indian penal code in india

LAW OF CRIMESLAW OF CRIMES

ByBy

Dr.P.R.L.RAJAVENKATESANDr.P.R.L.RAJAVENKATESAN

Assistant Professor(Senior)Assistant Professor(Senior)

VIT Law SchoolVIT Law School

ChennaiChennai

INDIAN PENAL CODEINDIAN PENAL CODE

Sec.1. Title and extent of operation of the CodeSec.1. Title and extent of operation of the Code Sec.2.Punishment of offences committed within Sec.2.Punishment of offences committed within

IndiaIndia Mobarak Ali v. State of Bombay,AIR 1957 SC Mobarak Ali v. State of Bombay,AIR 1957 SC

857857 Pakistani citizen staying at karachi made flase Pakistani citizen staying at karachi made flase

representation and instructed to give money to representation and instructed to give money to his agents for the purpose of importing to his agents for the purpose of importing to India . Actually rice did not supplied.India . Actually rice did not supplied.


Art.361 of the Constitution of IndiaArt.361 of the Constitution of India “ “no criminal proceedings shall be instituted no criminal proceedings shall be instituted

against the president or governor of a state , in against the president or governor of a state , in any court during his term of office”any court during his term of office”

Statham v. Statham and the Gaekwad of Statham v. Statham and the Gaekwad of Baroda,(1912) IA 92. Baroda,(1912) IA 92.

head of the state enjoyed all the attributes of head of the state enjoyed all the attributes of sovereignty and so could not be prosecuted on sovereignty and so could not be prosecuted on criminal charge of adultery. criminal charge of adultery.


Section.3.Punishment of offences committed Section.3.Punishment of offences committed beyond, but which by law may be tried within beyond, but which by law may be tried within ,India. Extra territorial operation of the code.,India. Extra territorial operation of the code.

Sec.4.Extension of the code to extra territorial Sec.4.Extension of the code to extra territorial jurisdictionjurisdiction

Admiralty JurisdictionAdmiralty Jurisdiction

Indian Penal CodeIndian Penal Code Sec.5.Certain Laws not to be affected by this Sec.5.Certain Laws not to be affected by this

Act.Act. Punishing mutiny and desertion of Punishing mutiny and desertion of

officers,soldiers,sailors or airman in the service officers,soldiers,sailors or airman in the service of the government of india or the provision of of the government of india or the provision of any special or local law. any special or local law.

Special law-Applicable to a particular part of Special law-Applicable to a particular part of indiaindia

Local law-Particular part of indiaLocal law-Particular part of india Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes ActMaharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act

General ExplanationsGeneral Explanations

Sec.19.Judge: Person who is officially Sec.19.Judge: Person who is officially designated as judge,designated as judge,

JudgementJudgement CollectorCollector MagistrateMagistrate Member of PanchayatMember of Panchayat A magistrate exercising jurisdiction in respect of A magistrate exercising jurisdiction in respect of

a charge on which he has power only to commit a charge on which he has power only to commit for trail to another court , is not a judgefor trail to another court , is not a judge


Abboy Naidu v Kannianppa Chettiar ,AIR 1929 Abboy Naidu v Kannianppa Chettiar ,AIR 1929 Mad 175.Mad 175.

The Madras High Court has defined the term The Madras High Court has defined the term ‘legal proceeding’ as a proceeding regulated or ‘legal proceeding’ as a proceeding regulated or prescribed by law in which a judicial decision is prescribed by law in which a judicial decision is accorded.accorded.

General ExplanationsGeneral Explanations Sec.20. “Court of Justice”Sec.20. “Court of Justice” Denote a judge who is empowered by law to act Denote a judge who is empowered by law to act

judicially alone, or a body of judges which is judicially alone, or a body of judges which is empowered by law to act judicially as a body, when empowered by law to act judicially as a body, when such judge or body of judges is acting judicially.such judge or body of judges is acting judicially.

King palaceKing palace Court means a place where justice is judicially Court means a place where justice is judicially

administeredadministered When a judge is merely performing administrative When a judge is merely performing administrative

function he is not a court of justicefunction he is not a court of justice


Section.22. “Movable property”Section.22. “Movable property” The word movable property are intended to The word movable property are intended to

include corporeal property of every description , include corporeal property of every description , except land and things attached to the earth or except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is permanently fastened to anything which is attached to earth.attached to earth.


Sec.23. “Wrongful gain” is gain by unlawful Sec.23. “Wrongful gain” is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled.is not legally entitled.

“ “Wrongful loss” is the loss by unlawful means Wrongful loss” is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.legally entitled.

General ExplanationGeneral Explanation


Sec.24.Dishonestly- Whoever does anything Sec.24.Dishonestly- Whoever does anything with the intention of with the intention of causing wrongful gain causing wrongful gain to to one person or one person or wrongful loss to another personwrongful loss to another person, , is said to do that thing “dishonestly”.is said to do that thing “dishonestly”.


Sec.25. Fraudulently- A person is said to do a Sec.25. Fraudulently- A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to intent to defrauddefraud but not otherwise. but not otherwise.

There can be no fraud unless there was an There can be no fraud unless there was an intention to intention to defraud.defraud.

Dr.Vimala v. Delhi AdministrationDr.Vimala v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 , AIR 1963 SC 1572SC 1572

Defraud involves two elements, namely,deceit Defraud involves two elements, namely,deceit and injury.and injury.

General ExplanationGeneral Explanation Dr.S.Dutt v. State of Uttar PradeshDr.S.Dutt v. State of Uttar Pradesh,1966 Cr LJ ,1966 Cr LJ

459 (SC)459 (SC) The supreme court said that a person is said to The supreme court said that a person is said to

do a thing do a thing fraudulently fraudulently , if he does that thing , if he does that thing with intent to defraud and not otherwise.with intent to defraud and not otherwise.

Secs.242-43-counterfeit coinsSecs.242-43-counterfeit coins Secs.463 to 464: Offences relating to Secs.463 to 464: Offences relating to

Documents and property marks including Documents and property marks including electronic records.electronic records.

PRINCIPLES OF PENAL LAWPRINCIPLES OF PENAL LAW

Nulla Poena Sine Lege-No Nulla Poena Sine Lege-No Penalty(Punishment) without law.Penalty(Punishment) without law.

Nullum Crimen Sine Lege-No crime without Nullum Crimen Sine Lege-No crime without law.law.

Mens Rea-Guilty Mind.Mens Rea-Guilty Mind. Intentionally,volutarily ,willfully , KnowinglyIntentionally,volutarily ,willfully , Knowingly Ravule Hariprasada Rao v.StateRavule Hariprasada Rao v.State,(1951) SCR 322.,(1951) SCR 322. Men’s Rea-NecessaryMen’s Rea-Necessary

PRINCIPLES OF PENAL LAWPRINCIPLES OF PENAL LAW

Ranjit D Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra,Ranjit D Udeshi v. State of Maharashtra,AIR AIR 1965 SC 881.1965 SC 881.

Person prosecuted under section 292 of IPCPerson prosecuted under section 292 of IPC Selling a book by the name Lady Chatterley’s Selling a book by the name Lady Chatterley’s

Lover Lover Men’s reaMen’s rea

IntentionIntention

Intention is the state of mindIntention is the state of mind Wrongdoer intent to commit actWrongdoer intent to commit act Sec.39. Sec.39. “Voluntarily”- “Voluntarily”- A person is said to cause A person is said to cause

an effect “voluntarily” when he causes it by an effect “voluntarily” when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it , or by means whereby he intended to cause it , or by means which, at the time of employing those means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it.likely to cause it.

MOTIVEMOTIVE Motive means ulterior intent or inner drive Motive means ulterior intent or inner drive

which signifies the reason for a man’s conduct.which signifies the reason for a man’s conduct. Chief moving force and moves the man Chief moving force and moves the man

towards a particular actiontowards a particular action Motive of the person doing the act is Motive of the person doing the act is

immaterial.immaterial. if it is lawful act, ill motive might be, he has if it is lawful act, ill motive might be, he has

right to do it. If its an unlawful act, however right to do it. If its an unlawful act, however good motive might be, he would have no right good motive might be, he would have no right to do it. Motive and intention in such a to do it. Motive and intention in such a question is absolutely irrelevantquestion is absolutely irrelevant

Intention and MotiveIntention and Motive

Sec.298 of the IPC Sec.298 of the IPC Uttering of words or making gestures or Uttering of words or making gestures or

exhibitions with deliberate intent to wound the exhibitions with deliberate intent to wound the religious feeling punishablereligious feeling punishable. The words . The words deliberate intention mean deliberate intention mean premeditated intentionpremeditated intention to wound the religious feelings.to wound the religious feelings.

Intention is the Intention is the aim of the actaim of the act.. Motive is the Motive is the reason for the action.reason for the action.

KNOWLEDGEKNOWLEDGE

Knowledge is an awareness of the Knowledge is an awareness of the consequences of the act.consequences of the act.

Jai Prakash v Delhi Administration Jai Prakash v Delhi Administration (1991) 2 (1991) 2 SCC 32,1991 (1) SCALE 114.SCC 32,1991 (1) SCALE 114.

Knowledge is premised on knowledge of the Knowledge is premised on knowledge of the facts and circumstances and the effects of one’s facts and circumstances and the effects of one’s conduct.conduct.

NegligenceNegligence

Mens rea is not a unitary concept.Mens rea is not a unitary concept. A person is negligent if he fails to exercise such A person is negligent if he fails to exercise such

care ,skill or foresight as a reasonable man in his care ,skill or foresight as a reasonable man in his situation would exercise.situation would exercise.

Strictly speaking negligence may not be a form Strictly speaking negligence may not be a form of mens rea.of mens rea.

TADATADA

State of Tamil Nadu v Nalini State of Tamil Nadu v Nalini AIR 1999 SC AIR 1999 SC 26402640

Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) ActAct,1987,1987

There was no evidence to establish that it was There was no evidence to establish that it was the intention of the accused to strike terror.the intention of the accused to strike terror.

Burden of ProofBurden of Proof Every person accused of a crime is presumed Every person accused of a crime is presumed

to be innocent , unless and until proved guilty by to be innocent , unless and until proved guilty by the prosecution.the prosecution.

Mens rea is an exception with regard to public Mens rea is an exception with regard to public welfare legislation.welfare legislation.

SC and STSC and ST Nathulal v State of Madhya Pradesh Nathulal v State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1966 AIR 1966

SC 43SC 43 Mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal Mens rea is an essential ingredient of a criminal

offence…(U)nless the statute expressly or by offence…(U)nless the statute expressly or by necessary implication excluded mens rea.necessary implication excluded mens rea.


Sec.26.Reason to believe- A person is said to Sec.26.Reason to believe- A person is said to have reason to believe a thing, if he has have reason to believe a thing, if he has sufficient cause to believe that thing but not sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise.otherwise.

Sec.28.CounterfeitSec.28.Counterfeit Causing one thing to resemble to another thingCausing one thing to resemble to another thing Sec.29.DocumentSec.29.Document Cheque, Power of attorney Cheque, Power of attorney direction and instructiondirection and instruction


Sec.29 A. Electronic record.Sec.29 A. Electronic record. Sec.30.Valuable security-passport,bank accountsSec.30.Valuable security-passport,bank accounts lottery ticketlottery ticket Sec.31.willSec.31.will

General ExplanationGeneral Explanation Sec.34. Sec.34. Acts done by several persons in furtherance of Acts done by several persons in furtherance of

common intention. common intention. – When a criminal act is done by – When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all , each of such persons is liable for that act in the of all , each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as same manner as if it were done by him alone. if it were done by him alone.

Sec.120 A and 121 A- Charged of a criminal conspiracySec.120 A and 121 A- Charged of a criminal conspiracy Sec.396.Commission of dacoity commit murder.Sec.396.Commission of dacoity commit murder. Sec.460. Where persons are jointly concerned in Sec.460. Where persons are jointly concerned in

committing the offence of lurking house-tresspass or committing the offence of lurking house-tresspass or house breaking by night.house breaking by night.


Reg v. Cruse Reg v. Cruse 1838 C& P 5411838 C& P 541 A police constable along with his assistants A police constable along with his assistants

went to A’s house in order to arrest him.went to A’s house in order to arrest him. Group attacked Group attacked

Case LawCase Law

Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor AIR AIR 1925 PC 11925 PC 1

The accused was the only person apprehended The accused was the only person apprehended for the murder of the Postmaster of for the murder of the Postmaster of Shankaritola Post Office on 3 August 1923. On Shankaritola Post Office on 3 August 1923. On that day, several person appeared at the door of that day, several person appeared at the door of the backroom of the Post Office where the post the backroom of the Post Office where the post master was counting his money and demanded master was counting his money and demanded the money. They fired pistols at him and he died the money. They fired pistols at him and he died almost immediately. almost immediately.

Case LawCase Law Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor AIR AIR

1925 PC 11925 PC 1 While all the accused fled the place without While all the accused fled the place without

taking any money, the accused,Barendra Kumar, taking any money, the accused,Barendra Kumar, alone was chased and caught by the Post Office alone was chased and caught by the Post Office Assistants with a pistol in Hand. It was his Assistants with a pistol in Hand. It was his defense that he was only standing guard outside defense that he was only standing guard outside the Post Office, and that he was actually the Post Office, and that he was actually compelled to stand so by the other accused and compelled to stand so by the other accused and thus he did not have the intention to kill the thus he did not have the intention to kill the Postmaster. His conviction was confirmed. Postmaster. His conviction was confirmed.

General ExplanationGeneral Explanation Mahboob Shah v. Emperor Mahboob Shah v. Emperor AIR 1945 PC 118.AIR 1945 PC 118. Allah Dad , the deceased , and a few others Allah Dad , the deceased , and a few others

were going to the Indus river in a native boat to were going to the Indus river in a native boat to cut and collect reeds on the banks of the river. cut and collect reeds on the banks of the river. When they had travelled a mile downstream , When they had travelled a mile downstream , they saw mohammad shah and shah warned they saw mohammad shah and shah warned them collecting reeds from land belonging to them collecting reeds from land belonging to them.them.

Trial court -7 yearsTrial court -7 years Lahore High Court-convicted for murderLahore High Court-convicted for murder Privy Council-No pre arranged plan.Privy Council-No pre arranged plan.

COMMON INTENTIONCOMMON INTENTION

The Common intention should be shown to be The Common intention should be shown to be premeditated.premeditated.

Proof of common intention will rarely be Proof of common intention will rarely be availableavailable directly. It has to be directly. It has to be culled out culled out from from the facts and circumstances of the case.the facts and circumstances of the case.

Unless common intention is proved, individual Unless common intention is proved, individual offenders will be liable only for their individual offenders will be liable only for their individual acts.acts.


Kripal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh Kripal Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1954 AIR 1954 SC 706SC 706

The Supreme Court held that a common The Supreme Court held that a common intention may develop on the spot after the intention may develop on the spot after the offender have gathered there. A previous plan is offender have gathered there. A previous plan is not necessary. Common intention can be not necessary. Common intention can be inferred from the inferred from the conduct of the accused conduct of the accused and and the circumstances of the case.the circumstances of the case.


Sheoram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh Sheoram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR AIR 1972 SC 25551972 SC 2555

The supreme court held that common intention The supreme court held that common intention may develop suddenly during the course of an may develop suddenly during the course of an occurrence , but still unless there is occurrence , but still unless there is cogent cogent evidenceevidence and clear proof of such common and clear proof of such common intention , an accused cannot be vicariously held intention , an accused cannot be vicariously held guilty under section 34 of IPC.guilty under section 34 of IPC.

Case LawCase Law

Nadodi Jayaraman v. State of Tamil NaduNadodi Jayaraman v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR , AIR 1993 SC 7771993 SC 777

The SC held that in cases where large number The SC held that in cases where large number of persons are involved and in the commotion, of persons are involved and in the commotion, injuries were caused to the prosecution injuries were caused to the prosecution witnesses , it becomes the duty of the court to witnesses , it becomes the duty of the court to determine the common intention which could determine the common intention which could be attributed to those accused who stand be attributed to those accused who stand convicted , where some of the co-accused are convicted , where some of the co-accused are acquired.acquired.

Case LawCase Law Nadodi Jayaraman v. State of Tamil NaduNadodi Jayaraman v. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR , AIR

1993 SC 7771993 SC 777 In this regard nature of the weapon used, the In this regard nature of the weapon used, the

nature of the incident, the background to the nature of the incident, the background to the incident should be properly considered to help incident should be properly considered to help determine common intention.determine common intention.

The common intention had not been The common intention had not been established beyond doubt and Five of the co-established beyond doubt and Five of the co-accused had been acquitted.accused had been acquitted.

Below 2 person-No common intention.Below 2 person-No common intention.

VICARIOUS LIABILITYVICARIOUS LIABILITY

Liabilities for the offences done by othersLiabilities for the offences done by others The Protection of Civil Rights Act,1955The Protection of Civil Rights Act,1955 The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.(Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. Provide for collective fines.Provide for collective fines. Libel-PublicationLibel-Publication Nuisance committed by his servantNuisance committed by his servant Qui facit per alium facit per se-Qui facit per alium facit per se-(he who acts (he who acts

through another acts through himself)through another acts through himself)

Liability under StatuteLiability under Statute Sarjoo Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh Sarjoo Prasad v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR AIR

1961 SC 6311961 SC 631 The Appellant who was an employee , was The Appellant who was an employee , was

convicted under the Prevention of Food convicted under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act 1954 for the master in selling Adulteration Act 1954 for the master in selling adulterated oil.adulterated oil.

Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat & Ors Maksud Saiyed v. State of Gujarat & Ors (2008) (2008) 5 SCC 668.5 SCC 668.

No person can be vicariously liable if a No person can be vicariously liable if a provision to this effect does not exist in the provision to this effect does not exist in the statute concerned.statute concerned.

Licensees Licensees Emperor v. Mahadevappa Hanmantappa Emperor v. Mahadevappa Hanmantappa AIR AIR

1927 Bom 2091927 Bom 209 Accused held a licence under the Indian Accused held a licence under the Indian

Explosives Act 1884 to manufacture Explosives Act 1884 to manufacture gunpowder. gunpowder.

Servant manufactured partly in house. Servant manufactured partly in house. The accused was held liable for the same, in The accused was held liable for the same, in

view of the fact that what the servant did was in view of the fact that what the servant did was in furtherance of her master’s business and not in furtherance of her master’s business and not in pursuance of any pursuance of any purpose of her own.purpose of her own.

RIOTRIOT

Secs.154 and 155 of the Indian Penal CodeSecs.154 and 155 of the Indian Penal Code Sec.154- whenever any unlawful assembly or Sec.154- whenever any unlawful assembly or

riot takes place in the land of any person , the riot takes place in the land of any person , the owner or occupier of the land, or any person owner or occupier of the land, or any person having or having or claiming any interest in the land claiming any interest in the land is is criminally liable.criminally liable.

Owner liable in case of fail to use all lawful Owner liable in case of fail to use all lawful means to prevent ,disperse or suppress the riot means to prevent ,disperse or suppress the riot or unlawfully assembly.or unlawfully assembly.

One thousand rupees as fineOne thousand rupees as fine

RIOT RIOT Sec.155 – Person who has derived any benefit Sec.155 – Person who has derived any benefit

from the riots or for whose benefit it has been from the riots or for whose benefit it has been carried out, is made carried out, is made criminally liablecriminally liable..

Punishment is left to decision of the court and Punishment is left to decision of the court and fine depending on the facts and circumstances fine depending on the facts and circumstances of the case in question.of the case in question.

Respondent Superior- Master criminally liable Respondent Superior- Master criminally liable for the act or omission of his servant.for the act or omission of his servant.

The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954The Prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 The Standards of Weights and Measures Act The Standards of Weights and Measures Act

19561956 Master liable even without mens rea.Master liable even without mens rea.

CorporationCorporation

General rule corporation can not be prosecuted.General rule corporation can not be prosecuted. Now-Board of Directors are the Now-Board of Directors are the brains of the brains of the

company company which is the body , and the company which is the body , and the company can and does act only through them.can and does act only through them.

The person who was directing mind and will of The person who was directing mind and will of corporation can be held liable.corporation can be held liable.

State of Maharashtra v. Syndicate Transport State of Maharashtra v. Syndicate Transport Company Ltd AIR 194 Bom 195.Company Ltd AIR 194 Bom 195.

CorporationCorporation The Essential Commodities Act,1955The Essential Commodities Act,1955 The prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954The prevention of Food Adulteration Act,1954 The Negotiable Instruments Act,1881The Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 The Environment (Protection) Act,1986The Environment (Protection) Act,1986 Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board v. Modi Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board v. Modi

DistilleryDistillery , AIR 1988 SC 1128. , AIR 1988 SC 1128. Accused has to prove that the offence was Accused has to prove that the offence was

committed without his knowledge or that he committed without his knowledge or that he exercised exercised due diligence due diligence to prevent the to prevent the commission of the offence.commission of the offence.

Strict LiabilityStrict Liability Mens rea applies to all criminal offences is Mens rea applies to all criminal offences is

subject to certain exceptions.subject to certain exceptions. Social and economic offences, offences relating Social and economic offences, offences relating

to to food and drugs, weights and measuresfood and drugs, weights and measures.. Public Nuisance, libel and contempt of courtPublic Nuisance, libel and contempt of court cases of violations of municipal laws and cases of violations of municipal laws and

regulations.regulations. Professor Jerome Hall has preferred to call Professor Jerome Hall has preferred to call

strict liability offences as offences relating to strict liability offences as offences relating to economic law economic law or administrative regulations , or administrative regulations , instead of penal offences.instead of penal offences.

There are certain wrongs that may fall under the There are certain wrongs that may fall under the category of tort as well as crime, such as category of tort as well as crime, such as deceit,trespass,maliciousprosecution,defamation,deceit,trespass,maliciousprosecution,defamation,nuisance etcnuisance etc

Doctrine of Double JeopardyDoctrine of Double Jeopardy Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of Sangeetaben Mahendrabhai Patel v. State of

GujaratGujarat AIR 2012 SC 2844 AIR 2012 SC 2844 Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881Sec.138 of Negotiable Instruments Act,1881 Secs.406 and 420 read with section 114 of IPCSecs.406 and 420 read with section 114 of IPC Sec.114. Abettor present when offence is Sec.114. Abettor present when offence is

committed.committed.

Joint LiabilityJoint Liability

A crime may be committed by an individual or A crime may be committed by an individual or in collaboration with others.in collaboration with others.

English Law- 1.Principle in the First DegreeEnglish Law- 1.Principle in the First Degree 2.Principal in the Second Degree 2.Principal in the Second Degree 3.Accessory Before the fact(Commission of 3.Accessory Before the fact(Commission of

Crime)Crime) 4. Accessory after the fact4. Accessory after the fact


An abettor is a person who directly or indirectly An abettor is a person who directly or indirectly aids,assists,counsels,procures or encourages aids,assists,counsels,procures or encourages another to commit a crime.another to commit a crime.

The Indian Penal Code 1860.ss. The Indian Penal Code 1860.ss. 130,136,157,201,212 and 216.130,136,157,201,212 and 216.

The IPC has made aiding escape of, rescuing or The IPC has made aiding escape of, rescuing or harboring an offender, a deserter etc,punishable.harboring an offender, a deserter etc,punishable.

Joint LiabilityJoint Liability Sec.130- Aiding escape of, rescuing or harbouring such Sec.130- Aiding escape of, rescuing or harbouring such

prisoner. prisoner. Sec.136.Harbouring deserter-Harbouring soldierSec.136.Harbouring deserter-Harbouring soldier It is not applicable to the cases where the harbour is It is not applicable to the cases where the harbour is

given by a wife to her husband.given by a wife to her husband. Sec.157.Harbouring persons hired for an unlawful Sec.157.Harbouring persons hired for an unlawful

assemblyassembly Sec.201. Causing disappearance of evidence of Sec.201. Causing disappearance of evidence of

offence , or giving false information to screen offender.offence , or giving false information to screen offender. Sec.212.Harbouring offender- Sec.52.A.Harbour.Not Sec.212.Harbouring offender- Sec.52.A.Harbour.Not

only hiding but food, clothing and other amenities.only hiding but food, clothing and other amenities. Sec.216.Harbouring offender who has escaped from Sec.216.Harbouring offender who has escaped from

custody or whose apprehension has been ordered.custody or whose apprehension has been ordered.


Sections. 34 to 38 of IPC- Where the offence is Sections. 34 to 38 of IPC- Where the offence is committed with the common intention of the committed with the common intention of the group.group.

Sections.120 A and 120 B-Where the accused is Sections.120 A and 120 B-Where the accused is a member of a conspiracy to commit an offence.a member of a conspiracy to commit an offence.

Section.149.Where the offence is committed Section.149.Where the offence is committed with the common object of an unlawful with the common object of an unlawful assembly.assembly.

PUNISHMENTPUNISHMENT

Sanction imposed on an accused by a court of Sanction imposed on an accused by a court of law for violation of the rules and regulations of law for violation of the rules and regulations of society according to norms and established society according to norms and established procedures of law.procedures of law.

CHAPTER-III of the Indian Penal Code 1860 CHAPTER-III of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (ss 53 to 75) has laid down the general (ss 53 to 75) has laid down the general provisions relating to the provisions relating to the punishments.punishments.

FIVE TYPES OF FIVE TYPES OF PUNISHMENTS PUNISHMENTS

Death Sentence-(Judicial Murder & Judge Death Sentence-(Judicial Murder & Judge Centric)Centric)

Imprisonment for LifeImprisonment for Life Imprisonment with or without hard labourImprisonment with or without hard labour Forfeiture of PropertyForfeiture of Property FineFine Sec.64 of IPC. Fine has been provided as the Sec.64 of IPC. Fine has been provided as the

only punishment for minor offences as an only punishment for minor offences as an alternative to imprisonmentalternative to imprisonment

Death Sentence and IPCDeath Sentence and IPC

Sec.121.Waging or attempting to wage war or Sec.121.Waging or attempting to wage war or abetting waging of war against the Government abetting waging of war against the Government of India.of India.

Sec.132.Abeting mutiny, if committed in Sec.132.Abeting mutiny, if committed in consequence thereof.consequence thereof.

Sec.194.Giving or fabricating false evidence Sec.194.Giving or fabricating false evidence upon which an innocent person suffers death.upon which an innocent person suffers death.

Sec.302. MurderSec.302. Murder

Death Sentence and IPCDeath Sentence and IPC

Sec.305.Abetment of suicide of a minor or Sec.305.Abetment of suicide of a minor or insane or intoxicated person who commits insane or intoxicated person who commits suicide in consequences thereof.suicide in consequences thereof.

Sec.307.Attempt to murder by life convict if Sec.307.Attempt to murder by life convict if hurt is caused.hurt is caused.

Sec.364.A.Kidnapping for ransom.Sec.364.A.Kidnapping for ransom.

Commutation of Death SentenceCommutation of Death Sentence

Sections.54 and 55 of IPC empowers the Sections.54 and 55 of IPC empowers the appropriate government.appropriate government.

Sections.432 to 434 of Cr.PC to commute ,Sections.432 to 434 of Cr.PC to commute ,(suspend or substitute) the sentence of death to (suspend or substitute) the sentence of death to any other punishment. The government may any other punishment. The government may exercise the powers on its own initiative without exercise the powers on its own initiative without any prayer to that effect by the accused.any prayer to that effect by the accused.

Imprisonment for LifeImprisonment for Life State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh AIR State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ratan Singh AIR

1976 SC 15521976 SC 1552 Imprisonment of life technically means a Imprisonment of life technically means a

sentence of imprisonment running throughout sentence of imprisonment running throughout the remaining period of a convict’s natural life.the remaining period of a convict’s natural life.

KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 KM Nanavati v State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605 SC 605

Sentence of imprisonment in case of charge of Sentence of imprisonment in case of charge of murder means rigorous imprisonment for life , murder means rigorous imprisonment for life , and not for simple imprisonment.and not for simple imprisonment.

Imprisonment for LifeImprisonment for Life

As per section 57, IPC for the purpose of As per section 57, IPC for the purpose of calculating remission , a life sentence is treated calculating remission , a life sentence is treated as a sentence of 20 years.as a sentence of 20 years.

Section 55,which is a supplement to s 54 of IPC Section 55,which is a supplement to s 54 of IPC empowers the appropriate government to empowers the appropriate government to commute the sentence of imprisonment for life commute the sentence of imprisonment for life to imprisonment of either description for a term to imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding 14 years.not exceeding 14 years.

Executive in natureExecutive in nature

Case LawCase Law TV Vatheeswaran v State of Tamil Nadu AIR TV Vatheeswaran v State of Tamil Nadu AIR

1983 SC 3611983 SC 361 Since more than two years has passed from the Since more than two years has passed from the

time the petitioners had been sentenced to death time the petitioners had been sentenced to death by the trial court , they are entitled to demand by the trial court , they are entitled to demand that the said sentence should be quashed, and that the said sentence should be quashed, and substituted by the sentence of life imprisonment.substituted by the sentence of life imprisonment.

Courts are to dispense justice, not to dispense Courts are to dispense justice, not to dispense with justice.with justice.

Case Law Case Law

Muthuramalingam v. State Rep by Inspector of Muthuramalingam v. State Rep by Inspector of Police, Criminal Appeal No.233/2009Police, Criminal Appeal No.233/2009

The Court said that the logic behind life The Court said that the logic behind life sentences not running consecutively lies in the sentences not running consecutively lies in the fact that imprisonment for life implies fact that imprisonment for life implies imprisonment till the end of the normal life of imprisonment till the end of the normal life of the convictthe convict