Hurt Section 319-Whoever causes bodily injury, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. Section 320-Grevious hurt. (1) Emasculation (2) Permanent privation of sight of either eye. (3) Permanent privation of hearing of either ear. (4) Permanent privation of any member or joint. (5) Destruction or permanent impairing of powers of any member or joint. (6) Permanent Disfiguring of head or face. (7) Fracture of Dislocation of any bone or toot h. (8) Any hurt that endangers life or causes a person during the space of 20 days in severe bodily pain or unable to follow his daily pursuits. Section 321-Voluntarily causing hurt Section 322-Voluntarity causing grievous hurt Section 323-Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt Section 325-Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt Section 326-Voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous weapons or means In cases of hurt the intention and knowledge of the accused is quite important in determining the liability. The hurt or grievous hurt caused must have been done voluntarily. Where there is no intention of knowledge that the death is likely to be caused, and death is caused, the accused would be guilty of hurt only is the injuries are not serious. The grievous hurt is called so because the injury inflicted is such that endangers life. Cases(1) Rambaran Mehto v. The State- There was a fight b/w two brothers. One sat on another and gave the other a severe beating and as a result of that he died. He was convicted under Section 322. (2) E.K. Chandrasenan v. State of Kerela-The accused supplied alcohol after mixing dangerous substance methyl alcohol to the people. Several people died and several lost eye sight after its consumption. It was held that the accused had the knowledge that his act was going to cause serious effect and that it is not only a case of hurt but of grievous hurt as it satisfied Section 320 (6) and (8) and that is punishable under Section 326. (3) Beshor Bawa Case-The accused, with a view to teach her daughter a lesson, gave her a kick on the back and two slaps on her face resulting in her death. Held that the accused was only liable under Section 321.
Dowry Death Section 304 B of IPC was inserted by the Amendment Act, 1986 which says(1) Where the death of woman is caused by burns, or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her marriage she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or by any relative of her husband for, or in connection with any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. The Act aimed at to combat the ever increasing menace of dowry deaths and bride burning in India. (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life. Three things to be proved(1) That the death was caused by burn or bodily injury or other than normal circumstances. (2) That the death was caused within the seven years of marriage. (3) That soon before the death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with any demand for dowry. Presumptions the Court makes(1) Where it is proved that the death was not a natural or accidental death the Court will presume the death as unnatural death (either homicide or suicide).
Cases(1) Shanti v. State of Haryana-The victim’s father and brother went to see her but were not allowed by her in laws. No one was informed about her death and she was cremated hurriedly because of which no post mortem was done. The court held that it was either a suicidal death or a homicide. Even the case of a suicide attracts Section 304-B IPC. (2) Satvir Singh v. State of Punjab-After facing harassment and cruelty from her husband and in-laws, she attempted suicide by jumping in front of a train but failed and was severe ly injured and paralysed. The accused persons were framed under Sect ion 306 (Attempt of suicide) and later under Sec tion 304 (B) (Dowry death) as she faced demands for dowry persistently. It was iterated by the Court that the requisite condition for Section 306 is that the suicide should necessarily have been committed and if in an attempt the person remains alive then this Section cannot be attracted. It is possible to abet the commission of suicide but not possible to abet the attempt to commit suicide-----------------------?. (3) Ram Bodan Sharma v. State of Bihar-The in-laws of the deceased had been persistently demanded TV, motorcycle and Rs. 20,000/- cash. But her parents failed and she was harassed and was killed by poisoning by her in-laws. Court held that all the essentials are present in the instant case. There had been persistent demand of dowry and harassment, humiliation and physical violence and beating by husband and in-laws. The dece ased died under unnatural circumstances and within the seven years of her marriage. The accused persons cremated the body of the deceased hurriedly and without informing her parents, clearly indicates that the case is of a dowry death. They are liable under Section 304 B, IPC.
Kidnapping and Abduction Section 359-Kidnapping-Kidnapping is of two kinds v iz. Section 360-Kidnapping from India-Whoever conveys a person beyond the limit of India without his consent or without the consent of the person legally authorized to give consent on his behalf, is said to kidnap that person from India. Section 361-Kidnapping from Lawful Guardianship-Whoever takes or induces any minor under 16 years of age if a male or under 18 years of age if a female or any person of unsound mind out of the legal guardianship of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship. Section 363-Punishment for kidnapping-Whoever kidnaps a person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years, and shall also be liable to fine. Essentials of kidnapping(1) Taking or Enticing(2) Any minor or any person of unsound mind-Unsoundness of mind should be permanent and not temporary insanity. Under the influence of alcohol or any other sedative is not a valid ground for unsoundness. (3) Out of the keeping of the Lawful Guardian-keeping means in the care and protection of guardian. It is not necessary that the minor should be in physical possession of the guardian. Difference between legal guardian and lawful guardian is when a father sends his daughter with his servant to her school, here father is legal guardian and the servant is the lawful guardian. (4) Without the consent of the Guardian-The consent of minor or person of unsound mind is immaterial in Law because of their incapability to judge their acts and decisions. The consent of the guardian must be legally obtained. Cases(1) S. Vandarajan v. State of Madras-A minor girl living with her father and studying in a college became friendly with the appellant and wanted to marry him. Father did not agree and sent her to one of his relative to keep her away from the accused. But her daughter made a call from her relative’s place to the accused and told him to meet her on a certain road. They met and went t o registrar and registered an agreement to marry. The Court acquitted the appellant on the basis that It was her who called him herself and also decided to marry. She left the house not on the inducement or contention of the accused but with her own will. She went with him willingly and the law did not cast upon any duty on the accused to take her back to her father and that she is on the verge of attaining majority and can judge her acts and decisions well. (2)Thokarlal Vadgama v. State of Gujrat-The appellant came in contact with the family of Mohini, a minor girl. He started meeting frequently and also took them to trips and spend lavishly on them. He presented gifts to Mohini. They developed relations and her parents objected and gave her beating on some occasions. She told all this to the accused who in reply said he r “that is she leaves her home, he will keep her permanently”. She left the house and went to the accused and he kept her in garage for 2 days. He was held guilty of kidnapping under Section 366 (Kidnapping, abducting and inducing woman to compel her marriage). Court held there was inducement and earlier allurement by the accused to the minor that participated in the formation of girl’s intentio n and resolve to leave her parent’s house. In the past, his lavish spending and his keeping contacts with her inspite of her parent’s
objections, his suggestion to leave her house and allurement that he would keep her permanently and keeping in garage for 2 days etc and make her do whatever he said, explains everything. Held the accused kidnapped the g irl. (3) State of Haryana v. Raja Ram-The Accused used to give medical aid to girl’s father and became intimate with her. He seduced her to accompany him and promised her good food, clothes and everything. He asked Raja Ram to persuade and get her. Raja Ram sent his daughter who was the friend of the girl to fetch her and take her to the accused. Both of them were booked. The Raja Ram was acquitted on the fact that the girl left her house on her own free will and there was no inducement or allurement from the side of the Raja Ram but it was his daughter who brought her out from her house. ----------------------------------------? Abduction Section 362-Whoever by force compels or by any deceitful means, induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person. Difference between kidnapping and abductionKidnapping 1. Minor or person of unsound mind 2. Kidnapped person is removed from lawful guardianship 3. Means used can be simple and innocent. 4. Consent of the person kidnapped is immaterial 5. Intent is immaterial 6. Not a continuing offence. The offence is complete as and when the person is removed from lawful g uardianship. 7. Kidnapping is per se punishable.
Abduction 1. Any person of any age. 2. Person abducted need not in the keeping of anybody. 3. Use of force, compulsion or deceitful means 4. If the consent of the person abducted is given freely by him or without any fear, the accused is not guilty for abduction. 5. Intent is important in Abduction. 6. Continuing offence. If a person is abducted and is moved from one place to another. The offence of abduction continues. 7. Wrongful Intention must be there to punish the offender.
Cases1. Bai Mahaor-Where a mother assigned willfully the guardianship of her minor girl to ‘A’ and the responsib ility of marrying her and a parental relative of the daughter removed her by fraud and force for the purpose of getting her married with the person other than the one selected by ‘A’. It was held that the relative was guilty of kidnapping and abduction.
Homicide by Rash or Negligent act. Section 304 A-Whoever causes death by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to Culpable Homicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description which may extent to 2 years, or with fine, or with both. This section covers all those cases where the death is caused by rash or negligent act and which short fall of culpable homicide. Culpable rashness or negligence requires a particular mens rea. 304 A applied where there is a complete nexus between the death and the rash or negligent act. Culpable rashness is a dangerous act with the knowledge that it is so, and that it may cause injury, but without intention to cause injury or knowledge that it will probably be caused. Culpable rashness is an act done by the accused with the knowledge that it may cause harm to others but the act is done without any intention to cause harm. A rash act is done without due care, thought and action. It is “acting with the consciousness that mischievous consequences are likely to follow, although the individual may hope that such consequences may not follow and often with the belief that the actor has taken sufficient precautions to prevent their happening. The culpability lies in not taking the precautions to prevent the happening of the consequences in the hope that they may not happen. Culpable negligence constitutes the failure to exercise that reasonable and proper care and precaution to guard against injury either to public generally or to a particular individual. Neglig ence is a genus and rashness its species. The same act can’t be a rash as well as negligent. Culpable negligence is acting without the consciousness that illegal and mischievous effect will follow, but in circumstance which show that the actor has not exercised the caution required by him, and that if he had he would have had the consciousness. The imputability arises from the neglect of the civic duty o f circumspection.
Cases1. Waryam Singh v. Emperor-The accused on a dark night shot at the deceased believing him to be a ghost. Held that it was an act of negligence----------------------? 2. Cherubin Gregory v. State of Andhra Pradesh-The trespassers use to used the toilet of the accused. He gave them oral warings but it went futile. He fixed a live electric wire to guard the same from the trespassers. One of them got electrocuted and died. It was held by the Court that though there was trespassing on his land but he has no right to harm the trespasser. Putting a live wire is like an arrangement to shoot a person without personally firing a shot. 3. S.N. Hussain v. State of Andhra Pradesh-The accused was a bus driver. He saw the gates of the level crossing open and was crossing the same when a goods train hit the bus and 4 passengers died. The High Court convicted him under Section 304 A. But the Supreme Court held that as the gates of the level crossing were left open and also there was no sign or warning given by the approaching train. it clearly explains that the negligence was not on the part of the driver but the guard who was authorized to operate the level crossing gates.
Theft Section 378-Whoever intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order of such taking is said to commit theft. Section 379- Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. The 4 requisites of theft are(1) Intending to take dishonestly-Intention must be dishonest and it must also exist at the time of taking. Dishonest intention of making a wrongful gain or wrongful loss should be there. Taking without dishonest intention or in good faith is not theft. (2) Any movable property-The property that is attached to earth cannot be a subject of theft but if severed from earth they become movable and subject to theft. The thing stolen should be of some appreciable value. (3) Taking out of the possession of another person- It doesn’t matter that from whose possession the property is taken. Whether he is the owner or has apparent title to the property, theft is theft. (4) Taking with consent-The property taken should have been taken out without the consent of the person in possession of it. (5) Moves that property in order to such taking-The theft is complete as and when the object is moved in order to such taking even though such thing may be far from passing into thief’s possession. Cases(1) Pyarelal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan-The accused was working as a Superintendent in a Govt. office from where he made a file available to an outsider who tampered it. The accused returned the file to the office next day. He was held liable for theft on the contention that he was the one in the legal possession of the file and who could have tampered it. Taking anything from anybody’s possession even temporarily amounts to theft. The department was deprived of the possession of file temporarily which amounts to theft that caused loss. (2) K.N. Mehra v. State of Rajasthan-The accused, a pilot took a fighter jet for an unauthorized flight. He was held liable for theft. (3) State of Maharashtra v. V. Vishwanath-All the accused stole 7 tyres of a Wagon from a railway station. They were apprehended. The Supreme Court held all of them liable under Section 379 of IPC and Section 3 of Railway Property Act. The Court held that even if the thief have sold some of the tyres and are not in possession of them, even then it to be covered under both the sections because the possession, though it may be temporary, amounts to theft. If the thieved were in possession of the Railway property at any point of time, they ar e liable. (4) Sekar v. Arunmugham-The car of the complainant was seized by the financer on default in payment. The complainant filed a case under Section 378 for theft. It case was led down by the Court the act of taking the vehicle by the financer on default of payment did not amount to theft as there is lack of dishonest intention and the financer cannot be charged under Section 378.
Extortion Section 383- Whoever, intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces that person so put in danger to deliver any property, or person or any valuable security or anything sealed or signed document that can be converted into a valuable security, commits ‘extortion’ Section 384-Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both. Section 385- Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion-Whoever, in order to committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both Essential ingredients of extortion1. Puts any person in fear of injury-The fear must to such an extent so as to unsettle the mind of the person. The injury contemplated must be the one which t he accused can really inflict or cause to be inflicted. A threat of god will not do. 2. Dishonest inducement-The intention of the accused should in actual be to cause a wrongful gain to himself or loss to the person so put in fear. 3. Delivery of property or any valuable security by the person put in fear to any person-the threat may be caused by one and the delivery of property if done to another, in this case both the persons would be liable and guilty of extortion. The offence of extortion is not complete if there is no delivery of any property or any valuable security. Cases1. Jadunandan Singh v. Emperor-The accused along with some other assaulted two persons and forcibly took their thumb impression on three blank papers. The case was made out as per Section 383. The court held that this is not the case of extortion as the complainants were not put to fear of any injury to themselves or to others by the accused and that they were only subjected to physical compulsion and then their thumbs impression were taken. The court gave an instance that if the victims were tied up for not giving the thumb Impression and then after being tied up they consented to give the thumb impression, then it could be said that there was a fear of injury and it could have been a case of extortion. It was decided by the Court that this is not the case of extortion but of mere criminal force or an assault punishable under Section 352, IPC. 2. State of Karnataka v. Basavegowda-The complainant, a wife who after 10 days of her marriage was taken to a forest under the pretext of going to a wedding by her husband, was assaulted by him and was asked to remove all her ornaments to him. She was beaten with a big stone and fists. The court held that the offender is liable under Section 386 because the ornaments were extorted under the threat of death given by the accused.
Criminal Misappropriation Section 403-Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of wither description for a term which may e xtend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Property comes to the accused innocently. Misappropriation means setting apart the owner and using the property for own use. Two essential ingredients of Criminal Misappropriation are(1) The property must be misappropriate or converted by the accused(2) It should be done with dishonesty(3) The property should be movable(4) Property must be owned by someoneMisappropriation or conversion of such property should be done by the offender for his own use. The accused is not guilty when he merely retains or possesses such property but he is guilty when he appropriated or converts the said property to his own use. ‘Dishonestly’ doing a thing to make wrongful loss to any person or wrongful gain to one’s self. Misappropriation or conversion need not to be permanent. The finder must wait for a reasonable time or should make reasonable efforts to locate the actual owner of the property found by him. Cases-
Theft 1. The property is taken out of possession 2. The theft is complete as soon as the accused moved the property 3. The moving of property itself is an offence
Criminal misappropriation 1. The property is already in possession of the accused 2. The offence is complete when the accused misappropriates or converts the property for his own use. 3. Moving the property maybe lawful but the dishonest intention to use that property constitutes the offence.
Section 404-Dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by deceased person at the time of his death Distinction between Theft & Criminal Misappropriation
Criminal breach of trust Section 405-Criminal breach of trust-Whoever being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use t hat property, or dishonestly uses or disposes off that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract, express or implied, which he has made touching the discharge of such trust, or willfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal bre ach of trust” Section 406-Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extent to three years, or with fine, or with both. Section 407-Criminal breach of trust by carrier etc.-Whoever, being entrusted with property as a carrier, wharfinger or warehouse-keeper, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of such property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may exte nd to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 408- Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant.-Whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property or with any dominion over property commits criminal breach of trust in respect of such property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. Section 409- Whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property in his capacity of a public servant or in the way of his business as a banker, merchant, factor, broker, attorney or agent, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with 152[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. In this the property is entrusted to someone else and that property misappropriates that property or converts it for his own use or uses that property or disposes that property in violation to any law or any legal contract whether expressed or implied. The property can be movable or immovable. Essentials of Criminal breach of trust(1) There should be entrustment of property by one person to the other (2) Such entrustment must be in trust (3) There should be misappropriation or conversion of the property for his own use by the person to whom it has been entrusted (4) The conversion of retention of the property must be against or in violation of any direction o law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged, or of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust. Cases(1) J.M. Desai v. State of Bombay-The appellants were entered into a contract of dying the cloth. They were supplied cloth for dying. Some quantity of cloth was dyed and supplied and further they failed to dye the cloth and also they did not return the remaining leftover cloth. The appellants were prosecuted under Section 409 and they claimed that the cloth supplied to them was old and was eaten up by moths. Though the prosecution failed to prove the manner in which the cloth was misappropriated but the Court held the appellants liable on account that they had the dominion over the cloth and they failed to account for the same. (2)
Cheating Section 415-Cheating-Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage o r harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". Section 416-Cheating by personation-A person is said to "cheat by personation" if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is. Section 417- Whoever cheats shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both. Section 418- Cheating with knowledge that wrongful loss may ensue to person whose interest offender is bound to protectWhoever cheats with the knowledge that he is likely thereby to cause wrongful loss to a person whose interest in the transaction to which the cheating relates, he was bound, either by law, or by a legal contract, to protect, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both. Section 420-Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property-Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Difference between Section 415 and Section 420- 415 deals with cheating only while 420 deals with that species of cheating which involved delivery of property. 415 imposes punishment for 1 year whilst 420 for upto 7 years. The offender can be tried under both the sections because the complainant was induced “to make up him mind” and also was dishonestly parted from his property. Cases(1) Shri Bhagwan S.S. V.V.V. Maharaj v. State of Andhra Pradesh- The appellant accused, a baba claimed to possess supernatural power to cure chronic disease. The complainant whose 15 year old daughter was a dumb. He took her to the baba for treatment. The baba demanded Rs. 1 lac as consideration, to be paid in installments. The complainant gave the first installment but no improvement was seen in the child and she did not start speaking even after the dead line. The Court held that whoever induces any person on a false representation of possessing supernatural powers and induces that person to deliver some money or other article and doesn’t get the desired result is a said to have cheated under Section 415 and Section 420. (2) Akhil Kishore Ram v. Emperor-The appellant had a business of selling charms and incantations. He advertised in a newspaper “Gupta Mantra- A reward of Rs. 100/-“ and that whoever read for seven times the Gupt mantra given by him, could achieve desired objects without any hardship or efforts on their part. He also offered Rs. 100 as cash prize in case the mantra fails. The complainant replied the ad and he received the Mantra along with the following instructions “read the mantra times and look at the moon for 5 minutes with winkling and that the person cannot tell this to anybody and has to perform it secretly otherwise the Mantra will lose its effect. It was contended by the complainant that had he knew about such complicated instruction, he would have never sent for such “Mantra”. He also claimed that the instructions are not possible of performance without proper training and skill and are difficult for an ordinary man. The advertisement connoted that the person has to put in no effort or hardship while using the “Mantra”, which is a complete wrong. The Court held that the instruction were contrary to the advertisement and are not possible of performance by an ordinary man without great effort and preparation. The accused is guilty of c heating. (3) S.D. Brahmachari v. S. Bhushan-
Culpable Homicide Section 299-Culpable homicide-Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the inte ntion of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. Section 304-Punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder-Whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with 104[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both, if the act is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause death, but without any intention to cause death, or to cause such bodily injury as is likely to cause death. Culpable-Liable Homicide-Killing of a human being by a human being Mens Rea-‘Guilty mind’ or motive force being the criminal act. It represents the mental aspect of the crime. Actus Reus-Act prohibited by law. It represents the physical aspect of the crime. It is “such resul t of a human act which the law seeks to prevent”. Motive-which prompts a man to form an intention. Motive is a ‘mean’ while Intention is ‘end’. Motive is the ulterior intention. Intention is the purpose or design with which the act is done. Knowledge-Awareness or presumption of consequences of one’s own act.
