IPC note.pdf

1 | P a g e
Q . Right Of the private diffence of IPC?
Introduction:- Self help is the first rule of criminal law. The India penal code has given the
right of private defence of body and property to every individual. Section 96 to 106 states the
law relating to the right of private defence of person and property.
Section 96:- Nothing is an offence that is done in exercise of the right of private defence.
Section 97:- Right of private defence of body and property
Every person has rights subject to the restriction contained in section 99 to defend
(1) his own body and body of another person against any offence effectively the human body.
(2) The property, whether movable or immovable of himself or any other person against any
act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief, criminal
trespass or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.
Section 98;- Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind etc.
When an act which would otherwise be a certain offence is not that offence by reason the
youth they want of maturity of understanding the Unsoundness mind or the intoxication the
person doing that act or by reason of misconception on the part of a person. Every person has
the same right of private defence against the act which be would have in the act were the
offence.
Section 99 :- Act against which there is no right of private defence.
According to section 99 of the Indian penal code, there is no right to private defence
(1)Against the act of a public servant acting in good faith.
(2)Against the act of the person who acts under the authority or direction of a public servant.
(3)where there is sufficient time for a resource to public authority.
(4)The quantum of harm that may be caused shall no case be in excesses.
Section 100:- When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death.
To invoke section 100 of the Indian penal code following four conditions must exist.
1. The person exercising the right of private defence must be free from fault in bringing
about the encounter.
2. There must be present impeding harm, rape, unnatural lust, kidnapping or abduction,
wrongful confinement etc.
3. There must be no state or reasonable mode of escape by retreated etc.

2 | P a g e
4. There must have been a necessity for taking the life.
Section 101;- When such right extends to causing any harm other than death.
If the offence is not of any of the description Enumerated in the last preceding section, the right
of the private body does not extend to the voluntarily causing death to the assailants but does
extend under restriction mention in section 99 to the voluntarily causing to the assailants of any
harm other than death.
Section 102:- Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence.
The right of private defence of the body commence as soon as the reasonable apprehension of
danger to the body arise from an attempt or threat to commit the offence through the offence
that may not have been committed. It continues as long as the apprehension of danger to the
body continues.
Section 103:- When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death.
The right of private defence of property extends to causing death under the restrictions mention
in section 99 In the following cases.
(1) robbery
(2) house-breaking by night
(3) mischief by fire in building, tent, vessel.
(4) theft, mischief, house-trespass.
Section 104:- When such right to causing harm other than death.
If the offence are not any of the as define under section 103 then the right of private defence,
subject to restriction mention in section 99 extends to cause any other harm, not to the death.
Section 105:- Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of property.
The right of private defence of property commence as soon as a reasonable apprehension of
danger to the property.
In case of theft right of private defence continue till the offender has retreated with property, or
till he obtains public authority.
In case of robbery right of private defence of property continue till the apprehension of death
or hurt or wrongful restrain continue.
In case of mischief or trespass as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal
trespass or mischief.

3 | P a g e
Section 106:- Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is risk of harm to
an innocent person.
When there is a situation in which reasonable apprehension of death is caused by a deadly
assault and the defender cannot exercise of the right of private defence without causing harm to
the innocent person then the defendant’s right of private defence extends to the running of that
risk.
Conclusion:- Self preservation is a principle of Criminal law and therefore the state provides
individuals the right to protect themselves. The right of Private Defence of body comes under
the justifiable defence where the focus is more on the act of the individual. The benefit out of
the conduct outweighs the evil of the offence.
Kidnapping
• Section 359 of the Indian Penal Code deals with what is ‘Kidnapping’. According to this
section, kidnapping can be classified as ‘Kidnapping from India’ or ‘Kidnapping from
Lawful Guardianship’.
• Section 360 of the Code says that when a person is conveyed beyond the limits of India
without that person’s consent, the person who takes such person is said to kidnap that
person from India.
• Section 361 of the Code provides that when a person entices a minor (16 years for male
and 18 years for female) or a person of unsound mind, person so enticing will be held
liable for kidnapping such minor or person from lawful guardianship.
Case law:- In the case of State of Haryana v Raja Ram [1], the accused induced the
prosecutrix who was 14 years of age away from her lawful guardianship. The Supreme
Court held that the persuasion by the accused created a willing on the part of minor which
kept her away from her lawful guardianship and therefore it amounted to ‘kidnapping’.
Abduction
➢ ‘Abduction’ has been defined in Section 362 of the Indian Penal Code which says that
if a person either by force compels a person or induces another person to go from
any place is said to abduct such person.
Case Law:- In the case of Bahadur Ali v King Emperor , the accused misrepresented
himself as a police constable and kept a girl in his house for a ransom of Rs 600. The court
held that his act amounted to abduction.
Q. Difference between Kidnapping and Abduction?

4 | P a g e
Ans:- Kidnapping and Abduction are the crime under Indian Penal Code,1860. It talks about the
forcefully taking of the person or a child (from guardianship) with or without the consent for that
matter. Both the offences are given under Chapter 26 – Offences affecting the Human Body, particularly
from section 359 to 366 of Indian Penal code. Although both the offences are similar in some aspects
but they are poles apart in many other aspects.
Basis of
Difference
Kidnapping Abduction
Provision
under IPC
The offence of kidnapping is defined
u/s 359-361 of IPC
The offence of abduction is defined u/s
362 of IPC
Age (Minor or
Major)
It is committed only in respect of a
minor i.e. in case of boy 16 years and
in case of a girl 18 years, or a person
of unsound mind.
It is committed in respect of any person
of any age. There is no bar to any
specific age of person.
Guardianship The person kidnapped is removed
from the lawful guardianship. A child
without a guardianship can’t be
kidnapped.
Guardianship is immaterial to determine
the offence of abduction. It has reference
exclusively to the person abducted.
Means Used/
Employed
In kidnapping, the minor is simply
taken away. The means used to kidnap
a child may be innocent.
The means employed in abduction are
force, compulsion or deceitful methods.
Consent Consent of the person enticed is
immaterial
Consent of the person matters i.e. if a
person is removed with free consent in
that case offence of abduction is said be
not committed.
Intention
(Strict
Liability)
In Kidnapping the intent of a person is
immaterial i.e. he would be liable in
all the circumstances irrespective of
the valid motive and good intention.
Intention is very important to determine
the offence. Hence, a person would be
liable only if there is ill intention behind
the act.
Completion of
offence
It is not a continuing offence. The
offence is completed as soon as the
minor is removed from the custody of
his or her/his guardian
It is a continuing offence. The offence is
in continuation as the place of the
abducted person changes from one to
another.
Kind of
offence
Kidnapping from guardianship is a
substantive offence, punishable u/s
363, IPC.
Abduction is an auxiliary act, not
punishable by itself, unless accompanied
with some intent specified u/s 364-366.
Hence, a particular purpose is necessary
to punish an accused.
Q. Wrongful Restraint239 of IPC?
Definition :-According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code, “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.”

5 | P a g e
Further, the section also lays down an exception, which is that if a person in good faith believes
himself to have a lawful right to obstruct and so obstruct a private way over land or water, then it
does not amount to wrongful restraint.
To understand this, let us look at the following :- illustration- X is walking on a public road on
which she has a right to pass. Y obstructs this path despite knowing that he had no right to stop
the path. As X was prevented from passing, Y can be said to have wrongfully restrained X.
Ingredients :- To establish the offence of wrongful restraint the complainant must prove all the
following essential:
1. That there was an obstruction;
2. That the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in any direction;
3. That the person/complainant so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the
direction concerned.
Punishment :- Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code imposes punishment against the wrongdoer
under Section 339 with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with
fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
Case Law:- In the case of Shoba Rani vs. The King (1950-51 ), the landlord was accused of
preventing his tenant who was the tenant from using the bathroom. By stopping the tenant from
using something that he had the right to use, the landlord was had committed wrongful restraint
under Section 339.
Q. WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT
Definition :- According to Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code; “Whoever wrongfully restrains
any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain
circumscribing limits is said to have committed the offence of wrongful confinement.”
Illustrations:
1. Radhika causes Anamika to go within a walled space and locks Anamika in. Anamika is
thus prevented from proceeding in any direction beyond the circumscribing line of the
walls and so Radhika has wrongfully confined Anamika.
2. Gabbar places men with firearms at the outlets of a building and tells Veeru that they will
fire at him if he attempts to leave the building. Here, Gabbar has wrongfully confined
Veeru.
Ingredients

6 | P a g e
The essential ingredients of the offence of wrongful confinement are:
1. The accused should have wrongfully restrained the complainant (i.e. all ingredients of
wrongful restraint must be present)
2. Such wrongful restraint was to prevent the complainant from proceeding beyond certain
circumscribing limits beyond which he or she has the right to proceed.
Punishment
Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code states that whoever wrongfully confines any person shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year,
or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.
Cases Law:-
In the case of State of Gujarat vs. Keshav Lai Maganbhai Gujoyan , it was discussed by the
court that “For a charge of wrongful confinement, proof of actual physical restriction is not
essential. It is sufficient if the evidence shows that such an impression was produced in the mind
of the victim, a reasonable apprehension in his mind that he was not free to depart. If the
impression creates that the complainant would be forthwith seized or restrained if he attempts to
escape, a reasonable apprehension of the use of the force rather than its actual use is sufficient
and important.”
State vs. Balakrishnan (1992 ) , the complainant was detained in the police station when this
was brought to court, the accused claimed that complainant was at liberty to go away from the
police station at any time. The Court remarked that when a citizen enters into a police station, the
police officers’ authority prevails in that jurisdiction and they entertain it with a ruddy manner.
Court held that the accused committed the offence of wrongful confinement.
Q. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN Wrongful Restraint & Wrongful Confinement?
Wrongful Restraint Wrongful Confinement
It is the genus, i.e. it is a wider term and
includes several types of restraints under it.
It is a species of wrongful restraint i.e. a type of
wrongful restraint.
It prevents a person from proceeding in a
direction in which that person has a right to
proceed.
It keeps a person within certain circumscribing
limits.
It is not a very serious offence and is
punishable with lesser punishment.
It is a more serious offence and is punishable
with a more severe punishment than wrongful
restraint.
There is only a partial suspension of one’s
liberty.
There is total suspension of liberty beyond
certain circumscribing limits.

7 | P a g e
Punishment: Sec. 341. Imprisonment to one
month, or fine Rs. 500/-, or with both.
Punishment: Sec. 342. Imprisonment to one year,
or fine Rs. 1000/-, or with both.
Q. Rape 375 of IPC ?
Ans:- According to Section 375(1) where sexual intercourse is done against the will of the other
person amounts to the offence of rape. In the State of Uttar Pradesh v. Chhotey Lal (2011)
the Supreme Court explained the concept stating that an act done by a man against women
despite her resistance or opposition.
Case law
Himachal Pradesh v. Mango Ram (2000)
Facts: In this case, Prosecutrix was the eldest daughter Jagia Ram. The accused who was aged
17 years accompanied the prosecutrix. The accused caught her from behind and was forced to lie
on the cowshed and committed a sexual act.
The Supreme Court held that the girl tried resistance to stop the accused from committing the act
but the accused overpowered her and the act was committed against the will of the victim and
was held liable for the offence of rape.
Essential of Rape:-
• Against her will;
• Without her consent;
• Consent is obtained by force or putting a person of her interest under fear of death;
• Consent obtained by a misconception;
• Consent was obtained when the person was unsound, intoxicated, or under undue
influence;
• Women under the age of eighteen with or without her consent;
• A woman who is unable to communicate her consent.
Punishment for Rape:- The offence that is committed would be non-bailable, non-compoundable,
and a cognizable offence. That would lead to an imprisonment of at least seven years and extend
to life imprisonment along with a fine. A person commits an offence of gang rape, custodial rape
would be liable for punishment not less than 10 years extending to life imprisonment and with a
fine.
Consent :- Consent refers to an activity done by a person under a free state of mind. According to
Merriam Webster, consent refers to an act committed by a person by giving assent and
approval. According to Section 375 consent can be referred to as an unequivocal voluntary

8 | P a g e
agreement when a woman by communication, verbal, or non-verbal, shows her willingness to
commit a specific act. The core concept under consent is choice, and not will.
To interpret consent, it is necessary to prove:
• The person can give consent; and
• The person, with his free choice, has accepted the act.
For example, if A has accepted to perform the construction of B’s house under his free choice, it
would amount to valid consent.
Will :- The word refers to the reasoning power of the mind to determine whether to do an act or
not. According to Merriam Webster, ‘will’ is defined as a thing that is done with desire or
choice. In other words, an act of will refers to a desire to participate by a person without being
under pressure or under the influence of any other person.
E.g. A instigated B to shoot C to which B willingly agreed and shot C. In this scenario, there was
a clear will of B to shoot C though instigated by A he had a clear choice to say no.
Q. Definition of Abetment ?
➢ The definition of abetment under Section 107, IPC requires a person to abet
the commission of an offence. This abetment may occur in any of the three methods that
the provision prescribes.
The Section says that abetment basically takes place when a person abets the doing of a thing by:
(1) instigating a person to do that thing; or
(2) engaging with another person (or persons) in a conspiracy to do that thing; or
(3) intentionally aiding a person to do that thing.
When any of these requirements exists, the offence of abetment is complete. Sometimes a person
may commit more than one of these three circumstances in a single offence.
(1) Abetment by Instigation
Instigation basically means suggesting, encouraging or inciting a person to do or abstain from
doing something. Instigation may take place either directly or indirectly, by written or
oral words, or even by gestures and hints.
The instigation must be sufficient to actively encourage a person to commit an offence. It should
not be mere advice or a simple suggestion. The Instigator need not even possess mens rea (a
guilty intention to commit the crime).

9 | P a g e
Explanation 1 of this Section throws some lights on what instigation may mean in this context. It
says that instigation may generally happen even by:
(a) wilful misrepresentation; or
(b) willful concealment of a material fact which a person is bound to disclose.
For example, a court directs Amit, a police officer, to arrest Raj under an arrest warrant. Brijesh
informs Amit that Chandan is Raj despite knowing that he is not. Under this misrepresentation,
Amit ends up arresting Chandan instead of Raj. In this case, Brijesh is guilty of abetting Amit in
wrongfully apprehending Chandan.
(2) Abetment by Conspiracy
Conspiracy basically means an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful
act. Merely intending to commit an offence is not sufficient for this purpose.
Thus, the conspirators must actively agree and prepare themselves to commit that offence, it
becomes a conspiracy. Furthermore, the act which the conspirators conspire to commit itself
must be illegal or punishable.
For example, in dowry death cases, the in-laws of the victim are often guilty of abetment by
conspiracy. They may do so by constantly taunting, torturing or instigating the victim. Even
suicides may take place in this manner through abetment by conspiracy.
(3) Abetment by Aiding
The third manner in which abetment may take place is by intentionally aiding the offender in
committing that offence. This generally happens when the abettor facilitates the crime or helps in
committing it. The intention to aid the offender is very important.
For example, merely giving food or clothing to an alleged offender may not be punishable. But
giving him food, clothing and shelter to help him hide from the police or commit a crime is
punishable.
Punishment for Abetment
Abetment of certain offences is punishable under specific Sections of IPC or under other laws.
For example, abetment of suicide is punishable under Section 306. However, when no specific
provision exists, the abettor will be punished with the punishment prescribed for that particular
offence he has abetted.
Grievous Hurt:- Section 320 of the IPC deals with the definition of Grevious hurt and Section
322 deals with the offence of ‘voluntarily causing grievous hurt’. There are eight specific
situations which are said to be the essential element for causing grievous hurt to a person. These
situations are

10 | P a g e
Difference between Hurt and Grievous Hurt
The concept of hurt is different from grievous hurt in the following ways:
1. The injuries caused in grievous hurt are specific in nature like emasculation, loss of sight,
loss of limb, fracture, disfiguration etc. whereas the injuries caused in section 319 i.e.
hurt are just covered by bodily pain, disease and infirmity.
2. The risk of life is much more grave in the case of grievous hurt than in the case of hurt.
3. Hurt is not punishable in itself. For hurt to b punishable, it must be accompanied by other
offences. But grievous hurt is punishable in itself.
4. The offence of hurt is non-cognizable, bailable and triable by any Magistrate. Whereas
the offence of grievous hurt is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of
the Court.
5. The punishment for Hurt is given under section 323 of the Indian Penal Code and the
punishment for grievous hurt is given under section 325 of the Indian Penal Code
Punishment for Grievous hurt:- There are various forms of punishment prescribed for the
offense of grievous hurt. The imprisonment can be simple or rigorous and it mainly depends
upon the facts of the case. These punishments are as follows –
Punishment for causing Grievous hurt Voluntarily (Section 325)
It states that if a person deliberately and voluntarily causes grievous hurt to any other person,
then he will be subject to imprisonment which can be extended up to seven years. The person can
be liable for the fine also.
Punishment for voluntarily causing grievous hurt by a dangerous weapon (Section 326)This
section entails a list of instruments that can be used for causing grievous hurt. This can be done
by shooting, cutting or stabbing. Further, any injury through explosive and poisonous material
also comes under this scope. The person accused under this section shall be punished with a
maximum period of 10 years or by fine or both.
Theft:- Theft has been defined under Section 378 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. WHEN ANY
PERSON intends to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person
without that person’s consent and moves it, he/she is said to have committed a theft.”
For example: If A is employed by B and entrusted by C with the care of D’s cash, dishonestly
runs away with that cash, without D’s consent. Then A has committed theft.
In the case of Pyare Lal Bhargava v. State of Rajasthan, a government employee took a file from
the office and gave it to Mr.A and brought it back two days later. It was held that he took the
property away with a dishonest or malicious intention and that is enough to term it as a theft.
Essentials of theft:-
The essentials of theft are:

11 | P a g e
• There has to be a dishonest intention to take the property away.
• The property should not be attached to the earth. It should be movable property.
• The property must be taken out of the possession of another
• The most important thing is that the property must be taken away without consent.
• There should be physical movement of the property. For example, if someone cuts the
string which is tied to the necklace owing to which the necklace falls, it would be held
that he or she has caused sufficient movement of the property as required for it to amount
to theft.
Punishment for theft :-
The punishment for theft is defined under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It says
that a person who commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of up to 3 years or with
fine or with both.
Extortion:-
Extortion is defined under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This section says that any
person who intentionally puts another person in fear of injury and dishonestly induces him or her
to deliver any valuable property or anything signed which can be converted into valuable
security is said to have committed extortion.
illustration:- For example, if D threatens A that he will keep A’s child in wrongful confinement
and will kill him unless A delivers to him a sum of Rupees one lakh. Then D has committed
extortion.
Essentials of extortion:- The essentials of extortion are:
• The person committing the offence should intentionally put the victim in fear of injury.
The fear of injury must be to such an extent that it is capable of unsettling the mind of the
victim and forcing him to give his property, as in the above-stated example.
• The person committing the offence should dishonestly induce the victim so to put in fear
to part with his (the victim’s) property.
In the landmark case of R.S. Nayak v. A.R Antulay, A.R. Antulay, a CM, promised the sugar
cooperatives whose cases were pending before the government for consideration that their cases
would be looked into if they donated money. It was held that fear or threat should be used for
extortion, and since in this case, there was no fear of injury or threat it would not amount to
extortion.
Punishment for extortion:- Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code defines the punishment for
extortion. It states that any person who commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment
of up to 3 years or with fine or with both.

12 | P a g e
ROBBERY :- Essential Ingredients of Robbery.
Section 390 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 says that in all robbery there is either extortion or
theft. The Black law’s dictionary defines robbery as the felonious act of taking the personal
property of another from a person or immediate presence against his will accomplished by using
force and fear, with the intention of permanently depriving the owner of the thing.
Causing Death, Hurt or Wrongful Restraint or Fear
Death, hurt, wrongful restraint or fear can be caused when theft is a robbery or when extortion is
robbery. These two are explained below with the help of illustrations.
When theft is robbery
Theft is a robbery when in order to commit theft, the offender voluntarily causes or attempts to
cause to any person death, subject him to wrongful restraint, cause hurt or induce fear of instant
death, instant wrongful restraint or cause instant hurt.
Theft can be called as a robbery when the conditions given below are satisfied:
• When the offender voluntarily attempts to cause death;
• wrongful restraint;
• fear of instant death;
• instant wrongful restraint;
• instant hurt.
And the above acts are done:
• while committing the theft,
• While carrying away the property acquired by theft, or
• While attempting to carry away property.
Punishment for Robbery :-
Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with all kinds of punishments related to criminal law .
Under Section 392 of this code, the punishment for robbery is defined. This section says that any
person who commits robbery shall be punished with imprisonment which may be extended up to
ten years and shall also be liable for fine.
Further, this section says that if a person commits a robbery on a highway then the term for
imprisonment will be of 14 (fourteen) years. Section 393 of the Indian Penal Code defines the
punishment for an attempt to commit robbery. The punishment for this is imprisonment for up to
7 years and also liable for fine.

13 | P a g e
Attempt to Commit Robbery:- Attempt to commit robbery has been defined under Section
393 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. It explicitly says that any person who attempts to commit
robbery will be punished with rigorous imprisonment whose term can be extended to 7 years and
he or she will also be liable to pay the fine.
Dacoity (Aggravated Form of Robbery)
Dacoity is defined under Section 391 of the IPC and the punishment for it is defined
under Section 395 of the IPC. The only difference between robbery and dacoity is a number of
participants. Section 395 punishes every member of the group in dacoity whether that person
takes an active part or not. The punishment under this section is imprisonment up to 10 years
with fine.
Dacoity
According to the dictionary of oxford, dacoity means an act of violent robbery which is
committed by an armed gang.
There is only one factor which differentiates dacoity from robbery and that is the number of
offenders.
One person can also commit a robbery and more than 1 person can also commit robbery. But
when 5 or more than 5 commit a robbery it is termed as dacoity.
Essential Ingredients
In order to commit dacoity, there are 3 essentials which must be there. These essentials are:
• There should be at least five or more than five persons;
• They should conjointly commit or attempt to commit dacoity;
• They should have dishonest intention.
Punishment for Dacoity :- Punishment for dacoity is defined under Section 395 of the Indian
Penal Code, 1860. This section says that a person who commits dacoity shall be punished with
imprisonment for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which can be extended to ten
years, and shall also be liable to pay the fine.
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY
An assembly may turn unruly and which may cause injury to person, property or public order.
Such an unruly assembly is termed as ‘Unlawful Assembly.’
In Moti Das v. State of Bihar,it was held that ‘an assembly, which was lawful to start with,
became unlawful the moment one of the members called on the others to assault the victim and
his associates, and in response to his invitation all the members of the assembly started to chase
the victim while he was running.’

14 | P a g e
The term ‘Unlawful Assembly’ has been defined under section 141 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 as an assembly of five or more persons having a common object to perform an omission or
offence.
Essentials to constitute an Unlawful Assembly
To constitute an unlawful assembly the following 3 conditions must co-exist:-
• There must be an assembly of five persons – THE ASSEMBLY SHOULD BE
CONSISTIONG OF FIVE PEOPLE
• The assembly must have a common object – WORKING TOWARDS A COMMON
GOAL
The common object must be to commit one of the five illegal objects specified in the section –
To overawe Government by criminal force.
To resist the execution of law or legal process.
To commit an offence.
forcible possession or dispossession of any property; or
To compel any person to do illegal acts.
Punishment for Unlawful Assembly
i) Under Section 143 of I.P.C. whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine,
or with both.
ii) Under Section 144 of I.P.C. whoever joins unlawful assembly armed with a deadly weapon
which is likely to cause death; shall be punished with imprisonment for two years, or fine or
both.
iii) Under Section 145 of I.P.C. whoever joins or continue to be in unlawful assembly, knowing
it has been commanded to disperse, shall be punished with imprisonment for 2 years, or fine, or
both.
iv) Under Section 149 of I.P.C. where an assembly commits an offence than every member of
that unlawful assembly, who knew such offence is likely to be committed, will be guilty of that
offence. And be punished for the term same as for the offence.
In the case of Karnataka state v. Padmanabha Beliya,[6] when without lawful orders from the
authorities, the district armed reserve police fired members of an unlawful assembly and caused

15 | P a g e
the death of one person, it was held that the State Government was vicariously liable and had to
pay compensation to the dependants of the deceased.
Q. Murder Under Sec -300 of IPC
Definition :- Murder is defined under Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. According to this
Act, culpable homicide is considered as murder if: The act is committed with an intention to
cause death. The act is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury which the offender
has knowledge that it would result in death.
Illustrations:- A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits
murder
Q, Culpable homicide — Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing
death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the
knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable
homicide.
In the case of Reg. v. Govinda ( 1877) ILR 1 Bom 342), the accused had knocked down his
wife, kept a knee on her chest and gave two to three violent blows with the closed fist on her
face.
This act produced extraversion of blood on her brain and afterwards, the wife died due to this.
The act was not committed with the intention of causing death and the bodily injury was not
sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature.
The accused was liable to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
The difference between murder and culpable homicide is intention. If the intention is present the
crime is said to be committed under Section 300 of IPC. If the intention is absent, then the crime
is dealt under section 304 of IPC.
304B. 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.
Explanation.For the purposes of this sub-section, "dowry" shall have the same meaning as in
section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961).
(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.]
Q. Difference Between Section 299 and 300 of IPC, Page no – 562 K.D gaur.

16 | P a g e
Q. Culpable Homicide (Section 299 of .IP.C ) and Murder (Section 300 of I.P.C)
No Culpable Homicide Murder
1 A person commits Culpable
homicide if the act by which the
death is caused is done.
Subject to certain exceptions, culpable homicide is
murder if the act by which the death is caused is
done
a) With the intention of
Causing death; or
a) With the intention of causing death;
b) With the intention causing
such bodily injury as is likely
to cause death; or
b) 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;
c) With the knowledge that the
act is likely to death
c) With the intention of causing bodily injury to
any person, and the bodily injury intended to be
inflected is sufficient in the ordinary cause of
nature to cause death.
d) With the knowledge that the act is so
imminently dangerous that it must in all
probability cause death, or such bodily injury as
likely to cause death, and commits such act
without any excuse for incurring the risk or
causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
e) Whoever causes the death of an individual
by doing an act with the intention of causing
the death of a person, or with the intention of
causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause
the death of an individual, or with the
knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause
the death of an individual, is said to commit the
offence of culpable homicide.
e) Culpable homicide is considered as murder
if the act due to which the death is caused is
committed with the intention of causing death.
f) Here, the use of word likely proves that
intention and knowledge are not the key
elements to prove a homicide.
f) There is an element of knowledge about the
nature of act and intention to commit murder.
g) The degree of causing death is
comparatively low in the act of culpable
homicide.
g) The degree of causing death is higher in
murder.
h) It is a wide and a broad concept. h) It is a more specific or narrow concept as
compared to homicide in general.

IPC note.pdf

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to IPC note.pdf (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

IPC note.pdf