FORCE AND ASSAULT AGAINST WOMEN

1. Essence of the offence - assault/criminal force with intention to outrage her modesty or with
knowledge like to outrage modesty
2. Punishment - 1 to 5 yrs along with fine
3. Acts of Assault or Criminal Force - Touching a woman inappropriately without her consent
with the intent of outraging her modesty + Dragging or restraining a woman forcefully while
making inappropriate gestures or remarks + Threatening a woman with physical harm in a
manner designed to humiliate or degrade her.
4. Outraging Modesty - Public harassment such as grabbing a woman’s arm or obstructing her
path with a suggestive gesture or comment + Using physical force to remove a woman’s veil or
clothing to humiliate her.

Judicial Interpretation:
The interpretation of "outraging the modesty of a woman" has been clarified in landmark
judgments:
1. State of Punjab v. Major Singh (1966):
◦ The Supreme Court held that modesty is an attribute of a woman and any unlawful
invasion of her dignity qualifies as outraging modesty.
2. Rupan Deol Bajaj v. K.P.S. Gill (1995):
◦ This case reinforced that gestures, words, or actions intending to insult or violate a
woman’s modesty fall under this provision.
3. Aman Kumar v. State of Haryana (2004):
28 of 35
 ◦ The court clarified that the intent or knowledge of the accused is crucial in
determining the offense. The actions should reflect a deliberate attempt to violate the
woman’s modesty.

SEC 75 - SEXUAL HARRASSMENT

1. Offence - man commits that when
• Clause (i): Physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual
overtures.
• Clause (ii): A demand or request for sexual favors.
• Clause (iii): Showing pornography to a woman against her will.
• Clause (iv): Making sexually colored remarks.

2. Punishments - for i. ii. iii. Is rig imp upto 3 yrs with fine or both and iv. Is sim/rig imp of 1 yr
or fine or both
3. Distinction Between Clauses and Punishments - i. ii. iii (senior penalties) iv. (Verbal
misconduct)

CASE - VISHAKHA V STATE OF RAJASTHAN

- case emerged from the brutal gang rape of Bhanwari Devi, a social worker in Rajasthan, who
was targeted while attempting to prevent child marriages in her village as part of her duties. The
incident highlighted the lack of effective legal mechanisms to address sexual harassment at the
workplace in India. Guidelines are as follows
1. Definition of sexual harassment includes - Physical contact and advances.+ A demand or
request for sexual favors.+ Sexually colored remarks.+ Showing pornography.+Any other
unwelcome physical, verbal, or non-verbal conduct of a sexual nature.
2. Employer’s responsibility - Provide a safe working environment + reate a mechanism for the
prevention and redressal of complaints.
3. Redressal mechanism - Establish a Complaints Committee with a majority of women
members and chaired by a woman. + Include a third-party member familiar with sexual
harassment issues.
4. Awareness and protection - conduct training and workshops for awareness + display policies
and mechanisms for it
5. Confidentiality and protection - Ensure confidentiality of the complaint process. + Protect the
complainant from retaliation.

SEC 76 - ASSAULT OR CRIMINAL FORCE WITH INTENT TO DISROBE WOMEN

1. Action - assault (pprehension of physical harm to a woman with the intention to disrobe),
criminal force (Use of physical force), abetment (Encouraging, instigating, or aiding)
2. Intent - with the intention of disrobing the woman or compelling her to be naked.
3. Punishment - 3-7 yrs or fine amount determined by court.

Judicial Precedents:
1. State of Punjab v. Major Singh (1967):
◦ The court emphasized that any act intending to outrage the modesty of a woman,
including disrobing, falls under criminal offenses.
2. Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021):

29 of 35
 ◦ Highlighted that the dignity of a woman is of paramount importance, and acts like
disrobing should be dealt with stringent penalties to deter future offenses

SEC 77 - VOYEURISM
1. Action - watching/capturing image of private act + disseminating w/o consent
2. Circumstances - engaged in act of privacy + may violate either directly by the perpetrator or
indirectly at their behest.
3. Punishment - first conviction is of 1 to 3 yrs or fine and subsequent conviction is 3 to 7 yrs or
fine
4. Explanation
- private acts include Exposure of genitals, posterior, or breasts (fully or in underwear) + Using a
lavatory + Engaging in a sexual act not typically performed in public
- woman consents to the capture of images but not to their dissemination

SEC 78 - STALKING
1. Acts constituting stalking - following or contacting despite her disinterest + use monitoring
electronic communication like mails, social media etc.
2. Exception - for preventing or detecting crime + Required by law + Reasonable and justified
3. Punishment - first is upto 3 yrs or fine and second is 5 yrs or fine

Legal Definitions and Interpretations

1. Stalking:
◦ Repeatedly pursuing, contacting, or monitoring a woman without her consent,
causing psychological distress or harassment.
2. Electronic Stalking:
◦ Involves the use of digital platforms or devices to monitor or contact the victim,
including through social media, emails, or messaging apps.
3. Clear Indication of Disinterest:
◦ Any explicit action or communication from the woman indicating that the advances
or monitoring are unwelcome.

Section 79: Insulting the Modesty of a Woman

This provision criminalizes actions intended to insult or demean the modesty of a woman. It covers
verbal, non-verbal, and physical acts that invade her privacy or cause psychological harm.
Key Elements
1. Intent: The perpetrator must have the intention to insult the modesty of a woman.
2. Acts Constituting the Offense:
◦ Uttering words: Saying anything that insults or demeans a woman.
◦ Making sounds or gestures: Any audible or visible act intended to be perceived
Exhibiting objects: Showing any item, in any form, intending to insult or demean
◦ Intruding upon her privacy: Engaging in any act that encroaches upon a woman's
private space or life.
3. Punishment: Simple imp: Up to three years. Fine: As determined by the court.
- CASE - RUPAN DEO BAJAJ V KS GILL - IAS officer alleged DGP outraged her modesty at
social gathering - allegedly slapped her posterior in a public setting - initially dismissed as a
trivial matter - Court reaffirmed that modesty is an attribute associated with women and any act
that violates her sense of privacy, dignity, or self-respect can be considered an outrage to modesty
30 of 35
 - judiciary emphasized that acts perceived as trivial by society can significantly impact an
individual’s dignity and are subject to legal scrutiny. - landmark judgement on women modesty
- CASE - RAJU PANDURANGA MAHALE V STATE OF MH - The incident involved
inappropriate conduct that was alleged to have been done with the intention of insulting or
outraging the woman's modesty. - 1 is modesty as gender-specific virtue - described modesty as
an attribute specifically associated with women as a class. - 2 is"Oxford dictionary meaning
"conduct or a manner not forward or lewd; scrupulous chastity of thought, speech, and conduct.-
3 is judicial interpretation of modesty - the essence of a woman's modesty is her sex, and it is a
virtue attached to the female owing to her gender.” In the case of State of Punjab v. Major Singh
- 4 is conduct amounting to outrage modesty Court ruled that actions intending to violate a
woman’s sense of decency and dignity are sufficient to constitute an offense.

SECTION 80 - DOWRY DEATH

1. Circumstances of Death - burns, bodily injuries, Occur under unnatural circumstances
2. Causal Link with Cruelty or Harassment - soon after her death and dowry demands - no
longer restricted to physical violence - includes mental harassment, emotional abuse, and other
forms of coercive behavior -
3. Gender Dynamics:
▪ Victim: Gender-speci c (female).
▪ Perpetrator: Gender-neutral (includes husband or any relative, irrespective of
gender).
4. Definition of Dowry - Section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, which includes
property, money, or valuable security demanded or given in connection with marriage.
5. Presumption of Causation - If the above conditions are met, the husband or his relatives are
deemed responsible. If a woman dies under unnatural circumstances within seven years of
marriage, and there’s evidence of harassment or cruelty related to dowry, it is presumed that her
husband or relatives caused the death.
6. Battered Woman Syndrome → Battered Spouse Syndrome:
◦ This evolution acknowledges that domestic abuse affects not only women but also
spouses irrespective of gender.
• Issues with Implementation:
While the section is well-drafted, challenges arise in misuse and misapplication during
investigations and trials. False cases dilute the genuine struggles of victims.

7. Punishment - Imprisonment for a term not less than seven years, which may extend to life
imprisonment.

Ingredients of Dowry-related Cruelty (Section 85 of BNS):

1. Marriage: The victim must be married or believed to be married to the perpetrator.
2. Cruelty and Harassment: The victim must have faced harassment or cruelty related to dowry
demands.
3. Relationship of Perpetrator: The accused must be the husband or a relative (blood, marriage,
or adoption).

Cruelty and dowry death

- Cruelty - broader term encompasses mental & physical harassment, which may or may not
result in death.
- Dowry death - A subset of cruelty, specifically tied to dowry demands leading to unnatural
death.
31 of 35
fi
Abetment of suicide and dowry death
- Abetment - When harassment or cruelty leads a woman to take her own life, it can constitute
abetment.
- Dowry - if the harassment occurs soon before her death and is linked to dowry, the case
transitions from abetment to dowry death under Section 304B

Soon before here death

- relative and must be assessed based on facts and circumstances.
- requires a proximate and direct nexus between harassment and death.
- Reitarian of Ingredients - courts repeatedly emphasized the importance of proving the above
ingredients to establish a case of dowry death.
- Evidentiary presumption- it should be presume that evidence of cruelty If a woman dies under
unnatural circumstances within seven years of marriage

CASE - SUSHIL KUMAR SHARMA V UOI

- Issue is constl validity of sec 85 cruelty challenged
- Petitioner argument - misuse of law by women led false cases against innocents - making tool of
harassment rather than justice
- Sc observation - provision constl valid as serve critical purpose in safeguarding women -
however acknowledged instances of misuse and emphasized the need for stricter guidelines in its
application to prevent false cases.

CASE - PREETI GUPTA AND ANR V STATE OF JHARKHAND

- Facts - X (wife) accused her brother-in-law (A) and his wife (P) of harassment and cruelty - A
and P argued they had little interaction with X and were being falsely implicated - Police found
no direct evidence against A and P and suggested quashing their names - HC quashed their names
but SC disagreed and gave observations as follows :-
1. Cruelty should be ompoundable offence with court permission - after a cooling-off period of
three month - would allow time for counseling and a possible reconciliation
2. Non-bailable Offence with Safeguards: should remain non-bailable (as it involves serious
harm), but there should be safeguards against arbitrary arrests and unwarranted harassment
by police
3. Monitoring Mechanism: recommended that a monitoring mechanism be established in the
police department to track the progress of cruelty case
4. Expedited Disposal of Cases: prevent delays in justice - expeditious disposal of cruelty cases
by both the prosecution and the judiciary.

CASE - TARSEM SINGH V STATE OF PUNJAB

- SC reinforce the ingredients of dowry and elaborated soon before her death
1. Soon before death - 20 sec/20min/40hr + causal connection
2. Proximate harassment - in present scenario During the husband's brother's wedding, the
husband made derogatory remarks about the wife’s family, accusing them of not providing
dowry - repeatedly taunted and died - ruled caused of dowry death bro of proximity of
harassment
3. Literal context of 7 yr rule - if dies exactly after 1 days 7 yrs then no dowry death - however
may adopt contextual approach and treating it as a dowry death if the cause is directly linked to
dowry demands.
32 of 35
4. Overlap of abetment to suicide and dowry death - Every dowry death (required proof before
of 7 yrs and causal link) involves some form of abetment(Involves instigation,
encouragement, or aiding the victim), but not all cases of abetment to suicide qualify as dowry
deaths.
5. Homicide v suicide - If the woman is killed (e.g., by her mother-in-law), it is homicide and
does not fall under dowry death or abetment to suicide.
6. Dual charges - In some cases, both dowry death and abetment to suicide can be applied
simultaneously, depending on the facts and circumstances - but in some distinct cases double
jeopardy not applied
7. Domestic violence and sexual harassment - Asking a woman to contribute to household
expenses from her earnings does not qualify as dowry harassment. If she is denied control
over her money, it may constitute domestic violence.

CASE - BHUPENDER V STATE OF MP

1. Abetment of suicide is broader than dowry death - A married woman commits suicide within
seven years of marriage. The suicide is due to cruelty in connection with dowry demands.
2. rship btw 2 offence - Non-mutual Exclusivity: so there must be causal link
3. Cruelty and dowry death - C doesn’t require death but D require unnatural death - causal link
4. Combination of offence - in sexual harassment they goes hand in hand - cruelty, dowry death,
abetment to suicide
5. Kashmir kaur v state of Punjab - It provided 12 comprehensive points consolidating the
relationship between these offences, emphasizing that cruelty, dowry death, and abetment to
suicide are interconnected offences in cases of dowry-related harassment.

CASE - RAM KUMAR V STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

1. Deceased married to the appellant (Ram Kumar). - subjected to physical and mental cruelty by
her husband and in-laws, for dowry - wife committed suicide by consuming poison trial court
convicted the appellant under both cruelty and dowry - appellant challenged the conviction
2. Court held that "cruelty" includes both physical and mental harassment.
3. Continuous harassment of the wife for dowry constitutes cruelty.
4. abetment requires active instigation or encouragement of the victim to commit suicide.
5. The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused’s actions directly led to
the victim’s suicide. - burden of proof

SECTION 81 - FRAUDULENT OR DECEPTIVE MARRIAGE TO MISLEAD A WOMEN

1. Deceptive act - intentionally deceive believing lawfully married to him.
2. Resultant Consequence - based on belief - women cohabits + sexual intercourse
3. Legal Relationship - not lawfully married and under the deception
4. Punishment - 10 yrs to monetary fine

SECTION 82 - BIGAMY
1. Sub sec 1 bigamy
- Essentials - spouse living + subsequent marriage + void occurs during life of previous spouse.
- Punishment - 7 yrs + fine
33 of 35
- Exception - Marriage Declared Void by a Court + Continual Absence for Seven Years (but must
inform before 2nd marriage)
2. Sub sec 2 Concealment of Prior Marriage - accused must have concealed the existence of the
previous marriage + Imprisonment of either description for a term up to ten years or Fine.

SECTION 83 - PUNISHMENT FOR FRAUDULENT/DISHONEST INTENTION TO

MARRY
1. Essentials - Participation in a Marriage Ceremony + Knowledge of Invalidity (unlawful due to
an existing spouse, lack of proper consent, or violation of legal requirements) + Dishonest or
Fraudulent Intention (deceive)
2. Punishments - rig or simp imp of 7 yrs and may fine
3. Legal interpretation - Intent is Crucial (dishonest int of the invalidity of the marriage) +
Knowledge vs. Belief (Mere ignorance of legal procedures may not constitute an offense
unless combined with fraudulent intent) + Application to Void Marriages (applies even if the
marriage is void ab initio)
4. Comparison with 82 bigamy - Section 83 penalizes the act of fraudulent participation in a
marriage ceremony, while Section 82 focuses on contracting a second marriage during the
subsistence of the first.

CASE - UDAY V STATE OF KARNATAKA - Uday 25, girl 19-20yrs - he promised to marry and
had sexual intercourse - she got pregnant - he repeatedly refuse to marry now - prosecution argued
consent of girl violated - held 1. Is consent and misconception of fact - stating that a mere failure
to fulfill a promise of marriage does not necessarily mean the consent was obtained under a
misconception of fact. - 2. Is victim’s age and understanding - 19-20 yr college going student and
continued the relationship over time, fully aware of the accused’s reluctance due to caste differences
and parental opposition. - 3 is nature of promise - accused's promise of marriage was conditional,
given the caste barriers and potential parental disapproval - it was held that victim had the capacity
to make decisions + promise of marriage was not a false pretens +accused was acquitted of the
charge of rape under 63.

SECTION 84 - CRIMINAL OFFENCE OF ENTICING/CONCEALING A MARRIED

WOMAN FOR SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
1. Essentials - Knowledge of Marital Status (wife of another man.)
▪ Entice: Persuade or lure the woman away from her lawful residence.
▪ Take: Physically remove the woman from her home or lawful custody.
▪ Conceal: Hide or keep the woman out of reach of her husband.
▪ Detain: Prevent the woman from returning to her lawful residence or
husband.
2. Intent to facilitate intercourse - primary intent against women
3. Punishment - rig or simp imp of 2 yrs or fine or both

Sections 85 and 86: Offense of Cruelty by Husband or His Relatives

SECTION 85 - PUNISHMENT FOR CRUELTY

1. Scope - criminalizes acts of cruelty inflicted by a husband or his relatives on a woman.

34 of 35
2. Punishment - imp of 3 yrs and may fine

SECTION 86 - DEFINITION OF CRUELTY

1. Cruelty through wilful conduct - deliberate behaviour of them - drive women to commit
suicide + Causes grave injury or danger to life, limb, or health (physical or mental) - eg is
repeated verbal abuse, physical violence
2. Cruelty through harassment for unlawful demands - harassment with intent to Coerce to
meet unlawful demands for property or valuable security + punish/harm her for such failure of
demands - for eg - dowry demands, Harassment for gifts, cash, or property.

SECTION 87 - KIDNAPPING/ABDUCTING WOMEN WITH CRIMINAL INTENT

1. Kidnapping/abduction - Kidnapping refers to taking or enticing a woman away from her
lawful guardianship + Abduction involves the use of force, deception, or other means to
compel a woman to leave her location.
2. Intent/knowledge - intention that the woman be compelled to marry against her will +
knowledge that the woman is likely to be compelled to marry against her will + both when
Forced or seduced into illicit intercourse
3. Use of criminal intimidation or compulsion - or abuse of authority, or any other method of
compulsion + victim is induced to leave her place, with the intent or likelihood of being forced
or seduced into illicit intercourse
4. Punishment - 10 yrs imp and may fine

35 of 35