Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Model Question Paper 2 Solution: Law of Crimes

Q1. Answer the following in not more than two sentences (Any Six)                     12 M

a) What amounts to criminal intimidation?

According to Section 503 of the IPC, whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intim­idation. 

b) State any two exceptions to the offence of defamation.

Section 499 IPC defines defamation and gives 10 exceptions to it. (Write any two)

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.

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.

Fifth Exception:

Merits of a 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.

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 judgment of the public, or respecting the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further.

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.

Eighth 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.

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.

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.

c) Define mischief and give two examples of it.

According to Section 425 IPC, whoever with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits “mischief”.

d) What is stolen property?

According to Section 410(1) IPC, property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been committed, is designated as “stolen property”.

e) What is wrongful confinement?

According to Section 340 IPC, whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said “wrongfully to confine” that person.

f) What is cardinal principle of criminal justice?

The cardinal principle of criminal justice is “Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege” means no crime or punishment can exist without a pre-existing penal law.

g) What is criminal trespass under IPC?

According to Section 441 IPC, whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit “criminal trespass”.

h) What is cheating by personation under the IPC?

According to Section 416 IPC, 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 or another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.

Q2. Write Short Notes on the Following (Any Two)                                             12 M

a) Forgery

The IPC defines forgery by two sections: Sections 463 and 464. Accordingly, a false document made with any of the intentions as mentioned in Section 463 gives rise to forgery and making a false document is explained in Section 464. In Sections 463 and 464 the element of fraud is common. These sections as per the Calcutta High Court’s opinion are, therefore, tautological. Sections 463 and 464 IPC are to be read together because definition of ‘false document’ given in Section 464 is a part of forgery as defined in Section 463.

Forgery is defined in Sections 463 and 464 IPC.  According to Section 463 IPC, whoever makes any false document or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.

According to Section 464 IPC, a person is said to make a false document or false electronic record— First —Who dishonestly or fradulently—

(a) makes, signs, seals or executes a document or part of a document;

(b) makes or transmits any electronic record or part of any electronic record;

(c) affixes any electronic signature]on any electronic record;

(d) makes any mark denoting the execution of a document or the authenticity of the electronic signature,

with the intention of causing it to be believed that such document or part of document, electronic record or electronic signature was made, signed, sealed, executed, transmitted or affixed by or by the authority of a person by whom or by whose authority he knows that it was not made, signed, sealed, executed or affixed; or

Secondly —Who, without lawful authority, dishonestly or fraudulently, by cancellation or otherwise, alters a document or an electronic record in any material part thereof, after it has been made, executed or affixed with electronic signature either by himself or by any other person, whether such person be living or dead at the time of such alteration; or

Thirdly —Who dishonestly or fraudulently causes any person to sign, seal, execute or alter a document or an electronic record or to affix his electronic signature on any electronic record knowing that such person by reason of unsoundness of mind or intoxication cannot, or that by reason of deception practised upon him, he does not know the contents of the document or electronic record or the nature of the alteration.

The usual types of forgery are: simulation of writing by free hand, traced forgery, and disguised writing. As Section 463 would have it, making a false document with any of the intents mentioned therein is forgery and Section 464 explains as to when a person is said to make a false document.

To constitute forgery the simple making of a false document is sufficient. What amounts to making a false document has been explained in Section 464 with profuse illustrations. It must be noted that in the absence of dishonesty and fraud making a false document is not an offence. Thus, obtaining signature on blank paper by itself is not forgery, it is an offence only when the paper is fabricated into a document contrary to the Indian Penal Code or when such document is used as genuine.

Section 465, IPC provides for punishment for forgery. According to it whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

In G. S. Bansal v. The Delhi Administration, AIR 1963 SC 1577 case, where a person who had given postal certificates as security to a department by taking them in the name of the said department died. The heir of deceased got retransfer of certificates in name of deceased and encashed them, by signing the name of deceased and attesting the same. The court held that heir of deceased committed forgery.

b) Custodial Rape:

The provisions relating to aggravated rape were introduced into the Indian Penal Code by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 1983, which was enacted in response to rape law reform movement post the decision of the Supreme Court in the Mathura case. Seven categories of rape were considered aggravated, higher minimum punishments were prescribed, and evidentiary rules were changed for aggravated rape cases. Changes were made again in 2013, when the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act was enacted in response to the December gang rape-homicide incident in Delhi. The categories of cases where rape amounted to an aggravated form was increased to fourteen, separate provisions were introduced for causing death during an act of rape, and to deal with repeat offenders.

A person is said to be in custody when he/she is under the strict supervision and control of another person or an institution who is said to be the custodian. The custodian has the absolute power of control over the individuals, including their movement, freedom, necessities like food and water, contact with the outside world, and so on. This relation of control and dependence guides towards a strong duty of care and protection on the custodian. But when these higher authorities start to take undue advantage of their position and induce any female inmate of such institution to have sexual intercourse with him, it is said to be ‘custodial rape’. Custodial Rape even under conditions of such supervision and control is a very serious violation where the aggressor not only takes advantage of his position for control over the woman but also violates her bodily integrity and the duty to care and protecting the citizens.

Maya Tyagi who was six months pregnant was dragged out of the car, beaten, stripped. When she did not move despite the cruel beatings, the cops shovelled a lathi into her vagina. She was paraded naked to the police station where she was raped. Her spouse was shot dead by the cops. This case leads to the widespread protests from women’s organizations as well as political parties across the country. A judicial enquiry was ordered into this incident, and there was a parliamentary debate on the increasing rates in incidents of rape and violence against women.

In Tukaram and others v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1979 SC 185 case also known as the Mathura Rape case, wherein 1972, Mathura, an Adivasi girl, who was of an age between 14-16 years was sexually assaulted, raped by Constable Ganpat and Head Constable Tukaram also assaulted her by fondling her private parts. An FIR was lodged against the two police constables.

• The Session’s Court judgement had held that as there was no satisfactory evidence of Mathura being below 16 years of age. The learned judge stated that Mathura did have intercourse with Constable Ganpat, and Tukaram did that because she was habitual to sexual intercourse.
• On further appeal, the High Court found that the two Constables were guilty and therefore had sentenced Tukaram with one year of imprisonment and Ganpat with five years of imprisonment.
• However, the Supreme Court said that the nature of consent of the victim had to be understood from the circumstances and the circumstances showed that the consent was not “passive”. There was no injury she had suffered, therefore it could not be concluded that the girl had been subject to any fear or was constraint such as it would justify an inference of “passive submission”. As for the allegations which were made against Tukaram, the first information report that was made by Mathura against Tukaram had serious allegations on which during the trial, she had gone back at the trial and the acts covered by which she assigned in her deposition to Ganpat instead of Tukaram. The court explained that if a girl could alter her words concerning such serious allegations, how could it be guaranteed that her words are truthful in association to what she now says about Tukaram? Thus the charge remained unproved against the head constable Tukaram. In conclusion, the appeal succeeded and was accepted. The verdict of the Supreme Court reversed from the verdict of the High Court and the conviction which were recorded against including the sentences which were imposed upon the appellants were set aside. Thus, the appellants were acquitted.

The concept of custodial rape applies to the superintendent of a jail, remand home, or other places of custody established by law. However, this is also directed to the management or staff of a hospital (government and private), mental health care institutions or rehabilitation centres, juvenile homes and shelter homes

c) Criminal Breach of Trust:

The Indian Penal Code of 1860 under Chapter XVII provides for offences against property. Criminal breach of trust is considered as an offence against property under this Chapter and Sections 405 to 409 deals with the specific provisions concerning the criminal breach of trust.

According to Section 405 IPC, whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property, or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of 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 wilfully suffers any other person so to do, commits “criminal breach of trust”.

Essential Ingredients of Criminal Breach of Trust:

Essential Elements of Section 405 are as follows:

1. Entrusting a person with a property or dominion over that property; and
2. The person entrusted

(a) dishonestly misappropriates the property or converts it to his own use; or

(b) dishonestly uses or disposes of the property or willfully suffers another person to do so by violating –

(i) any law regulating the discharging of that trust; or

(ii) any legal contract regulating the discharging of that trust.

The definition of criminal breach of trust provided under Section 405 can be construed as any dishonest use or disposition of property by one person upon whom the other person has entrusted his property and owing to this dishonest use or disposition the latter should have suffered breach of trust as the act must have been committed in discharge of such trust.

According to Section 406, the punishment for this offence is imprisonment up to 3 years or fine or both. In order to prosecute the offender, the complainant has the burden to prove his guilt.

In Jaswantrai Manilal Akhaney v. the State of Bombay, AIR 1956 SC 575  case, where the state prima facie sold cement only on the condition that it will be used for the purpose of construction work only. Some portion of cement received was diverted towards a godown. The court held that this amounts to criminal breach of trust. It further helps define the word entrustment as when a person is entitled to hold a property, whereas the owner still remains the same to whom the property belongs.

In State of UP v Babu Ram, 11 April, 2000 case, where the accused was a police constable, when he went for investigation to a village, he found a person running hurriedly to the field, and searched him and found him with a bund of currency notes which was ceased by the police officer and later returned but Rs. 250 was less. The Court held that the accused taking money amounts to trust and returning less money amounts to a breach of trust and thus liable to be punished.

d) Stalking:

Stalking is constant communication, which will make victim feel frightened or abused. victim may be stalked by someone who watches the victim or often calls the victim. Stalkers can also use apps to harass victim by sending unwelcome emails or messages from social media. Stalking is a crime.

Section 354D defines the offence of stalking. According to the Section, any man who—

1. follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or
2. monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic communication,
   commits the offence of stalking.

Exceptions to Stalking:

• If the woman is pursued by the man as a part of his responsibility to the state, to detect a crime or prevent one from happening;
• To abide by any condition or law given by a person authorised by law;
• Other situations that might make his conduct reasonably justifiable.

Essentials of Stalking under Section 354D IPC:

• It must be committed by any man.
• The following man tried to contact any woman against her interest.
• The act of the man creates a certain repeated-ness.
• There should be an absence of interest against the part of the woman.

The punishment prescribed by the Section for stalking is simple or grievous imprisonment for a term of three years and fine upon first conviction and on a second or subsequent conviction, imprisonment for a term of five years and fine.

Section 354D(1)(ii) mentions that monitoring the use of the internet or email or any other electronic communications by a man even after she has expressed her disinterest and displeasure to interact amounts to online stalking.

Trying to contact a woman and make personal acquaintances even after she has shown her disinterest, defaming, slander and libel on an online platform also are considered cyberstalking.  For example: sending friend requests to a girl’s account even after she rejected it from multiple accounts.

Cyberstalking is usually dealt with under Sections 66E, 67, 67A and 67B of the Information Technology Act of 2000 while being read with 354D(1)(ii).

In Shri Deu Baju Bodake v. The State of Maharashtra, (2016) case, the Bombay High court investigated a case involving the death of women and after discovering it was found that the cause of her death was ongoing harassment and stalking by the offender. She was the target of the accused’s harassment and stalking while she was at work and despite her resistance and lack of interest. The High Court held it important to record Section 354D coupled with abetment to suicide to punish the guilty.

Q3. Answer the following by giving reason (Any Two)                                        12 M

(a) Hansaben aged 66 is married to Kanti aged 70. Hansaben is suffering from terminal cancer and is in severe pain. The doctors have stated that she has not many months to live. Hansaben asks Kanti to give poison and end her agony. Kanti thereby gives her poison and she dies.

(i) What offence, if any has Kanti committed? What is the maximum and minimum sentence of punishment that can be awarded to Kanti?

(ii) If Kanti had given poison to Hansaben with his own decision, What would be the offence of Kanti and extent of punishment?

(i) What offence, if any has Kanti committed? What is the maximum and minimum sentence of punishment that can be awarded to Kanti?

Kanti has committed the offence of culpable homicide. According to the fifth exception attached to Section 300 defining murder, culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused being above the age of 18 year, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent. Section 304 IPC provides punishment for culpable homicide. According Section 304 IPC, whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. Active Euthanasia is not allowed in India.

(ii) If Kanti had given poison to Hansaben with his own decision, what would be the offence of Kanti and extent of punishment?

If Kanti had given poison to Hansaben without her consent out of pity, it would have been euthanasia or mercy killing, which is not allowed in India. In such case, Kanti would have committed the offence of murder. Here the intention of Kanti is to kill Hansaben at any cost. No exception cannot be applied to this act. He would be punished for murder under Section 302 IPC.

b) Priti is in a grave financial trouble and desperately seeking a job. She goes to office of Madhur who is a film producer and is a casting for small role in his upcoming film. Madhur tells her that he will give her the role in his upcoming film. Madhur tells her that he will give her the role if she sexually intercourse with him. Priti who needs the money urgently out of frustration accepts the offer and is given the role. Subsequently Priti files a case of Rape against Madhur.

(i) Will Priti succeed?

(ii) Would it make any difference if Priti were 15 years of age?

(i) Will Priti succeed?

No, Priti will not succeed. Under Section 375 IPC, a man is said to commit “rape” who, except in the case hereinafter excepted, has sexual intercourse with a woman under circumstances falling under any of the six de­scriptions given in the Section. Fourth exception says that the sexual intercourse with woman is not a rape if it is done with her consent, when the man knows that he is not her husband, and that her consent is given because she believes that he is another man to whom she is or believes herself to be law­fully married.

(ii) Would it make any difference if Priti were 15 years of age?

If Priti were 15 years of age, the consent would have been immaterial and Madhur can be booked under the charge of Rape. The Sixth description attached to Section 375 makes it clear.

(c) Raj, Ram, Viru, Surya, and Mahesh decided to break open a local jewellers shop in order to steal the jewels. The they go to the house of the local blacksmith, Pandu, and putting a gun to his head, brought him to the jeweller’s shop and made him to break the lock. The neighbours informed the police who come immediately and apprehend them all.

(i) What offence would they be liable for?

(ii) Would Pandu be liable for the same offence?

(i)What offence would they be liable for?

They have committed the offence of Dacoity. According to Section 391 IPC, 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”. They will be punished under Section 395 IPC, the Section lays down that whoever commits dacoity 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.

(ii) Would Pandu be liable for the same offence?

Pandu would be exempted from criminal liability under Section 94 IPC under Duress. According to Section 94 IPC, except murder, and offences against the State punishable with death, nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence: Provided the person doing the act did not of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant death, place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint.

(d)Bandya and Satya two hoolingans come across each other and have an argument. Bandya punches Satya in the stomach. Satya has informed ulcer in his stomach which ruptures due to the punch and causes internal bleeding. He succumbs in the hospital and dies.

(i) What offence is Bandya guilty of?

(ii) If Bandya and Satya were friends and Satya knows about Satya’s ailment. What would be your answer?

(i) What offence is Bandya guilty of?

Bandya is guilty of causing hurt to Satya under Section 319 IPC which lays down that whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. Here it is to be noted that there is death of Satya, but Bandya had no intention to kill Satya and he had no idea about ailment of Satya.

(ii) If Bandya and Satya were friends and Satya knows about Satya’s ailment. What would be your answer?

In this situation, Bandya was knowing that a blow in stomach of Satya can cause his death. Then as per second clause of Section 300, culpable homicide is murder, 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. Thus in such situation Bandya has committed a murder and be punished under Section 302 IPC.

Q4. Answer in details (Any Three)                                                                         39 M

(a) Critically examine various offences relating to marriage under IPC.

Chapters XX and XXA of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deal with offences relating to the institution of marriage.  These offences relating to marriage are listed between Section 493-498A of the Indian Penal Code. Chapter XX-A containing only one section (s.498A) dealing with cruelty to a woman by her husband or relatives to coerce her and her parents to meet material greed of dowry was added to the IPC by the Second amendment Act,1983. In this article, we shall discuss Section 493 IPC.

These sections serve as a legal safeguard against actions that can cause harm, deception, or injustice within the institution of marriage. By defining and punishing such offences, the law aims to maintain the integrity of marriages and promote fairness, trust, and equality between spouses. The six offences punishable herein are:

• S. 493: Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage
• S. 494: Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife.
• S. 495: Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted
• S. 496: Marriage ceremony fraudulently gone through without lawful marriage
• S. 497: Adultery
• S. 498: Enticing or taking away or detaining with criminal intent a married woman
• S. 498A:

Section 493:

Cohabitation Caused by a Man Deceitfully Inducing a Belief of Lawful Marriage:

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, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Nature of Offence: Non-cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable, triable by Magistrate of First Class

Punishment: Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Case Laws:

In Samman v. State of M.P case, the Court held that the offence under Section 493 can also be punished as rape under Section 375 (4).

Section 496 IPC:

Marriage Ceremony Fraudulently Gone Through Without Lawful Marriage:

Whoever, dishonestly or with a fraudulent intention, goes through the ceremony of being married, knowing that he is not thereby lawfully married, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Nature of Offence: Non-cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable, triable by Magistrate of First Class

Punishment: Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

In Kailash Singh v State of Rajasthan, 1982 Cri. LJ 1005 case, where an accused did a second marriage during the pendency of appeal against the decree of divorce. However, he did not conceal the fact from the girl. In this case, the court held that the accused is not liable for the offence under section 496 IPC as the mens rea is an essential element for 496. The accused did not have dishonest intentions.

Section 494 IPC:

Marrying Again During Lifetime of Husband or Wife:

Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Exceptions:

• Any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declared void by a Court of competent jurisdiction
• Where the spouse has been continually absent for a period of 7 years and not heard to be alive within such period

Nature of Offence: Non-cognizable, bailable, compoundable, triable by Magistrate of First Class

Punishment: Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

In Sri. T. Manjanna v State of Karnataka, CRL. P 8940/2016 case, the petitioner sought to quash the FIR filed against him under Section 494 of the IPC. The complainant, who was the petitioner’s legally married wife, alleged that he had contracted a second marriage during the pendency of their divorce proceedings. However, the court found that there was no evidence supporting the accusation of a second marriage.

Section 495 IPC:

Same Offence with Concealment of Former Marriage from Person with Whom Subsequent Marriage is Contracted:

Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section having concealed from the person with whom the subsequent marriage is contracted, the fact of the former marriage, shall be punished with imprison­ment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Nature of Offence: Non-cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable, triable by Magistrate of First Class

Punishment: Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

In Subhash Babu v State of Andhra Pradesh, 21 July, 2011 case, the interpretation of the term “wife” and “aggrieved person” under Section 495 of the Indian Penal Code was broadened. The Court looked beyond the technical explanation of the section and focused on the objective of the law in applying it. The Court recognized that the second wife should be considered a lawful wife because she was deceived by the concealment of her husband’s first living spouse. The Court deemed this act as the most severe form of fraud recognized by the law and emphasized the need for strict punishment. It was established that a second wife can file a complaint against her husband under Section 495, and such a complaint is maintainable.

Section 497 IPC:

In Joeseph Shine case, the Supreme Court has declared Section 497 IPC dealing with Adultery unconstitutional.

Section 498 IPC:

Enticing or Taking Away or Detaining with Criminal Intent a Married Woman:

Whoever takes or entices away any woman who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of any other man, from that man, or from any person having the care of her on behalf of that man, with intent that she may have illicit intercourse with any person, or conceals or detains with that intent any such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

In State of H.P. v. Mt. Kala, AIR 1957 HP 42 case, where the High Court observed that the taking away of wife does not mean taking by force and means something different from enticing. “Taking” implies there is some influence, physical or moral, brought to bear by the accused to induce the wife to leave her husband. It is sufficient that the accused personally and actively aided the wife to break loose from her husband’s house or from the custody of any person who was taking care of her on behalf of the husband, when this is done with the intention stated in this section.

Section 498A:

Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Conclusion:

Among the various kind of offences against women prevalent today are the marital offences including bigamy, adultery, criminal elopement among others and the one that is probably the most common offence is cruelty. Over time, courts have broadened the ambit of the definition to include within it different instances. The provisions dealing with matrimonial felonies have been framed in a way that raises a presumption against the accused if certain minimum requirements are met. 

(b) Explain the offence of trespass, along with all the variations thereof.

“The word trespass in common English acceptation means and implies unlawful or unwarrantable intrusion upon land. Civil trespass refers to a situation where a person directly enters upon land of another person without his permission or, remains upon the land or, places any object upon the land whereas, criminal trespass includes trespass committed for purpose of and with the intention of commission of offence against the possessor of property or for causing him any kind of annoyance. Criminal trespass focuses on intention of the offender and not upon the nature of the act. Chapter XVII titled “Offences against Property” containing Sections 441-462 (22 Sections) of the IPC incorporate the offence of criminal trespass and aggravated forms thereof.

Criminal Trespass:

Section 441:

Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit “criminal trespass”.

From the definition of criminal trespass, we can see that as per the Section criminal trespass is divided into two parts, the first part refers to the act when someone unlawfully, without any right or an express or implied license, enters into the private property of another person and the second part in which the entry is lawful but the person remains in such property with a criminal intention which makes the act unlawful.

Essential Ingredients of Criminal Trespass:

In Mathri v. State of Punjab AIR 1964 SC 986 case, the Supreme Court described the essential ingredients of criminal trespass as follows:

• Entry into or upon property in the possession of another;
• If this entry is lawful, then unlawfully remaining upon such property;
• Such entry or unlawful remaining must be with intent-
• to commit an offence; or
• to intimidate, insult or annoy the person in possession of the property.
• The use of criminal force is not a necessary ingredient.

Punishment for Criminal Trespass:

Section 447 IPC:

Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, with fine or which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

Aggravated Forms of Criminal Trespass:

House Trespass:

Section 442 IPC:

Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling. or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for the custody of property, is said to commit “House-trespass”.

Explanation attached to it says that the introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser’s body is entering sufficient to constitute house-trespass.

Punishment for House-Trespass:

Section 448 IPC:

Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine or which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

House-Trespass in Order to Commit Offence Punishable with Death:

Section 449 IPC:

Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with death, shall be punishable with ¹⁵²[imprisonment for life], or with rigorous imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

House-Trespass in Order to Commit Offence Punishable with Imprisonment for Life:

Section 450 IPC:

Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with ¹⁵²[imprisonment for life], shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding. ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

House-Trespass in Order to Commit Offence Punishable with Imprisonment:

Section 451 IPC:

Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to seven years.

House-Trespass after Preparation for Hurt, Assault or Wrongful Restraint:

Section 452 IPC:

Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Lurking House-Trespass:

Section 443 IPC:

Whoever commits house-trespass having taken precautions to conceal such house-trespass from some person who has a right to exclude or eject the trespasser from the building, tent or vessel which is the subject of the trespass, is said to commit “lurking house-trespass”.

Lurking House-Trespass by Night:

Section 444 IPC:

Whoever commits lurking house-trespass after sunset and before sunrise, is said to commit “lurking house-trespass by night”.

House Breaking:

Section 445 IPC:

A person is said to commit “house-breaking” who commits house-trespass if he effects his entrance into the house or any part of it in any of the six ways here in after described; or if, being in the house or any part of it for the purpose of committing an offence, or, having committed an offence therein, he quits the house or any part of it in any of such six ways, that is to say:-

First- If he enters or quits through a passage by himself, or by any abettor of the house-trespass, in order to the committing of the house-trespass.

Secondly- If he enters or quits through any passage not intended by any person, other than himself or an abettor of the offence, for human entrance; or through any passage to which he has obtained access by scaling or climbing over any wall or building.

Thirdly- If lie enters or quits through any passage which he or any abettor of the house-trespass has opened, in order to the committing of the house-trespass by any means by which that passage was not intended by the occupier of the house to be opened.

Fourthly- If he enters or quits by opening any lock in order to the committing of the house-trespass, or in order to the quitting of the house after a house-trespass.

Fifthly- If he effects his entrance or departure by using criminal force or committing an assault or by threatening any person with assault.

Sixthly- If he enters or quits by any passage which he knows to have been fastened against such entrance or departure, and to have been unfastened by himself or by an abettor of the house-trespass.

Punishment for Lurking House-Trespass or House-Breaking:

Section 453 IPC:

Whoever commits lurking house-trespass or housebreaking, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Lurking House-Trespass or House-Breaking in Order to Commit Offence Punishable with Imprisonment:

Section 454 IPC:

Whoever commits lurking house-trespass or housebreaking, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to ten years.

Lurking House-Trespass or House-Breaking after Preparation for Hurt, Assault or Wrongful Restraint:

Section 455:

Whoever commits lurking house-trespass, or house-breaking, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person, or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to tell years, and shall also be liable to fine.

House-Breaking by Night:

Section 446 IPC:

Whoever commits house-breaking. after sunset and before sunrise, is said to commit “house- breaking by night”.

Punishment for Lurking House-Trespass or House-Breaking by Night:

Section 456 IPC:

Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Lurking House-Trespass or House-Breaking by Night in Order to Commit Offence Punishable with Imprisonment:

Section 457 IPC:

Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may he extended to fourteen years.

Lurking House-Trespass or House-Breaking by Night after Preparation for Hurt, Assault, or Wrongful Restraint:

Section 458 IPC:

Whoever commits lurking house-trespass by night, or house-breaking by night, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Grievous Hurt Caused Whilst Committing Lurking House Trespass or Housebreaking:

Section 459 IPC:

Whoever, whilst committing lurking house-trespass or house-breaking, causes grievous hurt to any person or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

All Persons Jointly Concerned in Lurking House-Trespass or House-Breaking by Night Punishable where Death or Grievous Hurt Caused by One of Them:

Section 460 IPC:

If, at the time of the committing of lurking house-trespass by night or house-breaking by night, any person guilty of such offence shall voluntarily cause or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, every person jointly concerned in committing such lurking house-trespass by night or house-breaking by night, 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.

Dishonestly Breaking Open Receptacle Containing Property:

Section 461 IPC:

Whoever dishonestly or with intent to commit mischief, breaks open or unfastens any closed receptacle which contains or which he believes to contain property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Punishment for Same Offence when Committed by Person Entrusted with Custody:

Section 462 IPC:

Whoever, being entrusted with any closed receptacle which contains or which he believes to contain property, without having authority to open the same, dishonestly, or with intent to commit mischief, breaks open or unfastens that receptacle, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.

(c) Discuss instances where a person has caused the death of the victim, but will not be considered guilty of murder.

The word “murder” derived from the Germanic term “morth,” which means “Secret Killing.” Murder means when one person is killed by another person or a group of people having a pre-determined intention to end the former’s life. An offence will not amount to “murder” unless it contains an act that falls under the definition of culpable homicide as per the definition of Murder under IPC. All culpable homicides are not murders but all murders are homicides. The offence of “Murder” comes under section 300 of the Indian Penal Code and it also states five exceptions when culpable homicide is not considered as murder.

Murder:

Section 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-

Secondly- 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-

Thirdly- If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or-

Fourthly,- If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

The IPC defines murder in Section 300, which states that culpable homicide is murder if it is committed with the intention of causing death or with the knowledge that the act is likely to cause death. This means that for an act to be considered murder, two essential ingredients must be present: intention and knowledge.

Intention: The first essential ingredient of murder is intention, which means that the offender must have the intention of causing death. This can be either an express intention, where the offender explicitly plans to cause the death of another person, or an implied intention, where the offender acts in a way that is likely to cause death, even if they do not explicitly state their intention.

Knowledge: The second essential ingredient of murder is knowledge, which means that the offender must have knowledge that their act is likely to cause death. This means that the offender must be aware that their actions are likely to cause serious bodily harm or death.

However, the IPC also recognizes that there are certain circumstances where an act that would normally be considered murder may be reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. This includes cases where the offender did not have the intention or knowledge required for murder, or where the act was committed in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation. Such situations are given in exceptions attached to the Section 300.

Exception 1: Grave and Sudden Provocation:

Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident. The above exception is subject to the following provisos:-

• First- That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing. or doing harm to any person.
• Secondly- That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
• Thirdly- That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defense.

A is given grave and sudden provocation by C. A fires at C as a result of this provocation. A didn’t intend or have knowledge that his act is likely to kill C, who was out of A’s sight. A kills C. A is not liable to murder but is liable to culpable homicide.

In K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1962 SC 605 case, the Supreme Court had extensively explained the law relating to provocation in India. It was observed by the Court:

• The test of “sudden and grave provocation” is whether a reasonable man, who belongs to the same society as the accused, is placed in the situation in which the accused was placed would have been so provoked as to lose his self-control.
• Under certain circumstances, words and gestures may also lead to sudden and grave provocation to an accused, so as to bring his act under an exception.
• The mental background of the victim can be taken into consideration, taking account of his previous act to ascertain whether the subsequent act leads to sudden and grave provocation for committing the offence.
• The fatal blow clearly should trace the influence of passion that arises from the sudden and grave provocation. It should not be after the provocation has been cooled down due to lapse of time, otherwise, it will give room and scope to the accused for altering the evidence.

Exception 2: Right of Private Defence:

Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defense of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defense without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defense.

In Nathan v. State of Madras, AIR 1973 SC 665 case, the landlord was trying forcefully evict the accused. The accused killed the landlord while exercising his right to private defence. There was no fear of death to the accused as the deceased was not holding any deadly weapon that could have caused grievous hurt or death of the accused. The deceased had no intention to kill the accused, thus, the accused exceeded his right of private defence. The accused was liable to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Exception 3 (Act of Public Servant Exercising his Legal Power):

Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding. a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.

In Lakhi Singh v. State, AIR 1955 All 379 case, the appellant was the constable of Railway Protection Force, while he was on duty he killed a fireman unintentionally, while he was firing bullet shots to catch the thief. The constable was entitled to benefit under this section.

Exception 4 (Sudden Fight):

Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

In Radhey Shyam v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 20 August, 2018 case, the appellant was extremely angry when he got to know that his calf had come to the deceased place. The appellant started abusing the deceased, when it was tried to stop him, the appellant fired at the deceased. The deceased was unarmed at that time, the Allahabad High Court held that the appellant had an intention to kill the deceased, hence, he was held liable to murder.

Exception 5 (Consent):

Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent.

In Dasrath Paswan v State of Bihar, AIR 1958 Pat 190 case, the accused, who was a student of tenth class, failed in his examination thrice in succession. He was upset and frustrated by these failures and decided to put an end to his life and informed his wife, a literate girl of about 19 years of age. The wife thereupon requested him to kill her first and then kill himself. In pursuance of the pact, he killed his wife but was arrested before he could end his life. The Patna High Court, relying upon Exception 5 to Sec 300, convicted him under Sec 304, Part II of the Indian Penal Code.

Conclusion:

Culpable homicide does not amount to murder if it is done in exercise of good faith in order to protect the private or public property. If the act committed by a person exceeds its power provided by law and kills someone in order to save someone or something, then the act does not amount to murder.

(d) What are different stages of crime? Explain them in detail.

If a person commits a crime voluntarily or after premeditation, the doing of it involves four stages. As in every crime firstly, there must be an intention to commit it, then there must be necessary preparation to commit it, then there is an attempt to commit it. If such attempt succeeds, he is said to have committed the offence. If such an attempt fails he is said to have committed the attempt to commit the offence. Thus, the Stages in the Commission of Crime are:-

• Intention
• Preparation
• Attempt
• Accomplishment.

Intention:

The intention is the first stage in the commission of an offence and known as a mental stage. The intention is the conscious excise of the mental faculties of a person to do an act for the purpose of satisfying a purpose. Criminal intent is the conscious decision someone makes to deliberately engage in an unlawful or negligent act or to harm someone else. For example, in the case of murder, the intention is to cause death. In the case of theft, an intention is to steal. In the case of rape an intention to have forcible sexual connection with a woman without her consent.

This stage exists when the culprit first entertains the idea or intention to commit an offence. The law does not take cognizance as mere entertaining an idea or intention is too early a stage to make a person punishable given the fact, there is enough scope and time for a person to change his mind and not to give effect to his idea or intention.

Mens rea is a legal phrase used to describe the mental state of a person while doing any act, some intention is there. A mere intention to commit a crime is not punishable because it is very difficult for the prosecution to prove the guilty intention of a person and the court is also unwilling in punishing a person for mere guilty intention. In Indian criminal law also, a mere intention to commit a crime is not punishable except in following exceptional cases where the law takes notice of an intention to commit a crime as they have been considered to be the serious offences and mere preparation of it is punishable as it is to be checked or prevented at the earliest stage.

Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code deals with ‘General Exception’ wherein the act which otherwise constitutes offence ceases to do so under certain circumstances set out in this chapter. This chapter provides certain circumstances under which though the person commits the act, it results in the injury but due to absence of the blameworthy mind, that act is not liable for any punishment or it is exempt from the punishment. This chapter provides the circumstances, which are nothing but the principles of the common law system. All these general exceptions are recognized the concept of mens rea in the IPC.

Preparation:

Preparation’ is the second stage in the commission of a crime. It means arranged means and measures necessary for the commission of a crime. Generally, it is not punishable because it is impossible to show that preparation was directed towards the wrongful end or was done with evil intent or mind. The existing laws allow a principle of ‘Lous poenitantae’ which means an ‘opportunity to repent’.
Here again, the law does not take cognizance, except in certain cases for which provision has been made in the Indian Penal Code itself making preparations punishable, as there is still enough time for a person to change his mind. Thus, the law doesn’t punish the person unless he has passed beyond that stage of preparation.

If ‘A’ acquires a revolver from certified ammunition store with a license with intention to kill his bitter enemy ‘B’ and keeps the same in his pocket duty loaded. But he does nothing more than that. A has an intention and made preparation to carry out his intention but he has not committed the offence. At this stage, it is impossible to prove that ‘A’ had the loaded revolver only with the intention of killing ‘B’.
In Noorbibi v. State, AIR 1952 J and K 55 case, the accused without proper permission was going towards the border with the object of stepping into Pakistani territory and was arrested before reaching the border. It was held that there could be no presumption that whosoever moved towards the border would necessarily cross over.

In R. v. Robinson, 14 (1915) 2 KB 342 case, a Jeweller in order to make a false claim to an Insurance Company pretended that his shop had been burgled and informed the police accordingly. The investigation was held by the police, in which the truth was made known to them that the Jeweller had made the false complaint. Then he was prosecuted for it. But he was held not guilty as he was still preparing to commit the crime. He could have been guilty for it only if he had submitted the claim to the insurance company.

Attempt:

The ‘Attempt’ is the third stage in the commission of a crime. It is also known as a ‘Preliminary Crime’. The term ‘Attempt’ means “the direct movement towards the commission of a crime after necessary preparation has been made.” Prof. Kenny and Sir James Stephen called the term ‘attempt’ as ‘inchoate crime’ which connotes something which is yet to be completed.

Ingredients of the Attempt:

• Guilty intention to commit an offence;
• Some act done towards the commitment of the crime; and
• The act must fall short of the completed offence.

The term ‘attempt’ has nowhere been defined in the Indian Penal Code but simply provides for its punishment. An attempt is made punishable

In State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub, (1980) 3 SCC 57 case, the customs department received some secret information from their sources that a jeep and truck of particular registration number were transporting silver from Mumbai to a lonely coastal area which lies near Bassein. After receiving this information, authorities went to keep watch on the two vehicles. In Midnight they saw the said vehicles coming from Mumbai. The customs department followed them. The vehicles stopped near the sea-coast and the people started removing some bundles and packets from the truck and placing them on the ground. At the same time, the sound of the engine of a mechanized sea-craft from the side of the creek was heard by the authorities. The authorities of the Customs department surrounded and caught them. Officers found four silver ingots on the ground and 39 silver ingots concealed in a shawl and dust bags. The authorities prosecuted the accused for the offence of attempting to smuggle silver ingots from India. The Supreme Court held that the intention of the accused to export the sliver from India by sea was clear from the circumstances enumerated above. They were taking the sliver ingots concealed in the two vehicles under cover of darkness. They had reached close to the seashore and had started unloading the sliver there near a creek from where the sound of the engine of a sea-craft was also heard. The court held that the accused had gone beyond the stage of preparation, and most of the steps necessary in the course of export by sea had been taken. The only step that remained to be taken towards the export of the silver was to load it on a sea-craft for moving out of the territorial waters of India. But for the intervention of the officers of the law, the unlawful export of silver would have been consummated. The clandestine disappearance of the sea-craft when the officers intercepted and rounded up the vehicles and the accused at the creek reinforced the inference that the accused had deliberately attempted to export silver by the sea in contravention of the law.

Accomplishment:

This is the final stage of a crime. Generally, most of the crimes are punishable only after the crime has been committed. If the accused commits an attempt to commit the crime and such attempt succeeds, he will be liable for the offence. If such an attempt is unsuccessful, he will be liable for the attempt to commit the offence.

If ‘A’ acquires a revolver from certified ammunition store with a license with intention to kill his bitter enemy ‘B’ and keeps the same in his pocket duty loaded. But he does nothing more than that. A has an intention and made preparation to carry out his intention but he has not committed the offence. ‘A’ locates ‘B’ in the garden and fires at him. If the bullet strikes ‘B’ causing fatal injuries leads to death, then the attempt is successful and the intention of ‘A’ accomplished. ‘A’ would be liable for the offence of ‘Murder’ under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. If ‘B’ got injured then ‘A’ would be liable for the Offence of ‘Attempt to Murder’ under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code.

Conclusion:

Mere intention to commit a crime except for some exceptions is not punishable. To make a person liable for an attempt to commit an offence the Court has been at a point to make a distinction between “attempt” which is punishable and preparation” which except for in some exceptional cases is not as much punishable because the theory is that a person can always change his mind and not proceed beyond the stage of preparation. Accomplishment or commission of a crime is always punishable under IPC.

(e) Explain briefly offences relating to public health, safety and convenience, decency and morals.

Nuisance could be defined as unlawful interference in the peaceful enjoyment of one’s property, or any right associated with it. Nuisances may be divided into two main headings namely, (i) private nuisances and (ii) public nuisances. This division is not exhaustive, and to some extent overlap with each other. Nuisances may be permanent, continuing, recurrent and temporary. There is immediate remedy for public nuisance under Section 133 of CrPC.

Public Nuisance (S. 268 IPC):

A person is guilty of a public nuisance who does any act or is guilty of an illegal omission which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right. A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage.

Ingredients of Public Nuisance:

• A person must have done or must be guilty of an illegal omission; and
• Such an act or omission, must cause some injury, threat or disturbance to the public or to the people in general who dwell or occupy a property in the vicinity; or must cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.

Offences Related to Health:

Section 269 IPC:

Negligent Act Likely to Spread Infection of Disease Dangerous to Life:

Whoever unlawfully or negligently does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

Example: A, knowing that he was suffering from cholera, travelled by train without informing the railway officers of his condition. Here, A is guilty under the section because he must have known that he was doing an act likely to spread infection.

In Naidar Mal, (1902) PR No. 22 of 1902 case, wherein the offender was held culpable under Section 269 for recklessly travelling by train after residing in a plague-stricken house and coming in contact with an infected person.

Section 270 IPC:

Malignant Act Likely to Spread Infection of Disease Dangerous to Life:

Whoever malignantly does any act which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe to be, likely to spread the infection of any disease dangerous to life, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

In Mr. X v. Hospital Z, AIR 1999 SC 495 case, the Appellant was diagnosed as HIV (+) after he attempted to donate blood at the Respondent hospital. The man filed a case against the hospital, leading to his marriage being called off. Opining that the disclosure saved the petitioner’s fiancé, the court also took note of the two provisions and observed, therefore, if a person suffering from the dreadful disease “AIDS”, knowingly marries a woman and thereby transmits the infection to that woman, he would be guilty of offences indicated in Sections 269 and 270 of the Indian Penal Code.

Offences Related to Adulteration of Food:

Section 271 IPC:

Disobedience to Quarantine Rule:

Whoever knowingly disobeys any rule made and promulgated by the Government for putting any vessel into a state of quarantine, or for regulating the intercourse of vessels in a state of quarantine with the shore or with other vessels, or for regulating the intercourse between places where an infectious disease prevails and other places, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

Section 272 IPC:

Adulteration of Food or Drink Intended for Sale:

Whoever adulterates any article of food or drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 273 IPC:

Sale of Noxious Food or Drink

Whoever sells, or offers or exposes for sale, as food or drink, any article which has been rendered or has become noxious, or is in a state unfit for food or drink, knowing or having reason to believe that the same is nox¬ious as food or drink, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Offences Related to Adulteration of Drugs:

Section 274 IPC:

Adulteration of Drugs:

Whoever adulterates any drug or medical preparation in such a manner as to lessen the efficacy or change the operation of such drug or medical preparation, or to make it noxious, intending that it shall be sold or used for, or knowing it to be likely that it will be sold or used for, any medicinal purpose, as if it had not undergone such adulteration, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 275 IPC:

Sale of Adulterated Drugs:

Whoever, knowing any drug or medical preparation to have been adulterated in such a manner as to lessen its efficacy, to change its operation, or to render it noxious, sells the same, or offers or exposes it for sale, or issues it from any dispensary for medicinal purposes as unadulterated, or causes it to be used for medicinal purposes by any person not knowing of the adulteration, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 276 IPC:

Sale Of Drug as a Different Drug or Preparation:

Whoever knowingly sells, or offers or exposes for sale, or issues from a dispensary for medicinal purposes, any drug or medical preparation, as a different drug or medical preparation, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both

Offences Related to Environment:

Section 277 IPC:

Fouling Water of Public Spring or Reservoir:

Whoever voluntarily corrupts or fouls the water of any public spring or reser¬voir, so as to render it less fit for the purpose for which it is ordinarily used, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.

Section 278 IPC:

Making Atmosphere Noxious to Health:

Whoever voluntarily vitiates the atmosphere in any place so as to make it noxious to the health of persons in general dwelling or carrying on business in the neighbourhood or passing along a public way, shall be punished with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees.

Offences Affecting Public Safety and Convenience:

Section 279 IPC:

Rash Driving or Riding on a Public Way

Whoever drives any vehicle, or rides, on any public way in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

In Dulichand v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1975 SC 1960 case, the accused was the bus driver who was driving at an average speed but failed to look to his right before taking a turn and inevitably ran over a cyclist. Hence, he was held guilty under this section.

In Badri Prasad Tiwari v. The State, I (1994) ACC 676 case, the Court held that a mere error in judgment does not constitute a rash and negligent act.

Section 280 IPC:

Rash Navigation of Vessel:

Whoever navigates any vessel in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 281 IPC:

Exhibition of False Light, Mark or Buoy:

Whoever exhibits any false light, mark or buoy, intending or knowing it to be likely that such exhibition will mislead any navigator, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both.

Section 282 IPC:

Conveying Person by Water for Hire in Unsafe or Overloaded Vessel

Whoever knowingly or negligently conveys, or causes to be conveyed for hire, any person by water in any vessel, when that vessel is in such a state or so loaded as to endanger the life of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 283 IPC:

Danger or Obstruction in Public Way or Line of Navigation

Whoever, by doing any act, or by omitting to take order with any property in his possession or under his charge, causes danger, obstruction or injury to any person in any public way or public line of navigation, shall be punished, with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees.

Section 284:

Negligent Conduct with Respect to Poisonous Substance

Whoever does, with any poisonous substance, any act in a manner so rash or negligent as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any poisonous substance in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such poisonous substance, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 285 IPC:

Negligent Conduct with Respect to Fire or Combustible Matter

Whoever does, with fire or any combustible matter, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any fire or any combustible matter in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such fire or combustible matter, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 286 IPC:

Negligent Conduct with Respect to Explosive Substanc

Whoever does, with any explosive substance, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life, or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any explosive substance in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from that substance, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 287 IPC:

Negligent Conduct with Respect to Machinery:

Whoever does, with any machinery, any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or to be likely to cause hurt or injury to any other person, or knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any machinery in his possession or under his care as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from such machinery, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 288 IPC:

Negligent Conduct with Respect to Pulling Down or Repairing Buildings

Whoever, in pulling down or repairing any building, knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with that building as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life from the fall of that building, or of any part thereof, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 289 IPC:

Negligent Conduct with Respect to Animal:

Whoever knowingly or negligently omits to take such order with any animal in his possession as is sufficient to guard against any probable danger to human life, or any probable danger of grievous hurt from such animal, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

Section 290 IPC:

Punishment for Public Nuisance in Cases Not Otherwise Provided for

Whoever commits a public nuisance in any case not otherwise punishable by this Code, shall be punished with fine which may extend to two hundred rupees.

Section 291 IPC:

Continuance of Nuisance After Injunction to Discontinue:

Whoever repeats or continues a public nuisance, having been enjoined by any public servant who has lawful authority to issue such injunction not to repeat or continue such nuisance, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

Offences Related to Obscenity:

Sale, etc., of Obscene Books, etc:

(1) For the purposes of sub-section (2), a book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation, figure or any other object, shall be deemed to be obscene if it is lascivious or appeals to the prurient interest or if its effect, or (where it comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items, is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

(2) Whoever—

(a) sells, lets to hire, distributes, publicity exhibits or in any manner puts into circulation, or for purposes of sale, hire, distribution, public exhibition or circulation, makes, produces or has in his possession any obscene book, pamphlet, paper, drawing, painting, representation or figure or any other obscene object whatsoever, or

(b) imports, exports or conveys any obscene object for any of the purposes aforesaid, or knowing or having reason to believe that such object will be sold, let to hire, distributed or publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or

(c) takes part in or receives profits from any business in the course of which he knows or has reason to believe that any such obscene objects are, for any of the purposes aforesaid, made, produced, purchased, kept, imported, exported, conveyed, publicly exhibited or in any manner put into circulation, or

(d) advertises or makes known by any means whatsoever that any person is engaged or is ready to engage in any act which is an offence under this section, or that any such obscene object can be procured from or through any person, or

(e) offers or attempts to do any act which is an offence under this section, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, and, in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, and also with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees

Exception.—
This section does not extend to—

(a) any book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation or figure—
(i) the publication of which is proved to be justified as being for the public good on the ground that such book, pamphlet, paper, writing, drawing, painting, representation or figure is in the interest of science, literature, art or learning or other objects of general concern, or
(ii) which is kept or used bona fide for religious purposes;

(b) any representation sculptured, engraved, painted or otherwise represented on or in—
(i) any ancient monument within the meaning of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (24 of 1958), or
(ii) any temple, or on any car used for the conveyance of idols, or kept or used for any religious purpose.

In Samresh Bose v Amal Mitra, AIR 1986 SC 967 case, the Supreme Courtdeparted from Hicklin’s test while laying down the test of obscenity. The Court held that while judging the test of obscenity the judge should place himself in the position of reader of every age group in whose hands the book is likely to fall and should try to appreciate what kind of possible influence the book is likely to have in the minds of the readers.

Section 293 IPC:

Sale, etc., of Obscene Objects to Young Person.

Whoever sells, lets to hire, distributes, exhibits or circulates to any person under the age of twenty years any such obscene object as is referred to in the last preceding section, or offers or attempts so to do, shall be punished on first conviction with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees, and, in the event of a second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and also with fine which may extend to five thousand rupees.

Section 294 IPC:

Obscene Acts and Songs

Whoever, to the annoyance of others,
(a) does any obscene act in any public place, or
(b) sings, recites or utters any obscene song, ballad or words, in or near any public place, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine, or with both.

Section 294A:

Keeping Lottery Office:

Whoever keeps any office or place for the purpose of drawing any lottery 142[not being 143[a State lottery] or a lottery authorized by the 144[State] Government], shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.

And whoever publishes any proposal to pay any sum, or to deliver any goods, or to do or forbear doing anything for the benefit of any person, on any event or contingency relative or applicable to the drawing of any ticket, lot, number or figure in any such lottery, shall be punished with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees.

For More Articles on Indian Penal Code Click Here

For More Articles on Different Acts, Click Here