Omprakash- no food-s307

Rewaram v MP-connected cause

S1-op of code
S2-punishment
S3-beyond
s-4 territorial Abu salem (extra)
R of Italy thr vs UOI- sea case, firing kerala- not high sees, not govt vessel-no imm
Mobarak ali v bom- no immunity- rice trader
Lee kun v UP- deal-liked to india
S8- gender, 11-person 12-public, 22-move prop, 23-wrong gain, 24-dishonest, 25- fraud, 29a electronic rec(S2 IT act), 33-act/omm 34-
intent, 39-voluntary, 40- off, 41-spec law, 42-local law, 44 injury 52 good faith

General exceptions-ch 4- not for ese- 66-106

Attempt- intended, threat to rt security, in pursuance of crime. Intent, prep, attempt, comm, (not mere prep or intention) Punishment 511-
Essentials: Koppula Venkat Rao v AP- attempt defn- part exec, more than prep
S122-war prep, 126-depredtions, 399-prep for dacoity.
Offences against state-121, 124,125, 130, mutiny-131, pub peace- 152 153A, extorsion, robbery, dacoity- 385, 387, 389, 391, 397, 398,
Trespass-460
Abhayananda v Bihar- diff between prep and attempt – uni admission.
Rule of proximity- Maha vs Yakub -silver smuggle- proximate to the intended result- reln to intent
, locus poenitentiae-Malkiat S v Pjb – backing out- paddy warned no license.
Equivocality- acts speak for themselves
Impossible Act attempt-attempt made but criminal objected frustrated- Munah vs Pub Pros- abort not a pregz- realised not pregz – attempt
frustrated.
Test for prep v attempt Malkhait case
Maha v R Gandhi- attempt in sex offence- attempt because ejaculation before penetration.

Abetment- command urge, encourage request S107- instigate, engages, aid. Through conduct, misrepresentation or approval. Protima v
WB-instigate suicide by inlaws
By conspiracy S107-agreement or combo of persons not enough S120-if agreement to commit then sufficient.
Intentional aid: direct aid, omittance, facilitate- intention needed re Eshan meah-held for handig weapon injure coolie. Sunder v state-if
perp commits no offence aiding by another not possible.
Abettor- S108-illegal omission abetment may be to attempt also. 108A- of offences outside ind. S111- liability same even if abetted act not
done.- if influence, aid present and was consequence of abet
Liability- S112- cumulative punish abet and act both done, charge for both, S113-if act caused is different in effect- if he knew it
would(likely) cause same effect then liable. A insti B to cause hurt to Z, Z dies. If A knew consequence A liable for murder. S114- presence
of abettor. S115- abetment of offence punished with death or jail- even if no commit – 7 yrs or fine
.S116- abetment of offence punished with jail-1/4 of longest punish for that crime or fine/both If abettor/abeted a public servant- term is one
half S117-abet crime by public/>10 peeps, jail-3yrs/fine/both

Criminal Conspiracy- S120A illegal act, agreement – irrelevant whether illegal act is ulterior or incidental to object – not merely intent of
two or more but agreement of two or more towards illegal act or unlawful means . Substantive 120 abet-107, war-121A. Ingredients120A.
Features-slide 139 Mohd. khalid v State of WB; essentials of criminal conspiracy in India thus: ▪ (a) an object to be accomplished ▪ (b) a
plan or scheme embodying means to accomplish that object; ▪ (c) an agreement or understanding between two or more of the accused
persons whereby they become definitely committed to co-operate for the accomplishment of the object (d) an overt act, in pursuance of the
agreement
Nalini vs TN- R Gandhi assn case- commission of crime is not necessary, agreement is sufficient - It is immaterial whether an illegal act is
done in furtherance of that agreement. Rajiv Gandhi assassination conspiracy 
IMP: To make a person liable for the offence of conspiracy, it is not necessary that the offender ought to have been present from the very
beginning or even during the entire period of the conspiracy. ▪ continuous offence. It continues from the time of agreement to the time of its
termination Somnath Thapa- bomb blast finance motive. Ajay Agarwal v UOI- cheat Chandigrah bank from dubai. Navjot Sandhu v
Delhi- parlia blast case- concealing intent to wage war.
One person- not liable as consipary among 2 or more- Narsima v AP
Punishment- 120B

Offences against state S121-130, abet, attempt, war(overthrow or war)(121-123&125-127), assault of prez124, Gov Sedition-124,
harbouring128-130
Reg v Alexander- sedition defn . Kedar Nath v Bihar- defamen of congress, charged with sedition but Disloyalty to Government
established by law is not the same thing as commenting in strong terms upon the measures or act s of Government,
Queen Empress vs Bal Tilak raising some slogans only a couple of times that do not evoke any reaction from anyone in the public cannot
attract s 124A. some a more overt act is required to bring the act under s 124 Queen v Jogender-explains essentials. Balwant singh v Pjb-
slogan when Indira assented- did not cause sedition
Kasab v Maha: Crim conspiracy

Offences against Pub Tranquillity- Unlawful assembly:141-145; constructive criminality- 149. Aid-150, 152, 154, 157, 158
Rioting(violence in UA)- 146-148, aid- 152, 154-156, 158, group when told to disperse-151, affray159, punish-160. Enmity-153A, AA, B
(explanation- slide173) Ram bilas v Bihar – conviction of less than five. Moti lal v Bihar- lawful became unlawful after incite.
Prabhakar S v Maha- morcha into unlawful and riot- common object Bhudeo v Bihar-irrigation dispute – evidence, common object estd
necessary. Jaswanth singh v Hara- UA to avenge murder.
Common intention and object: S34 many people for furthering common intent. And 149. Difference-34-no specific offence, intention v
object, no of peeps 142- member of UA, 143-punish, 144-w/ deadly weapon , 145- join when told to dismiss, 150-hiring, 151 similar to 145.
152- assault/obstruct pub servant during riot . harbour157, hired158,
Riot- Maiku v Bihar the purpose of the police was holding an investigation. Hence their common object being lawful. If the common object
of an assembly is legal, it is not rioting even if force is used by any member of that assembly. The accused must be armed by a common or
harmful object. Lakshmiammal v Samiappa force is 350 ipc violence is comprehensive
153-incite illegally
Affray- fight b/w two causing disturbance.-159 160-punish
Enmity- Lalai v UP- voice against hindu for untouch valid – needs to be dignified Babu rao v state- not necessary to prove intent if words
said enough to incite. Punish153aa
153B-imputation, assertion prejudicial to integrity- imputes against class, asserts, publishes- punish 1-5yrs

Offences against the body :

 (1) Simple hurt (ss 319, 321, 323).

 ▪  (2) Grievous hurt (ss 320, 322, 325).
 ▪  (3) Causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or dangerous means (ss 324 and 326).
 ▪  (4) Causing grievous hurt by acid (ss 326A and 326B).
 ▪  (5) Causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort property, 10 years (ss 327and 329).
 ▪  (6) Causing hurt by means of poison, 10 years (s 328).
 ▪  (7) Causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort confession or compel restoration of property (ss 330 and 331).
 ▪  (8) Causing hurt or grievous hurt to deter public servant (ss 332 and 333).
 ▪  (9) Causing hurt or grievous hurt on provocation (ss 334 and 335).
 ▪  (10) Causing hurt or grievous hurt by endangering life or personal safety of others (ss 336, 337, 338).

Grevious- Emasculation, permanent damage to sight, hearing, privation or impairment of member or joint, disfiguration of head, fracture or
any hurt lasting for 20 days
Pandurang v Hyd- voluntary grevious hurt The accused was convicted under s 326. The dividing line between culpable homicide not
amounting to murder and grievous hurt is very thin. In the former case, injuries must be such as are likely to cause death and in the latter
they may endanger life Dharamdas v UP- doc administered poison, under 328. Kesho Ram v Delhi- milk tax- grievous hurt under-
332&333 Dhondey v State of Uttar Pradesh- husband cut nose- 335 Salman Khan case- 337- voluntary hurt- life threatening-
congnizable

Criminal Force-350(crim force), 351(assault), 353(pub service), 354-outrage women’s modesty pjb v Major singh- indecent with 7mo.
Raju Mahale v Maha – nude photo after drunk- 354
Sexual Harassment- 354A- demand, act, porn, remark. Punish1-3 yrs. 354B- disrobing, 354C-vouyerism-images and dissemination 354D-
stalking
Vishaka case

Rape- 375, 376against will, without consent, by force- penetration of part or object. Manipulation of any body part, consent by threat,
mistake of marriage, unsoundness or intoxication, minor, unable to consent (unequivocal voluntary agreement when the woman by words,
gestures or any form of verbal or non-verbal communication, communicates willingness to participate in the specific sexual act) med
procedure, marital rape- not included Sakshi v UOI: During the Sakshi case, the Court ordered the Law Commission of India to examine
and respond to the issues that Sakshi raised. This exercise culminated in the 172nd Report of the Law Commission of India (on a review of
rape laws, March 2000) Pjb v Gurmit singh- rape, threat if alarm Maha v Madhukar- Easy virtue- still crime UP v Babulnath-
penetration
Queen v Flattery- without consent- fits girl- check up rape Uday v KA- promise to marry- not liable as there was consent. Tukararam v
Maha Passive submit us not consent- Mathura rape case- not guilty. Bhupinder v UT Ch – marriage, but already married and he left-
guilty- cohabit consent believing he was single. Tulsidas v Goa – Mentally unstable. 376- punishment for rape- 7 if not public servant,
relative or rape on mental, pregz, <16
376A- death/ veg state -20yrs jail 376B- rape of wife who separated-2yrs 376c- raoe by authority. 376D gang rape 376E- repeat offenders .
Disclosure of identity of victim- 2 yrs.
Independent thought v UOI – age of consent for wife- 15 to 18 change made.

Unnatural Offences : 377- carnal sex – landmark CL Navtej Johar v UOI

Kidnapping and Abduction – 359 from India and from lawful guardian 360- india 361-from guardian-<16 or 18- enticing, promise to marry.
363-punishment Harayana v Rajaram- 376- rape for accused. Whether rajaram under 366- kidnap- yes. Chandrakal v Menon- father not
laible for kidnap as natural guardian.

Abduction- 362any person- crime when it is accompanied by intent towards another offence, It is continuing . Vishwanath v. State of Uttar
Pradesh (AIR 1960) It was held that mere abduction is no offence at all. The guilty and wrongful intention must be present for the offence
to be punishable.

Aggravated forms- Kidnapping or maiming a minor for begging. – Section 363 A, 10 years or LI

▪ Kidnapping or Abducting to Murder. – Section 364, 10 years

▪ Kidnapping for Ransom. – Section 364A, death or LI

▪ Abducting or Kidnapping with intent to secret and wrongful confinement. – Section 365, 7 years

▪ Kidnapping or Abduction a woman to compel her for marriage, etc. – Section 366, 10 years

▪ Procuration of Minor Girl – Section 366A, 10 years

▪ Section 366B. Importation of girl from foreign country.- 21 years age, punishment 10 years

▪ Kidnapping or Abducting to subject a person to Grievous Hurt, slavery – Section 367, 10 years

Kidnapping or Abducting for Wrongfully Concealing or Keeping in Confinement – Section 368

▪ Abducting or Kidnapping a child under ten years with the intent to steal any movable property from him or her. – Section 369, 7 years

▪ Abducting or Kidnapping for the purpose of Slavery and Trafficking – Section 370

▪ Kidnapping for sale and purchase of minor for immoral purposes. – Section 372 and section 373 ( selling and buying), 10 yrs

▪ Abduction or Kidnapping for Forced Labour. – Section 374

Netra pal v state- no kidnap for ransom as it wasn’t communicated but in Malleshi v KA communication immaterial, intent important., no
need to physically take. Enticement enough- thakarol v Guj

Trafficking- 370 coercion, abduct, fraud, abuse, decept for exploit, transport, recruit. Punish7-10 or life 370A-exploitation minor-5 jail,
person-3

Homicide – lawful(general exceptions) and unlawful. Culp not amounting, amounting, death by rash/negli act, dowry
299- CH- under disease-yes. Body harm-yes. Foetus if a part bought forth. Essentials- death, by harmful act, with intention(of death or body
harm leading to)
301- transfer of malice- causing death of another than whose death was intended. Kashiram v MP S 304 charged. Reva ram v MP –
stabbed wife, hyperpyrexia as a result of hurt hence liable. Culpable hom is nurder if intenion to kill , harm that may cause death. Degree of
intentions separates CH from Murder A.P. v. R. Punnayya: difference

Murder pre-determined intention to end life falls under the definition of culpable homicide as per the definition of 'Murder' under IPC
culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—(Secondly) —If it is
done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is
caused, or—(Thirdly) —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—(Fourthly) —If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently
dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any
excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid. Death, act, knowledge of death
Clauses 1-4 of Section 300 provide the essential ingredients, wherein culpable homicide amounts to murder. Section 300 after laying down
the cases in which culpable homicide becomes murder, states certain exceptional situations under which, if murder is committed, it is
reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under section 304, IPC and not under section 302, IPC.The exceptions
are: Grave and sudden provocation Private defence Exercise of legal power Without premeditation in sudden fight and Consent in case of
passive euthanasia Sudden provocation If the offender is deprived of the power of self-control due to sudden and grave provocation, and his act
causes the death of the person who provoked or death of any other person by accident or mistake. This exception is subject to a certain proviso:
That the provocation is not sought or is voluntarily provoked by the offender to be used as an excuse for killing or causing any harm to the person.
That the provocation is not given by anything that is done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant while exercising the powers lawfully of a
public servant. That the provocation is not done while doing any lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Nanavati v Bom: words, mental
state etc, no lapse of time should be there. ILLUSTRATION A is given grave and sudden provocation by C. A fires at C as a result of this
provocation. A didn't intend or have knowledge that his act is likely to kill C, who was out of A's sight. A kills C. A is not liable to murder but is
liable to culpable homicide.

WHEN THE PERSON EXCEEDS HIS RIGHT TO PRIVATE DEFENSE: Act of private defence can said to have been exercised, when the act is
committed in order to defend oneself from further harm. If the accused intentionally exceeds his right to private defense, then he is liable to
murder. If it is unintentional, then the accused will be liable to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. X attempts to flog Y, not in a manner to
cause grievous hurt to Y. A pistol is drawn out by Y, X persists the assault. Y believes that he had no way to prevent himself from being flogged
by X, Y fires at X. Y is liable to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. NATHAN V. STATE OF MADRAS: landlord killed, CH amount to
murder . Public servants in linen of duty to protect not guilty. Sudden fit/rage- unprecedented- no intention to kill. Provocation doesn’t matter.
Radhe sham v UP- calf, argue, kill unarmed- guilty

Murder punishment- 302. CH304. Beyond reasonable doubt- in doubt, the decision must be against the party having the burden of persuasion. If
the mind of the adjudication tribunal is evenly balanced as to whether or not the accused is guilty, it is its duty to acquit the accused. Death
penalty only in rarest.- Bachan Singh v Pjb The doctrine of proportionality of sentence vis-a-vis the crime, the victim and the offender has been
the greatest concern of the courts.

Negligence and Dowry death-S304- death not amount to CH due to negligence.Dowry- death due to bodily harm within completion of 7 yrs
marriage- 7yrs or life imprison
307- attempt to murder- Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge, and under such circumstances that, if he by that act caused
death, he would be guilty of murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall
also be liable to fine; and if hurt is caused to any person by such act, the offender shall be liable either to imprisonment for life, or to such
punishment as is hereinbefore mentioned.

308- CH attempt- Attempt to commit culpable homicide.—Whoever does any act with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances
that, if he by that act caused death, he would be guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if hurt is caused to any person by such act, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

309- suicide attempt

Wrongful restrain and confinement- 339 and 341(1mo) Raja Ram v State of Haryana – police wrong restrain of chick and son, and 340
confinement in certail limits and 342(1y)

Aggrevated forms- ▪ Section 343. Wrongful confinement for three or more days.--two years

▪ Section 344. Wrongful confinement for ten or more days.– three years

▪ Section 345. Wrongful confinement of person for whose liberation writ has been issued.– 2 years

▪ Section 346. Wrongful confinement in secret.- 2 years

▪ Section 347. Wrongful confinement to extort property, or constrain to illegal act.– 3 years

▪ Section 348. Wrongful confinement to extort confession, or compel restoration of proper-ty.- 3

Offences against property 378-theft-movable prop( water, electricity, domestic, corpse , w/o consent, intent to steal wrongful gain/loss Kn Mehra
v Raj- theft of Airforce plane Ram rattan v Bihar- if cattle in his land its not theft. Pyarelal v Raj- theft if even the files were moved not
permanently S379- punishment 3 yrs. Aggravated forms- 380- theft in dwelling house, 381-by clerk masters prop, 382-theft after prep for killing,
hurting or restraining- 10yrs

Extorsion 383 - Extortion – intentionally put person in fear of injury dishonestly induces to deliver property or valuable security or
convertible to valuable security

Extortion & cheating differentiated : Extortion is delivery of property by force, cheating is delivery of property by fraud. Aggravted
forms- 386-by putting person under threat(10), 387-put fear of death(7), 338- accusation of offence w/ death penalty(10)

Robbery - S. 390 Robbery is either theft or extortion theft is robbery if harm included (- in carrying away or attempting to carry
away property obtained by the theft, the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or
wrongful restraint Extortion-robbery - if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion puts the victim in fear of getting
either hurt or fear of instant death and inducement of fear causes that person to deliver said extorted property.

HARISH CHANDRA V STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH: watch thief - accused stole / companion slapped the victim and ran
away.The Supreme Court rejected the argument stating that the co-accused slapped the victim to enable the accused to carry
away the stolen property. Under the circumstances, it would clearly fall within the provision of s 390, because as per the
section, theft is robbery, if, hurt is caused while carrying away or attempting to carry away the property stolen.

Possesion of stolen prop Wasim Khan v State of Uttar Pradesh - deceased engaged bullockcart of accused to travel from
railway st. to village and was found murdered in the morning and his belongings w the carter.The Supreme Court held that in
cases where murder and robbery have been shown to form parts of one transaction, then the unexplained possession of the
stolen property would be presumptive evidence against an ac-cused in the charge of theft and any other aggravated crime
connected with the theft. Accordingly, the ac-cused was convicted under ss 392 and 302, IPC. Punishment-302 10y, 401-gang
of thieves-7y, attempt-7y

Dacotiy 391 >5 rob Saktu v UP conviction even if more than 5 are not identified. 395-punishment life, 10y. 396 D w/ murder-
10y, 399- Prep for D-10y. S400- for belonging to gang 10y. 402- assembling-7y

Criminal Misappropriation- Section 403.- --Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable
property, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of 2yrs. It es-pecially means either the conversion/usage/or illegal
control of one’s property for one’s own benefit. RAMASWAMY NADAR V STATE OF MADRAS the accused used to carry
prize competitions and ran out of money while organizing 1 of the comps. And never gave prize money to winners/participants.
The high court convicted the accused on the ground that he should have distributed the sum of Rs 96,548, which he collected
in competition, to the prize winners in that competition, but instead he used it to clear other debts incurred by him. Hence, it
amounted to misappropriation. KESHORAM V. STATE Misappropriation is not mandatory to be seen in any physical act
conducted by the accused but is observed through the mental act/intent to deprive the master of his property.
S405- criminal breach of trust- convert into his. Possession, dishonest convert/ dispose. 406-punish-3y fine Rashmi v Mahesh-
stridhan misapprop criminal breach of trust

Recieveing stolen prop- 410- stolen prop- by robbery, etort, misapprop etc. once it returns to owner then not stolen. 41—
punishment for accepting stolen prop 3y fine

Cheating – deceive, fraud, dishonest pursuance to give prop . intentionally induce. Omission of certain things that lead to
damage-cheat 416- Cheating by personation cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one
person for another/ punishment of 3yrs. 417 - punishment for cheating - 2yrs Ramjas v UP-essentials of cheating.

418- cheating out of fiduciary reln- cheat person known in the transaction. 419-punish for impersonation. 420- cheating and
dishonestly induce delivery of prop

Defamation Imputation by words spoken or written with intention to that it will be read publication having reason to believe that
it will cause harm to reputation if made against dead person and harms person alive or hurt feelings of the family - is
defamation. defamation can be made against a company, association of person (legal person) imputation expressed ironically
amounts to defamation no imputation is defamation unless it lowers the moral/ intellectual character or credit to is considered
generally disgraceful. Defamation against dead

Imputation—Facts to be Considered by Court

i.Circumstances and context

ii.Words should be considered as a whole

iii.Alleged defamatory words, etc, should be interpreted in a manner in which a reasonable man would do

Exceptions- truth (plea of justification), express regarding with good afith, public conduct of public servants, conduct of person
touching public question, publishing reports of court proceedings , merits of cases or conduct of courts , express opinion merits
of public performance, censure passes in good faith-disapproval by right authority , accusation preferred in good faith to
authored person, imputation made in good faith for protection of other’ interests, causation intended for the good of the person
to whom conveyed or for public good

Punishment-500- 3y fine. 501-printing/engraving-2y fine. 502 sale- 2 y fine. Narottamdas v Maganbhai Gujarat High Court
held that describing lawyers as dispute brokers in the editorial article of a newspaper is not defamatory.

Causing Miscarriage- 312- other also and woman quick with child(7y) - 3y fine. miscarriage w/o consent- 313 whether woman
quick with child ir not- 10 y fine

314- death with intent to cause miscarriage- 10y fine. Id done without consent of lady- Life imprison ( knowledge of death not
necessary) Maha v Flora santuno killed preg wife due to miscarriage and buried body. Liable

315- intent to prevent from being born or cause death after birth – 10y fine. 316- death to quick unborn act amounting to CH-
10y fine- Act before birth, inention, causing death of quick child.

Abandonment and exposure of Infant. 317- under 12 by guardian- leave withut wholly abandoning -7y fine. 318- concealment of
birth by disposal of dead body- 2y fine

Offences in a marriage- Bigamy(494, 495), Adultery(497) and cruelty(498A) (dowry comes under CH 299 and negligence
death- 304

Bigamy- 494-remarrying during lifetime of h/w. exceptions-7y desertion, knowledge of remarriage to second wife, when its void.
495-same offence with concealment of former marriage with second one Sarla Mudgal v UOI -hindu marriage rights will nor go
away upon conversion. Second Muslim marriage after 1st Hindu marriage is void qathe. Princi of natural justice. Conversion not
dissolution but ground for divorce. Lily Thomas v UOI spouses cannot escape liability under s 494, IPC, by resorting to
conversion to Islam or any other religion.

497 Adultery- sex with person who has knowledge or reason to believe to to be the wife of another man without consent of man
not amounting to rape punish 5y fine. Wife is not punishable as abettor. Sex, married woman, knowledge, connivance of
husband, no rape Joseph Sine v UOI Section 497 violates right to privacy as well as liberty of women by discriminating
against married women and perpetrating gender stereotypes. Adultery civil wrong and not criminal offence.

498A- cruelty husband/relative subjecting her to cruelty. 3y fine. Act pushing women to suicide, injury to self harassment. Cr
Amendment act, coerce to get dowry. Both mental and physical Reema Agarwal v Anupam- husband of second wife during
marriage to first wife not husband under law and no 498A. SC- wide scope and included this form of marriage as well.