Mobarak Ali v.

State of Bombay (1975)

In the case of Mobarak Ali v. State of Bombay (1975) the Supreme Court had
observed that the presence of an accused in the Indian territory at the time the
offense had been committed, would not be an essential ingredient for the
person to be charged under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

In this present case, the Apex Court convicted the petitioner on the grounds
that the jurisdiction under Section 2 was the locality where the offense had
been committed, and the corporal presence of the accused in India stood
immaterial.

Chirangi v. the State of M.P., (1952) 53 CrLJ 1212 (M.P.)

In this case, a widower holding axe accompanied by his son, went to the
woods to gather ‘siadi’ leaves. After some time, his nephew discovered that
the accused was sleeping under the tree and the child was missing.

Later the child was found dead. It was transpired in evidence that the accused
at the time was seized of the state of mind in which he visualized that a tiger
was going to attack him as by mistake he killed his son considering his son as
the tiger.

The court stated that it was a mistake of fact that immunized him from
liability. He had no intention to kill his son.

State of Orrisa v. Khora Ghasi

The accused while guarding his field shot an arrow at the moving object in
good faith that it was a bear, but the shot resulted in the death of a person.
Here, he gets immunity under the mistake of fact.

Regina V. Dudley and Stephens (1884)

In this case, Thomas Dudley and Edwin Stephens were the defendants. The
said defendants and a cabin boy named Richard Parker were cast adrift in a
boat without food and water due to a shipwreck.

Later, on the eighteenth day, when the three of them had been without
food for seven days and without water for five days, Dudley proposed to
Stephen that one should be put to death to save the rest.

Accordingly, they decided that it would be better to kill Parker so that they
could save their own lives. Dudley and Stephens killed Parker on
the twentieth day and fed on his flesh for four days. Later, a vessel rescued
them and they were charged with committing the murder of Richard Parker.
The Court held that killing an innocent person in order to save one’s own life
does not justify murder, even if it was committed under extreme
circumstances such as hunger. Consequently, the defendants were initially
sentenced to death, but the sentence was later reduced to six months of
imprisonment.

M ‘Naughten’s Case

• If the person knew what he was doing or was only under a partial
delusion, then he is punishable.
• There is an assumption that every man is prudent or sane and knows
what he is doing and is responsible for the same.
• To establish a defense based on insanity, it must be ascertained that, at
the time of perpetrating the act, the accused was in such a state of
mind that they were unable to know the nature of the act committed by
them.
• A person who has sufficient medical knowledge, or is a medical man
and is familiar with the disease of insanity cannot be asked to give his
opinion because it is for the jury to determine, and decide upon the
questions.
Basdev vs State of Pepsu, 1956

The law of dominance has been very briefly summarised. The appellant
Basdev of the village Harigarh was a retired military jamadar, who was
charged with the murder of a young boy named Magarh Singh (15 or 16 years
old).

The two of them and others of the same village went to attend a wedding and
to take the mid-day meal; some had settled down in their seats and some had
not.

The appellant asked Magar Singh, the young boy to step aside a little so that
he could occupy a convenient seat but Magar Singh did not move in a fit of
anger, the appellant whipped out a pistol and shot the boy in the abdomen.
The injury proved fatal.

Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor, 1925

Two people demanded money from a postman as he was counting

the money, and when they shot a handgun at the postmaster, he died on the
spot. All of the suspects fled without taking any money.

In this instance, Barendra Kumar claimed that he did not shoot the gun and
was only standing by, but the courts rejected his appeal and found him guilty
of murder under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The Court further held that it is not required that all participants participate
equally. It is possible to accomplish more or less. However, this does not
mean that the individual who did less should be exempt from blame. His Legal
responsibility is the same.

Topandas v. State of Bombay (1955) SC

In this case, the appellant and three others were charged with the
offense under Section 1208 read with Sections 471 and 420 I.P.C. for
conspiracy to use forged documents. The Trial Court acquitted all the
accused, but the High Court, in appeal, reversed the appellant’s acquittal and
convicted him for the substantive offense and criminal conspiracy.

In the appeal, the Supreme Court held that it is a matter of common sense
that one person alone can never be held guilty of criminal conspiracy for the
simple reason that he cannot conspire. It was held that the appellant could not
be convicted under Section 120B when his alleged co-conspirators were
acquitted of that offense.

When all the alleged co-conspirators have been acquitted, the accused alone
cannot be held guilty of conspiracy unless it can be proved that he conspired
to commit an offense not only with the co-accused but with some third
person(s) who has not been tired, because he is minor or is absconding.

Dharam Pal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (4) that;

“Where only five named persons have been charged for constituting an
unlawful assembly, and one or more of them are acquitted, the remaining
accused (who are less than five) cannot be convicted as members of unlawful
assembly, unless it is proved that the unlawful assembly, besides convicted
persons consisted of some other persons as well who were not identified and
so could not be named.”

Virsa Singh vs. State of Punjab

• First, it should establish, fairly objectively, that a physical injury exists.

• Second, the nature of the injury has to be proved. These are purely
objective investigations.
• Third, it must be proved that that particular bodily injury was intended to
inflame, that is to say, it was not accidental or unintentional, or that any
other type of injury was intended. Once these three elements are proven
to exist, the investigation proceeds.
• Fourth, it must be proved that the type of inquiry made by the above
three elements stated above is enough to cause death in the ordinary
 course of nature. This part of the investigation is purely objective and
impractical and has nothing to do with the intent of the criminal.
Priya Patel v. State of Madhya Pradesh

• A woman can never be held guilty of committing Gang Rape.

• She can never form an intention to commit rape. Thus, she can never be
held liable for committing gang rape.
Suneeta Pandey v. State of UP

The Allahabad High Court recently held that although a woman cannot
commit the offense of rape, if she facilitates the act of gang-rape of any
woman by a group of people, then she may be prosecuted for the offense as
per the amended provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Pyare Lal Bhargav v. State of Rajasthan

Even a temporary wrongful gain or wrongful loss comes within the purview of
the offense of theft.

Dhananjoy v. Provat Chandra Biswas

The subject matter of the offense of Criminal Trespass is both movable and
immovable property.

Navtej Johar and ors. V. Union of India

The Supreme Court decriminalized consensual unnatural sexual

intercourse (Section 377).

Sherras V. De Rutzen

There is a presumption that means rea is essential for every offense. But this
presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute
creating offense or by the subject matter with which it deals

Bachan Singh V. State of Punjab AIR 1980 SC

Supreme Court held that the death sentence should not be passed except in
rarest of the rare case.

Mahbooh Shah V Emperor (Indus River Case) AIR 1945 PC 118

The court held that common intention implies a pre-arranged plan a prior
meeting of minds or prior consultation between all persons constituting the
group. The laid down the following principle under Section 34:

• Essence of liability under Section 34 is found in common intention.

 • To invoke Sanction 34 it must be shown that act was done in
furtherance of common intention.
• Common intention implies pre-arranged plan and it must be proved that
a criminal act was done in concern pursuant to a pre-arranged plan.
• For the intention to be common it must be known to all members and
must also be shared by them.
Rishidev Pandey V. State of U.P. AIR 1955 SC 331

Supreme Court held that common intention can develop on the spot also
during the course of the commission of the office.

Pandurang V. State of Hyderabad AIR 1955 SC 216

Supreme Court differentiated between similar intention and common

intention. The court held that several persons can simultaneously attack a
man and each can have the same intention, namely the intention to kill, and
each can individually inflict a separate fatal blow and yet none would have the
common intention required by the specific section because there was no prior
meeting of minds to form a pre-arranged plan.

Read more: IPC – Most Important Cases

Director of Public Prosecutions V. Beard. (1920) AC 479

• The House of Lords laid down three rules regarding drunkenness

• Insanity, whether produced by drunkenness or otherwise is a defense to
the crime charged.
• Evidence of drunkenness that renders the accused incapable of forming
the specific intent essential to constitute the crime should be taken into
consideration with the other facts proved in order to determine whether
or not he had the intent.
• Evidence of drunkenness falling short of a proved. Incapacity in the
accused to form the intent necessary to constitute the crime and merely
establishing that his mind was affected by drink so that he more readily
way to come violent passion, does not rebut the presumption that man
intends that natural consequences of his acts.
Dominic Varkey V. State of Kerala AIR 1971 SC 1208

• The Right to Private Defence rests on three ideas.

• That there must be no more harm inflicted than necessary for the
purpose of the defense.
• There must be reasonable apprehension of danger to the body from the
attempt or threat to commit the offense.
• The right does not commence until there is a reasonable apprehension.
Abhayanand Mishra V. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 1698
 • Supreme Court held that a person commits the offense of attempt when
• He intends to commit that offense;
• Having made preparations and with the intention to commit the offense
does an act towards its commission;
• Such an act need not be a penultimate act towards the commission of
offense but must be an act during the course of committing the
offense.
State of Maharashtra V. Mohd. Yakub, AIR 1980 SC 1111

The Supreme Court held that to constitute an offense, some action must be
taken towards its commission, and such act must be ‘proximate’ to
the intended result.

Proximity need not be in relation to time and action but in relation to intention.

R.S. Nayak V. A.R. Antulay and Anr., 1986 Cri 1J J 922 (SC)

Supreme Court held that for an offense of extortion, fear or threat must be
used. There can be no extortion without fear.

R.K Dalmia V. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821

The words of Section 405 are wide enough to include the case of a partner if it
is proved that he was in fact entrusted with the partnership property, or with a
dominion over it, and had dishonestly misappropriated it or converted it to his
own will.

State of Tamil Nadu V. Nalini 1999 Cri. LJ 3124 (SC)

Supreme Court held that association of the accused with the main accused or
knowledge of conspiracy would not make the accused a circumstance
agreement is a sine qua none for the offense.

Kedar Nath V. State AIR 1962 SC 955

Supreme Court held that Section 124-A does not violate Article 19 (1) (a) of
the Constitution as it is a reasonable restriction.

K M Nanavati V. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605

Supreme Court observed that if an accused pleads exceptions contained

in Indian Penal Code then there is a presumption against him and
the burden to rebut that presumption is on him.

Jacob Mathew V. State of Punjab 2005 Cri LJ 3710 (SC)

The word ‘Gross’ has not been used in Section 304A, but it is settled that
in criminal law, negligence must be of such a high degree as to be gross. The
phrase ‘rash and negligent act’ is to be qualified by the word ‘gross’ to
determine the level of negligence required under the law.

Om Prakash V. State of Punjab. AIR 1961 SC 1782

A person commits an offense with the intention to murder and in pursuance of

such intention does an act towards its commission, he will be liable
to attempt murder. It is not necessary that bodily injury capable of causing
death should have been caused.

Vardarajan V. State of Madras, AIR 1962 SC 942

The Supreme Court said that there is a distinction between ‘taking’ and
‘allowing’ a minor to accompany any person. To establish this distinction, the
prosecution must demonstrate some form of inducement or active
participation of the accused in taking the person.

T.D Vadgama, V. State of Gujarat AIR, 1973 SC 2313

Supreme Court held that the word ‘entice’ seems to involve the idea of
inducement or allurement by giving rise to or desire on the other.

Independent Thought V. Union Of India (2007) 10 SCC 800

Supreme Court read down Exception 2 of Section 375 court held that sexual
intercourse with a wife below the age of 18 years constitutes rape. After the
decision of the Supreme Court in this case, we should read ‘Exception 2 of
Section 375‘ as eighteen years instead of fifteen years.