Principle of criminal law -

Jerome Hall's "General Principles of Criminal Law" offers a nuanced understanding of the elements
constituting a crime. Let's delve into each element as outlined by Hall:

A Guilty Act:
Act vs. Status: Crimes are typically based on acts rather than statuses. For instance, one is not criminally
liable for merely being in a certain condition or status unless that status is the result of a voluntary act.
Voluntary Act Requirement: Criminal liability usually requires a voluntary act. In other words, the
individual must have consciously performed the act.
Culpable Omissions: In some cases, the failure to act can constitute a crime, but generally, there must be
a legal duty to act, and the failure to do so must be culpable.
A Guilty Mind:
Purposeful and Knowingly: This refers to actions done with the intent to achieve a particular result or
actions done with the knowledge that a certain result is practically certain to occur.
Recklessly: Recklessness involves consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a
certain result will occur.
Negligently: Negligence refers to a failure to exercise the level of care that a reasonable person would
exercise in similar circumstances.
Coincidence:The guilty act and the guilty mind must coincide. In other words, the actus reus (guilty act)
and mens rea (guilty mind) must align in time.
Cause:The act must cause the intended effect. There must be a direct causal relationship between the
defendant's conduct and the harm caused.
Cause in Fact: The defendant's conduct must be a factual cause of the harm.
Proximate Cause: The defendant's conduct must be sufficiently connected to the harm caused.
A Specified Harm:
Crimes typically involve harm to a victim or society at large.
Victimless Crimes: Some crimes involve conduct that harms only the individual engaging in the
behavior, such as possession of drugs.
Inchoate Crimes: These are crimes that are incomplete or not yet fulfilled, such as conspiracy.

eg-Sections like Section 1(g) of the Evidence Act and Sections 63 and 64 of the IPC provide guidelines
for proving elements of crimes such as rape, including the necessary acts, circumstances, and
presumptions. Careful analysis of legal provisions, including their explanations and exceptions, helps in
understanding the elements of a crime and how they are applied in practice.
Based on the sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Evidence Act provided, along with the
principles drawn from them, we can elucidate the elements of the crime of rape in India:

In India, crimes are broadly categorized as:

Cognizable Offenses: These are serious offenses where the police can arrest without a warrant and start
an investigation without the court's permission.
Non-Cognizable Offenses: These are less serious offenses where the police cannot arrest without a
warrant and they need the court's permission to start an investigation.
Compoundable and Non-Compoundable Offenses: Compoundable offenses are those where the victim
can enter into a compromise, whereas non-compoundable offenses are more serious and cannot be
settled out of court.
Bailable and Non-Bailable Offenses: Bailable offenses are less serious and the accused can get bail
easily, while for non-bailable offenses, bail is not a matter of right and is at the discretion of the court.
Summons Case and Warrant Case: This classification is based on the mode of trial, where less serious
offenses are tried as summons cases and more serious offenses are tried as warrant cases.The Indian
Penal Code (IPC) and the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are the primary legislations dealing with
criminal offenses and their procedures respectively.Here's an example of a serious offense under the IPC
and the corresponding CrPC section related to the procedure for trial:Example: Section 302 of the IPC
deals with the offence of murder, which is a serious crime. If a person is accused of murder, the trial
procedure would be guided by Section 225 of the CrPC, which specifies the procedure for the trial of
warrant cases before a Magistrate.So, while the term "indictable crime" is not directly used in Indian
law, serious crimes like murder (IPC Section 302) would be classified as non-bailable, cognizable, and
tried under the warrant case procedure (CrPC Section 225), indicating their severity and the specific
legal procedures involved.

Unit-classification of crime
Elements of crime under ipc-
Actus Reus:-Actus reus refers to the physical act or conduct that constitutes the criminal offense. It can
include various actions or omissions that are prohibited by law.Example: Consider the offence of theft
under Section 378 of the IPC. Actus reus in theft involves actions like moving an object (which belongs
to another person) dishonestly and with the intention of taking it away without the owner's consent. The
actus reus here is the physical act of taking and moving someone else's property without permission.
Mens Rea:Mens rea refers to the mental state or intention of the accused at the time of committing the
crime. It is the guilty mind or the mental element necessary for the offense.Example: Continuing with
the theft example, to establish mens rea, the accused must have the intention to take the property
dishonestly and without the owner's consent. If someone mistakenly takes an item, believing it to be
their own, they lack the requisite mens rea for theft.
Injury:Injury in the context of criminal law refers to the harm or damage caused by the criminal act. The
injury can be physical, psychological, or financial harm inflicted upon the victim as a result of the
accused's actions.Example: Let's consider the offence of causing hurt under Section 319 of the IPC. For
this offence, actus reus would involve physically causing hurt or injury to another person. Mens rea
would involve having the intention or knowledge that the act could cause hurt. Injury, in this case, would
be the actual physical harm suffered by the victim due to the accused's actions.

Stages of crime-
a) Intention:
Intention is the first stage of a crime and involves the mental state of the individual where they
consciously decide to engage in conduct that will lead to a criminal act. It is the purpose or aim behind
the conduct.Example: A person decides to steal a valuable item from a store with the specific intent to
take it without paying.

b) Preparation:
Preparation involves taking steps towards committing the intended crime. During this stage, the
individual plans and gathers resources or tools necessary to carry out the criminal act.Example:
Gathering burglary tools such as a crowbar, gloves, and a mask in preparation for breaking into a house
to steal.

c) Attempt:
Attempt occurs when the individual takes a direct step towards committing the crime but fails to
complete it. The attempt must be a substantial step towards the commission of the offense.Example:
Trying to break into a house by forcing open a window but being interrupted and unable to enter.
d) Commission:
Commission is the final stage where the criminal act is successfully carried out, resulting in the
completion of the offense.Example: Breaking into a house, stealing valuables, and leaving the scene
with the stolen items.

Attempt
Section 511 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the offense of "attempt to commit an offense,"
which essentially criminalizes actions taken towards the commission of a specific offense even if the full
offense is not completed. Let's explain the key concepts and tests associated with attempt under Section
511 of the IPC:

Concept of Attempt:
Attempt under Section 511 implies that the accused took steps towards committing an offense with the
intention to commit that offense. This section applies when someone tries to commit an offense but fails
to complete it for various reasons.
Test of attempt
The test to determine criminal attempt, particularly in the context of the Indian legal system as outlined
in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and judicial interpretations, involves assessing the proximity of the act to
the intended crime and the fulfilment of specific criteria. Let's break down this test based on the
principles highlighted in your query and legal references:Intent to Commit the Offence:-The first
requirement for establishing criminal attempt is the presence of a specific intention or desire on the part
of the accused to commit a particular offence. This intention must be clearly demonstrated through the
actions and conduct of the accused.
Preparation and Substantial Act:-In addition to intent, the accused must have made preparations towards
committing the offence. These preparations should go beyond mere planning and involve actions that
signify a substantial step towards the commission of the offence.
Proximity to the Intended Offence:-The act undertaken by the accused must be sufficiently proximate or
close to the intended offence. This means that the act should represent a significant progression towards
the commission of the offence, demonstrating a direct link between the accused's actions and the
intended crime.
Legal Precedent - Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar (AIR 1961 SC 1698):
The case of Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar is a notable legal precedent that underscores the
principle of proximity in criminal attempt. The Supreme Court held that an accused can be held liable
for attempt to commit a crime if they have taken substantial steps towards its commission, even if the
desired result (e.g., death in a murder case) does not occur due to factors beyond their control.
Requirement of Act During the Course of Committing the Offence:
According to the legal definition of attempt, the act performed by the accused must occur during the
course of attempting to commit the offence. It need not be the final or penultimate act towards the
commission of the offence but should clearly manifest a deliberate and concrete effort to carry out the
crime.
Example:In the scenario described, A's actions of intending to murder Z, purchasing and loading a gun
with the intent to kill, and subsequently firing at Z (albeit missing due to lack of skill or gun defect)
constitute a sufficiently proximate attempt to commit murder. A has demonstrated the required intent,
made preparations (acquiring and loading the gun), and taken a substantial step (firing the gun) towards
the commission of the offence.
In summary, the test for criminal attempt in Indian law involves a combination of intent, preparations,
and a sufficiently proximate act towards the intended offence. Each case is assessed based on these
criteria to determine whether the accused's actions amount to a criminal attempt, even if the desired
result of the offence is not achieved due to external factors.
Impossibility Test:The Impossibility Test asserts that if an act is objectively impossible to commit due to
circumstances beyond the control of the accused, then attempting to commit that act is not culpable
because the offense itself cannot be completed.Example: Suppose A intends to steal a valuable painting
from a museum but discovers that the painting has already been moved to a different location or is
securely locked away with no feasible means of access. In this scenario, attempting to steal the painting
would be deemed legally impossible due to the absence of the object of the theft. Therefore, A would
not be guilty of attempted theft based on the Impossibility Test.
Social Danger Test:-The Social Danger Test considers the potential harm or danger posed by the
accused's actions, regardless of whether the intended offense could be completed successfully. If the
actions of the accused pose a significant risk to public safety or order, they may be considered culpable
even if the intended offense is ultimately impossible to carry out.Example: A plans to detonate a bomb
in a crowded marketplace to cause harm, but unbeknownst to A, the bomb is fake and incapable of
causing any damage. Despite the bomb being non-functional, A's actions of attempting to detonate the
bomb still pose a severe social danger. Thus, A could be charged with attempted terrorism or a similar
offense based on the Social Danger Test.
Equivocality Test:The Equivocality Test examines whether the actions of the accused unequivocally
demonstrate an intent to commit the offense. If the accused's actions are ambiguous or open to
interpretation, it may be challenging to establish a firm intent to commit the offense, thus affecting the
culpability for an attempt.Example: A tells B that they intend to harm C but later claims it was a joke or
a misunderstanding, without taking any concrete steps towards carrying out the threat. In such a
scenario, the Equivocality Test would question the clarity and seriousness of A's intentions, potentially
affecting the determination of culpability for an attempt to harm C.
1. **Asgarali Pradhania v. Emperor (AIR 1933 Cal. 893)**:
- **Facts**: The complainant, a divorced lady, alleged that the appellant (her neighbor) had promised
to marry her. They engaged in sexual intercourse, and she became pregnant. When she asked him to
fulfill the promise, he refused. The appellant then suggested causing a miscarriage by providing her with
a red liquid and a packet of powder (copper sulfate).
- **Issue**: Whether the appellant could be held liable for attempting to cause a miscarriage.
- **Judgment**: The court held that the liquid and powder given by the appellant were not harmful
enough to cause a miscarriage. Therefore, the appellant could not be convicted under Section 511 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC) for attempting to cause a miscarriage. He was acquitted¹.

2. **Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar (AIR 1961 SC 1698)**:

- **Facts**: The appellant falsely represented himself as a graduate and a teacher to obtain permission
from Patna University to appear for an M.A. Examination. He was charged with attempting to cheat the
University.
- **Issue**: Whether the appellant's actions constituted an attempt to cheat.
- **Judgment**: The Supreme Court held that mere intention was insufficient to prove guilt. To
convict a person, there must be completion or an attempt. The appellant's actions did not go beyond
preparation, and he was acquitted¹⁴.

3. **Om Parkash v. State of Punjab (1962) 2 SCR 254 : AIR 1961 SC 1782**:
- **Facts**: The appellant deliberately starved his wife, intending to accelerate her death. She escaped
and reported the matter to the police. The appellant was charged with attempting to murder her.
- **Issue**: Whether the appellant's actions constituted an attempt to murder.
 - **Judgment**: The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 511 of the IPC, a person commits the
offence of attempting to commit a particular offence when they intend to commit that specific offence.
The appellant's actions went beyond mere preparation, and he was convicted[^10^].

4. **State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub (1980) 3 SCC 57**:

- **Facts**: The respondents were charged with attempting to smuggle silver out of India. They were
caught with silver ingots concealed in a shawl and hidden in sawdust bags. The prosecution alleged that
they were attempting to smuggle the silver.
- **Issue**: Whether the respondents' actions constituted an attempt to smuggle silver.
- **Judgment**: The Supreme Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the respondents had
taken any step towards the commission of the offence. The respondents were acquitted⁵.

These cases illustrate the fine distinction between mere preparation and a genuine attempt to commit an
offence under the Indian legal framework
The principles mentioned in your references from Malkiat Singh v State of Punjab and the concept of
Locus Poenitentiae (time for repentance) emphasize the progression of criminal conduct from the initial
intention to the actual commission of an offense, highlighting the importance of clear intention and
deliberate acts towards the commission of the offense. Let's explain these concepts with examples:
Stages of Criminal Conduct:Criminal conduct generally progresses through distinct stages:
First Stage: The offender entertains the idea or intention to commit an offense. This is the initial
formation of criminal intent in the mind of the individual.
Second Stage: The offender makes preparations to commit the offense. This involves gathering
resources, planning, or taking initial steps towards the commission of the offense.
Third Stage: The offender takes deliberate overt steps towards committing the offense. This is the point
where the criminal conduct becomes more tangible and concrete, moving beyond mere preparation to
action aimed at the commission of the offense.
It's important to note that the overt act or step towards the commission of the offense does not
necessarily have to be the final or penultimate act. What matters is that the act demonstrates a clear
intention to commit the offense and is reasonably proximate to the consummation of the offense.
Locus Poenitentiae (Time for Repentance):
The principle of Locus Poenitentiae emphasizes that if an individual has a chance to give up or withdraw
from their plan to commit a crime before taking definitive steps towards its commission, then the
attempt to commit the offense may not be established. This principle allows room for individuals to
reconsider and retract their criminal intent before irreparable harm is done.Example: A intends to rob a
bank and makes preparations by acquiring a weapon and planning the route to the bank. However,
before proceeding to the bank, A has a change of heart and decides not to go through with the robbery.
A's withdrawal from the criminal plan during the stage of preparations demonstrates the application of
Locus Poenitentiae.
Measure of Proximity in Relation to Intention:
The concept that "the measure of proximity is not in relation to time and action but in relation to
intention" suggests that what matters most in determining an attempt to commit a crime is the clarity and
certainty of the offender's intent. The overt act or step towards the offence should clearly manifest the
offender's intention to commit the offence, regardless of the specific timing or nature of the act.Example:
A, with a clear intent to murder B, buys a gun and loads it with the intention to kill B. A then takes a
deliberate step towards B, aiming the gun but ultimately deciding not to shoot. Despite not completing
the act due to hesitation, the proximity to the consummation of the offence is measured by A's clear
intention and deliberate actions.
Punishment-The State of Karnataka versus Raju case, decided by the **Supreme Court of India** on
**September 14, 2007**, sheds light on the concept of punishment and the latitude allowed for
sentencing. Here are the key points from the judgement:

1. Minimum Punishment: - The minimum punishment for the offence in question (Section 376 of the
Indian Penal Code) is 10 years. - However, the proviso provides that for "**adequate and special
reasons**" mentioned in the judgement, a sentence of **less than 10 years** can be imposed¹.
2. Background:-The victim (PW1) was less than 12 years old when she was sexually assaulted by the
respondent on January 31, 1993 at around 12:30 p.m.The trial court convicted the accused under Section
376 IPC, and the High Court maintained the conviction but **reduced the sentence to 3½ years** due to
certain special reasons¹.
3. Inadequacy of Sentence: - Unfortunately, both the trial court and the High Court overlooked the
aspect of adequate and special reasons for reducing the sentence - The State did not challenge the
inadequacy of the sentence on this ground¹.
4. Broader Considerations:
- The law balances social interests, resolves conflicting claims, and addresses demands.
- Sometimes, this results in a departure from strict retribution as the basis of punishment, leading to
cases of apparent injustice.
- The proportion between the crime committed and the punishment imposed is a delicate balance².In
summary, while the minimum punishment is set at 10 years, the courts have the discretion to consider
special reasons and adjust the sentence accordingly¹. The case underscores the complexity of sentencing
decisions and the need for a nuanced approach to justice.

The discussion on life imprisonment and related legal principles, including commutation, remission, and
the concept of proportionality in sentencing, is crucial for understanding the practical application of
criminal justice laws. Let's delve deeper into these concepts:-Life Imprisonment:Life imprisonment
signifies a sentence of imprisonment that extends throughout the remaining natural life of the convict.
Unlike a fixed-term imprisonment, life imprisonment does not have a definite end date and typically
denotes a severe punishment for serious offences.
Commuted Sentence:Commutation of a sentence involves reducing the severity or duration of a
punishment, such as converting a life sentence to a fixed-term imprisonment. This can be done by the
appropriate government authority based on various factors, including considerations of justice,
rehabilitation, and the conduct of the convict during imprisonment.
Remitted Sentence (Section 432 CrPC):Remission of a sentence refers to the reduction or mitigation of
the punishment imposed on a convict. Section 432 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) empowers
the appropriate government to suspend or remit the execution of a sentence, either with or without
conditions, based on certain considerations and upon the acceptance of the convict.
Fractional Calculation of Life Imprisonment (Section 57 IPC):Section 57 of the IPC provides that
imprisonment for life should be reckoned as equivalent to twenty years for the purpose of calculating
fractions of punishment. This guideline is used when considering the possibility of parole, remission, or
commutation for a convict sentenced to life imprisonment.
Proportionality of Sentence (R v Sandhu - Manjit):The principle of proportionality in sentencing
emphasises that the severity of the punishment should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence
committed. It requires a balanced approach, taking into account aggravating and mitigating factors, as
well as the overall circumstances of the case.
Example: In the case of R v Sandhu (Manjit), the court considered the principle of proportionality in
sentencing for attempted murder. Despite the seriousness of the offense, mitigating factors such as lack
of premeditation were taken into account. The court adjusted the sentence to ensure that it was
proportionate and balanced based on the circumstances of the case.
In summary, the concepts of life imprisonment, commutation, remission, and proportionality are integral
to the administration of criminal justice. These principles aim to ensure fairness, equity, and
effectiveness in sentencing, taking into account the rights of the convict and the considerations of public
interest and societal welfare. The application of these principles requires a careful analysis of legal
provisions, precedents, and individual circumstances to achieve just outcomes in criminal cases.

Sentencing policy refers to the principles and considerations that guide judges and courts when
determining the appropriate punishment for individuals convicted of criminal offenses. These policies
aim to achieve a fair and just outcome while taking into account various factors, including aggravating
circumstances that increase the severity of the offense and mitigating circumstances that may justify a
less severe punishment. Here's a detailed discussion on sentencing policy, including examples of
aggravating and mitigating circumstances:
Aggravating Circumstances:Aggravating circumstances are factors associated with the offense or the
offender that increase the seriousness of the crime and may lead to a more severe sentence. Some
common aggravating circumstances include:Manner in Which the Offence is Perpetrated:The brutality,
violence, or cruelty involved in committing the offence can aggravate the severity of the crime. For
example, using excessive force or causing significant harm to the victim.
Motive:A malicious or premeditated motive behind the offence, such as financial gain or revenge, can
aggravate the seriousness of the crime.
Consequences to Society/Victim:The impact of the offence on society or the victim, such as causing fear,
trauma, or significant loss, can be considered an aggravating factor.
Preventing Recidivism:Past criminal behaviour or a pattern of repeated offenses may aggravate the
sentencing decision, especially if there is a risk of future harm to society.
Mitigating Circumstances:Mitigating circumstances are factors that may reduce the culpability of the
offender or justify a less severe punishment. Some common mitigating circumstances include:
Age:Young age or advanced age of the offender may be considered as a mitigating factor, especially if it
impacts the offender's maturity, understanding, or ability to control impulses.
Sex:Gender-specific factors, such as societal influences or vulnerabilities, may be considered as
mitigating circumstances.
Provocation:If the offence was committed under extreme provocation or in response to a significant
emotional trigger, it may be considered a mitigating factor.
Condition:Mental health issues, physical disabilities, or other conditions affecting the offender's
judgement or behaviour can mitigate culpability and influence sentencing decisions.
Application of Sentencing Policy:When determining the appropriate sentence, judges weigh both
aggravating and mitigating circumstances to arrive at a fair and proportionate punishment. The goal is to
achieve deterrence, rehabilitation, and societal protection while considering the individual circumstances
of the case and the offender.
For example, in a case of aggravated assault:Aggravating circumstances may include the use of a deadly
weapon, prior violent behaviour, and severe injury to the victim.
Mitigating circumstances may include the offender's young age, lack of prior criminal record, and
evidence of remorse or rehabilitation efforts.
By carefully considering these factors, courts strive to impose sentences that reflect the severity of the
offence while addressing the specific circumstances and needs of the offender. Sentencing policies aim
to balance accountability and rehabilitation in the criminal justice system.
Death penalty-
The legal provisions you mentioned from the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the interpretations by the
Supreme Court of India in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1980 SC 898) and Machhi Singh v.
State of Punjab (1983) are significant in the context of the death penalty and sentencing guidelines for
capital offenses. Here's a breakdown of the key aspects and principles discussed in these cases-Extreme
Penalty in Gravest Cases:The Supreme Court, in Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, emphasized that the
death penalty should be reserved for the "rarest of rare" cases involving extreme culpability and
exceptional circumstances. The court recognized that the death penalty is the most extreme form of
punishment and should only be imposed in cases of the utmost gravity.
Consideration of Offender's Circumstances:In determining the appropriateness of the death penalty, the
court stressed the importance of considering the circumstances of the offender. This includes evaluating
the personal background, mitigating factors, and any other relevant circumstances that may impact the
choice of sentence.
Test of "Rarest of Rare" Cases (Machhi Singh v. State of Punjab):The Machhi Singh case further refined
the criteria for identifying "rarest of rare" cases where the death penalty is justified. The court laid down
a two-part test:-Uncommonness of the Crime: Is the crime so exceptional and uncommon that a sentence
of imprisonment for life would be inadequate to address its seriousness?
Circumstances of the Crime and Mitigating Factors: Even after considering all mitigating circumstances
in favour of the offender, are the circumstances of the crime such that there is no alternative but to
impose the death penalty?
Application of Section 71 IPC:-Section 71 of the IPC addresses the limit of punishment for offences
made up of several acts or blows. It clarifies that for a series of acts constituting a single offence, the
offender is liable to be punished only once for the entire offence, rather than separately for each
act.Example: If A assaults Z by giving fifty strokes with a stick, A would be liable for the offence of
voluntarily causing hurt for the entire beating, rather than facing separate punishment for each individual
blow. This provision ensures that the punishment remains proportionate to the overall offence
committed.
In summary, these legal principles and provisions highlight the nuanced approach taken by Indian courts
in capital sentencing, particularly for cases involving the death penalty. The courts carefully evaluate the
gravity of the offence, the circumstances of the offender, and the need to balance deterrence and justice
when deciding on the appropriate punishment. The "rarest of rare" doctrine serves as a guiding
framework to ensure that the death penalty is applied judiciously and in exceptional cases where no
alternative sentence would suffice.

The suggestion of new forms of punishment reflects evolving perspectives on justice and rehabilitation
within the criminal justice system. These alternative forms of punishment aim to address the broader
impacts of crime on victims and society, while also promoting offender accountability and rehabilitation.
Here's an overview of the suggested new forms of punishment:

Compensation to Victims of Crime:

Providing financial compensation to victims of crime is aimed at addressing the tangible losses and
harms suffered by victims. This form of punishment emphasizes restitution and assists victims in
recovering from the impact of the crime, such as medical expenses, property damage, or loss of income.
Externment:
Externment involves removing an offender from a particular area or locality where they have committed
offenses or pose a threat to public safety. This measure aims to prevent further criminal activities by
restricting the offender's presence in specific communities.
Public Censure:
Public censure involves publicly condemning and shaming the offender for their criminal behavior. This
form of punishment seeks to deter future offenses by highlighting the social disapproval and
consequences of criminal actions.
Community Service:
Community service requires offenders to perform unpaid work or services for the benefit of the
community. This form of punishment promotes accountability, rehabilitation, and restoration by
encouraging offenders to contribute positively to society.
Disqualification from Holding Public Office:
Disqualification from holding public office imposes a restriction on offenders' eligibility to hold
positions of public trust or authority. This consequence is particularly relevant for offenses involving
breaches of public integrity or ethical standards.
Considerations and Implications:
Restorative Justice: These alternative forms of punishment align with restorative justice principles,
which prioritize repairing harm caused by crime, addressing the needs of victims, and promoting
offender accountability and rehabilitation.
Effectiveness and Implementation: The effectiveness of these new forms of punishment depends on their
implementation within the legal system, including clear guidelines, enforcement mechanisms, and
considerations of fairness and proportionality.
Balancing Justice and Rehabilitation: Incorporating alternative punishments alongside traditional
sanctions requires a balanced approach that considers the severity of the offense, the offender's
circumstances, and the potential for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
Legal and Ethical Considerations: Introducing new forms of punishment raises legal and ethical
considerations regarding human rights, due process, and the principles of punishment within the criminal
justice system.
In summary, the suggestion of new forms of punishment reflects ongoing efforts to enhance the
responsiveness and effectiveness of criminal justice systems in addressing the complex needs and
challenges posed by crime. These alternative measures aim to promote holistic approaches to justice,
prioritizing victim restoration, community safety, and offender rehabilitation.

Section 357 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC), provides for the award of compensation to
victims of offenses during the course of criminal proceedings. This section empowers the court to order
compensation to be paid in certain circumstances. Let's explore each provision of Section 357 in detail:

Meeting Proper Expenses of Prosecution:Section 357 allows the court to direct the accused person to
pay reasonable expenses incurred by the prosecution during the course of the trial. These expenses may
include costs related to summoning witnesses, producing documents, or other necessary expenditures
incurred by the prosecution in pursuing the case.
Compensation to the Victim for Loss or Injury:The court can award compensation to the victim (or their
heirs) for the loss or injury caused by the offense when the victim could recover compensation in a civil
court. This provision allows the victim to seek financial redress for the harm suffered as a result of the
criminal act.
Compensation to Persons Entitled to Damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855:Section 357 also
enables the court to award compensation to persons entitled to damages under the Fatal Accidents Act,
1855. This act provides for compensation to be paid to the legal heirs or dependents of a person who
dies as a result of a wrongful act, neglect, or default of another person.
Compensation to Bona Fide Purchaser of Stolen Property:If stolen property is recovered during the
investigation or trial and is ordered to be restored to the rightful owner, the court can award
compensation to a bona fide purchaser (an innocent third party who purchased the stolen property
without knowledge of its illegal origin). This compensation ensures that the innocent purchaser is not
unfairly deprived of their property.
Process of Awarding Compensation:Application by the Victim or Prosecution: The victim or the
prosecution can request the court to consider awarding compensation under Section 357 during the trial
or at the time of sentencing.
Evidence and Considerations: The court considers the evidence presented regarding the loss or injury
suffered by the victim and the financial impact of the offense on the victim or their dependents.
Amount and Conditions: The court determines the amount of compensation based on the nature and
extent of the harm caused. The compensation awarded may cover medical expenses, loss of earnings, or
other direct and consequential damages.
Enforcement of Compensation: Once the court orders compensation, it becomes a legally enforceable
debt owed by the accused to the victim or the concerned party. Non-payment of ordered compensation
may lead to further legal action, including recovery proceedings.
In summary, Section 357 of the CrPC aims to provide financial relief and restitution to victims of
crimes, ensuring that they receive compensation for the losses and injuries suffered as a result of
criminal acts. This provision underscores the importance of victim-centered approaches in the criminal
justice system and promotes the principles of restorative justice and accountability.

The Victim Compensation Scheme mentioned under Section 375A of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC) aims to provide financial assistance and compensation to victims of certain crimes, particularly
focusing on victims of sexual offenses like rape. Here's an explanation of the scheme and its provisions:

Victim Compensation Scheme under Section 375A CrPC:

Purpose and Objective:-The primary objective of the Victim Compensation Scheme is to provide
financial support and rehabilitation assistance to victims of crimes, especially those who have suffered
loss or injury due to sexual offenses like rape.
Amount of Compensation:-The scheme specifies different compensation amounts based on the nature of
the crime:For rape of a minor (under the age of 18 years), the compensation amount is ₹3,00,000 (three
lakh rupees).
For rape of a victim other than a minor (above the age of 18 years), the compensation amount is
₹1,50,000 (one lakh fifty thousand rupees).
Implementation by State Governments:-The responsibility for implementing the Victim Compensation
Scheme lies with the State Governments, in coordination with the Central Government. Each State
Government is required to prepare and implement its own scheme for providing funds and compensation
to victims of crime.
Scope of Compensation:The compensation is intended to cover various aspects, including:
Financial support for medical treatment and rehabilitation of the victim.
Compensation for physical and mental trauma suffered by the victim.
Support for the victim's dependents, if applicable.
Other related expenses necessary for the victim's recovery and well-being.
Preparation of Scheme:-The State Governments, with the guidance and coordination of the Central
Government, are mandated to develop detailed schemes outlining the procedures for applying for
compensation, criteria for eligibility, assessment of compensation amounts, and disbursement
mechanisms.
Key Considerations and Impact:Victim-Centric Approach: The Victim Compensation Scheme
underscores the importance of prioritising the needs and welfare of crime victims, particularly survivors
of sexual offences who may require specialised support and assistance.
Legal Framework: Section 375A of the CrPC provides a statutory basis for the implementation of victim
compensation schemes, ensuring consistency and uniformity in providing financial relief to victims
across different states.
Rehabilitation and Support: The compensation provided under the scheme is aimed at facilitating the
rehabilitation and recovery of victims, recognizing the long-term impact of crimes on their physical,
emotional, and social well-being.
In summary, the Victim Compensation Scheme mandated under Section 375A of the CrPC reflects a
proactive approach by the government to address the needs of crime victims, especially survivors of
sexual offences, by providing financial assistance and support for their rehabilitation and recovery. The
scheme underscores the commitment to promoting justice, dignity, and empowerment for victims within
the criminal justice system.

infancy.-Doli Incapax** refers to the legal presumption that a child lacks the capacity to form criminal
intent due to their age and immaturity. In other words, they are incapable of understanding the difference
between right and wrong.

- Under Section 82 of the law:-Act done by a child-This provision applies to actions carried out by a
child.
Under seven years of age- It specifically pertains to children who are below the age of seven.
Absolute incapacity for crime under seven years of age: Children in this age group are considered
absolutely incapable of committing a crime. In summary,doli incapax recognizes that young children
lack the mental capacity to be held criminally responsible for their actions. As a result, they cannot be
charged with criminal offences until they reach an age where they can understand the consequences of
their behaviour.

Mistake of Fact:

Definition: A “mistake of fact” occurs when a person reasonably or honestly misunderstands an

important fact, leading them to act in a prejudicial way or commit a crime. In criminal law, a sincere
mistake of fact can result in the commission of a criminal offense1.

Legal Defense: Mistake of fact serves as a defense to a crime if the mistaken belief, if true, would negate
a mental state that is an element of the offense2. In other words, if the accused genuinely believed certain
facts to be true (even if they were mistaken), their criminal intent may be negated.

Elements of Mistake of Fact:-Legal Obligation to Obey Orders: The person must be under a legal
obligation to obey orders from the government or a superior authority.

Belief in Legal Obligation: The accused genuinely believes they are bound by law to obey the orders.

Unawareness of Unlawfulness: The person does not know that the order is unlawful.

Justification Under Law: There must be some law or color of law that justifies the act.

Mistake of Fact: The mistake must relate to factual circumstances, not matters of law.

Good Faith and Honesty: The act is done honestly and in good faith.
Illustrations:-Soldier’s Action by Order:-A soldier fires on a mob based on the order of his superior
officer, following the commands of the law. In this case, the soldier has committed no offense because
he acted in good faith and believed he was bound by law to follow the order3.

Officer’s Arrest Based on Court Order:-An officer of a Court of Justice, ordered by the court to arrest
person Y, mistakenly believes Z to be Y after due inquiry and arrests Z. Here, the officer has committed
no offense because of the honest mistake of fact3.

Legal Cases:-R v. Prince (1875):-A man was held guilty for abducting a girl below 16, believing she was
above 18. His conviction was upheld. The offense was one of strict liability regarding age, so his
reasonable belief was not a defense3.

B v. DPP (2000)-The appellant, aged 15, asked a 13-year-old girl to perform oral sex with him. He
believed she was over 14 years old. The defense argued that the appellant should be acquitted due to the
honest mistake of fact. However, the court held that the offense was one of strict liability, and the
appellant was convicted3.

Sweet v. Parsley:-This case established that ignorance of law is not a defense. However, it does not
apply to mistakes of fact.

State of Orissa v. Khora Ghasi (1978):-The accused, thinking a bear had entered his maize field, shot an
arrow toward the sound. Unfortunately, it was a person, and the “thief” died. The court considered this a
mistake of fact and acquitted the accused3.

State of Orissa v. Ram Bahadur Thapa:-The court held that a mistake of fact can be a valid defence if it
negates criminal intent3.

State of Orissa v. Bhagaban Barik:-Similar to the previous case, the court emphasised the importance of
considering honest mistakes of fact in criminal cases3.

Remember, the maxim “Ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia legis neminem excusat” (ignorance of fact is
an excuse, ignorance of law is no excuse) underscores the principle that mistake of fact can be a valid
defence, while ignorance of law is not3.

Section 80: Accident in Doing a Lawful Act-According to Section 80 of the IPC, nothing is considered
an offence if it occurs by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention or knowledge. This
applies when a person is engaged in a lawful act, performs it in a lawful manner, and exercises proper
care and caution.In other words, if an individual unintentionally causes harm while carrying out a lawful
activity, they are not criminally liable.

- Consider the following scenario:A is working with a hatchet (a type of small axe).Accidentally, the
head of the hatchet flies off and strikes a man who is standing nearby, resulting in the man's death.

- In this case:If there was no lack of proper caution on A's part (i.e.,A was acting carefully and lawfully),
then A's act is excusable, and no offence is committed.The principle here is that accidents happen, and
as long as the person acted lawfully and with due care, they should not be held criminally liable.

The case of tunda v. Rex (Wrestling Case) is relevant: In this case, the accused, Tunda was a wrestler.
During a wrestling match, he accidentally caused injury to another wrestler.The court held that since the
injury occurred during a lawful wrestling match and there was no negligence or criminal intent on
Tunda's part, he was not guilty of any offence.

Remember, the key elements for invoking Section 80 are:

1. Lawful Act The act must be lawful.

2.Accident or Misfortune- The harm caused must be accidental.

3. No Criminal Intention or Knowledge-the person must not have intended to cause harm.

4. Proper Care and Caution-The act must be performed with due care and caution.

necessity-Necessity and Its Maxims:

- The principle of necessity is rooted in two Latin maxims:

-Quod necessitas non habet legem: Necessity knows no law.

- Necessitas vincit legem": Necessity overcomes the law.

- These maxims highlight the idea that in exceptional circumstances, necessity may justify actions that
would otherwise be unlawful.

Principles from R v. Dudley and Stephens (1884):1. Self-Preservation Not Absolute:-While

self-preservation is a fundamental instinct, it is not an absolute necessity that justifies any action.In the
case of Dudley and Stephens, their survival instincts led them to kill and consume the cabin boy.
However, the court held that this act was not excusable merely because it was done to save their own
lives.The principle here is that self-preservation does not automatically override all other considerations.

2.No Right to Take Another's Life for Self-Preservation: - The court emphasised that no person has an
inherent right to take another person's life to preserve their own.Even in dire circumstances, the sanctity
of life remains paramount, and intentionally causing harm to another cannot be justified solely by
self-interest.

3.No Necessity Justifying Homicide:-The case of Dudley and Stephens established that necessity does
not provide a valid defense for homicide (i.e., taking someone's life). The killing of the cabin boy, even
if it prolonged the lives of the other three shipwreck survivors, was deemed morally and legally
unacceptable.

Conclusion:Necessity is a delicate balance between survival instincts and adherence to legal and moral
norms.While necessity can sometimes justify actions that would otherwise be unlawful, it does not
create a blanket excuse for any behavior.The principles derived from Dudley and Stephens underscore
the importance of upholding the value of human life even in extreme situations.

United States v. Holmes (1842):facts-The passenger ship William Brown left Liverpool for Philadelphia
in 1841, carrying 17 crew members and 65 passengers.Approximately 250 miles from Newfoundland,
the ship struck an iceberg.The crew divided into two boats: the jolly boat (with the captain and others)
and the long boat (with the first mate and remaining crew members).The long boat was already leaking
and overloaded.As conditions worsened, the crew began throwing passengers overboard to prevent the
boat from sinking.Crewman Holmes*threw out 16 passengers, including **Francis Askin**, who
begged to remain until morning when lots could be drawn.The next morning, the boat was rescued by
another ship.

Legal issue - Could Holmes take refuge under the necessity defence for the death of Askin?

analysis 1. Lesser of Two Evils-The crew faced a desperate situation, and the act of throwing passengers
overboard was a choice between two evils: certain death or potential survival.

2 self defence approach -the crew's actions were akin to self-defence against the imminent threat of the
boat sinking.

- The three elements required for a necessity defence were present:

- (a) The act was necessary to avoid irreparable evil.

- (b) The steps taken were reasonably required to achieve this.

- (c) The evil caused was not disproportionate to the evil avoided.

Re A (Children) (Conjoined Twins: Surgical Separation) (2001):facts-Conjoined twins M and J were

born joined at the lower abdomen.M had severe brain abnormalities, no lungs, and relied on J for blood
supply.J was normally functioning.Doctors proposed an operation to separate them, which would result
in M’s death but potentially save J-

LEGAL ISSUE AND DECISION 1.Best Interests of Both Children - The trial judge initially held that
the operation was in the best interests of both children.However, the Court of Appeal clarified that all
life had equal value, and M's life was as valuable as J's.The operation could not be in M's best interest.

2. Balancing Interests:-The court balanced the interests of the children.The operation would not
constitute murder because the necessity defence elements were met:

- (a) The act was required to avoid irreparable evil.

- (b) The steps taken were reasonably necessary.

- (c) The evil caused was not disproportionate to the evil avoided. In both cases, necessity played a
crucial role in determining the outcome. While Holmes Faced a life-or-death situation at sea, the Re A
case grappled with the ethical dilemma of separating conjoined twins. The principle of necessity remains
a delicate balance between preserving life and adhering to legal norms⁵¹.

Defence of Necessity-The defence of necessity is recognized under law when certain conditions are met
to justify otherwise unlawful actions taken to prevent greater harm. Brooke LJ's quoted requirements for
this defence are as follows: Avoidance of Inevitable and Irreparable Evil: The act must be necessary to
avoid an inevitable and irreparable evil. Reasonable and Proportional Response: Only the minimum
necessary action should be taken to achieve the intended purpose, and the harm inflicted should not be
disproportionate to the harm avoided.
Section 81 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)-Section 81 of the IPC provides a defense for acts likely to
cause harm if done in good faith and without criminal intention to cause harm, for the purpose of
preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.

Case: Bishambhar vs Roomal (1950)-In this case, the accused individuals were charged with offenses
under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. The accused
had paraded the complainant with a blackened face and subjected him to a shoe-beating, resulting in
humiliation and disgrace for the complainant.Defense Argument:-The defense argued that the accused
acted in good faith and without a criminal intention to cause harm. Their actions were aimed at
preventing or avoiding further harm that might have ensued if they had not intervened.

Judgment and Application of Section 81 IPC:-The court, in this case, considered the defense of necessity
and Section 81 of the IPC. It was found that although the complainant suffered humiliation due to the
accused's actions, the accused had intervened in good faith to prevent grave consequences. Their actions,
although causing harm, were not done with criminal intent but to prevent or avoid other harm.

Legal Analysis:The court likely applied the principles of necessity and Section 81 IPC to assess whether
the accused's actions, although resulting in harm to the complainant, were justifiable under the
circumstances.The court considered whether the harm caused was proportionate to the harm avoided and
whether the accused acted reasonably in preventing potential grave consequences.

Conclusion-In summary, the case of Bishambhar vs Roomal (1950) illustrates the application of the
defense of necessity and Section 81 IPC, where the court considered the accused's actions in good faith
to prevent greater harm, despite causing some harm to the complainant. The judgment likely analyzed
the elements of necessity and good faith to determine the legality of the accused's conduct in the context
of preventing imminent harm.

insanity- Insanity, in the context of criminal law, refers to a mental state where an individual lacks the
capacity to understand the nature and consequences of their actions or is unable to distinguish right from
wrong.When a person commits a criminal act while suffering from a mental disorder, the question arises
whether they should be held criminally responsible.

2. M'Naghten Case and Rules-The M'Naghten Rules originated from the 1843 case of **Daniel
M'Naghten** in England. M'Naghten attempted to assassinate the Prime Minister, but mistakenly shot
and killed the Prime Minister's secretary.

- The key principles established by the court were as follows:

- Presumption of Sanity: An accused is presumed to be sane unless proven otherwise.

- Defect of Reason: The accused must have been laboring under a defect of reason due to a mental
disease.

- Knowledge of Act and Wrongfulness-The accused must not have known the nature and quality of
the act they were committing. Alternatively, if they knew the act, they must not have known that it was
wrong or contrary to the law.

Partial DelusioN-If the accused suffers from partial delusion but is otherwise sane, they are held
responsible as if the facts of the delusion were real.
3. **Insanity in India (Section 84)**:

- **Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code** deals with the defense of insanity.It states that nothing is an
offense if done by a person who, at the time of the act-Is of unsound mind. Is incapable of knowing the
nature of the act. Is unaware that the act is either wrong or contrary to law.

- The two essential tests are-Incapable of Knowing the Nature of the Act: The accused must lack the
capacity to understand the act's nature. Not Understanding Wrongfulness- Even if the accused knows the
act, they must not comprehend that it is wrong or illegal.

In the Ashiruddin Ahmed vs. The King case of 1948, the accused was convicted under **Section 302 of
the Indian Penal Code** for the murder of his five-year-old son. He had sacrificed his son as "korbani"
(a religious ritual) in the mosque. The accused's defense centered around the provisions of Section 84 of
the Penal Code**, which deals with the defense of unsoundness of mind.Here are the key points from
the case:-1.The Confession:-The accused confessed to the act, stating that he had sacrificed his son
because of a dream he had. In the dream, he heard a voice saying that his previous sacrifice (of a goat)
was of no use, and he needed to sacrifice his own son.The accused described how he bathed his son,
took a knife, and sacrificed him in the mosque Later, he informed his maternal uncle about the act.

Legal Considerations-The court had to determine whether the accused was entitled to the protection
provided by SECTION 84-Section 84 states that an accused is not criminally liable if, at the time of
committing the act, they were:-Insane: The accused must suffer from a mental disorder.- Incapable of
Knowing the Act Was Wrong: Due to the mental disorder, the accused must be incapable of knowing
that the act was wrong or contrary to law.3.COURTS DECISION - The court found that the accused
had indeed committed the act of causing his son's death by cutting his throat However, due to
**unsoundness of mind**, the accused was incapable of knowing that his act was wrong.Therefore, the
court held that the accused was entitled to the protection under section 84 - As a result, the conviction
under Section 302 was set aside, and the accused was not held criminally liable¹.

insanity defenses:-Lakshmi vs State (1958) facts-Lakshmi was convicted under Section 302 of the
Indian Penal Code (IPC)** for murdering his step-brother, Chhedi Lal. Lakshmi was addicted to ganja
and had a history of violence. Defence argument: Lakshmi claimed that he was not aware of the nature
of his act due to his unsound mind. Court decision-The court found that Lakshmi's act was influenced by
his mental state. Due to unsoundness of mind, he was incapable of knowing that his act was wrong.
Therefore, he fell within the protection of **Section 84 of the IPC**, which exempts individuals with
mental disorders from criminal liability¹.

2.Ratanlal vs State of Madhya Pradesh (1970) facts: Ratanlal was accused of arson. He set fire to grass
near a well. He was arrested and found to be depressed and silent. defence argument Ratanlal's relatives
testified that he was mentally unsound. Court's decision- The Supreme Court held that the crucial point
to establish unsoundness of mind is at the time of committing the offence. The burden of proof lies on
the accused, but it is not higher than that in civil proceedings. Ratanlal had discharged this burden, and
the defence witnesses were credible. The court upheld the protection under **Section 84 of the IPC**⁴.

3.Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale vs State of Maharashtra (2002): facts-Shrikant Bhosale, a police constable,
killed his wife by hitting her with a grinding stone. He claimed insanity at the time of the offense.
Defense Argument- Shrikant's mental state was at issue. He was depressed and silent, as per medical
reports. Court's Decision: The Supreme Court emphasized that legal insanity must be established at the
time of the offense. Shrikant's plea was accepted, and he fell within the protection of **Section 84 of the
IPC**⁹.

4. Sheralli Wali Mohammed vs State of Maharashtra (1972):facts: Sheralli Wali Mohammed was
charged with murdering his wife and female child. He was found standing near the victims with a
blood-stained chopper.Defense Argument: No motive was established, and Sheralli did not attempt to
flee when the door was broken open. Court's Decision: The Supreme Court clarified that not every form
of insanity can be pleaded as a defense. It must be legal insanity, where the accused was incapable of
knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong. Sheralli's plea was not accepted, and he was held
criminally liable¹³.

intoxication and its implications under **Sections 85 and 86** of the Indian Penal Code (IPC):1.
Section 85: Intoxication and Incapacity:-Scenario: This section deals with situations where a person, due
to intoxication, is incapable of understanding the nature of their actions or discerning whether their
conduct is wrong or contrary to the law. Legal Protection- If an individual commits an act while
intoxicated and is unable to comprehend its nature or wrongfulness, they are exempt from criminal
liability.

Conditions for Protection:-the person must be intoxicated at the time of committing the act. The
intoxicating substance must have been administered to them either without their knowledge or against
their will. eg. Suppose someone unknowingly consumes a spiked drink and subsequently engages in
criminal behaviour. Under Section 85, they may not be held criminally responsible due to their impaired
judgement.

2Section 86: Offences Requiring Specific Intent or Knowledge: context Some offenses require a specific
mental state (intent or knowledge) for criminal liability.

-Intoxication and Specific Intent/Knowledge:-If an intoxicated person commits an act that would be an
offense only with a particular intent or knowledge, they are treated as if they possessed the same mental
state as if they were sober.In other words, their intoxication does not absolve them of responsibility for
offenses that demand specific intent or knowledge. Exception- If the intoxicating substance was
administered without their knowledge or against their will, this provision does not apply. eg- If an
intoxicated person intentionally damages property (an offense requiring intent), they would be held
liable as if they had the requisite intent.

legal aspects of intoxication and its implications under sections 85 and 86 of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC):1.Section 85: Intoxication and Incapacity:-This section deals with situations where a person, due
to intoxication, is incapable of understanding the nature of their actions or discerning whether their
conduct is wrong or contrary to the law.

Legal Protection: If an individual commits an act while intoxicated and is unable to comprehend its
nature or wrongfulness, they are exempt from criminal liability.

Conditions for Protection:-The person must be intoxicated at the time of committing the act.The
intoxicating substance must have been administered to them either without their knowledge or against
their will.Example: Suppose someone unknowingly consumes a spiked drink and subsequently engages
in criminal behavior. Under Section 85, they may not be held criminally responsible due to their
impaired judgment.

2. Section 86: Offences Requiring Specific Intent or Knowledge:-Context: Some offenses require a
specific mental state (intent or knowledge) for criminal liability.

Intoxication and Specific Intent/Knowledge:If an intoxicated person commits an act that would be an
offense only with a particular intent or knowledge, they are treated as if they possessed the same mental
state as if they were sober. In other words, their intoxication does not absolve them of responsibility for
offenses that demand specific intent or knowledge. Exception: If the intoxicating substance was
administered without their knowledge or against their will, this provision does not apply Example: If an
intoxicated person intentionally damages property (an offense requiring intent), they would be held
liable as if they had the requisite intent.In summary, Sections 85 and 86 address the impact of
intoxication on criminal liability. While Section 85 provides protection when intoxication impairs
judgment, Section 86 ensures that specific intent or knowledge requirements are still applicable even in
an intoxicated state¹.

Section 94 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the concept of duress, which arises when an
individual is compelled to perform an act against their will due to threats or coercion. Let’s delve into
the details:

Definition of Duress:-Section 94 provides that, except for murder and offenses against the state
punishable with death, nothing is considered an offense if it is done by a person who is compelled by
threats. These threats must reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death will otherwise be the
consequence.The exception applies when the person doing the act did not voluntarily place themselves
in the situation leading to such constraint, except out of a reasonable apprehension of harm short of
instant death.

Forms of Duress-There are two recognized forms of duress in the law:-Duress by Threats: When a
person is coerced into committing an act due to threats made against them. Duress by Circumstances:
When external circumstances force an individual to act against their will.

Case Examples:-R v Howe (1987): In this case, the accused individuals were threatened with violence
amounting to death. They were compelled by a well-known criminal to murder another person.

Bacchan Lal vs. State (1956): The accused was forced to dispose of a body and hold the legs while
another person killed the deceased. The act was carried out under the threat of instant death.

Intention and Natural Consequences:-The case of R. v. Steane (1947) sheds light on the accused’s
intention. Steane assisted the enemy under duress. However, he was held not to have assisted the enemy
with the intention to help them. Lord Goddard, C.J., observed that the accused’s conduct and that of
others acting simultaneously should not necessarily imply intent. Steane’s situation was one of
compulsion, not voluntary assistance.

Section 90 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the validity of consent given under certain
conditions. Let's break down and elaborate on the provisions of this section:
Consent Under Fear or Misconception-According to Section 90 IPC:-Consent under Fear of Injury or
Misconception of Fact: A consent is not valid if it is given by a person under fear of injury or due to a
misconception of fact.Fear of Injury: If a person gives consent because they fear harm or injury, and the
person performing the act knows or has reason to believe that the consent is given under such fear, the
consent is not valid.

Misconception of Fact: If a person gives consent based on a misunderstanding or misconception of facts,

and the person performing the act knows or has reason to believe this, the consent is not considered
valid.

Consent of Insane Person-Consent of Person of Unsound Mind or Intoxicated: If the consent is given by
a person who, due to unsoundness of mind (insanity) or intoxication, is unable to understand the nature
and consequences of the act to which they are consenting, then such consent is not valid.This means that
if a person is not in a state of sound mind or is intoxicated to the extent that they cannot comprehend the
nature and consequences of their consent, the consent is not legally valid.

Consent of Child-Consent of Child Under Twelve Years of Age: Unless the context suggests otherwise,
if the consent is given by a person who is under twelve years of age, it is presumed that such consent is
not valid.This provision recognizes that children under the age of twelve may not have the maturity or
understanding to give valid consent.

Elaboration and Application-Section 90 of the IPC ensures that consent given under duress (fear of
injury), based on false information (misconception of fact), or by individuals who are not capable of
understanding the consequences (due to insanity, intoxication, or age) is not legally recognized.The
section aims to protect individuals from exploitation or abuse by invalidating consent that is not freely
and knowingly given.

Legal Implications In cases involving alleged sexual offenses, assault, or other acts where consent is a
defense, courts consider the conditions outlined in Section 90 to determine the validity of the
consent.The burden is on the person relying on consent to prove that the consent was freely given
without fear, misconception, or incapacity due to unsoundness of mind, intoxication, or age.In summary,
Section 90 of the IPC sets out conditions under which consent is considered invalid, emphasizing the
importance of ensuring that consent is given freely, knowingly, and by individuals capable of
understanding the nature and consequences of their actions.

Consent as a Defence under Indian Penal Code (IPC)

1. Meaning of Consent: In common parlance, consent is an act done deliberately and by free will. It
involves a deliberate exercise of intelligence based on knowledge of the significance and moral effect of
the act. While the IPC does not explicitly define “consent,” Section 90 outlines what does not amount to
consent. For instance, consent obtained under fear of injury, misconception of facts, unsoundness of
mind, intoxication, or by a child under 12 years (unless context suggests otherwise) is not valid consent.

2. Consent as a Defence: Section 87 of the IPC deals with acts not intended and not known to be likely
to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent. Here are the key points:
 ● Scenario: If an act is not intended to cause death or grievous hurt and is not known by the doer to
be likely to cause such harm, it is not an offence if:
○ The person harmed is above 18 years old and has given consent (express or implied) to
suffer that harm.
○ The person harmed has consented to take the risk of the harm.
● Illustration: A and Z agree to fence for amusement. This agreement implies mutual consent to
suffer any harm caused during fair play. If A accidentally hurts Z while playing fairly, A commits
no offence.

3. Requirements for Consent as a Defence:

● Absence of Intention: Consent can be a defence when harm (short of grievous hurt) is caused
with the victim’s consent.
● Lack of Knowledge: Even if harm results in death, it’s not an offence if the doer did not intend it
or was unaware that it could cause death.

4. Relevant Case Laws-Tunda v. Rex (Wrestling Case, AIR 1950 All 95):

○ Facts: Tunda, a resident of Jaoli, was charged with causing the death of Munshi during a
wrestling bout.
○ Legal Issue: Whether Tunda’s act constituted rash and negligent behavior under Section
304A of the Penal Code.
○ Holding: The court found that there was no intention to cause Munshi’s death. Tunda’s
act was not rash or negligent.
○ Significance: Consent to wrestling implied acceptance of the risk of harm12.
2. Bishambher vs. Roomal (Garland Case, 1950):
○ Facts: Bishambher and others were charged with offenses under Sections 323 and 506 for
assaulting the complainant.
○ Context: The Chamars were agitated due to an indecent assault on a girl. A Panchayat
decided to blacken the complainant’s face and give him shoe-beating.
○ Legal Issue: Whether the accused were entitled to the exceptions mentioned in Sections
81, 87, and 88 of the Penal Code.
○ Holding: The court acquitted the accused, considering their good faith and the
complainant’s consent34.
3. R v. JA (Supreme Court of Canada, 2011):
○ Facts: J.A. engaged in erotic asphyxiation with his partner K.D. During this, he anally
penetrated her while she was unconscious.
○ Legal Issue: Whether consent requires a conscious, operating mind throughout sexual
activity.
○ Holding: The court held that consent to sexual activity must be continuous and conscious.
Unconsciousness invalidates consent56.
4. People v. Samuel (Videography Case, 1967, California):
○ Facts: Marvin Samuels made sadomasochistic films depicting whipping scenes. One film
showed a man strung up and whipped.
○ Legal Issue: Whether the man’s consent was a defense.
○ Holding: The court found that consent was not a defense. The film experts’ analysis
supported the prosecution’s case78.

5. Absence of Knowledge:
 ● If the doer lacks knowledge that an act is likely to cause death or grievous hurt, consent may still
be a defense.
● For instance, consider the difference between fencing (where harm is expected) and using loaded
pistols (where harm is unforeseen).

6. Other Case Laws:-1.Baboon Hijrah v. Emp. (Emasculation Case, 1866):

○ Facts: In this case, Baboolun Hijrah was charged with emasculating a man.
○ Legal Issue: Whether the act was an offence even if the victim consented.
○ Holding: The court held that consent does not excuse an act that is inherently criminal,
such as emasculation.
2. Emperor vs. Ghulam Hyder Punjabi (Blinding Case, 1915 Cri LJ 437):
○ Facts: Ghulam Hyder Punjabi was charged with causing grievous hurt by blinding a
person.
○ Legal Issue: Whether the victim’s consent was a defence.
○ Holding: The court held that consent does not apply when the act is independently an
offence (blinding in this case).
3. In Re: Kanaga Kosavan Alias … (Couple’s Case, 1930):
○ Facts: In this case, a couple engaged in sexual activity.
○ Legal Issue: Whether consent was a valid defence.
○ Holding: The court considered the nature of the act and whether it was inherently
criminal. Consent was not a defence when the act was independently an offense.These
cases emphasise that consent has limitations and cannot excuse inherently criminal acts.
The context and nature of the act play a crucial role in determining criminal liability . If
you have further questions or need more elaboration, feel free to ask!

Consent by the Victim: Express and Implied

1. Express and Implied Consent:

○ Consent may be express (clearly stated) or implied (inferred from actions or
circumstances).
○ In legal contexts, it’s crucial to determine whether the victim explicitly agreed or whether
their actions imply consent.
2. Case Law: Rao Harnarain Singh Sheoji Singh vs. The State (1957):
○ In this case, the court dealt with a public prosecutor’s gang rape case.
○ The court considered whether the victim’s consent was genuine or coerced.
3. Consent Valid for Offences Relating to Injury to Body Alone:
○ Sections 87, 88, and 89 of the IPC provide exceptions where consent can be a defence.
○ However, these exceptions do not apply to acts that are offences independently of any
harm caused.
○ For instance, causing miscarriage with consent is an exception under Section 300
(murder) but not if the act is an independent offence.
4. Exception to the Exception: Section 91:
○ Section 91 clarifies that exceptions in Sections 87, 88, and 89 do not extend to acts that
are offences regardless of consent.
○ If an act is inherently criminal, consent won’t shield the doer from liability.
5. Illustration: Self-Defense:-The concept of self-defence rests on these principles:
■ Society aims to protect individuals against unlawful attacks.
■ Seek society’s aid when possible.
 ■ When aid is unavailable, individuals may protect themselves.
■ Violence used must be proportionate and not driven by malice.

The principles you’ve outlined form the bedrock of self-defence:

1. Society’s Responsibility: Society takes on the responsibility of safeguarding private individuals

from unlawful attacks on their person and property. In most cases, it is capable of fulfilling this
duty.
2. Resorting to Society’s Aid: Whenever possible, individuals should seek society’s assistance. Law
enforcement, legal systems, and community support play crucial roles in maintaining safety.
3. Self-Defense When Aid Is Unavailable: When society’s aid is unattainable, an individual has the
right to take necessary actions to protect themselves. This may involve physical force or other
defensive measures.
4. Proportionate Response: However, any violence used must be proportional to the threat faced. It
should not exceed what is necessary to avert harm. Additionally, self-defence should not be
driven by vindictiveness or malice. These principles strike a balance between individual rights
and collective responsibility, ensuring that self-defence remains just and fair.

Private defence -The concept of private defence, also known as self-defence, is fundamental in criminal
law and allows individuals to protect themselves and others from imminent harm or unlawful acts. In
India, the law of private defence is codified in sections 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Let's
elaborate on these sections to understand the right of private defence of body and property:

Section 96 - Things Done in Private Defence:This section states that nothing is considered an offence if
it is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.It establishes the foundational principle that
individuals have a legal right to defend themselves and others against unlawful attacks or threats.

Section 97 - Right of Private Defence of Body and Property:According to Section 97, every person has
the right to defend:First: His/her own body or the body of another person against any offence affecting
the human body.Second: The property (movable or immovable) of oneself or another against specific
offences:Offences falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal trespass.Attempts
to commit theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal trespass.

Key Points and Restrictions (Section 99):Exercise of Reasonable Force: The right of private defence is
subject to the limitations and conditions outlined in Section 99 of the IPC.Nature and Extent of Force:
The force used in private defence must be reasonable and proportionate to the threat faced. Excessive
force beyond what is necessary for defence may not be justified.No Right to Cause Death: The right of
private defence does not extend to causing death unless the situation falls under specific circumstances
(such as threat of grievous harm or risk to life).Protective Measures: Private defence can involve
measures to repel an attack or prevent unlawful interference with property, but it should be done in
response to immediate danger or threat.

Purpose and Limitations:Social Order: The law of private defence aims to maintain social order by
empowering individuals to protect themselves and others when law enforcement may not be
immediately available.Preventing Vendetta: However, the law sets limits to prevent misuse or abuse of
the right of private defence, ensuring that it is exercised within legal boundaries to avoid escalating
conflicts or promoting vigilantism.

Legal Application:Courts assess cases of private defence based on the circumstances, considering factors
such as the nature of the threat, proportionality of response, and the immediacy of danger.The burden of
proving private defence rests on the accused, who must demonstrate that their actions were justified
under the conditions outlined in the IPC.In summary, the law of private defence in India grants
individuals the right to protect themselves and others from imminent harm or unlawful acts, but this
right is subject to legal restrictions and must be exercised with caution and proportionality to ensure
justice and social order.Certainly! Let’s delve into the details of each case in the context of private
defence:

1. State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup (1974):

○ Facts: This case involved a father-son altercation in a mandi (marketplace). The son
claimed that he acted in self-defense against his father.
○ Legal Principle: The court held that there is no right of private defence if the
aggression is staged or not real. In other words, if the accused initiates the aggression or
fabricates a threat, the right of private defence does not apply.
○ Significance: This case emphasizes the genuine nature of the threat faced by the accused.
If the accused himself creates the situation, the right of private defence cannot be
invoked.
2. Deo Narain v. State of U.P. (1973):
○ Facts: In this property-related case, the accused used a spear to defend himself.
○ Legal Principle: The court considered the use of the spear as excessive force, breaching
the golden scales (limits) of private defence. The force used must be proportionate to the
threat faced.
○ Significance: The case underscores the importance of reasonable force in private
defence. Excessive force can negate the right of private defence.
3. Kishan v. State of M.P. (1974):
○ Facts: Bucha and Khutai were involved in an altercation.
○ Legal Principle: The court clarified that an aggressor (like Bucha or Khutai) cannot
exercise the ‘right of self-defense’. The right of private defence is available only to the
victim or the person facing an imminent threat.
○ Significance: This case highlights that the right of private defence is not available to
those who initiate the aggression.
4. James Martin v. State of Kerala (2004):Facts: The case dealt with an unlawful entry (bandh
case).Legal Principle-The court emphasized subjective interpretation based on facts and
circumstances. The accused’s perception of danger matters. The accused need not prove the
existence of the right of private defence beyond reasonable doubt. A preponderance of
probabilities in favor of the plea is sufficient.Significance: The case reinforces the importance
of considering the accused’s reasonable apprehension of danger and the need for a balanced
approach in assessing private defence claims.
5. Mahabir Choudhary Etc vs State Of Bihar (1996):-Facts: The case involved a situation where
the accused was cornered against a wall.Legal Principle: The court clarified that there is no
application of retreat to the wall. In other words, if the accused is cornered and has no escape
route, the right of private defence remains intact.Significance: This case underscores that the
accused need not retreat when there is no possibility of doing so safely.

Vicarious liability is a legal principle that holds one person (such as an employer or principal)
responsible for the actions or omissions of another person (such as an employee or agent) based on their
relationship and the circumstances of the case. In India, vicarious liability is recognized and governed by
various provisions in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other laws. Let's elaborate on the key sections and
principles related to vicarious liability in India:
Sections Explained:Section 149 IPC:-This section deals with vicarious liability in the context of
unlawful assemblies. It states that if an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in
furtherance of the common object of the assembly (or such offence is likely to be committed and known
to be likely by members), every member of that assembly is guilty of such offence.
Section 34 IPC:-Section 34 deals with common intention. When a criminal act is done by several
persons in furtherance of their common intention, each person is liable for that act as if done by them
alone. This section emphasises shared criminal liability.
Sections 154, 155, and 156 IPC:-These sections impose liability on owners, occupiers, or persons
claiming interest in land for acts or omissions related to riots, unlawful assemblies, or public
disturbances occurring on their property. They extend liability to managers or agents acting on behalf of
these landowners.
Sections 268 and 269 IPC:-These sections pertain to public nuisance. Under these provisions, a master
(employer or principal) can be held vicariously liable for public nuisances committed by their servant
(employee) in the course of their employment.
Section 499 IPC:-This section deals with defamation. It holds a master vicariously liable for the
publication of a libel by their servant. Defamation occurs when a person's reputation is unjustly harmed
through false statements. Key Principles of Vicarious Liability in India:-Employer-Employee
Relationship: Vicarious liability often arises within the context of an employer-employee or
principal-agent relationship. The actions of employees or agents can bind their employers or principals
under certain circumstances.
Scope of Employment: Liability typically extends to acts committed within the scope of employment or
agency. The employer or principal is responsible for actions performed by employees or agents in the
course of their duties.

Shared Liability and Common Intention: Sections like 34 IPC emphasize shared liability when criminal
acts are committed with a common intention among multiple individuals.

Control and Responsibility: Vicarious liability is based on the idea that employers or principals have
control and authority over their employees or agents, and therefore should bear responsibility for their
actions within the scope of their roles.

Legal Implications:-Courts assess cases of vicarious liability based on the specific facts and
circumstances, considering the nature of the relationship between parties and the actions or omissions in
question.Vicarious liability serves as a mechanism to ensure accountability and deterrence, encouraging
employers and principals to exercise supervision and control over those acting on their behalf.In
conclusion, vicarious liability in India is governed by specific provisions in the IPC and other laws,
holding individuals responsible for the actions of others based on their relationship and the
circumstances of the case. This legal principle plays a crucial role in ensuring accountability and
maintaining social order.

Certainly! Let’s delve into the legal principles related to common intention and prior concert as per
the cases you’ve mentioned.

1. Pandurang, Tukia And Bhillia vs The State Of Hyderabad (1954):

○ In this case, the Supreme Court clarified that common intention under Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code presupposes prior concert. It necessitates a prearranged plan
because for one person to be vicariously convicted for another’s criminal act, that act
must have been done in furtherance of the common intention of all involved.
 ○ The critical requirement is a prior meeting of minds among the individuals. While
several people can simultaneously attack someone with the same intention (e.g., the
intention to kill), each inflicting separate blows, they cannot be collectively convicted
under Section 34 unless there was a pre-arranged plan.
○ The distinction between same or similar intention and common intention is crucial.
The plan need not be elaborate, and a long interval of time is not necessary. However,
there must be pre-arrangement and premeditated concert1.
2. Suresh v. State of U.P. (2001):
○ In this case, the court dealt with the killing of a brother’s family by another brother. The
principle remains consistent: common intention requires prior concert, and acts must
cumulatively contribute to the criminal offence in furtherance of that intention.
3. Mizaji v. State of U.P. (1959):
○ In Mizaji’s case, the court emphasised that the common object (or intention) should not
be confused with the same or similar intention. While the boundary between them may
be thin, it is real and substantial. Overlooking this distinction can lead to miscarriage of
justice.
○ The plan need not be elaborate, and it can arise suddenly. However, there must be
pre-arrangement and premeditated concerts.

Derivative liability, in the context of criminal law, refers to the legal principle of holding someone
accountable for the acts of another person based on their participation or assistance in the commission of
a crime. This concept applies to individuals who intentionally aid, abet, or conspire with others to
commit a criminal act. Let's explain and elaborate on the key aspects of derivative liability:

Forms of Derivative Liability:Aiding and Abetting:-A person is considered to be aiding and abetting if
they assist, encourage, or facilitate the commission of a crime by another person. This assistance can
take various forms, such as providing resources, advice, or support that contributes to the commission of
the crime.
Co-Conspirator Liability:-Co-conspirator liability arises when individuals join together in a conspiracy
to commit a criminal act. Each member of the conspiracy can be held liable for the criminal acts
committed by any other member in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Elements of Derivative Liability:-Intent or Knowledge: To be held derivatively liable, the individual

must have the intent to assist or encourage the commission of the crime, or they must have knowledge
that their actions will contribute to the crime.
Substantial Assistance: The level of assistance provided must be substantial and materially contribute to
the commission of the crime. Merely being present at the scene of the crime or having minimal
involvement may not suffice for derivative liability.

Legal Principles:Accessory Liability: Individuals who aid, abet, or conspire in the commission of a
crime are considered as accessories to the crime. They can be charged and prosecuted based on their
level of involvement in the criminal activity.Joint Criminal Enterprise: In cases of co-conspirator
liability, all participants in a criminal conspiracy are treated as being engaged in a joint criminal
enterprise. Each participant is held responsible for the acts committed by others in pursuit of the
common criminal objective.
Examples of Derivative Liability:Getaway Driver: A person who drives a vehicle to help robbers escape
after committing a bank robbery can be held derivatively liable for the robbery. Lookout: Someone who
keeps watch while another person commits a burglary, providing advance warning of approaching
authorities, can be held derivatively liable for the burglary.

Legal Consequences:Individuals found guilty of derivative liability may face criminal charges and
penalties similar to those faced by the primary perpetrator of the crime.Derivative liability serves as a
deterrent to individuals who might otherwise assist or enable criminal conduct, emphasizing the
importance of deterring and punishing criminal behavior at all levels of involvement.In summary,
derivative liability in criminal law holds individuals responsible for the acts of others when they
intentionally assist, encourage, or participate in criminal activities. This principle reinforces the notion
that accountability extends beyond the primary perpetrator of a crime to those who facilitate or enable its
commission.

Parties to crime-COMMON LAW THEORY OF PARTIES TO CRIME

Common law divides guilty parties into principals and accessories. The actual perpetrator of the
felonious deed is called as a “principal”. Other person who themselves are not main offenders, but who
assist or aid them, are known as "accessories", and to distinguish among these with reference to time and
place they were divided into three classes:

i. Accessories before the fact;

ii. Accessories at the fact;

iii. Accessories after the fact;

The reason why different degrees of principals and accessories were permitted under the common law,
and also in some of the modern jurisdictions, is basically to give an attempt to soften penalties for
persons not actually or directly involved in the crime itself.Also at a relatively early time the party who
was originally considered an accessory at the fact, ceased to be classed in the accessorial group and was
labelled a principal. Thereafter, in felony cases when there are two or more parties to a crime, then they
are classified into two kinds of principals that are first degree and second degree, and two kinds of
accessories which are before the fact and after the fact.

PRINCIPAL IN THE FIRST DEGREE-Principals in the first degree are the persons those who
perpetrate a crime directly. In other words, those who actually commit the crime or offence with their
own hands or through innocent agent are principals in first degree.This can be in case the respondent
used a person to make him do the act (offence) and the person did not have the ability or capacity to
commit the offence. In such situation, the “instigator would be the principal offender and the perpetrator
would be the innocent agent.”Therefore this can be seen that the presence of the principals in the first
degree at the place where an offence has taken place is not essential.Innocent agent is a person who by
reason of either immaturity of understanding or of impairment of mind is legally incompetent to commit
a crime.8 The person committing the actus reus could be completely innocent because they do not have
the capacity to commit the offence. Examples of innocent agents can be a child below the age of
discretion or a person of unsound mind who had been used to commit a crime and they may not have the
necessary mens rea.In the case of R v Stringer and Banks9,” employees were asked by their employer to
send out letters and participate in financial transactions which they did not realize would lead to
fraudulent transactions. The employer was the principal offender and the employees were innocent
agents.”

PRINCIPAL IN THE SECOND DEGREE-Principals in the second degree are those who are present at
the commission of the crime and extend aid and assistance for its commission. Accessories at the fact
and principals in the second degree are the two classifications which essentially denote the same type of
offenders.Accessory at the fact are generally classified as principals of the second degree, that is as an
aiders and abettors of the principal offender in the in the commission of the offence. Also principal of
second degree are the person who may be actually or constructively present in the scene of occurrence.
Such persons do not actually participate in commission of the crime. However, they remain present,
actually or constructively, at the occurrence of the crime and thereby aid, assist, encourage or abet
commission of the crime

ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT-The accessory after the fact is one who, with knowledge of the
other's guilt, renders assistance to an offender in the effort to hinder his detection, arrest, trial or
punishment. In other words, all those who knowing that a person has committed an offence knowingly
receive, relieve, comfort, harbour or assist him from escaping from the clutches of law is identified as
Accessories after the fact.Throwing suspicion away from the principal, concealing the evidence by
hiding corpse in a homicide case, performing surgical operation upon a fugitive by altering his facial
expression and obliterating his finger prints and to enable him to evade arrest are some of the examples
for a person to be guilty as an accessory after the fact. A person who is an accessory before the fact may
also become an accessory to the same offence after the fact but this is not same in the case of principal
offender. Moreover, absence at the time of perpetration is not necessary in the case of an accessory after
the fact. For instance, a person who was present at the time a murder was committed and he assisted in
concealing the evidence of the crime, to protect the principal from prosecution, without abetting the
offender in any way, would be held guilty as an accessory after the fact. Also under the common law, a
wife cannot be accessory after the fact by reason of having concealed her husband or given him other
assistance, knowing him to be a felon, but this does not apply to the husband who renders such
assistance to his wife, nor to others such as parents or children.

The concept of "abetment" under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) outlines various ways in
which a person can be considered to have abetted the commission of a crime. Let's break down the
explanations provided:

1. Instigation (First Clause):-A person abets the doing of a thing if they instigate any other person
to do that thing. Instigation involves encouraging, provoking, or urging someone to commit a
particular act. For instance, if A persuades B to steal something, A would be considered an
abettor by instigation.
2. Engaging in Conspiracy (Second Clause):-Abetment also occurs when a person engages with one
or more others in a conspiracy to commit a particular act, and an act or illegal omission takes
place as part of that conspiracy. If individuals conspire to commit a crime and take actions
towards its commission, each conspirator can be deemed to have abetted the act.
3. Intentional Aid (Third Clause):-A person abets by intentionally aiding the doing of a thing
through any act or illegal omission. This means knowingly assisting or facilitating the
commission of a crime. For example, if A provides tools or information to B knowing that B
intends to use them to commit a crime, A would be aiding in the commission of the crime.

Explanation 1:This explanation specifies that a person who, by willful misrepresentation or concealment
of a material fact which they are bound to disclose, causes or attempts to cause a thing to be done, is said
to instigate the doing of that thing. For instance, if someone misleads or deceives another person into
committing a crime through false information, they are considered to have instigated the act.

Explanation 2:-This explanation clarifies that anyone who, before or during the commission of an act,
takes actions to make the act easier or facilitate its commission, aids in the doing of that act. This
includes providing tools, resources, or assistance that directly or indirectly contributes to the commission
of a crime.In summary, abetment involves actively encouraging, supporting, or facilitating the
commission of a crime through instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aid. Each of these forms of
involvement can render a person liable for abetment under the Indian Penal Code.

The elements of abetment involve various forms of encouragement, assistance, or support toward the
commission of a crime. Mens Rea (Criminal Intent):-Abetment generally requires a guilty mind (mens
rea), which means the person must have the intention or knowledge that their actions will aid,
encourage, or facilitate the commission of a crime. However, in strict liability offenses, mens rea may
not be required.

1. Instigation:-Instigation refers to actively suggesting, stimulating, supporting, hinting, or inciting

another person to commit a prohibited act. It involves urging or provoking someone to do
something unlawful. For instance, if A encourages B to steal something, A is instigating B to
commit theft.
2. Abetment by Conspiracy:-Abetment by conspiracy is distinct from the offense of criminal
conspiracy. For abetment by conspiracy, it's not sufficient to merely agree to commit an offense.
An act or illegal omission must occur in furtherance of the conspiracy and aimed at achieving the
agreed-upon act. In contrast, criminal conspiracy involves the agreement or plot itself as the
essence of the offense.
3. Abetment by Intentional Aiding:-This form of abetment includes:
● Doing an act that directly assists in the commission of the crime.
● Illegally omitting to do something that one is legally bound to do, thereby
facilitating the crime.
● Doing an act that may facilitate the commission of the crime by another person.
4. Intent:-Intent is a crucial element in abetment. A person is considered to abet a crime only if they
assist or supply something with the intention of facilitating the commission of that crime by
another person. Mere assistance without the requisite intent to aid in the commission of the crime
may not constitute abetment.

In summary, abetment involves actively encouraging or supporting the commission of a crime through
instigation, conspiracy, or intentional aiding, with the key element being the intention or knowledge that
one's actions will contribute to the commission of the offence. Each form of abetment requires a specific
set of actions and mental state (intent) on the part of the abettor to be considered legally culpable under
the law.
Section 108 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) defines the concept of abettor and provides explanations and
illustrations to clarify the scope of abetment. Let's break down the key points and explanations provided
in this section:

1. Definition of Abettor:-According to Section 108, a person abets an offence if they abet either the
commission of an offence or the commission of an act which would be an offence if committed
by a person capable by law of committing that offence, with the same intention or knowledge as
that of the abettor.
 2. Explanation 1:-This explanation clarifies that the abetment of the illegal omission of an act can
amount to an offence, even if the abettor is not personally bound to perform that act.
3. Explanation 2:-It is emphasized that to constitute the offence of abetment, it is not necessary for
the act abetted to be committed, or for the requisite effect of the offence to be caused. This means
that the intention or attempt to abet the offence itself is punishable.
4. Explanation 3:-This explanation states that it's not required for the person abetted to be capable
by law of committing the offence, or to have the same guilty intention or knowledge as that of
the abettor. For instance, if A abets a child or a mentally incapacitated person to commit an act
that would be an offence if done by a capable person with the same intention, A is still guilty of
abetment.
5. Explanation 4:-It is highlighted that since abetment itself is an offence, the abetment of such an
abetment is also an offence. This means that if someone abets another person to abet a crime,
both the primary abettor and the secondary abettor are liable for punishment.
6. Explanation 5:-This explanation clarifies that for the offence of abetment by conspiracy, it's not
necessary that the abettor conspires directly with the person who commits the offence. Simply
engaging in a conspiracy that leads to the commission of the offence is sufficient for liability.

Illustrations:-The illustrations provided under this section offer practical scenarios to explain the concept
of abetment. For example:-Illustration where A instigates B to murder C, but B refuses to do so. A is
still guilty of abetting B to commit murder.

Illustration where A instigates B to murder D, B stabs D but D survives. A is guilty of instigating B to

commit murder.

Illustration where A intends to cause theft and instigates B to take property from Z, believing it to be A's
property. Although B does not commit theft due to a misconception, A is still guilty of abetting theft.

These explanations and illustrations help in understanding the nuances of abetment under Indian
criminal law, emphasising that even attempts or intentions to abet an offence can attract legal liability.
To understand who an abettor is according to the Indian Penal Code (IPC), particularly under Section
108, we can break down the definition and related concepts:

1. Definition of Abettor:-An abettor is a person who abets either:

● The commission of an offence.
● The commission of an act which would be an offence if committed by a person
capable of committing an offence in law.
2. Abetment of Illegal Omission:-Abetment can also extend to the illegal omission of an act,
meaning encouraging or supporting someone not to perform an act which is legally required.
3. Effect of Abetment:-The commission of the abetted act itself is not necessary for abetment to be
considered an offence. Even if the intended act is not carried out, the abettor can still be liable.
4. Person Abetted:-The person being abetted does not necessarily need to be capable of committing
the offence themselves. For instance, if someone abets a child or a mentally incapacitated person
to commit an act that would be an offence if done by a capable person, the abettor is still liable.
5. Abetment of Abetment:-Abetment of an abetment (abetting someone else to abet a crime) is
itself considered an offence under the IPC.
6. Abettor's Role:-An abettor can be an instigator, a conspirator, or someone who intentionally aids
or assists in the commission of the offence. The key is that the abettor plays a role in
 encouraging, facilitating, or supporting the commission of the offence, either directly or
indirectly.
7. Physical or Mental Incapacity:-According to Section 108, the act abetted would be an offence if
committed by a person not suffering from any physical or mental incapacity. This emphasizes
that the abetted act should be judged based on the capability of a normal, legally competent
individual.

In summary, an abettor under the IPC is someone who encourages, facilitates, or supports the
commission of an offence or an act that would be an offence under the law, even if the act itself is not
carried out. The abettor can be involved in instigating, conspiring, or intentionally aiding in the
commission of the offence. The liability for abetment exists regardless of whether the person being
abetted is capable of committing the offence themselves, and abetment of another abetment is also
considered an offence.
Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) deals with the liability of an abettor when the act abetted is
committed in consequence of the abetment. Here's an explanation of this section:

1. Punishment for Abetment:-According to Section 109, whoever abets any offence shall be
punished with the punishment provided for the offence if:-The act abetted is committed in
consequence of the abetment.-There is no express provision in the IPC for the punishment of
such abetment.
2. Definition of Consequence:-The section explains that an act or offence is considered to be
committed in consequence of abetment when:
● It is committed due to instigation (urging or provoking someone to commit the
act).
● It is committed in pursuance of a conspiracy (agreement to commit the act).
● It is committed with the aid that constitutes the abetment (assistance or support in
the commission of the act).
3. Illustrations:-The illustration provided under this section (e.g., A offering a bribe to B, a public
servant, and B accepting the bribe) demonstrates a scenario where abetment leads to the
commission of an offence. Here, A abets the offence defined in Section 161 of the IPC (related to
bribery of a public servant).
4. Liability of Abettor:-If the act abetted is committed as a result of the abetment and there is no
specific punishment prescribed for such abetment in the IPC, the abettor will be liable to
punishment equivalent to that provided for the offence itself.

In summary, Section 109 of the IPC imposes liability on an abettor if the act abetted is committed as a
consequence of the abetment. The abettor can be punished with the same punishment provided for the
offence that was abetted, especially in cases where the act is committed due to instigation, conspiracy, or
aid provided by the abettor. This provision ensures accountability for those who encourage, facilitate, or
support the commission of criminal acts through abetment.

Certainly! Let’s delve into the legal concepts of instigation and its implications in various cases. I’ll
provide an overview of each case mentioned and elaborate on how instigation relates to abetment.

1. Nazir Ahmad v Emperor (AIR 1927 All 730):

○ In this case, the court emphasized that instigation necessarily involves active suggestion,
support, or stimulation toward the commission of an act.
 ○ It need not always involve explicit words; the context and reasonable certainty to incite
the consequence matter.
○ A mere emotional outburst without intending the consequences to follow does not qualify
as instigation.
2. Ramesh Kumar v State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618 (dowry death case):
○ Here, the court clarified that instigation refers to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite,
or encourage someone to perform an act.
○ The requirement is not limited to specific words; the overall effect matters.
○ The certainty of inciting the consequence must be reasonably evident.
3. Tej Singh v State of Rajasthan (AIR 1958 Raj 169) (Sati Case):
○ In this case, approval was considered as a form of instigation.
○ The court recognized that even passive encouragement or approval can contribute to
instigating an act.
4. Protima Dutta v State of West Bengal (Dowry Death):
○ Here, cruelty was treated as a form of instigation.

abetment by conspiracy–Saju vs State Of Kerala (2000):-In this case, the prosecution aimed to prove
abetment by conspiracy.To establish this charge, the following elements must be demonstrated:

■ The abettor (the person accused of abetment) either:

■ Instigated the commission of a specific act.
■ Engaged in a conspiracy with one or more individuals to commit that act.
■ Intentionally aided the act through an action or omission.
○ The court must consider the evidence carefully to determine whether the abettor’s
involvement meets these criteria.

Remember that abetment by conspiracy involves collaboration and active participation in planning or
executing a criminal act. It requires more than mere passive knowledge or association; there must be a
direct link between the abettor’s actions and the crime committed -The court acknowledged that
persistent cruelty can push someone to commit an act.

intentional aiding-Shri Ram v State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1975 SC 175) (Violet “Vakil has come”
case):-In this case, the court emphasized that for an act to constitute abetment, the abettor must have
intentionally aided the commission of the crime.Mere proof that the crime could not have occurred
without the involvement of the alleged abettor is insufficient to meet the requirements of Section 107 of
the Indian Penal Code.The intention behind the abettor’s actions is crucial. Merely being present or
indirectly connected to the crime is not enough to establish abetment.

To distinguish between Sections 34, 109, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) based on the
principles and application of joint liability, abetment, and criminal conspiracy, let's examine each
section's essence and application:

● Section 34 IPC:-Section 34 embodies the principle of joint liability in the commission of a

criminal act based on a common intention. The key element here is the existence of a common
intention among several persons to commit a criminal act. Under this section:-Each participant in
the criminal act, who shares the common intention, is equally liable for the entire act.-It applies
when multiple persons act together in furtherance of a common intention, resulting in the
 commission of a criminal offence.-Participation in the commission of the offence, with a shared
intent or understanding, invokes the application of Section 34.
Section 109 IPC:-Section 109 deals with abetment of an offence. It applies to situations where a
person aids, instigates, or conspires with others to commit an offence. Key points of Section 109
include:-Abetment can occur even if the abettor is not present at the scene of the
crime.--Abetment encompasses instigation (urging or provoking), conspiracy (agreement to
commit), or intentional aiding (assistance) in the commission of an offence.--If the offence
abetted is committed as a result of the abetment, the abettor can be held liable for the offence.
● Section 120B IPC:---Section 120B deals with criminal conspiracy. It pertains to agreements or
arrangements between two or more persons to commit a criminal act. Important aspects of
Section 120B are:
● The offence of conspiracy involves planning or scheming to commit an illegal act.
● The mere agreement or arrangement to commit an offence is sufficient to invoke
this section, irrespective of whether the actual offence is carried out.
● A person can be charged with conspiracy if they enter into an agreement to
commit a crime, regardless of whether the crime is ultimately executed.

Key Distinctions:-Section 34: Focuses on joint liability based on a common intention among participants
in the commission of a criminal act.Section 109: Covers abetment of an offence through instigation,
conspiracy, or intentional aiding, with liability extending to the abettor if the offence is committed as a
result.Section 120B: Deals with criminal conspiracy, targeting agreements or arrangements between
individuals to commit an offence, irrespective of whether the offence is actually carried out.In summary,
while Sections 34, 109, and 120B of the IPC each address different aspects of criminal liability (joint
liability, abetment, and conspiracy respectively), they collectively cover various scenarios and forms of
participation in criminal acts under Indian law. Each section serves distinct purposes and applies to
different modes of involvement in criminal activities.

Section 34 and Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in light of the landmark case of Barendra
Kumar Ghose v. King Emperor (AIR 1925 PC 1).

1. Section 34:
○ Objective: Section 34 deals with the concept of common intention.
○ Essence: When several persons commit a criminal act in furtherance of a common
intention, each person is liable for that act as if they had done it individually.
○ Requirement: The act must result from a pre-arranged plan where all participants share
a common intention.
○ Liability: All participants are equally responsible for the outcome, regardless of whether
they are principals in the first or second degree.
○ Unity of Criminal Behavior: Section 34 treats the collective actions as a unity of
criminal behavior, attributing liability to each participant as if they acted alone.
2. Section 149:
○ Objective: Section 149 pertains to acts committed by any member of an unlawful
assembly in pursuit of the assembly’s common object.
○ Essence: An unlawful assembly involves five or more persons with a shared common
object.
○ Liability: Any member of the unlawful assembly is liable for acts committed during the
assembly’s course, even if their individual intentions differ.
 ○ Collective Responsibility: Section 149 assigns vicarious liability based on membership
in the assembly.
○ Distinction: Unlike Section 34, Section 149 does not require a pre-arranged plan; it
focuses on the collective purpose of the assembly.

criminal conspiracy

1.Topandas v. State of Bombay (1955):

○ In this case, the accused faced charges related to a criminal conspiracy.

○ The prosecution needed to prove the existence of the conspiracy beyond a reasonable
doubt.
○ Mere suspicion of a conspiracy was insufficient; concrete evidence was required.
○ The court emphasized that the mere presence of conspiracy among the defendants,
regardless of whether the victim was falsely indicted or acquitted, constitutes the gist of
the offence.
○ The accused were charged under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) 123.
2. Kehar Singh & Ors v. State (Delhi Admn.) (1988):
○ In this case, the court dealt with the concept of criminal conspiracy.
○ The prosecution must establish that the accused intentionally aided the commission of an
illegal act.
○ The intention behind the abettor’s actions is crucial for proving conspiracy.
○ The accused were charged under Section 120-B of the IPC 4.
3. State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini:
○ This case is related to the assassination of Rajiv Gandhi.
○ Nalini, one of the conspirators, was convicted for her role in the conspiracy.
○ The court considered her involvement in the plot to assassinate the former Prime
Minister.
○ The case highlighted the importance of proving the existence of a conspiracy and
individual roles within it.

In summary, criminal conspiracy involves an agreement between two or more persons to commit an
illegal act. The prosecution must establish intent, active participation, and a pre-arranged plan. These
cases emphasize the significance of concrete evidence in proving conspiracy 1234.