Download Indian Penal Code: Analysis of Various Offenses and Their Punishments and more Summaries Materials science in PDF only on Docsity!
LAW OF CRIMES
Part-C Aug/Sept 2021
- A accused was in the habit of setting fire to his own cloths and house, one day he set fire to his wife and 2 children. State whether he will be punishable or not? Ans: Facts of the case A accused was in the habit of setting fire to his own cloths and house. One day he set fire to his wife and 2 children Issues of the case The accused was in the habit of setting fire to his own cloths and house. Does the act of the accused setting fire to his own wife and 2 children comes under act habitual? Does the accused liable for punishment for his acts and deeds? Solution May be the accused is having habitual of firing his own cloths and house, such acts of accused clearly denotes the mental ability of the accused that firing his cloths and own house results to harm not only to him and to the other inhabitants of the house for gravies hurts, which is an offence under Sections 320, 321, 325, 326, 326A, 326 B, 329, 333 and 338. The accused might have rescued with such acts by the inhabitants and neighbours at earlier occasions, hence the accused knows the consequences of setting fire. Therefore, it is established that the accused with mental stability and knowing consequences set fire to his own wife and 2 children, hence he is having intention of killing his wife and children. Hence the accused liable for culpable homicide of murdering his own wife and children under section 300 and 302 of the IPC for capital punishment.
- Without performing ceremonies, A got married with B. B believing that A is her husband submitted herself and cohabited with him. A knowingly deceit her and made her to believe that she is his legally wedded wife. After few months he disclosed the true fact. What offence did A committed and what will be the punishment? Ans: Facts of the case: Without performing ceremonies, A got married with B. B believing that A is her husband submitted herself and cohabited with him. A knowingly deceit her and made her to believe that she is his legally wedded wife. After few months he disclosed the true fact.
Solution Section 493 of Indian Penal Code provides that every man who by deceit causes any woman who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief. The punishment under Section 493 for the said offence is imprisonment for a term which may extend up to 10 years and shall also be liable to a fine. Hence, A is liable for deceit induces a belief of lawful marriage to B with imprisonment for a term which may extend up to 10 years and shall also be liable to a fine as decided by the court.
- A thief entered a house and made an attempt to steal, broken the jewel box but after opening the box there nothing was found in it. State whether the thief is punishable or not. If so, what offence he committed and what is the punishment? Ans: Facts of the Case A thief entered a house and made an attempt to steal, broken the jewel box but after opening the box there nothing was found in it. State whether the thief is punishable or not. Solution The thief unlawfully entered a house and made an attempt to steal, broken the jewel box but after opening the box, but nothing has found in the box. The thief unlawfully entered a house with an intention to theft some valuable things. Though he has not found nothing he has committed theft by criminal trespass and broke the jewel box, which clearly denotes the criminal intention of theft, hence he is liable for punishment for Criminal trespass and for making an attempt of theft under Section 447, 448 read with section 379 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code.
- A intentionally set fire a godown belonging to Y causing wrongful loss to Y. Sate whether A is liable. If so, what offence did he committed and what is the punishment? Ans: Facts of the Case: A intentionally set fire a godown belonging to Y causing wrongful loss to Y. Solution: A criminal intention set fire a godown belonging to Y causing wrongful loss to Y. Such act dealt under the sections 435 and 436 of Indian Penal Code for the offence of arson. The godown is used for stocking the movable property and hence A is committed an offence under section 436 of the IPC. Therefore, A is liable for punishment under section 436 of the IPC for shall be punished with 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.
- X confines Y and threatens him that he will kill Y if he does not sign on transfer papers of Y’s property in his name. discuss the nature of the offence committed by X. Ans: Facts of the Case X confines Y and threatens him that he will kill Y if he does not sign on transfer papers of Y’s property in his name. Solution: As per the Section 383 of the IPC, whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion”. And liable for punishment under Section 384 of the IPC for imprisonment either descriptive for a term extending three years or fine or with both. In this instant case X confines Y and threatens him that he will kill Y if he does not sign on transfer papers of Y’s property in his name and hence committed an offence under Section 383 of the IPC and liable for punishment under Section 384 of the IPC for imprisonment either descriptive for a term extending three years or fine or with both.
- X with an intention to steal the pocket of Y puts his hands in Y’s pocket and finds nothing. Is he liable for any offence? Ans: Facts of the case: X with an intention to steal the pocket of Y puts his hands in Y’s pocket and finds nothing. Pickpocketing is nothing but theft under section 378 of the IPC. Solution: X with an intention to steal the pocket of Y puts his hands in Y’s pocket and finds nothing. X unlawfully puts his hands in Y’s pocket with a criminal intention to steal the pocket of Y, but he has not found nothing. X has attempted to steal the pocket of Y, which clearly denotes the criminal intention of theft, hence he is liable for punishment for making an attempt of theft under Section 511 read with section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. Aug/Sept/
- X was raped by four persons in a running bus and tried to kill her. Subsequently X died in the hospital. Discuss the liability & Punishment. Ans:
Facts of the Case In this case gang rape was committed by four persons in a running bus and tried to kill her. Subsequently X died in the hospital Issues involved in this case: Section 376D which deals with the crime of Gang rape. Section 376A which deals with the Rape resulting in death or vegetative state. Case Law: Mukesh & Others V/s State of Delhi (NCT) & Ors. (2017) 6 SCC 1 On 16th December, 2012, a woman named Nirbaya was gangraped by Mukesh & Others in a moving bus in Delhi and subsequently she died in the hospital. On 13th March, 2013, the Trial Court convicted the accusers. On 13th September, 2013, the High Court gave death penalty to the accusers. Also, the Supreme Court gave the same verdict on 5th May, 2017. Present Case In this case on similar grounds of Mukesh & Others V/s State of Delhi (NCT) & Ors. (2017) 6 SCC 1 , the accusers are liable for punishment for punishment under the provisions of Section 376 read with Sections 376 A & 376 D nothing but death penalty.
- ‘A’ gave false evidence, by which Mr. ‘D’ an innocent person was convicted with death sentence. Discuss the liability and offence committed by ‘A’. (May/June
Ans: Facts of the Case A gave false evidence, by which Mr. D an innocent person was convicted with death sentence. Statutory provisions Section 194 of the Indian Penal Code states that any person who gives or fabricates false evidence to make any other person to be convicted for an offence that is punishable with capital punishment is liable to be punished and the punishment for such an offence is imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for not more than ten years and a fine. Further, this section also states the punishment if any innocent person is convicted and executed due to such giving or fabricating of offence, and the punishment for the same is either death punishment or the punishment as stated above. In this case ‘A’ liable for punishment as laydown in Section 194 of the Indian Penal Code.
- ‘A’ and ‘B’ are friends. ‘A’ due to sudden quarrel gave a blow to ‘B’. ‘B’ sustained injuries. B filed a case for attempt to murder. Discuss. Ans: Facts of the Case ‘A’ and ‘B’ are friends. ‘A’ due to sudden quarrel gave a blow to ‘B’. ‘B’ sustained injuries.
Ans: Facts of the Case Eight members armed with deadly weapons entered a bank and robbed the Bank by threatening the bank employees. Issues of the case Robbery or dacoity is an offence under Section 390 of the IPC where in at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, so attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years. In Shyam Behari vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 320, death sentence was passed by the Trial Court was confirmed by the Supreme Court in its appeal Petition. Accordingly, in this case the Eight member who robbed the bank is liable for punishment under Section 397 of the IPC.
- ‘A’ a surgeon, in good faith communicates to a patient his opinion that the patent cannot live. the patient dies in consequence of a shock. Did A committed an offence. (Aug/Sept 2014) Ans: A, a surgeon, in good faith, communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The patient dies in consequence of the shock. A has committed no offence, though he knew it to be likely that the communication might cause the patient's death.
- ‘A’. knowing that B murdered Z, assists B to hide the body with the intention of saving ‘B’ from punishment. Is ‘A’ liable for any offence? Ans: Facts of the Case ‘A’. knowing that B murdered Z, assists B to hide the body with the intention of saving ‘B’ from punishment. Issue of the case Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information, to screen offender and the same is an offence under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code 1860. Case law: Kodali Purnachandra Rao v. Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh (1975) In this case the first accused (A1) was an arrack contractor, while the second accused (A2) was a police sub-inspector. The defendants, in this case, kidnapped, raped, and killed two young college girls before throwing their corpses into the sea. One of the bodies washed up on the beach within a few hours. When word of the corpse washing up on the coast reached the second accused, the sub-inspector, he decided to visit the scene and inquire. A2 did not conduct any inquests or keep any records. He told the residents in the area to bury the deceased. The second body was discovered drifting approximately three kilometres from the
coast by some fisherman. The victim’s wristwatch, ring, and earring were removed, but the body was allowed to float away. The articles were given over to the cops, who were able to identify the second female owing to them. A2, as a public servant is responsible for preparing an official record pertaining to the inquiry of the causes of death of both girls, had constructed the record in such a way that the true criminals were spared punishment. With the fraudulent and dishonest intent of fooling his superiors, he created phoney and counterfeit records. A1 had helped and assisted A2 in the fabrication of the fake and falsified record on purpose. As the evidence for kidnapping, raping and murder was not established the defendants were cleared of the charges of kidnapping, rape, and murder, but were found guilty of crimes under Sections 201, 318, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, in this instant case A is liable for punishment under Sections 201, 318, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.
- ‘A’ appears as witness before ‘Z’, a Magistrate. ‘Z’ says that he does not believe a word of ‘A’’s deposition, and that ‘A’ has perjured himself. ‘A’ by hearing this is moved into a sudden passion and kills ‘Z’. discuss the offence committed by ‘A’. Ans: Facts of the Case A’ appears as witness before ‘Z’, a Magistrate. ‘Z’ says that he does not believe a word of ‘A’’s deposition, and that ‘A’ has perjured himself. ‘A’ by hearing this is moved into a sudden passion and kills ‘Z’ Issue of the case A is appearing as witness before the Magistrate “Z” During recording the deposition of witness the Magistrate says that he does not believe a word of ‘A’’s deposition, and that ‘A’ has perjured himself and by hearing same moved into a sudden passion and kills ‘Z’. “A” has killed the Magistrate “Z”, who is on duty of public service and is nothing but preventing a public servant from performing legitimate duties and kills him/her. In view of the above though ‘A’ is not having culpable homicide, preventing public servant from performing legitimate duties and killing a magistrate is an offence of Murder under section 300 & 332 of the IPC. Sept/Oct 2017
- Due to some differences between wife and husband the live separately since 3 months. One day husband forged the signature of the wife and withdraws Rs. lakhs from his wife’s account. State whether husband committed any offence. If so, what will be the punishment?
In Shyam Behari vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 320, death sentence was passed by the Trial Court was confirmed by the Supreme Court in its appeal Petition. Accordingly, in this case the two blind persons who robbed the bank killed one person are liable for punishment under Section 397 read with Section 34 of the IPC.
- An experienced driver was driving a bus consisting of 200 people going to marriage. During the night all the passengers in the bus were sleeping and all of a sudden, the bus hit a big tree on the road side. 20 people died among whom 4 were children and two aged people. Whether driver is liable? Discuss. Ans: Facts of the Case During the night a bus consisting of 200 people going to marriage, all the passengers were sleeping and all of a sudden, the bus hit a big tree on the road side. 20 people died among whom 4 were children and two aged people. Issues of the case Whether driver is liable? Solution Section 304A deals with ‘death’ caused by a ‘rash’ or ‘negligent act. In this instant case the Driver drove the Bus negligently with result the bus hit a big tree on the road side leading to an accident and 20 people died among whom 4 were children and two aged people. Hence the Bus Driver is liable for punishment under Section 304A of the IPC for his negligent driving. Aug/Sept 2016
- A judicial officer, based upon evidence awarded death sentence to an innocent person. Whether the judicial officer is punishable or not? Ans: No, the judicial officer, based upon evidence awarded death sentence. He acted judicially. The judicial officer is protected under Section 77 of the IPC read with provisions of the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850.
- A set fire to a house at night to commit Robbery. Unfortunately, one person died due to the fire. Now decide whether A is liable for the death of the person or Robbery. Ans: Facts of the Case A set fire to a house at night to commit Robbery. Unfortunately, one person died due to the fire. Issues of the case Voluntarily causing hurt in committing Robbery is an offence under Section 394 of the IPC, and states that if any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily
causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with rigorous imprisonment for a term extend to Ten years and shall also liable for fine. Accordingly, the accused is liable for punishment under Section 394 of the IPC for setting fire leading to one person death including Robbery.
- A instigated to commit murder of C, but B ignores. A committed the murder of C through some X. Now decide whether B punishable or not. Ans: Facts of the Case A instigated to commit murder of C, but B ignores. A committed the murder of C through some X. Solution: No, B has not committed any offence though A instigated to commit murder of C and no way he is responsible for murder of C.
- A Police Officer fires at a mob by the order of his superior as a result a person died. Whether the Police Officer is punishable for murder? Ans: Facts of the Case A Police Officer fires at a mob by the order of his superior as a result a person died. Solution: Section 76 of IPC provides for an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing himself bound by law. The provision states that nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by the reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believed himself to be, bound of law to do it. Further, section 79 of the code states that nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be justified by the law in doing it. Applying the provisions in the present case, it is clear that the Police Officer has acted on the order of his superior authority under the commands of the law, Hence, his actions are justified by law and bound by law under sections 76 and 79 of IPC. Hence, he has committed no offence. In R v. Smith, (1900) 17 SCR 561, where a soldier in obedience to order by his superior shot dead a Boer civilian. He was acquitted of murder, although his command was unlawful. The court observed that the soldier honestly believed he is doing his duty by obeying the commands of his superior, and if the orders are not so manifestly illegal that he must or ought
- Sumitra got married 10 years back. She was found dead by hanging from to a fan when police conducted investigation, they found that bodily injuries were present upon the dead body. What offence it amounts to? Under which section the case has to be registered and what is the punishment? Ans: Facts of the case Sumitra got married 10 years back. She was found dead by hanging from to a fan when police conducted investigation, they found that bodily injuries were present upon the dead body. Solution In this case Sumitra was found dead by hanging to a fan and during investigation it was revealed that the dead body is having several injuries and hence, the death may be caused subject to cruelty and may be hanged safter her death or she might have committed suicide due to cruelty of the family members. The said offence is dealt under Section 498A of the IPC. As such there is no suicidal note, it may be presumed that the suicide note might have been destroyed, if it was a suicidal death. Therefore, the family members may be prosecuted under sections 498A and 204 of the IPC.
- Anitha was pregnant, when the husband and in laws came to know that a girl child is growing in the womb. They forcibly killed the child against the will of the mother. What offence it amounts to and what will be the punishment and who are the culprits? Ans: Facts of the Case: Anitha was pregnant, when the husband and in laws came to know that a girl child is growing in the womb. They forcibly killed the child against the will of the mother. Solution: Loss of pregnancy (miscarriage) can be physically and emotionally draining experience for a woman, especially when it happened because of certain individual/s. In such situations, the affected woman may want to file a case against those individual/s who were responsible for her miscarriage. Causing miscarriage of a pregnant woman is a crime under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Sections 312 to 314 of the IPC deal with this crime. If the miscarriage was caused without the consent of the pregnant woman, then only the person causing the miscarriage is punishable under section 313 of the IPC and punishment shall be Imprisonment for life OR Imprisonment which may extend to ten years and fine. Hence, Anitha’s husband and in-laws are liable for punishment under Section 313 of the IPC with a punishment of Imprisonment for life OR Imprisonment which may extend to ten years and fine.
May/June 2014
- There were twenty one injuries on the body of Mr. Sham, the deceased. Under which category offence is committed and what is punishment for the accused and which court is having the power to punish such offender. Ans: Facts of the case: There were twenty one injuries on the body of Mr. Sham, the deceased. Solution: twenty one injuries on the body of the deceased, hence the accused has committed grievous hurt which may endanger the life of victim. With the result of Twenty four injuries of grievous the victim died. It clearly established the criminal intention of the accused for eliminating the victim. Hence, the accused is liable for punishment under section 300,302 read with 326 of the IPC.
- X was raped by four unknown persons in a train. What is the punishment for such offence, whether it falls under rarest of the rare case? Discuss. Ans: Facts of the case: X was raped by four unknown persons in a train. Issues involved in this case: Section 376D of IPC deals with gang rape. It states that “When a woman is raped by one or more persons which constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention, each of those persons shall be deemed to have committed the rape and shall be sentenced with rigorous imprisonment for a term which must not be less than 20 years, but which may extend to life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the person, and with fine. Mohan Lal & Anr Vs. State of Punjab (2013)12SCC519: A group of teachers including the Director of Education of Punjab State had forcibly raped a student. The trial court sentenced the imprisonment of ten years on the accused and a fine was also imposed, default of such fine will make them go under further rigorous imprisonment for a duration of one year and six months respectively. The Supreme Court had responded to the accused’s appeal by stating that, this was a case of gang rape by the teachers of their student girl and the trial court’s punishment of ten years of rigorous imprisonment can easily be converted to a punishment of life imprisonment for all the accused individuals.
Ans: Facts of the Case: A beat B, who become unconscious. A thinking B to be dead, put the dead body in a bag and threw it in the river in a bid to destroy the evidence. The dead body was discovered and the medical examination revealed that B had died on drowning. Solution: A has committed the offence of causing grievous hurt punishable under Section 325 of IPC and for tampering of evidence he put the dead body in a bag and threw it in the river in a bid to destroy the evidence. The dead body was discovered and the medical examination revealed that B had died on drowning. The accused, if left the B, he might of come out from the unconscious or some one might help him for recovering, instead the accused put him in a bag and threw in the River, resulting death of B by drowning, hence A is liable for punishment under Section 300, 302 read with Section 325 of the IPC.
- A had sexual intercourse with B’s wife. Explain what action can B take against A? Ans: Facts of the case: A had sexual intercourse with B’s wife. Solution: Section 497 IPC criminalised adultery by imposing culpability on a man who engages in sexual intercourse with another person’s wife. Adultery was punishable with a maximum imprisonment of five years. Women, including consenting parties, were exempted from prosecution. Hence A is liable for punishment under Section 497 of the IPC. Aug/Sept 2013
- Two boys, under the age of 12 years, broke open the lock of a shop and stolen articles. Discuss the liability of the boys. Ans: Facts of the case: Two boys, under the age of 12 years, broke open the lock of a shop and stolen articles. Solution: Section 82 and section 83 of the Indian Penal Code provides immunity from criminal liability to children up to 12 years of age. It is divided into two further classes on the basis of the age factor. That is one group of children below 7 years. This group gets a complete defence from criminal liability. Whereas, the second age group of 7-12 years of age. The immunity provided to these age groups of society depends on mental capacity. The maturity of
understanding during the commission of the crime as an important aspect. Because Mens rea can’t be completed without actual knowledge by the person committing it. Section 82: It defined it as Act of a child under seven years of age: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age. Section 83: Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion. When a child is above 7 and below 12, the liability is totally dependent on the maturity of the child. It does not depend on age, but rather the mental capacity. For example; the crime by a minor of 11 years of age with no understanding of the nature of his actions can be free from the liability. But a child of 8 years who has enough maturity and understanding of the after- effects, can be held liable. The maturity or understanding of the child can be concluded from the circumstances and it varies from crime to crime. As every crime is different and has different methodologies. In this instant case the Boys broke open the lock of a shop and stolen articles and hence clearly establishes their maturity and understanding of the crime. Hence the boys are liable for their offence.
- A, a lunatic committed murder of B during lucid intervals as already there was rivalry between them. Decide the liability of A. Ans: Facts of the Case: A, a lunatic committed murder of B during lucid intervals as already there was rivalry between them. Solution: A, a lunatic intentionally murdered B during lucid intervals having personal rivalry with B. Therefore, it is established that A had a Criminal intention of murdering B, hence A is liable for murdering B
- X, a surgeon knowing that particular operation is likely to cause the death of Z, who suffers with disease. With good faith X attempted operation to Z with the consent of Z. Z dies, whether X has committed any offence? Ans: Facts of the Case: X, a surgeon knowing that particular operation is likely to cause the death of Z, who suffers with disease. With good faith X attempted operation to Z with the consent of Z. Z dies.
