INDIAN PENAL CODE
⦁ IPC is passed on 6th October 1860.
⦁ IMPLEMENT- 1st January 1862
⦁ PREAMBLE- Where it is required to provide a general penal code for India.
⦁ 1831- 1st Law Commission started working.
⦁ IMPORTANT SECTIONS FOR DEFINATIONS-
i. SECTION 18- India means the territory of India.
ii. SECTION 8- GENDER- The pronoun he ad its derivatives used for everyone whether male or female.
iii. SECTION 10- MEN AND WOMEN- The word men denote a male of any age. Women denotes female of
any age.
iv. SECTION 11- PERSON- The word Person includes any company, association (registered or not), Human
Being.
v. JUDGE- Judge denotes not only person under authorization. designation judge in IPC can be anybody
Sarpanch, IPC.
vi. SECTION 26- DEFINE REASON TO BELIEVE- A person is said to have a 'reason to believe' thing if he has
sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise.
vii. SECTION 33- "ACT" OMISSION- The word "act" denotes as well as series of acts as a single act. the
word "commission" denotes as well as a series of commission as a single commission.
viii. SECTION 32- The words referring to act include illegal omission.
ix. IPC SAYS ACT IS ACT-Doing something or referring from doing something
x. SECTION 43- ILLEGAL- Legally bound to d. the word illegal is applicable to everything which is an
offence that means every offence is illegal or which is prohibited by law or which furnishes ground for
civil action.
CHAPTER 1 - MENS REA
There are 4 elements of crime-
i. Human being or Person
ii. Mens Rea
iii. Actus Rea
iv. Injury
LEGAL MAXIM- Actus non facit nisi mens rea
1
,Concept of Mens Rea is not in ancient time. the principle in the MAGNA CARTA is the reflection of
ARTICLE 21 OF COI.
KINDS OF MENS REA
MALUM- IN-SE--- The act which is violative of law as well as morally wrong.
MALUM PROHIBITION- The act i itself is not wrong but it is treated as wrong because this law has been
made and law has declared it wrong.
CASE NAME- SHERAZ V. D RITZEN, 1895
Facts- In this case, in England and wales, there was a law that selling liquor to police officers on duty is
crime. Police officers wear arm- band when they were on duty. this is a sign of police officers on duty.
One day a police officer is on duty and he didn't wear arm- band and goes to liquor shop to buy liquor.
the liquor shop owner thought police officer is not on duty because there was no sign.
ISSUE- In this case the element of Mens Rea is absent and it is easy for the constable to deny that he was
on duty when asked and he can easily produce a forged permission from his superior officer as to
remove his armlet before entering the police house.
HELD- WRIGHT J. Stated that in this case if mens rea is not necessary then no one would save him from
the conviction but in the absence of proof and police officer can produce forged proof so he can clearly
state that " I am therefore, of opinion that this conviction ought to be quashed".
ROLE OF MENS REA IN IPC
Mens Rea is the mental intention of guilty mind. mens rea is expressed in IPC,1860 as "actus non facit
reum nisi mens sit rea" as a fundamental principle for penal liability. intention and act both must
constitute a crime. an act without intention is not a crime and intention without act is not a crime.
2
,From the above figure it can be concluded that act + Intention constitutes crime. Mens rea is not
defined in the IPC. Mere commitment (Act) of offence is not enough but it must be proved that it is
committed with “guilty mind”. For example- if a person got hit by cricket ball and died (when the play is
going), the person who hit the ball will not be charged with murder as there is no intention.
WORDS UNDER WHICH MENS REA CAN BE SEEN IN IPC
❖ FRAUDENTLY- section 209,246,415,421,422,423,424,464,471,996.
❖ DISHONESTLY- Section 378,209,411,412,414,420,422
❖ VOLUNTARILY AND INTENTIONALLY- Section 118,119,120,128,171(c),186
❖ Rash and Negligent- Section 279,280,283,289,304(a),386
❖ CORRUPTLY-Section 196,198,200,219,220,277,292.
❖ MALLICIOUSLY- Section 219, 220, 295(a)
❖ NEGLIGENTLY- Section 129,223,269,282,286,336
❖ MALIGNENTLY- Section 753,270.
❖ REASON TO BELIEVE- 370(A),411,413,414,489(B).
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTENTION AND MOTIVE
INTENTION MOTIVE
How are you doing? Motive is the ultimate purpose why are you
Intention is a desire to produce a consequence to doing?
examine the intention the question would be as Motive is the reason behind doing of a particular
to “how the person has done that” act I.e. Motive is the pulling factor which pulls a
person to do a particular act or offence.
Whenever motive has to be examined the
3
, question will be as to why the person has done
that act.
CASE STUDY
CASE NAME- M.H GEORGE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 1964, SC
FACTS OF THE CASE- M.H GEORGE (Appellant), he boarded a plane from to Zurich, Switzerland to
Manila, Philippines between the flight the route flight is stayed at Mumbai for halt. He was carrying
gold. On inspection by police the appellant refused that he has gold but when police officer checked
they found 34Kgs of gold in it. In India, it is a law that person cannot carry gold more than 6 kgs without
the notification whether on transit.
ISSUE- He was charging with the FERA (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act). He was declining on the
matter that he didn’t know that it is an offence, he said in India it is not a crime to carry gold on transit.
But this law has been withdrawn in recent time. He was not aware of this. He was also carrying a
backpack which has more pockets type of bag which is usually used for smuggling also, there was also
suspicion on him, if he is smuggling gold.
HELD- In this case, court held that it is a case of strict liability, so absence of mens rea is not an issue and
mistake of law is not excuse. In this case mens rea is self-imposed by court and he had charged and
sentenced for years imprisonment.
3RD ELEMENT OF CRIME-ACTUS REUS
It is a physical element of crime. It is a result of your act. It is a physical effect of your act. Example-
Death is actus reus.
4TH ELEMENT- INJURY
SECTION 44- any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property.
Injury must be illegally caused to another human being or to a body of individuals or to a society at
large.
4
, GENERAL EXCEPTIONS
DEFENCE OF MISTAKE OF FACT- (SECTION 76 & 79)
a) Person (section 11)
b) Bound by law or believing himself to be bound by law of mistake of fact.
c) Good faith (section 52)
d) Act
Two Exceptions to Ignorance of fact
➢ When responsible inquiry would have elicited the true facts. For example- A man
marries believing divorce granted of previous marriage but not granted.
➢ When the act is penalized by a statute without reference to the mind of the wrong doer.
Ex- selling of adulterated food stuffs has been made an offence under the prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, 1954. No defense that the vendor was ignorant of the nature,
substance or quality of the food sold by him.
LEGAL MAXIM-
IGNORANTIA JURIS/LEGIS NON EXCUSAT- Ignorance of law is not excuse.
IGNORANTIA FACTI EXCUSAT- Ignorance of fact is excusable.
CASE-
CASE NAME- State of Orissa v. Ram Bhadur thapa,1960 Orissa H.C
GHOST CASE
MISTAKE OF FACT TO BE AN EXCUSE must be mistake in respect of a material fact, a fact
essential to constitute a particular offence.
DEFNCE OF ACCIDENT (SECTION 80)
➢ PERSON
➢ By accident or misfortune
➢ Accident must be outcome
➢ Lawful act done in lawful manner by lawful means the act must have done with proper
care and caution.
DEFENCE OF NECESSITY (SECTION-81)
LEGAL MAXIM-
Quad necessities not labet legum – Necessities knows no law.
Case name- U.S V. HOLMES, 1832
5
, In this case a longboat was containing passenger and the boat was got in a situation of stormy
sea. To prevent the boat from being swamped, members of the crew threw some of the
passengers over boated. After reaching to the island, the captain of the ship wanted defense of
necessity under IPC sec 81. But the defense of necessity is not given in that case because
captain cannot sacrifice the life of fellow passengers, there were other chief captains also, he
could sacrifice his life as he knows how to deal in that situation.
DEFENCE OF INFANCY (SECTION 82,83)
Malitia supplet octatum- Defect in age supplies the malice
SECTION 82- ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
Child should be below 7 years of age.
Both under English and Roman law. Boy- 14 and girl-12, children above this age- liable.
The children before they attained this age known doli incapable.
In India child below 7.
SECTION 83- QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
Child above 7 years of age and under 12 years of age who has not attained sufficient maturity
to judge the consequence of is act.
CASE NAME- Krishna v. state, 1883
In this case a child above 7 years of age, stolen a property and immediately after stealing, he
sold the property. It was clear from his act that he is enough mature to understand the
consequence of his act as he sold it. He knew that he would get money by doing this act.
CASE NAME- ULLA Mahapatra v. states, 1950
The accused, a boy of over 11 years but below 12 years picked up a knife and threatened to cut
the deceased and did actually kill him. It was held that his action could lead to only one
interference namely that he did what he intended to do and that he knew, that one blow
inflicted with a knife would effectuate his intention. He was sent to Reformatory school for 5
years
DEFENCE OF INSANITY (SECTION 84)
CASE- R V. ARNOLET
WILD BEAST TEST
In this case the defendant was tried for wounding and making an attempt on the life of Lord
Onslow. There was enough evidence of the mental derangement of the accused. In this case-
Tracy justice laid down the test as follows- “if he was under the visitation of God, and could not
6
⦁ IPC is passed on 6th October 1860.
⦁ IMPLEMENT- 1st January 1862
⦁ PREAMBLE- Where it is required to provide a general penal code for India.
⦁ 1831- 1st Law Commission started working.
⦁ IMPORTANT SECTIONS FOR DEFINATIONS-
i. SECTION 18- India means the territory of India.
ii. SECTION 8- GENDER- The pronoun he ad its derivatives used for everyone whether male or female.
iii. SECTION 10- MEN AND WOMEN- The word men denote a male of any age. Women denotes female of
any age.
iv. SECTION 11- PERSON- The word Person includes any company, association (registered or not), Human
Being.
v. JUDGE- Judge denotes not only person under authorization. designation judge in IPC can be anybody
Sarpanch, IPC.
vi. SECTION 26- DEFINE REASON TO BELIEVE- A person is said to have a 'reason to believe' thing if he has
sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise.
vii. SECTION 33- "ACT" OMISSION- The word "act" denotes as well as series of acts as a single act. the
word "commission" denotes as well as a series of commission as a single commission.
viii. SECTION 32- The words referring to act include illegal omission.
ix. IPC SAYS ACT IS ACT-Doing something or referring from doing something
x. SECTION 43- ILLEGAL- Legally bound to d. the word illegal is applicable to everything which is an
offence that means every offence is illegal or which is prohibited by law or which furnishes ground for
civil action.
CHAPTER 1 - MENS REA
There are 4 elements of crime-
i. Human being or Person
ii. Mens Rea
iii. Actus Rea
iv. Injury
LEGAL MAXIM- Actus non facit nisi mens rea
1
,Concept of Mens Rea is not in ancient time. the principle in the MAGNA CARTA is the reflection of
ARTICLE 21 OF COI.
KINDS OF MENS REA
MALUM- IN-SE--- The act which is violative of law as well as morally wrong.
MALUM PROHIBITION- The act i itself is not wrong but it is treated as wrong because this law has been
made and law has declared it wrong.
CASE NAME- SHERAZ V. D RITZEN, 1895
Facts- In this case, in England and wales, there was a law that selling liquor to police officers on duty is
crime. Police officers wear arm- band when they were on duty. this is a sign of police officers on duty.
One day a police officer is on duty and he didn't wear arm- band and goes to liquor shop to buy liquor.
the liquor shop owner thought police officer is not on duty because there was no sign.
ISSUE- In this case the element of Mens Rea is absent and it is easy for the constable to deny that he was
on duty when asked and he can easily produce a forged permission from his superior officer as to
remove his armlet before entering the police house.
HELD- WRIGHT J. Stated that in this case if mens rea is not necessary then no one would save him from
the conviction but in the absence of proof and police officer can produce forged proof so he can clearly
state that " I am therefore, of opinion that this conviction ought to be quashed".
ROLE OF MENS REA IN IPC
Mens Rea is the mental intention of guilty mind. mens rea is expressed in IPC,1860 as "actus non facit
reum nisi mens sit rea" as a fundamental principle for penal liability. intention and act both must
constitute a crime. an act without intention is not a crime and intention without act is not a crime.
2
,From the above figure it can be concluded that act + Intention constitutes crime. Mens rea is not
defined in the IPC. Mere commitment (Act) of offence is not enough but it must be proved that it is
committed with “guilty mind”. For example- if a person got hit by cricket ball and died (when the play is
going), the person who hit the ball will not be charged with murder as there is no intention.
WORDS UNDER WHICH MENS REA CAN BE SEEN IN IPC
❖ FRAUDENTLY- section 209,246,415,421,422,423,424,464,471,996.
❖ DISHONESTLY- Section 378,209,411,412,414,420,422
❖ VOLUNTARILY AND INTENTIONALLY- Section 118,119,120,128,171(c),186
❖ Rash and Negligent- Section 279,280,283,289,304(a),386
❖ CORRUPTLY-Section 196,198,200,219,220,277,292.
❖ MALLICIOUSLY- Section 219, 220, 295(a)
❖ NEGLIGENTLY- Section 129,223,269,282,286,336
❖ MALIGNENTLY- Section 753,270.
❖ REASON TO BELIEVE- 370(A),411,413,414,489(B).
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN INTENTION AND MOTIVE
INTENTION MOTIVE
How are you doing? Motive is the ultimate purpose why are you
Intention is a desire to produce a consequence to doing?
examine the intention the question would be as Motive is the reason behind doing of a particular
to “how the person has done that” act I.e. Motive is the pulling factor which pulls a
person to do a particular act or offence.
Whenever motive has to be examined the
3
, question will be as to why the person has done
that act.
CASE STUDY
CASE NAME- M.H GEORGE V. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 1964, SC
FACTS OF THE CASE- M.H GEORGE (Appellant), he boarded a plane from to Zurich, Switzerland to
Manila, Philippines between the flight the route flight is stayed at Mumbai for halt. He was carrying
gold. On inspection by police the appellant refused that he has gold but when police officer checked
they found 34Kgs of gold in it. In India, it is a law that person cannot carry gold more than 6 kgs without
the notification whether on transit.
ISSUE- He was charging with the FERA (Foreign Exchange Regulation Act). He was declining on the
matter that he didn’t know that it is an offence, he said in India it is not a crime to carry gold on transit.
But this law has been withdrawn in recent time. He was not aware of this. He was also carrying a
backpack which has more pockets type of bag which is usually used for smuggling also, there was also
suspicion on him, if he is smuggling gold.
HELD- In this case, court held that it is a case of strict liability, so absence of mens rea is not an issue and
mistake of law is not excuse. In this case mens rea is self-imposed by court and he had charged and
sentenced for years imprisonment.
3RD ELEMENT OF CRIME-ACTUS REUS
It is a physical element of crime. It is a result of your act. It is a physical effect of your act. Example-
Death is actus reus.
4TH ELEMENT- INJURY
SECTION 44- any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property.
Injury must be illegally caused to another human being or to a body of individuals or to a society at
large.
4
, GENERAL EXCEPTIONS
DEFENCE OF MISTAKE OF FACT- (SECTION 76 & 79)
a) Person (section 11)
b) Bound by law or believing himself to be bound by law of mistake of fact.
c) Good faith (section 52)
d) Act
Two Exceptions to Ignorance of fact
➢ When responsible inquiry would have elicited the true facts. For example- A man
marries believing divorce granted of previous marriage but not granted.
➢ When the act is penalized by a statute without reference to the mind of the wrong doer.
Ex- selling of adulterated food stuffs has been made an offence under the prevention of
Food Adulteration Act, 1954. No defense that the vendor was ignorant of the nature,
substance or quality of the food sold by him.
LEGAL MAXIM-
IGNORANTIA JURIS/LEGIS NON EXCUSAT- Ignorance of law is not excuse.
IGNORANTIA FACTI EXCUSAT- Ignorance of fact is excusable.
CASE-
CASE NAME- State of Orissa v. Ram Bhadur thapa,1960 Orissa H.C
GHOST CASE
MISTAKE OF FACT TO BE AN EXCUSE must be mistake in respect of a material fact, a fact
essential to constitute a particular offence.
DEFNCE OF ACCIDENT (SECTION 80)
➢ PERSON
➢ By accident or misfortune
➢ Accident must be outcome
➢ Lawful act done in lawful manner by lawful means the act must have done with proper
care and caution.
DEFENCE OF NECESSITY (SECTION-81)
LEGAL MAXIM-
Quad necessities not labet legum – Necessities knows no law.
Case name- U.S V. HOLMES, 1832
5
, In this case a longboat was containing passenger and the boat was got in a situation of stormy
sea. To prevent the boat from being swamped, members of the crew threw some of the
passengers over boated. After reaching to the island, the captain of the ship wanted defense of
necessity under IPC sec 81. But the defense of necessity is not given in that case because
captain cannot sacrifice the life of fellow passengers, there were other chief captains also, he
could sacrifice his life as he knows how to deal in that situation.
DEFENCE OF INFANCY (SECTION 82,83)
Malitia supplet octatum- Defect in age supplies the malice
SECTION 82- ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY
Child should be below 7 years of age.
Both under English and Roman law. Boy- 14 and girl-12, children above this age- liable.
The children before they attained this age known doli incapable.
In India child below 7.
SECTION 83- QUALIFIED IMMUNITY
Child above 7 years of age and under 12 years of age who has not attained sufficient maturity
to judge the consequence of is act.
CASE NAME- Krishna v. state, 1883
In this case a child above 7 years of age, stolen a property and immediately after stealing, he
sold the property. It was clear from his act that he is enough mature to understand the
consequence of his act as he sold it. He knew that he would get money by doing this act.
CASE NAME- ULLA Mahapatra v. states, 1950
The accused, a boy of over 11 years but below 12 years picked up a knife and threatened to cut
the deceased and did actually kill him. It was held that his action could lead to only one
interference namely that he did what he intended to do and that he knew, that one blow
inflicted with a knife would effectuate his intention. He was sent to Reformatory school for 5
years
DEFENCE OF INSANITY (SECTION 84)
CASE- R V. ARNOLET
WILD BEAST TEST
In this case the defendant was tried for wounding and making an attempt on the life of Lord
Onslow. There was enough evidence of the mental derangement of the accused. In this case-
Tracy justice laid down the test as follows- “if he was under the visitation of God, and could not
6
