Law and You > Criminal Laws > Indian Penal Code > Model Question Paper 3 Solution: Law of Crimes
Q1. Answer the following in not more than two sentences (Any Six) 12 M
(a) Name two theories of negligence.
The two theories of negligence, are a) subjective theory and b) objective theory.
(b) Can a 5-year-old girl be called ‘woman’ under the Indian Penal Code?
According to Section 10 IPC, the word “man” denotes a male human being of any age; the word “woman” denotes a female human being of any age. The phrase ‘any age’ includes a 5-year-old girl, thus a 5-year-old girl is a woman.
(c) What is exception of infancy?
Section 82 IPC says that anything done by a child under seven years of age will not be an offence. Section 83 IPC says that anything done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve years, who has not obtained enough maturity of understanding to judge the nature and outcomes of his conduct on that occasion, will not be an offence. These principles are known as exception of infancy.
(d) Define ‘Rioting’.
Section 146 defines the offence of rioting. Section 146 states that- Whenever force or violence is used by an Unlawful assembly, or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.
(e) What is fabricating false evidence?
According to Section 192 IPC, whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record, or electronic record or makes any document or electronic record containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding, is said “to fabricate false evidence”.
(f) What is wrongful restraint?
Section 339 IPC defines wrongful restraint as whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
(g) Give two examples of public servants as defined under IPC.
- Any officer of a court of justice whose duty is to investigate any matter of law or to report the matter.
- Any officer commissioned under the Military, Naval, and Air forces of the country.
- Any judge or designated person who is lawfully empowered to discharge any adjudicatory functions, whether by himself or as a member of the bodies of the persons.
- Every juryman, assessor, or member of the panchayat assists the court of justice or the public servant.
- Every arbitrator who is appointed by the court for any matter that has been referred for the decision, or any other person competent public authority.
(h) What is the limits to statutory confinement under the IPC?
Section 340 IPC defines wrongful confinement as, “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.”
Q2. Write Short Notes on the Following (Any Two) 12 M
(a) Just Necessitatis:
The doctrine of the jus necessitatis recognizes that the law has to be broken to achieve a greater good. According to doctrine the violation of a law may be excused by necessity. Defence of necessity applied, when a person in order to prevent a greater harm to any person or property from taking place, commits a crime or a criminal act during an emergency situation, wherein accused can escape criminal liability because his/her act was justified as he/she had the intention to prevent a situation which would cause a greater harm as compared to the criminal act committed by him or her.
Section 81 IPC:
Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm:
Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause harm, if it be done without any criminal intention to cause harm, and in good faith for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property.
Ingredients of Section 81:
- the act must have been done under good faith;
- there must not be mens rea (absence of mens rea).
R v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Q.B.D. 273 (1884) case, three seamen and a minor cabin boy were the crew of an English vessel. Due to the shipwreck, the three seamen and the boy escaped and were put into an open boat. Dudley suggested sacrificing the minor boy as he was too weak to which Brook refused. On the 20th day, when they had no food for eight days and no water for five days, Dudley and Stephens without the consent of Brooks killed the boy as he was close to death and had no family and fed on the flesh and blood for four days to survive. On the fourth day, they were picked up by a passing vessel and subsequently they were prosecuted for the offence of murder of the boy. The accused pleaded the defence of necessity to get exemption from the criminal liability. The Privy Council held they are guilty of murder and convicted them on the ground of, self-preservation is not an absolute necessity, no man has a right to take another’s life to preserve his own, and there is no necessity that justifies homicide.
(b) Insanity:
A person may lack sufficient mental capacity to form a criminal intent because immaturity of age or because of some defect of the mental faculty. When such defect is caused by some disease of mind, a person is said to be insane. Therefore, those who are under a natural disability of distinguishing between good & evil, as infants under the age of discretion, idiots, and lunatics, are not punishable by criminal prosecution whatsoever. A person with unsound mind is not capable of forming mens rea that is criminal intent. Section 84 of IPC describes the defences available to the person of an unsound mind.
Section 84 IPC:
Act of a Person of Unsound Mind:
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
Ingredients of Section 84:
- At the time of committing the offence, the accused was of unsound mind.
- Because of the unsoundness of mind, he was not capable of knowing the nature of the act at the time of committing the offence. Or
- Because of the unsoundness of mind, he was not capable of knowing that he was doing something either wrong or contrary to law at the time of committing the offence.
In Hari Singh Gond v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 16 SCC 109 case, the Supreme Court observed that Section 84 sets out the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged mental insanity. There is no definition of ‘mind soundness’ in IPC. However, the courts have mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. But the term ‘insanity’ itself does not have a precise definition. It is a term used to describe various degrees of mental disorder. So, every mentally ill person is not ipso facto exempt from criminal responsibility. A distinction must be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. A court is concerned with legal insanity, not medical insanity.
In Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand, 6 January, 2011 case, the Supreme Court pointed out that ‘every person suffering from mental illness is not ipso facto exempt from criminal liability.’
(c) Offences Related to Election:
Chapter IXA, containing Sections 171 (A to I) of the Indian Penal Code deals with offenses related to elections. The main object of this chapter is to ensure free and fair elections and to allow people to freely practice their voting rights. India is the world’s largest democracy and election at its core. This Chapter was introduced by Section 2 of the Indian Elections Offences and Inquiries Act, 1920. It prescribes punishments for offences such as bribery, personation, undue influence, making false statements to malign someone’s reputation during elections, etc.
Bribery:
According to Section 171B IPC, a person is said to commit bribery when he/she gives gratification to someone with the object of inducing such person with regards to practicing his/her electoral right, or as a reward, after such person has exercised his/ her electoral right after being induced. The person taking such bribe and being induced into practicing his/her electoral right differently is also guilty of the offence of bribery.
According to Section 171E IPC, a person committing the offence of bribery shall be punished with imprisonment which may extend to one year, or a fine, or both.
Undue Influence at an Election:
Section 171C IPC deals with undue influence at an election. It refers to the voluntary interruption or an attempt to interrupt the free exercise of an electoral right. Interference with the free exercise of an electoral right as per this provision includes-
Threatening (with injury of any kind) a candidate or a voter or a person in whom a candidate/voter is interested in, or;
Misleading or attempting to induce a candidate/voter to believe that they, or any person that they are interested in, shall be subjected to Divine displeasure or spiritual censure.
According to Section 171F, undue influence at an election is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, or a fine, or both.
Personating at an Election:
According to Section 171D a person applying for a voting paper by using someone else’s name, whether living or dead, or under a fictitious name, or has voted in such an election and wants to vote again is guilty of personation. A person abetting or attempting to procure a voting paper by using any other person for their cause shall also be guilty of the offense of personation.
Personation at an election is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year, or a fine, or both as per Section 171F.
Other Offences:
According to Section 171G whoever makes/publishes a statement in public, knowing/believing it to be false or not believing it to be true, and disguising it to be a statement of fact, with an attempt to malign the character or conduct of a candidate to disrupt the result of elections shall be punishable with fine.
According to Section 171(h), a person responsible for incurring/authorizing expenses to promote their election campaign, which may include holding public meetings, press conferences, advertising, circulars or publications, without any general or special authority in writing of a candidate shall be punishable with a fine which may extend to Rs. 500.
According to Section 171(i) of the Code, a person who is responsible for keeping an account for the expenses incurred in connection with an election, as per the law which is in force at that time or as per a rule which has the force of law, when fails to do so, shall be punishable with a fine which may extend up to Rs. 500.
(d) Dowery Death:
Though we are living in 21st century but it is surprising that India is still tangled in many social evils like superstition, dowry system, caste system, female foeticide etc. With time many of the traditional orthodox customs have been given up but the custom of dowry still continues. With the increase in dowry demand since 20th century offences related to women like wife beating, harassment of women, bride burning also increased.
Section 304B IPC recognizes the gravity of dowry deaths and imposes severe penalties on those found guilty.
Section 304B IPC:
Dowry Death:
(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
Ingredients of Dowry Death:
- Death of a woman within seven years of her marriage
- Death caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances; death caused by cruelty or harassment by the husband or his relatives in connection with any dowry demand
- Such cruelty or harassment must have been meted out to the woman shortly before her death.
If all of these factors are present, the husband or his family who exposed the wife to such cruelty or harassment might be prosecuted with dowry death under Section 304B of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 304B(2) provides for punishment for Dowry death. Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
The Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961 is a significant piece of law aimed at reducing the social evil of dowry. Despite the presence of the legislation, incidences of dowry-related harassment and violence are still being recorded throughout the country, underlining the need for more awareness and better implementation of the law.
Q3. Answer the following by giving reason (Any Two) 12 M
a) Usma goes to a renowned astrologer Rathore for advice. Rathore tells her she shall achieve outstanding success in her exams if she has intercourse with him on Amavasya Day. Usma willingly concedes. Later on her relatives come to know of the incident and a complaint of Rape is filed against Rathore.
- Is Rathore guilty of committing rape?
- Suppose Rathore has given his normal advice. But, since Usma doesn’t have money to pay him, Rathore suggests to her that to have intercourse with him instead of paying charges. Usma reluctantly agrees. Would it amount to rape?
(i) Is Rathore guilty of committing rape?
Rathore is guilty of committing rape. 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.
But under Section 90 IPC, a consent is not such a consent as it intended by any section of this Code, if the consent is given by a person under fear of injury, or under a misconception of fact, and if the person doing the act knows, or has reason to believe, that the consent was given in consequence of such fear or misconception. In this case, the consent given by Usma is under fear and under misconception of fact. Hence Rathore is guilty of rape.
(ii) Suppose Rathore has given his normal advice. But, since Usma doesn’t have money to pay him, Rathore suggests to her that to have intercourse with him instead of paying charges. Usma reluctantly agrees. Would it amount to rape?
In this case, Rathore is not guilty of rape. The consent given reluctantly and not under fear or under misconception of Fact. Hence Section 90 IPC not applicable. The Fourth exception to Section 375 IPC applicable.
b) Beeru returns home early from work and enters using his house key. He finds his wife in bed having sexual intercourse with his friend Jai. Beeru in a fit of rage, picks up a chair lying nearby and smashes the head of Jai, killing him instantly.
- What offence Beeru has committed?
- State with reasons what would the maximum and minimum sentence of punishment that could be given in your answer to subquestion (i)?
(i) What offence Beeru has committed?
Beeru has committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Exception 1 to Murder Section 300: 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.
(ii) State with reasons what would the maximum and minimum sentence of punishment that could be given in your answer to subquestion (i)?
Section 304 IPC provides punishment for culpable homicide not amounting to murder. According to Section 304 IPC whoever commits culpable homicide not amounting to murder, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for either description of a term which may extend to 10 years. Thus, the maximum punishment is imprisonment for life and minimum punishment is at discretion of the court as fit in the case.
(c) Gullu who wishes to go to his native place for vacation procure his tickets. His friend Rahul who had ticket cancels his trip and Gullu travels by a train on Rahul’s ticket. During the journey Gullu finds a mobile phone left behind by somebody and pockets it. At Madgaon station Gullu urinates on the railway platform. At night he tears a part of seat cushion and uses it as a pillow.
- What are the offences, if any, committed by Gullu?
- Give reasons for your answers.
(i) What are the offences, if any, committed by Gullu?
Gullu has committed Public nuisance, Mischief and Dishonest misappropriation of a property.
(ii) Give reasons for your answers.
As per section 268 of the Indian Penal Code, 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, According Section 290, any person guilty of committing public nuisance is to be punished with a fine which may extend up to 200 rupees.
Mischief under Section 425 of IPC covers all those acts that cause any damage or destruction to the property resulting in any wrongful loss or damage. The scope of this section is wide and it applies in the case of both public as well as private damages. The punishment for Mischief is prescribed under Section 426 which states that it attracts imprisonment of a term which may extend up to three months, or with fine, or with both, as the court may deem fit.
Under Section 403 IPC, whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
(d) Jatin enters the house of Mr. Mehra through a bedroom window at 12 midnight. In darkness Jatin ties to open the safe in the bedroom cupboard. Mrs. Mehra in the darkness mistakes Jatin for her husband returning home late for work and invites him over to bed. Jatin has sexual intercourse with Mrs. Mehra in the darkness. After sometime Jatin quietly leaves the house:
- Is Jatin guilty of Rape?
- Is Jatin guilty of any other offence?
(i) Is Jatin guilty of Rape?
Yes, Jatin is guilty of Rape under Section 375 IPC.
(ii) Is Jatin guilty of any other offence?
Yes, Jatin is also guilty of Outraging the modesty of woman (Section 354 IPC) as well as House trespass- House breaking by night (Section 446).
Q4. Answer in details (Any Three) 39 M
- Explain a crime of causing hurt and the various factors which aggravate the offence.
- What are the various offences in the Indian Penal Code those are punishable with the death penalty? Should death penalty be abolished?
- Write in detail the right of Private Defence enumerated in the IPC.
- Give a detailed explanation of murder under the IPC.
- What are the ingredients of the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship? How is it different from abduction?