Act means to do something. A criminal act, also known as a criminal offense or crime, refers to any act or behaviour that is prohibited by law and punishable by the state. Criminal acts encompass a wide range of behaviours, from minor infractions such as traffic violations to serious offenses such as murder or terrorism. According to Section 2(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, an “act” denotes as well a series of acts as a single act. In this article let us discuss act and omission under the Sanhita.

Kinds of Criminal Acts:

‘Actus Reus’ is the important essential element of crime. Intention or mens-rea alone shall not constitute a crime unless it is followed by some external or overt act which is forbidden by some prevailing law. The words ‘illegal or legally bound to do’ have been defined under Section 43 of Indian Penal Code, which provides that – “Illegal”, “Legally bound to do”.—The word “illegal” is applicable to everything which is an offence or which is prohib­ited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action, and a person is said to be “legally bound to do” whatever it is illegal in him to omit.”

Criminal acts can be classified as acts of commission or acts of omission, depending on whether they involve the performance of an action or the failure to act when there is a legal duty to do so.

Acts of Commission:

Criminal acts of commission refer to actions that are taken by individuals that directly violate the law. These are active behaviours that are expressly prohibited by statutes or legal codes. Some examples of criminal acts of commission are as follows:

• Assault and Battery: The intentional and unlawful use of force or violence against another person, which can result in physical harm or injury.
• Theft: The unlawful taking of someone else’s property without their consent, with the intent to permanently deprive them of it. This includes offenses such as burglary, robbery, and shoplifting.
• Fraud: Deliberately deceiving someone for personal gain, often involving false representation or omission of information. Examples include identity theft, credit card fraud, and insurance fraud.
• Drug Trafficking: The illegal sale, transportation, or distribution of controlled substances, such as narcotics or illegal drugs, often on a large scale.
• Homicide: The unlawful killing of another person, which can range from murder (intentional killing) to culpable homicide (unintentional killing) based on the circumstances and intent.
• Arson: The intentional setting of fires to property or structures without permission, often for malicious reasons or financial gain.
• Sexual Assault: Non-consensual sexual contact or behaviour, including rape, molestation, and sexual harassment.
• Terrorism: Acts of violence or intimidation carried out for political, ideological, or religious purposes, with the intention of instilling fear in a population or influencing government policies.
• Cyber Crimes: Illegal activities conducted using computers or computer networks, such as hacking, malware distribution, or cyber espionage.
• Public Order Offenses: Behaviours that disrupt public order or violate societal norms, such as unlawful assembly, disorderly conduct, public intoxication, or disturbing the peace.

These are just a few examples of criminal acts of commission, but there are many other offenses that fall under this category, ranging from relatively minor infractions to serious felonies, each with its own legal consequences and penalties.

Acts of Omission:

Criminal acts of omission refer to situations where individuals fail to perform actions that they are legally obligated to do, resulting in harm or violating the law. These are instances where individuals have a duty to act, but they fail to fulfil that duty, leading to criminal liability. Some examples of criminal acts of omission are as follows:

• Failure to Provide Assistance: In some jurisdictions, individuals are legally required to provide assistance to those in need, especially in emergency situations. Failing to render aid to someone in danger, such as leaving the scene of an accident without reporting it or failing to help a person who is injured, may be considered a criminal act.
• Child Neglect or Abuse: Parents or guardians have a legal duty to care for and protect their children. Failing to provide adequate food, shelter, medical care, or protection from harm can constitute neglect or abuse, resulting in criminal charges.
• Elder Abuse: Similar to child neglect, caregivers or family members may have a legal obligation to provide for the needs and safety of elderly or vulnerable adults. Failing to do so, such as withholding necessary medical care or financial resources, can lead to criminal charges for elder abuse.
• Failure to Report a Crime: In some cases, individuals may be required by law to report certain crimes or suspicious activities to the authorities. Failing to report a crime, especially if it results in harm to others or facilitates criminal behaviour, may constitute a criminal act known as misprision of felony or obstruction of justice.
• Breach of Fiduciary Duty: Individuals in positions of trust or authority, such as corporate officers, trustees, or guardians, have a legal duty to act in the best interests of those they represent. Failing to fulfil this duty, such as embezzling funds or mismanaging assets, can result in criminal charges for breach of fiduciary duty.
• Health and Safety Violations: Property owners, employers, and professionals may have legal obligations to maintain safe and healthy environments for others. Failing to comply with health and safety regulations, such as neglecting to address hazardous conditions in the workplace or ignoring building code violations, can lead to criminal liability.

These examples illustrate how criminal acts of omission involve the failure to fulfil legal duties or obligations, resulting in harm or violation of the law. Like acts of commission, acts of omission can vary in severity and may lead to different legal consequences depending on the specific circumstances of the case and the applicable laws in the jurisdiction.

Case Laws for Omission of Care of Dependants:

There are circumstances in which a certain kind of a legal relationship arises between the accused and the victim which eventually gives rise to a duty to act. The most commonly listed instances arising out of duty based upon a relationship are the duty of the parents to assist their children, husbands to support their wives, and a master-servant relationship and ship captains to aid their passengers and crew.

In R v Gibbins and Proctor, (1919) 13 Cr App R 134 case, where the defendants, Gibbins and Proctor were in a relationship. Gibbins was the father of a child named Nellie from a previous marriage. The defendants lived together, but Nellie was deliberately starved to death while in their care. The evidence presented during the trial suggested that Gibbins and Proctor willfully neglected to provide Nellie with food, leading to her death. The main legal issue in the case was whether the defendants owed a duty of care to Nellie and whether their failure to fulfill this duty amounted to murder. The defendants were found guilty of murder. The court held that Gibbins, as Nellie’s father, had a legal duty to provide her with the necessities of life, including food. Proctor, as an adult living in the same household, also had a duty of care towards Nellie. Their deliberate failure to provide her with food, resulting in her death, constituted murder. The case reaffirmed the principle that individuals have a common law duty of care towards dependent children under their care. Failure to fulfill this duty, particularly when it results in death, can lead to criminal liability for murder.

In R v Instan, (1893) 1 QB 450 case, the defendant, Emily Instan, was convicted of the manslaughter of her aunt, Martha, by failing to provide her with the necessaries of life. Emily had lived with Martha, who was infirm and unable to care for herself. Over a period of several weeks, Martha became increasingly ill and bedridden. During this time, Emily failed to provide Martha with food or medical attention, resulting in her death. The court held that Emily had a duty of care towards Martha, given their familial relationship and the fact that Martha was unable to care for herself. By neglecting to provide Martha with the necessaries of life, Emily breached this duty of care and was therefore guilty of manslaughter. This case established the principle that individuals can be criminally liable for manslaughter if they have a duty of care towards another person and fail to fulfill that duty, leading to the other person’s death. It underscores the importance of recognizing and upholding duties of care, particularly in relationships where one person is dependent on another for their well-being.

In R v Stone and Dobinson [1977] 1 QB 354 case, where the defendants in this case Gwendolyn Dobinson and James Stone were couple. James Stone’s sister, Fanny, was elderly, mentally ill, and living in squalid conditions. Gwendolyn Dobinson and James Stone took Fanny into their home to care for her, but they were ill-equipped to handle her deteriorating health and mental state. Despite Fanny’s declining condition, they failed to seek medical help or provide adequate care. The main legal issue in the case was whether the defendants owed a duty of care to Fanny and whether their failure to provide necessary care amounted to gross negligence, leading to her death. The court found both defendants guilty of manslaughter by gross negligence. The judge emphasized that the defendants had voluntarily undertaken the responsibility of caring for Fanny and therefore owed her a duty of care. By neglecting to seek medical assistance or provide adequate care, they breached this duty, leading to Fanny’s death. The case reaffirmed the principle that individuals who voluntarily assume responsibility for vulnerable persons owe them a duty of care. Failure to fulfill this duty, particularly when it results in death or serious harm, can lead to criminal liability for manslaughter by gross negligence.

In Om Parkash v. The State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1782 case, where Bimla Devi, was married to the appellant. Their relations got strained and she went to her brother’s place and stayed there for about a year, when she returned to her husband’s place at the assurance of the appellant’s maternal uncle that she would not be maltreated in future. She was, however, ill-treated and her health deteriorated due to alleged maltreatment and deliberate undernourishment. She was deliberately starved and was not allowed to leave the house. She was denied food for days together. One day, she happened to find her room unlocked. Availing of the opportunity, went out of the house and managed to reach the Civil Hospital, Ludhiana. Brother of Bimla Devi after learning all facts, sent information to the Police Station.

The appellant (husband of Bimla Devi) was prosecuted for the offence of attempting to murder Bimla Devi under S. 307 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court acquitted him but, on appeal, the High Court came to a finding, on the evidence, that the object of the appellant was to confine Bimla Devi and deprive her of regular food in pursuance of a scheme of regular starvation in order to accelerate her end, and convicted him under S. 307 Of the Indian Penal Code. Hence appeal was made to the Supreme Court by Special Leave petition.          

On behalf of the appellant it was contended, inter alia, that whereas under S. 511 of the Code for an Act to amount to the offence of attempting to commit an offence it need not be the last act and can be the first act towards the commission of the offence, under S. 307 it is the last act which, if effective to cause death, would constitute the offence of an attempt to commit murder, and that even if Bimla Devi had been deprived of food for a certain period, the act of so depriving her did not come under s. 307 as that act could not, by itself have caused her death, it being necessary for the period of starvation to continue for a longer period to cause death.

The Court held that a person commits an offence under s. 307 Of   the Indian Penal Code when he has an intention to commit murder and in pursuance of that intention does an act towards its commission irrespective of the fact whether that act is the penultimate act or not.

Case Laws For Statutory Omissions:

There are instances where a particular statute or a piece of legislation imposes a duty to assist certain categories of persons. It is usually stated that the failure to act in a prescribed manner is considered a crime or an offence. For instance, in the Indian Penal Code,1860 the public servant has to prevent any kind of an offence that disturbs public peace and security.

In R V Dytham, [1979] QB 722 (Court of Appeal) case, where the case involved a police officer named Dytham who failed to intervene in an assault outside a nightclub. During the incident, a man named Bedder was violently assaulted by other individuals. Despite being present at the scene, Dytham did not take any action to stop the assault or to assist the victim. Bedder ultimately died as a result of the injuries sustained during the assault. The main legal issue in the case was whether Dytham could be held criminally liable for failing to intervene and prevent the assault or provide assistance to the victim. The court found Dytham guilty of misconduct in a public office. The judge emphasized that police officers have a duty to uphold the law and protect members of the public. Dytham’s failure to intervene and his neglect of duty constituted misconduct in his role as a police constable. The case established the principle that police officers have a duty to intervene and take reasonable steps to prevent crimes or breaches of the peace when they occur in their presence. Failure to fulfill this duty can result in criminal liability, particularly in cases involving serious harm or loss of life.

In Airedale NHS Trust V Bland [1993] AC 789 (House of Lords) case, Anthony Bland was a victim of the Hillsborough disaster in 1989 and suffered severe brain damage that left him in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). He was kept alive with the help of medical treatment, including artificial feeding and hydration (Support System). The medical staff, his family, and the hospital authority all agreed that there was no prospect of recovery and sought a legal declaration to discontinue treatment. The main legal issue in the case was whether it was lawful to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, namely artificial feeding and hydration, from Anthony Bland, who was in a persistent vegetative state, where there was no prospect of recovery. The House of Lords ruled that it was lawful to discontinue life-sustaining treatment in the case of Anthony Bland. The court held that there was a distinction between withholding treatment (i.e., not starting treatment in the first place) and withdrawing treatment (i.e., stopping treatment that was already being administered). In cases where the patient is in a persistent vegetative state with no prospect of recovery, it may be in the patient’s best interests to withdraw life-sustaining treatment, provided certain legal and ethical criteria are met. Although the court recognized the intention was to cause Bland’s death, the withdrawal of treatment was properly characterized as an omission. If there is a duty for the hospital to act, the hospital would be criminally liable for the omission. However, there is no duty for a hospital to treat a patient if it is not in the best interest of the patient. Since there was no prospect of the treatment improving his condition the treatment was futile and there was no interest for Tony Bland in continuing the process of artificially feeding him upon which the prolongation of his life depends. The case established the principle that in certain circumstances, it may be lawful to withdraw life-sustaining treatment from patients in a persistent vegetative state, where there is no prospect of recovery and continued treatment would only prolong suffering.

Case Laws for Omission by Landlord:

The landowner must protect those who come upon his land as a tenant or the landholder. He has the responsibility to protect the trespassers, licenses, residents, investors and occupants.

In Rowland v. Christian, 69 Cal. 2d 108 case, where the plaintiff was a social guest in Defendant’s apartment. Plaintiff asked to use the bathroom and was injured when a cracked handle of the cold-water faucet on the basin broke and severed tendons and nerves on his right hand. Defendant had known for two weeks that the handle was cracked, and had complained to the manager. However, she did not warn Plaintiff. A summary judgment was given to Defendant. Plaintiff appealed. The issue in the case was whether the ordinary principles of negligence be used to determine the liability of a landowner to a person coming onto the property. The Court observed that the Defendant was aware that the faucet handle was defective and dangerous, that the defect was not obvious, and that Plaintiff was about to come into contact with the defective condition. Defendant did not warn Plaintiff of the dangerous condition. From these facts the trier of fact can reasonably conclude that a failure to warn or to repair the condition constitutes negligence. Hence the previous decision was reversed.

Case Laws for Omission of Contractual Duty:

A duty is imposed upon the person under the contractual obligation to the victim or a third party. For instance, the doctor and the nurse have a duty to care for their patients. If there is any kind of a failure to perform any kind of a contractual obligation then it would form the basis for the omission liability. If the contract is public then the duty is owed to the members of the general public, who are not even parties to the contract.

In R v Pittwood, (1902) 19 TLR 37 case, where the defendant, George Pittwood, was employed as a gatekeeper for a railway level crossing. His duty was to close the gates whenever a train was approaching and to ensure the safety of pedestrians and vehicles crossing the railway tracks. However, Pittwood failed to close the gates on one occasion, leading to a fatal accident involving a horse and carriage that was struck by a train. The key legal issue in the case was whether the defendant owed a duty of care to the public in the performance of his duties as a gatekeeper. The court held that Pittwood had breached his duty of care by failing to close the railway gates, which directly contributed to the fatal accident. The judge emphasized that individuals in certain positions of responsibility, such as gatekeepers, have a legal obligation to take reasonable steps to prevent harm to others. By neglecting his duty, Pittwood had committed gross negligence, resulting in the loss of life. The case established the legal principle that individuals who undertake specific roles or responsibilities, especially those involving public safety, owe a duty of care to others. Failure to fulfill this duty can lead to criminal liability, particularly in cases involving gross negligence or recklessness.

In Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562 case, where the case involved a woman named Mrs. Donoghue, who consumed a ginger beer purchased for her by a friend. The ginger beer was in an opaque bottle, and Mrs. Donoghue only discovered the decomposed remains of a snail in the bottle after she had consumed some of its contents. She suffered shock and gastroenteritis as a result. The key legal issue in the case was whether the manufacturer of the ginger beer owed a duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue, a consumer who had not directly purchased the product, and whether they could be held liable for negligence. The House of Lords ruled in favour of Mrs. Donoghue. They held that the manufacturer, Stevenson, owed a duty of care to consumers of their products to take reasonable care to prevent harm. Lord Atkin famously articulated the “neighbour principle,” stating that “you must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.” This laid the foundation for the modern concept of duty of care in negligence law. The case established the principle that manufacturers owe a duty of care to consumers to ensure that their products are safe and do not cause harm. This principle extends beyond contractual relationships and applies to anyone who could reasonably be affected by the manufacturer’s actions or omissions.

Main points of Atkin’s Neighbour Principle are:

• Neighbours are those persons who are so closely and directly affected by one’s act that he/she ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when he/she directing his/her mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question.
• The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour;
• You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour.

In Anns v Merton London Borough Council [1978] AC 728 case, where the case involved a tenant named Mrs. Anns who suffered injuries when her ceiling collapsed due to negligent construction work. The construction of the building had been approved by the Merton London Borough Council, and Mrs. Anns sought to hold the council liable for the injuries she sustained. The main legal issue in the case was whether local authorities owed a duty of care to tenants like Mrs. Anns in approving building plans and ensuring compliance with building regulations. The House of Lords ruled in favour of Mrs. Anns, establishing a two-stage test for determining whether a duty of care existed in cases involving negligent misstatements or omissions. The first stage involved asking whether a relationship of proximity existed between the defendant (in this case, the local authority) and the plaintiff (Mrs. Anns). If such proximity existed, the second stage required considering whether there were any policy reasons why the duty of care should not be recognized. The case established the two-stage test for determining the existence of a duty of care in negligence cases. This test was later refined in subsequent cases, particularly in Murphy v Brentwood District Council (1991), which introduced the concept of “incrementalism” in the development of the law of negligence.

Case Laws for Omission as Actus Reus:

There are instances where the accused can be held for the liability of omissions where he has caused some danger. So it would be the duty of the accused to remove the danger that was caused intentionally or non-intentionally.

In R v. Miller, [1983] 1 All ER 978 (HL) case, where the defendant, Mr. Miller, was a homeless man who fell asleep on a mattress in a house he was squatting in. He carelessly left a lighted cigarette on the mattress. Upon waking and seeing that the mattress he was lying on was on fire he got up, went into the next room and went back to sleep. When he awoke again, the house was on fire. The main legal issue in the case was whether the defendant’s reckless conduct constituted the mens rea (guilty mind) necessary for the offense of arson. The House of Lords upheld Miller’s conviction for arson. They ruled that his reckless conduct, in leaving a lighted cigarette on the mattress in a way that created a substantial risk of fire, demonstrated the requisite mens rea for the offense of arson. The court held that recklessness in this context meant being aware of the risk and, nonetheless, consciously disregarding it. Diplock, writing for the court, states that the actus reus can be deemed to have occurred, because Miller created a situation that would result in harm if he recklessly failed to prevent the harm. As the appellant created the liability himself it would make no sense to excuse him of criminal liability. An omission can be treated as actus reus if a person creates a situation in which harm to a person or property will occur, and he or she intentionally or recklessly fails to take steps to prevent the harm; if the accused does not live up to the created duty, then it is a crime by omission. The case established the principle that recklessness, in the context of criminal liability, involves consciously taking an unjustified risk. It clarified that a person can be found guilty of a crime if they act recklessly by knowingly taking actions that create a substantial and unjustifiable risk, even if they did not intend the specific consequences that occurred.

In Fagan v. Metropolitan Police Commissioner , [1969] 1 QB 439 case, where the defendant, Fagan, who was sitting in his car when a police officer approached and asked him to move it. Initially, Fagan began to move the car, but then accidentally drove onto the officer’s foot. When the officer told Fagan to remove the car from his foot, Fagan refused to do so for a period of time. As a result, Fagan was charged with assault and criminal damage. The main legal issue in the case was whether Fagan could be convicted of assault and criminal damage for his actions of driving onto the officer’s foot and subsequently refusing to move the car. The court held that Fagan’s actions constituted both assault and criminal damage. Although the initial act of driving onto the officer’s foot may have been accidental, Fagan’s refusal to move the car when asked to do so transformed the act into a deliberate assault. Similarly, Fagan’s continued presence with the car on the officer’s foot amounted to criminal damage. The case established the principle that a continuing act can form the actus reus of an offense even if the mens rea was only present at the beginning of the act. In other words, if a person commits a criminal act and then continues to act in a way that causes harm or damage, they can be held liable for the entire course of their conduct.

In R V Speck [1977] 2 ALL ER 859 (Court of Appeal) case, the defendant (D) was sitting on a chair when an eight-year-old girl put her hand on his penis outside his trousers for about five minutes. The pressure of the child’s hand caused him to have an erection. He remained inactive throughout and did nothing to encourage the child, although he did not remove her hand. The Court held that D was found guilty of gross indecency. Although this may be seen as an omission by the man (i.e. he omitted to move her hand), the court held it to be – in effect – an act by the man.

A Series of Acts as a Single Act:

A criminal act can indeed be understood as a combination or series of acts that, when taken together, constitute a violation of the law. Criminal acts are often defined by specific statutes or legal codes that outline what behaviours are considered illegal within a particular jurisdiction. Understanding criminal acts as combinations of series of acts is important for law enforcement, prosecutors, and courts in determining guilt or innocence, as well as in determining the appropriate charges and penalties for those found guilty of committing crimes.

These acts can range from relatively minor offenses such as petty theft or vandalism to more serious crimes like assault, murder, or fraud. In many cases, a single criminal act may involve multiple steps or actions that are necessary to complete the offense.

For example, in the case of a bank robbery, the criminal act may involve planning the robbery, obtaining weapons or other tools, entering the bank, threatening bank employees or customers, stealing money, and fleeing the scene. Each of these individual actions may constitute separate criminal offenses, but taken together, they form the overall crime of bank robbery.

Similarly, in cases of conspiracy or organized crime, a series of coordinated actions by multiple individuals may be necessary to carry out illegal activities such as drug trafficking, racketeering, or money laundering.

Section 2(25) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 “omission” denotes as well as a series of omissions as a single omission.

In Satyendar Kumar Jain v. Directorate of Enforcement on 6 April, 2023 case, the Supreme Court observed: “Section 3 of the PMLA defines the offence of money laundering. There are certain key words under Section 3 which can be noted – (i) directly or indirectly (ii) attempts to indulge; or knowingly assists; or knowingly is a party; or is actually involved in any process or activity connected (proceeds of crime including its concealment, possession, acquisition or use and projecting or claiming) it as untainted property. Thus, if we read the definition minutely, it is necessary that a person must be directly/indirectly involved and such person should be taken as involved if he is connected in any manner with the proceeds of crime including its (i) concealment, (ii) possession, (iii) acquisition (iv) use, (v) projecting and (vi) claiming”.

In legal contexts, a series of criminal acts can sometimes be treated as a single criminal act under certain circumstances. This legal concept is often referred to as “continuous conduct” or “continuous course of conduct.” Here’s how it works:

Unity of Purpose or Design:

Unity of purpose or design refers to the idea that despite multiple individual acts, there is a cohesive plan or overarching goal guiding the actions. This unity suggests that the acts are not isolated incidents but are interconnected and part of a broader scheme or criminal enterprise. For example, in cases involving complex fraud schemes, such as Ponzi schemes or securities fraud, the various acts committed by the perpetrator may be viewed as part of a unified effort to deceive investors and unlawfully obtain money. Despite involving multiple individual acts, the unity of purpose lies in the overarching goal of defrauding victims through a systematic scheme. The concept of unity of purpose or design allows prosecutors and courts to recognize the broader criminal intent behind a series of acts and ensure that perpetrators are held accountable for the full scope of their criminal behaviour. It enables the aggregation of charges and imposition of appropriate penalties that reflect the seriousness of the overall criminal conduct.

The acts must occur in close temporal and spatial proximity to each other. In other words, they must be closely related in terms of time and location. Temporal and spatial proximity are key aspects of treating a series of criminal acts as a single criminal act. Here’s how they factor into the legal analysis:

Temporal Proximity:

This refers to the closeness in time between the individual criminal acts. When determining whether a series of acts should be treated as a single criminal act, courts consider whether the acts occurred in quick succession or were part of a continuous course of conduct. If the acts are temporally close to each other, it suggests a unified plan or scheme guiding the perpetrator’s behaviour.

An example of temporal proximity in criminal acts can be seen in a series of burglaries committed by an individual within a short timeframe. Let’s say a perpetrator breaks into several homes in a neighbourhood over the course of one night. The burglaries occur within a span of a few hours, with the perpetrator moving from one house to another in rapid succession. Each burglary involves similar methods of entry and theft of valuable items such as electronics, jewellery, and cash. The temporal proximity in this scenario is evident because the burglaries occur within a concentrated period, such as a single night. This close timeframe suggests a continuity of criminal activity rather than isolated incidents. It indicates that the perpetrator had a unified plan or intent to commit multiple burglaries during this specific timeframe.

Due to the temporal proximity of the burglaries, law enforcement agencies may treat them as part of a single criminal event rather than separate offenses. Prosecutors may aggregate the charges related to each burglary and present them as a pattern of criminal behaviour with a unified purpose, potentially leading to more severe penalties for the perpetrator.

In Paranagouda vs The State Of Karnataka on 19 October, 2023 case the Supreme Court said: “We are aware that the word “soon” finds place in Section 304-B; but we would prefer to interpret its use not in terms of days or months or years, but as necessarily indicating that the demand for dowry should not be stale or an aberration of the past, but should be the continuing cause for the death under Section 304-B or the suicide under Section 306 IPC. Once the presence of these concomitants is established or shown or proved by the prosecution, even by preponderance of possibility, the initial presumption of innocence is replaced by an assumption of guilt of the accused, thereupon transferring the heavy burden of proof upon him and requiring him to produce evidence dislodging his guilt, beyond reasonable doubt.”

In Deena Lal and Ors. V. State of Rajasthan, 1988(1) WLN 6 case, where Smt. Roop Kanwar was burnt alive (sati) with corpse of her husband Mal Singh. Sumer Singh, father of deceased Mal Singh, and others took Smt. Roop Kanwar in funeral procession while it is not the custom that ladies accompany the funeral procession. She was dressed and was having all ‘Shringar’ and everybody in the village knew when the funeral procession was passing through the market that Roop Kanwar is to be made a Sati. The allegations are that the accused petitioners have prepared the funeral pyre of Mal Singh. The allegations against the father of deceased Sumer Singh uncle Mangal Singh are that after the funeral pyre had been prepared and dead body of Mal Singh had been placed on it, they took Smt. Roop Kanwar and made her sit in the funeral pyre and put the head of deceased Mal Singh in her lap. When as a result of some movement of Roop Kanwar, which allegedly is said to have been to avoid herself being burnt alive, the pyre had been disturbed, they re-set the pyre to resist her movement. The Rajasthan High Court held that the series of acts prima facie answer a charge of abetment of murder.

Spatial Proximity:

This refers to the closeness in location between the individual criminal acts. When assessing whether a series of acts should be considered a single criminal act, courts examine whether the acts occurred in the same or nearby locations. Spatial proximity can indicate that the acts were part of a coordinated effort or were committed within the same criminal context.

An example of spatial proximity in criminal acts can be illustrated by a series of armed robberies targeting businesses located within the same vicinity. Let’s consider a scenario where a group of individuals plans and executes a string of armed robberies targeting convenience stores along a specific street in a city. Over the course of a week, the perpetrators commit robberies at several different stores located within close proximity to each other. Each robbery involves similar tactics, such as entering the store with weapons, demanding money from the cashiers, and fleeing the scene with stolen cash and merchandise. Despite the different targets, the spatial proximity of the crimes is evident because all the targeted businesses are located within the same area or neighbourhood. The spatial proximity in this scenario suggests a common plan or purpose underlying the criminal conduct. It indicates that the perpetrators deliberately selected businesses within close proximity to each other to facilitate their criminal activities. The geographic concentration of the robberies further reinforces the notion that the acts are interconnected and part of a unified course of conduct.

Law enforcement agencies investigating these robberies may recognize the spatial proximity of the crimes and treat them as part of a single criminal event rather than isolated incidents. Prosecutors may aggregate the charges related to each robbery and present them as a pattern of criminal behaviour committed within a specific geographic area, potentially leading to more severe penalties for the perpetrators.

In Nehal Mahto v. Emperor, AUR 1939 Pat 625 case, where Nehal Mahto was prosecuted for the murder of Nisi mahatain. Deceased Nisi was seriously assaulted and due to which she became unconscious. The accused dragged her from place of assault to railway line and placed on the track when she was unconscious and in helpless condition to be run over by the next train. He told ‘Duli’ accompanying ‘Nisi’ to run away and not to tell anybody of the incidence and threatened her that if she revealed the incidence to anybody he would kill her and her son. The Court held that the series of acts are so closely connected that the intention to cause death can be ascribed.

By considering both temporal and spatial proximity, courts can evaluate whether the series of acts constitutes a unified course of conduct, rather than isolated incidents. This analysis helps ensure that perpetrators are held accountable for the entirety of their criminal behaviour and can facilitate the aggregation of charges to reflect the seriousness of the overall criminal conduct.

Interdependence:

Interdependence of acts refers to the idea that each individual act within a series of criminal acts is connected to and dependent on the others to achieve a common criminal purpose or goal. In the context of treating a series of criminal acts as a single criminal act, interdependence is a crucial aspect that helps establish the continuity and unity of the overall criminal conduct.

For example, let’s imagine a case where an organized crime syndicate engages in a series of drug trafficking operations. Each individual within the syndicate plays a specific role in the overall scheme, such as production, transportation, distribution, and sales of illegal narcotics. These roles are interdependent because the success of each operation relies on the cooperation and coordination of all involved parties. For instance, the individuals responsible for producing the drugs depend on others to transport them to distribution points, while those involved in distribution rely on suppliers to provide a steady stream of narcotics. Each step in the process is interconnected, and the failure of one part can disrupt the entire operation. If law enforcement authorities investigate and prosecute the members of the syndicate, they may treat the series of drug trafficking activities as a single criminal enterprise rather than separate offenses. By recognizing the interdependence of the criminal acts, prosecutors can present evidence demonstrating how each individual act contributes to the overall criminal purpose of the syndicate.

This approach allows courts to impose more significant penalties on the perpetrators, reflecting the seriousness of their collective criminal conduct. Moreover, by treating the series of acts as a single criminal act, law enforcement agencies can better dismantle organized criminal networks and disrupt their illegal activities

Aggregation of Charges:

Aggregation of charges refers to the legal process of combining multiple related offenses into a single charge or indictment when they are part of a series of criminal acts that are treated as a single criminal act. This aspect is important in cases where prosecutors seek to present a comprehensive picture of the defendant’s criminal behaviour and ensure that they are held accountable for the full extent of their actions. The steps in aggregation of charges are as follows:

• Consolidating Related Offenses: Prosecutors may choose to aggregate charges when the defendant has committed multiple criminal acts that are part of the same course of conduct or scheme. This typically involves consolidating charges related to each individual act into a single charge or indictment, rather than treating them as separate offenses.
• Establishing a Unified Pattern of Criminal Behaviour: Aggregating charges allows prosecutors to present evidence of the defendant’s entire pattern of criminal behaviour as part of a single case. By demonstrating the continuity and interconnectedness of the criminal acts, prosecutors can establish a unified narrative that underscores the defendant’s culpability and the seriousness of their conduct.
• Streamlining Legal Proceedings: Aggregating charges helps streamline legal proceedings by reducing the complexity and duplication of evidence and testimony. Rather than litigating each individual offense separately, prosecutors can focus on presenting a cohesive case that encompasses all relevant criminal acts.
• Enhancing Penalties: Aggregating charges may result in more severe penalties for the defendant, as they are held accountable for the full scope of their criminal conduct. By combining multiple offenses into a single charge, prosecutors can seek maximum penalties that reflect the seriousness of the defendant’s overall criminal behaviour.
• Ensuring Fairness and Efficiency: Aggregating charges promotes fairness and efficiency in the legal system by ensuring that defendants are prosecuted for their criminal conduct in a comprehensive and effective manner. It allows courts to adjudicate cases more efficiently while still providing defendants with due process and a fair trial.

Overall, aggregation of charges is a critical aspect of treating a series of criminal acts as a single criminal act, as it enables prosecutors to present a coherent and unified case that accurately reflects the defendant’s culpability and ensures that they are held accountable for their actions.

In Anda And Ors. vs The State Of Rajasthan, AIR 1966 SC 148 case, where the deceased (Bherun) was assaulted by a number of persons and received numerous injuries. He died as a result on the same day. Prosecution proved satisfactorily that deceased and his father were on inimical terms with the appellants and that certain criminal proceedings were going on between them. When the deceased was on his way to the fields, caught hold of by appellants and was assaulted. They and the other accused, dragged deceased inside the house and beat him severely with their sticks. When the deceased was admitted in the hospital he was bleeding profusely from his injuries and had many fractures. At the autopsy the lungs were pale and the heart empty which showed that enormous quantity of blood must have been lost. The presence and participation of appellants in the assault has been concurrently accepted by the High Court and the Sessions Judge. There can be no question that the appellants were actuated by a common intention which must have been the result of a prior concert, regard being had to the time, and the place and the circumstances of the visit of deceased.

The analysis of Court was as follows: “In the present case the accused were obviously present at the spot by previous arrangement. The time and the place and the errand on which Bherun was engaged clearly show that they intended to waylay and beat Bherun. This intent was obviously shared and was the result of prior arrangement. The question is whether they can be brought within any one of the three clauses of Section 300. The injuries were not on a vital part of the body and no weapon was used which can be described as especially dangerous. Only lathis were used. It cannot, therefore, be said safely that there was an intention to cause the death of Bherun within the first clause of Section 300. At the same time, it is obvious that his hands and legs were smashed and numerous braises and lacerated wounds were caused. The number of injuries shows that everyone joined in beating him. It it also quite clear that the assailants aimed at breaking his arms and legs. Looking at the injuries caused to Bherun in furtherance of the common intention of all it is clear that the injuries intended to be caused were sufficient to cause his death in the ordinary course of nature even if it cannot be said that his death was intended. This is sufficient to bring the case within 3rdly of Section 300.”

Court further said that it is not necessary that there should be an appreciable passage of time between the formation of the intent and the act for common intention may be formed at any time. Next one must look for the requisite ingredient that the injuries which were intended to be caused were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Next we must see if the accused possessed the knowledge that the injuries they were intending to cause were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. When these circumstances are found and death is, in fact, caused by injuries which are intended to be caused and which are, sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death the resulting offence of each participant is murder.

Judicial Discretion:

Judicial discretion plays a significant role in determining whether a series of criminal acts should be treated as a single criminal act. Judicial discretion refers to the authority given to judges to make decisions based on their judgment and interpretation of the law, within the bounds of legal guidelines and principles. Here’s how judicial discretion applies to treating a series of criminal acts as a single criminal act:

• Case Evaluation: Judges have the discretion to evaluate the facts and circumstances of each case individually to determine whether the series of criminal acts should be considered a single criminal act. They consider factors such as the nature and severity of the offenses, the defendant’s intent, the level of interdependence between the acts, and the impact on victims.
• Legal Interpretation: Judges interpret relevant statutes, case law, and legal principles to determine whether the series of criminal acts meets the criteria for being treated as a single criminal act. They consider legal concepts such as temporal and spatial proximity, unity of purpose, and interdependence of the acts in making their decision.
• Sentencing Considerations: Judicial discretion extends to sentencing decisions, where judges have the authority to impose appropriate penalties based on the severity of the offense and the defendant’s culpability. In cases where a series of criminal acts is treated as a single criminal act, judges may consider the overall pattern of behaviour in determining the appropriate sentence.
• Fairness and Equity: Judicial discretion ensures that decisions regarding the treatment of a series of criminal acts are fair and equitable. Judges weigh the interests of justice, the rights of the defendant, and the need for public safety in making their determinations.
• Case Management: Judges use their discretion to manage court proceedings effectively, including the consolidation of charges, the admission of evidence, and the conduct of the trial. They may exercise discretion to streamline legal proceedings and ensure that cases are adjudicated efficiently while upholding the principles of fairness and due process.

Thus, judicial discretion is a crucial aspect of determining whether a series of criminal acts should be treated as a single criminal act. Judges play a central role in assessing the facts and applying the law to make decisions that promote justice and uphold the integrity of the legal system.

This concept is often applied in cases involving complex criminal schemes, such as conspiracy, racketeering, or organized crime, where multiple individual acts are part of a larger criminal enterprise. By treating the series of acts as a single criminal act, prosecutors can simplify the legal proceedings and ensure that the perpetrator is held accountable for the full extent of their criminal behaviour.

Provisions Under Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023:

According to Section 243(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) , 2023, (Section 220(1) CrPC, 1973) if, in one series of acts so connected together as to form the same transaction, more offences than one are committed by the same person, he may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, every such offence.

According to Section 243(3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, (Section 220(3) CrPC, 1973) if the acts alleged constitute an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for, each of such offences.

According to Section 243(4) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, (Section 220(4) CrPC, 1973) if several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an offence, constitute when combined a different offence, the person accused of them may be charged with, and tried at one trial for the offence constituted by such acts when combined, and for any offence constituted by any one, or more, of such acts.

In Aftab Ahmad Khan v. The State of Hyderabad, AIR 1954 SC 436 case, the Court observed that the incidents related in the evidence left no   doubt  that from the moment the accused (a Reserve Inspector of Police) started from the Police State, he committed a series of acts involving killing, injuring people, unlawfully confining others and extorting money from one of them and therefore the series of acts attributed to him constituted one transaction in the course of which two offences which       were alleged to be distinct were committed.

Conclusion:

According to Section 2(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, an “act” denotes as well a series of acts as a single act. Criminal acts can be classified as acts of commission or acts of omission. Acts of commission involve actively engaging in behaviour that is prohibited by law. Acts of omission involve failing to perform an action that is legally required. In both cases, whether it’s commission or omission, the key factor is whether the behaviour or lack thereof violates the law and is punishable by the state. In most of the cases a criminal act can be understood as a combination or series of acts that, when taken together, constitute a violation of the law.

In criminal law, an omission refers to a failure to act or a failure to perform a legal duty. While criminal liability typically arises from positive actions (acts), there are circumstances where criminal liability can also result from omissions, especially when there is a legal duty to act. It’s important to note that in cases involving omissions as criminal acts, the prosecution must establish that the defendant had a legal duty to act and that their failure to act was a significant contributing factor to the harm or criminal outcome. Additionally, the law surrounding omissions as criminal acts may vary depending on jurisdiction and specific circumstances.