Ipc notes question and answer, Exams of Law

Download Ipc notes question and answer and more Exams Law in PDF only on Docsity! AL-AMEEN COLLEGE OF LAW (Affiliated to KSLU, Hubballi) Near Lal Bagh Main Gate, Hosur Road, Bengaluru. Model Answers December 2018 CRIMINAL LAW – I (Indian Penal Code) UNIT - I Q. No. 1. (a) Explain the maxim “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.” Marks : 10 OR Critically examine the territorial and extraterritorial jurisdiction of the Indian ,,,,,,,,,,Penal Code. (b) ‘S’ wants to kill his wife. On the suggestion of ‘T’ he gave a poisoned ………………apple to his wife, but she innocently gave it to her girl child, who died ………………from eating it. Decide the liability of ‘S’ and ‘T’. Marks : 06 OR Write a short note on ‘Solitary confinement’. ANSWER : 1(a). Territorial and extra-territorial jurisdiction of the Indian Penal Code. Title and extent of operation of the Code (Sec.1)This Act shall be called the Indian Penal Code, and shall extend to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir. Punishment of offences committed within India (Sec.2)Every person shall be liable to punishment under this Code and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which, he shall be guilty within India. There is no exceptions infavour of any one but the following persons always exempted from the jurisdiction of every country.  Foreign sovereigns  Ambassadors  Alien enemies  Foreign army  Warship  President and Governors. 2. With in India. If the Offence is committed outside India it is not punishable under I.P.C unless it has been made so by means of special provisions such as section.3,4, 108A of etc of the code. Territorial Jurisdiction:- The territorial waters extend into yhe sea 12 nautical mile to into the sea measured from appropriate base line. The territories strictly speaking of a state includes therefore not only the compass of land in the ordinary acceptance of the term belonging to such state but also that portion of sea lying along and washing its coasts which is commonly called its maritime territory. The laws of that state apply to acts committed with in them. Punishment of offences committed beyond but which by law may be tried within India (Sec.3) Any person liable, by any Indian law to be tried for an offence committed beyond India shall be dealt with according to the provisions of this Code for any act committed beyond India in the same manner as if such act had been committed within India. Extension of Code to extra-territorial offences (Sec.4) The provisions of this Code apply also to any offence committed by- (1) any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India; a) Crimes Committed outside India:- Where an offence is committed beyond the limits of India but the offender is found within its limits, then b) He may be given up for trial in the country where the offences was committed.(extradition) c) He may be tried in India. Extra-territorial jurisdiction:- Indian courts are empowered to try offence commited out of India on a) Land b) High seas or c) Air craft. (2) any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be. Explanation- In this section the word "offence" includes every act committed outside India which, if committed in India, would be punishable under this Code. Certain Laws not to be affected by this Act. ( Sec.5) (2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding six months, or with fine or with both. Abetment of a thing(Sec.107) A person abets the doing of a thing, who instigates any person to do that thing. Ingredients of abetment a)- Instigates any person to do that thing; or b)- Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or c)- Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1- A person who by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Illustration A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation 2- Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act. Abettor(sec 108) A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor. 1- The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act. 2- To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused. 3- lt. is not necessary that the person abetted should be capable by law of committing an offence, or that he should have the same guilty intention or intention or knowledge as that of the abettor, or any guilty intention or knowledge. Difference between Criminal conspiracy and abetment. 1) Conspiracy is a form of abetment 2) Abetment is committed in the various ways enumerated in sections 107 to 108 above of which conspirancy is one. 3) Abetment is not perse a substantive offence 4) Criminal conspiracy is a substantive offence by itself and punishable as such 5) A mere conspiracy would not amount to abetment and it would appear that if conspirator were detected before they had done more than discussed plan with a general intention to commit an offence they would not be liable as abettors. Illustrations (a) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder. (b) A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers from the wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit murder (c) A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic to commit an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence, and having the same intention as A. Here A, whether the act be committed or not, is guilty of abetting an offence. (d) with the intention of murdering Z, instigates B, a child under seven years of age, to do an act which causes Z's death. B, in consequence of the abetment, does the act in the absence of A and thereby causes Z's death. Here, though B was not capable by law of committing an offence. A is liable to be punished in the same manner as if B had been capable by law of committing an offence, and had committed murder and he is therefore subject to the punishment of death. Conclusion:- The above mentioned points are the difference between Criminal Conspiracy and abetment Criminal conspiracy is one of the offence under abetment. 2(b). A, an officer of a court of Justice, being ordered by that Court to arrest Y, and, after due enquiry, believing Z to be Y arrests Z. Whether A has committed any offence? Here A has committed no offence. Section 76 IPC reads; S.76. Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound by law. – Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of mistake of fact and not by reason of mistake of law in good faith believing himself to be, bound by law to do it. Illustration (b) of this section resembles to the given problem. Thus in the given problem A has not committed any offence. UNIT - III Q. No. 3. (a) Define Culpable Homicide and discuss when Culpable Homicide ………………amounts to murder? Marks : 10 OR Explain ‘Force’, ‘Criminal force’ and ‘Assault’. (b) Write a short note on ‘Dowry death’. Marks : 06 OR ‘A’ causes ‘B’ to go within a room and locks ‘B’ in, with an intention to ………………prevent him from proceeding in any direction beyond the room. What ………………offence has ‘A’ committed? ANSWER : 3(a) Culpable Homicide and Murder Definition:- Section.299. Culpable homicide Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention 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. Illustrations (a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide. (b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z's death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide. (c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable homicide, as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death. Explanation 1- A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death. Explanation 2- Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented. Explanation 3- The causing. of the death of child in the mother's womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born. Murder (Sec.300)  Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or  If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused, or- Where a person attacked by his enemies on a roof and given a few cuts with a dangerous weapon and in order to avoid the attack he jumped from the roof to his death it was held that even if the death was caused by his own act of jumping the accused were guilty of murder as jumping was necessitated by their act. Conclusion:- In Culpable homicide a person is killed and the person who is responsible for this killing is liable for punishment but in murder the person is having criminal intention to kill that person but in culpable homicide intention is not there so for the offence murder the punishment is more compared to culpable homicide. 3(b). ‘A’ Causes ‘B’ to go within a room and locks ‘B’ in, with an intention to prevent him from proceeding in any direction beyond the room. What offence has ‘A’ committed. “A” is committed an offence called Wrongful Confinement. ‘A’ is liable for the punishment under this act he is locked ‘B’ in room and not allowed to move in any directions so he committed the offence of Wrongful Confinement under Section 340. UNIT - IV Q. No. 4. (a) What is kidnapping from lawful guardianship? How does it differ from ……………...abduction? Marks : 10 OR What is robbery? When does it becomes dacoity? (b) A cuts down a tree on B’s land dishonestly without B’s consent. Decide ………………the offence of ‘A’. Marks : 06 OR Write a short note on ‘Cheating’. ANSWER : Robbery and Dacoity Definition:-Section 390. Robbery In all robbery there is either theft or extortion. When theft is robbery- Theft is "robbery" if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carving away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the theft, the offender, for that end, voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. When extortion is robbery- Extortion is "robbery" if the offender, at the time of committing the extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person, and, by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted. Explanation- The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint. Illustrations (a) A holds Z down and fraudulently takes Z's money and jewels from Z's clothes without Z's consent. Here A has committed theft, and in order to the committing of that theft, has voluntarily caused wrongful restraint to Z. A has therefore committed robbery. (b) A meets Z on the high roads, shows a pistol, and demands Z's purse. Z in consequence, surrenders his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z by putting him in fear of instant hurt, and being at the time of committing the extortion in his presence. A has therefore committed robbery. (c) A meets Z and Z's child on the high road. A takes the child and threatens to fling it down a precipice, unless Z delivers his purse. Z, in consequence delivers his purse. Here A has extorted the purse from Z, by causing Z to be in fear of instant hurt to the child who is there present. A has therefore committed robbery on Z. (d) A obtains property from Z by saying- "Your child is in the hands of my gang, and will be put to death unless you send us ten thousand rupees". This is extortion, and punishable as such; but it is not robbery, unless Z is put in fear of the instant death of his child. Dacoity (Sec.391) When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit "dacoity". Punishment for robbery (Sec.392) Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, theimprisonment may be extended to fourteen years. Attempt to commit robbery (Sec.393)Whoever attempts to commit robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery (Sec.394)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 which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Punishment for dacoity (Sec.395) Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with 152[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Dacoity with murder (Sec.396) If any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Robbery, or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt (Sec.397) If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or 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. Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon (Sec.398) If, at the time of attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, the offender is armed with any deadly weapon, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years. Making preparation to commit dacoity (Sec.399) Whoever makes, any preparation for committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprison- ment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Punishment for belonging to gang of dacoits (Sec.400) Whoever, at any time after the passing of' this Act, shall belong, to a gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity, shall be punished with 152[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Punishment for belonging to gang of thieves (Sec.401) Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall belong to any wandering or other gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing theft or robbery, and not being a gang of 'thugs or dacoits, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity (Sec.402) Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall be one of five or more persons assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Case Law. Padmanava mahapatra 1983Crlj NOC238 (Ori) (a) A says-"Z is an honest man; he never stole B's watch"; intending to cause it to be believed that Z did steal B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions. (b) A is asked who stole B's watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation unless it fall within one of the exceptions. (c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B's watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions. First Exception- imputation of truth which public good, requires to be made or published- It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for the public good is a question of fact. Second Exception- Public conduct of public servants- It is not defamation to express in a good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Third Exception- Conduct of any person touching any public question- It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Illustration it is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting Z's conduct in petitioning Government on a public question, in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public question, in presiding or attending a such meeting, in forming or joining any society which invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in the efficient discharges of the duties of which the public is interested. Fourth Exception- Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts- It is not defamation to publish substantially true report of the proceedings of a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings. Explanation- A Justice of the Peace or other officer holding an inquiry in open Court preliminary to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above section. Fifth Exception- Merits of case decided in Court or conduct of witnesses and others concerned- It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further. Illustrations (a) A says-"I think Z's evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must be stupid or dishonest". A is within this exception if he says this is in good faith, in as much as the opinion which he expresses respects Z's character as it appears in Z's conduct as a witness, and no further. (b) But if A says-"I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because 1 know him to be a man without veracity"; A is not within this exception, in as much as the opinion which he express of Z's character, is an opinion not founded on Z's conduct as a witness. Sixth Exception- Merits of public performance- It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgement of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further. Explanation- A performance may be substituted to the judgement of the public expressly or by acts on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgement of the public. Illustrations (a) A person who publishes a book, submits that book to the judgement of the public. (b) A person who makes a speech in public, submits that speech to the judgement of the public. (c) An actor or singer who appears on a public stage, submits his acting or signing in the judgement of the public. (d) A says of a book published by Z- "Z's book is foolish; Z must be a weak man. Z's book is indecent; Z must be a man of impure mind". A is within the exception, if he says this in good faith, in as much as the opinion which he expresses of Z respects Z's character only so far as it appears in Z's book, and no further. (e) But if A says-"I am not surprised that Z's book is foolish and indecent, for he is a weak man and a libertines. A is not within this exception, in as much as the opinion which he expresses of Z's character is an opinion not founded on Z's book. Seventh Exception- Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another- It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates. Illustration A Judge censuring in good faith the conduct of a witness, or of an officer of the Court; a head of a department censuring in good faith those who are under his orders; a parent censuring in good faith a child in the presence of other children; a schoolmaster, whose authority is derived from a parent, censuring in good faith a pupil in the presence of other pupils; a master censuring a servant in good faith for remissness in service; a banker censuring in good faith the cashier of his bank for the conduct of such cashier as such cashier-are within the exception. Eight Exception- Accusation preferred in good faith to authorised person- It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of accusation. Illustration If A in good faith accuse Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a servant, to Z's master; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, and child, to Z's father-A is within this exception. Ninth Exception- Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other's interests- It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it, or of any other person, or for the public good. A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business-"Sell nothing to Z unless he pays you ready money, for 1 have no opinion of his honesty". A is with in the exception, if he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of his own interests. A, a Magistrate, in making a report of his own superior officer, casts an imputation on the character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good faith, and for the public good, A is within the exception. Tenth Exception- Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good- it is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good. Punishment for defamation (Sec.500) Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory (Sec.501) Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to believe that such matter is