Elements of Crime and its application in IPC
- 1. - By Nishka Prajapati ELEMENTS OF CRIME AND ITS APPLICATION IN INDIAN PENAL CODE
- 2. A crime is a moral wrong, committed against the society as a whole. It disturbs the peace, and some crimes may cause widespread panic and disruption of normal activities in a community. The burden of prosecution of a crime falls on the State, and the burden of proof falls on the prosecution. The State acts to protect the victims of the crime and to prevent the offender from committing more crimes and acts to provide justice to the victims. The State also takes measures to punish the offender and most countries have reformation programs in prison in an attempt to steer the offenders towards becoming law-abiding, dutiful citizens. According to legal definition, Crime is "any form of conduct which is declared to be socially harmful in a state and as such forbidden by law under pain of some punishment." According to Oxford English Dictionary, 'Crime' means "an act punishable by law as forbidden by statute or injurious to the public welfare”. CRIME
- 3. There are two tests of criminality of our law which is based on English law i.e. actus reus and mens rea. But in Indian law, there are four elements that go to constitute a Crime, these are – (a) Human being (b) Mens rea (c) Actus reus (d) Injury ELEMENTS OF CRIME
- 4. The first essential element of crime is a 'Human being'. It requires that an act to be a crime, it is necessary that the act must be committed by a human being. As Section 2 of Indian Penal Code provides that – "Every person shall be liable to punishment under this Code for every act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which he shall be guilty within India". The word ‘Person’ is wide enough as it not only includes the natural person but also artificial or Juridical persons as it has also been provided under Section 11 of Indian Penal Code, which provides that the word ‘Person’ includes a company or association or a body of persons whether incorporated or not. 1. HUMAN BEING AS AN ELEMENT OF CRIME
- 5. In R. vs. Birmingham Rly. Co (1840), the corporation was held liable for having neglected to repair a highway. In case of R. vs. Great North of Eng. Rly. Co.(1846) Railway Company was held liable for obstructing a high way whereby public nuisance was created. CASES
- 6. The essence of criminal law has been said to lie in the maxim- “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.” The maxim means that an act does not itself make one guilty unless the mind is also guilty. The mere commission of a criminal act or violation of law is not enough to constitute a crime. These generally require, in addition, some elements of wrongful intent or other fault. Mens Rea is a technical term. It means some blameworthy condition of the mind, the absence of which on any particular occasion negatives the condition of crime. It is one of the essential ingredients of criminal liability. 2. MENS REA AS AN ELEMENT OF CRIME
- 7. (1)FRAUDULENTLY: According to Section 25 of the code – “A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to defraud but not otherwise”. The words 'With intent to defraud' as mentioned above indicate that there is not only a bare intent to deceive but also an intent to cause a person to do or omit to do any act to his disadvantage, as a result of deception caused upon him. The expression 'defraud' involves two elements viz. deceit and injury to the person deceived.
- 8. Queen Empress V/s Soshi Bhushan (1891-93) In this Case accused applied for admission to LL.B. (Final) class in Benaras University alleging that he had attended LL.B. (Previous) class in Lucknow Canning College. He was admitted and required to produce a certificate in support of proof of having passed LL.B. (Previous) examination. He produced a forged certificate and it was held that he acted fraudulently.
- 9. (2) DISHONESTLY: According to Section 24 of the Code ‘Dishonestly’ means – “Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another, is said to do that thing dishonestly”. The Word “Wrongful Gain” and “Wrongful Loss” which have been mentioned above, have been defined under Section 23 of the Code as “Wrongful gain is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled and wrongful loss is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.”
- 10. Krishan Kumar vs. Union of India (1959) In this case the Court has held that Wrongful gain includes wrongful retention and wrongful loss includes being kept out of the property as well as being wrongfully deprived of property. Therefore when a particular thing has gone into the hands of a servant he will be guilty of misappropriating the thing in all circumstances which show a malicious intent to deprive the master of it.
- 11. (3) VOLUNTARILY: According to Section 39 of the Code – “A person is said to cause an effect voluntarily when he causes it by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it.”
- 12. Emperor V/s Raghu Nath Rai (1892) In this case, a Hindu took away a calf from a Mohammedon’s house without his knowledge and consent in order to save it from slaughter. The accused was held guilty of theft and rioting although he acted with the best of motive to save the life of the sacred cow.
- 13. Actus Reus is the physical aspect of a crime. The accused needs to have done something or omitted to do something, resulting in injury to the plaintiff, or the victim in civil cases. Without a guilty act, there can be no crime and no suit for damages can arise. An act alone does not make a crime, however, and both the intention of the person and the act itself, if such act is prohibited, combine to form the crime. Actus Reus can also be the omission of an act, by omitting to do something that the accused knows he is bound by duty or law to do. 3. ACTUS REUS AS AN ELEMENT OF CRIME
- 14. According to Section-32 of the IPC the term ‘act’ includes illegal omission also. Thus actus is constituted when a person does something that he is not supposed to do under law or omits to do something that he is legally obliged to do. For example, if A’s neighbour dies of starvation he is not liable for failure to feed him, but if he lets his wife or child who is totally dependent on him to die of starvation, he will be held liable for non-performance of his legal duty to provide for their sustenance. Under Section-33 of the IPC, the term ‘act’ includes a single act as well as a series of acts and the term ‘omission’ includes a single omission as well as a series of omissions. For example, the act of slow poisoning would require a series of acts providing poison in small and measured doses in order to arrive at the desired object. In such cases, even a single act out of the series of acts would entail the same liability as to the completed act.
- 15. i) Where there is no physical participation: A man may be held fully liable although he may have take no physical part at all in the actual commission of the crime. For example: ‘A man in Delhi will be held liable for having instigated and arranged the commission of crime Mumbai. ii) Where the participation is indirect: A person will be held full responsible if he has made use of an innocent agent to commit a crime. For example : ‘X secretly puts poison into a drink which he knows or expect Mrs. Y will offer it to Mr. Y. Here X’s act falls under actus reus and is criminally liable.
- 16. R vs. Pittwood (1902) In this case the defendant was employed as a gatekeeper at a railway crossing. One day he went for lunch leaving the gate open so that road traffic could cross the railway line. A hay cart crossing the line was hit by a train. One man was killed, another was seriously injured. Pittwood was convicted of manslaughter based on his failure to carry out his contractual duty to close the gate when a train approached.
- 17. The word 'Injury' has been defined under Section 44 of Indian Penal Code as "the word 'injury' denotes any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property". Thus, the word 'injury' is wide enough to include all injuries caused by tortious act. The threat of injury is also punishable under the Indian Penal Code as there are three sections in the Code which specifically deals with the threat of injury – • Section 189- Threat of injury to public servant, • Section 190 - Threat of injury to induce person to refrain from applying for protection to public servant, and • Section 385- Putting a person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion. 4. INJURY AS AN ELEMENT OF CRIME
- 18. Sakariya vs. State Of M.P. (1989) The case of the prosecution was that the prosecutrix was raped by the accused and he was charged under section 376 of IPC. It was the evidence of the prosecution that whole of the body of the prosecutrix was scratched by the accused but the medical examiner who examined her the next day morning did not find a single mark of injury on her body. The lack of injuries and the chemical examiner’s report completely belied the prosecution story and the MP HC set aside the conviction and sentence as recorded by the trial Court and acquitted the appellant of the charge framed against him.
- 19. The layout of the answer is given in the description box below THANKYOU