Any oral or written allegation (generally made to the Magistrate) with a view to his taking action under the Code that somebody has committed offence.
It includes proceedings under the Code for collection of evidence and can never be judicial.
It includes every inquiry made by Court and relates to all the proceedings held by the Court. It may be judicial or non-judicial and may include asking questions and studying evidences.
It is conclusion of an inquiry or investigation. It is of judicial nature and results in either conviction or acquittal.
A summon is a court order to an individual to appear in court at a specified time and place. A summon may be issued in both criminal and in civil cases. Every summon shall be served by a police officer, or by an officer of the court issuing it or any other public servant.
The summon shall if practical, be served personally on the person summoned, by delivering or tendering to him one of the duplicates of the summons. Every person on whom a summon is served shall sign a receipt on the back of the other duplicate.
A person may be arrested for committing an alleged offence. The right to liberty as envisaged by the constitution is safeguarded by various procedures to be followed by the Police.
Arrest without Warrant
Any police officer may without an order from a magistrate and without a warrant, arrest any person
(i) Who has been concerned in any cognizable offence like murder, causing hurt, kidnapping etc., or against whom a reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been so concerned; or
(ii) Who has in his possession without lawful excuse, the burden of proving which excuse shall lie on such person, any implement of house-breaking, or
(iii) Who has been proclaimed as an offender either under this Code or by order of the State Government; or Who is in whose possession anything is found which may reasonably be suspected to be stolen property and who may reasonably be suspected of having committed an offence with reference to such thing; or
(iv) Who obstructs a police officer while in the execution of his duty, or who has escaped, or attempts to escape, from lawful custody; or
(v) Who is reasonably suspected of being a deserter from any of the Armed Forces of the Union; or
(vi) Who has been concerned in, or against whom reasonable complaint has been made, or credible information has been received, or a reasonable suspicion exists, of his having been concerned in, any act committed at any place out of India which if committed in India, would have been punishable as an offence, an for which he is, under any law relating to extradition, or otherwise liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in India; or
(vii) Who, being a released convict, commits a breach of any rule, made under sub-section (5) of section 365; or
(viii) For whose arrest any requisition, whether written or oral, has been received from another police officer, provided that the requisition specifies the person to be arrested and the offence or other cause for which the arrest is to be made and it appears there from that the person might lawfully be arrested without a warrant by the officer who issued the requisition.
The offence of hurt has been defined by section 319 of the Indian Penal Code. According to section 319 of IPC whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt. The definition of hurt contemplates causing of pain by a person to another so it is not necessary that there should be visible injury caused on the person. The causing of pain is sufficient. Causing disease and infirmity also come within the purview of this section.
The essential ingredients of the offence of simple hurt are as follows:-
i) The offender voluntarily caused bodily pain , disease or infirmity to the victim ;
ii) The offender did so with the intention of causing hurt or with the knowledge that he would thereby cause hurt to the victim.
Definition of grievous hurt :-
The offence of grievous hurt is defined by section 320 of the Indian Penal Code . Section 320 says that the following eight kinds of hurt are designated as grievous -- -- --
1) Emasculation .
2) Permanent privation of the sight of either eye .
3) Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.
4) Privation of any member or joint .
5) Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint .
6) Permanent disfiguration of the head or face .
7) fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.
An act of commission, or omission, against the law, tending to prejudice of the community, for which punishment may be inflected as the result of judicial proceedings taken in the name of the State.
It is a judicial decision, resulting due to no complaint or withdrawal of a complaint. The person once acquitted cannot be arrested again on the basis of retrials on the same fact and for the same offence.
It means no prima facie evidence against the accused to suggest further inquiry for the charge, but fresh trial due to new fact or evidence can effect re-arrest of the accused. However, the discharge order does not establish anything towards guilt of the accused.
First Information Report (FIR)
FIR is recorded at the time it is made and is one of the mode in hands of the aggrieved person to put criminal law in motion. All information relating to the offence, is logged in the register by the officer and be read over to the informant and signed by the informant.
FIR may not contain all details pertaining to the case but is the first information of an incidence or operation in the point of time which reaches the competent authority to investigate the case. A complaint may become a First Information Report but a First Information Report cannot become complaint. It has a considerable value in trials.
It means any action or inaction made punishable by the law during its validity and includes any act in respect of which a complaint may be made. Cognizable offence is an offence for which the arrest can be made without warrant.
As per First Schedule the minimum punishment for cognizable office is imprisonment for 3 years or more. For non-cognizable offence police officer cannot take cognizance without permission or order from the magistrate.
These are private offences and law allows compromise, and it may result in acquittal of the accused.
Non compoundable Offence
These are public offences, do not allow compromise and are tried according to the law.
It is a clear and precise notice describing the nature of the accusation, allegation of facts constituting the offence, for which the accused is called upon to meet in the course of trial.
Bail and Cancellation of Bail
It is procurement of release from prison of a person who is charged of an offence, awaiting trial or an appeal, by the. deposit of a security to ensure his submission at the required time to legal authority. The monitory value of the security known as bail or bail bond, is set by the court having jurisdiction over the prisoner.
The Criminal Procedure Code does not define bail but the offence is defined in it as either bailable or non-bailable office. Bailable offence is an offence which is shown as bailable in the First Schedule or which is made bailable by any other law for the time being enforce, and non-bailable offence means any other offence.
Cancellation of bail can be ordered even before. the person in question actually was released on bail. But bail once granted is not cancelled without sufficient reason.
Anticipatory bail is a direction to release a person on bail, issued even before the person is arrested. When any person apprehends that there is a move to get him arrested on false charges, or due to enmity with someone, or he fears that a false case is likely to be built up against him, he has the right to move the court of Session or the High Court for grant of bail in the event of his arrest, and the court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail.
Conditions That May Be Imposed By The Court
The High Court or the Court of Session may include such conditions in the light of the facts of the particular case, as it may think fit, including:
(a) a condition that the person shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;
(b) a condition that the person shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or
promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;
(c) a condition that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of the court.
Important notes on anticipatory bail
If such person is thereafter arrested, and is prepared either at the time of arrest or at any time while in the custody of such officer to give bail, he shall be released on bail and the magistrate taking cognizance of such offence decides that warrant should be issued against that person, he shall issue a bailable warrant in conformity with the direction of the court granting anticipatory bail.
The applicant must show by disclosing special facts and events that he has reason to believe, that he may be arrested for a non-bailable offence so that the court may take care to specify the offence or offences in respect of which alone the order will be effective and it is not a blanket order covering all other offences.
An accused is free on bail as long as the same is not cancelled. The High Court or Court of Session may direct that any person who has been released on bail be arrested and commit him to custody on an application moved by the complainant or the prosecution.
A person commits adultery, if he:
(i) has sexual intercourse with a women who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man.
(ii) without the consent or connivance of the husband, and
(iii) it does not amount to rape.
The inconsistencies of the man are punishable, but not the inconsistencies of the wife. The wife is not punishable as an abettor. It is not committed by a married man who has sexual intercourse with an unmarried woman, or with a widow, or even with a married woman whose husband consents to it.
Whoever commits adultery shall be punished with an imprisonment which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. The wife as an abettor shall not be punishable.
Culpable Homicide - Sec. 299
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.
(a) A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be there by caused. Z believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(b) A knows Z to be behind a bush. B does not know it A, intending to cause, or knowing it to be likely to cause Z’s death, induces B to fire at the bush. B fires and kills Z. Here B may be guilty of no offence; but A has committed the offence of culpable homicide.
(c) A, by shooting at a fowl with intent to kill and steal it, kills B who is behind a bush; A not knowing that he was there. Here, although A was doing an unlawful act, he was not guilty of culpable homicide, as he did not intend to kill B, or to cause death by doing an act that he knew was likely to cause death.
Explanation1.—A person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease or bodily infirmity, and thereby accelerates the death of that other, shall be deemed to have caused his death.
Explanation 2.—Where death is caused by bodily injury, the person who causes such bodily injury shall be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilfull treatment the death might have been prevented.
Explanation 3.—The causing of the death of child in the mother’s womb is not homicide. But it may amount to culpable homicide to cause the death of a living child, if any part of that child has been brought forth, though the child may not have breathed or been completely born.
Murder - Sec. 300
Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death, or—
(Secondly) —If it is done 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, or—
(Thirdly) —If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, or—
(Fourthly) —If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.
(a) A shoots Z with the intention of killing him. Z dies in consequence. A commits murder.
(b) A, knowing that Z is labouring under such a disease that a blow is likely to cause his death, strikes him with the intention of causing bodily injury. Z dies in consequence of the blow. A is guilty of murder, although the blow might not have been sufficient in the ordinar course of nature to cause the death of a person in a sound state of health.
But if A, not knowing that Z is labouring under any disease, gives him such a blow as would not in the ordinary course of nature kill a person in a sound state of health, here A, although he may intend to cause bodily injury, is not guilty of murder, if he did not intend to cause death, or such bodily injury as in the ordinary course of nature would cause death.
(c) A intentionally gives Z a sword-cut or club - wound sufficient to cause the death of a man in the ordinary course of nature. Z dies in consequence. Here, A is guilty of murder, although he may not have intended to cause Z’s death.
(d) A without any excuse fires a loaded cannon into a crowd of persons and kills one of them. A is guilty of murder, although he may not have had a premeditated design to kill any particular individual.
Exception 1.—When culpable homicide is not murder.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident.
The above exception is subject to the following provisos:—
(First) —That the provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
(Secondly) —That the provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.
(Thirdly) —That the provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence. Explanation.—Whether the provocation was grave and sudden enough to prevent the offence from amounting to murder is a question of fact.
(a) A, under the influence of passion excited by a provocation given by Z, intentionally kills. Y, Z’s child. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was not given by the child, and the death of the child was not caused by accident or misfortune in doing an act caused by the provocation.
(b) Y gives grave and sudden provocation to A. A, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Y, neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Z, who is near him, but out of sight. A kills Z. Here A has not committed murder, but merely culpable homicide.
(c) A is lawfully arrested by Z, a bailiff. A is excited to sudden and violent passion by the arrest, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done by a public servant in the exercise of his powers.
(d) A appears as witness before Z, a Magistrate, Z says that he does not believe a word of A’s deposition, and that A has perjured himself. A is moved to sudden passion by these words, and kills Z. This is murder.
(e) A attempts to pull Z’s nose, Z, in the exercise of the right of private defence, lays hold of A to prevent him from doing so. A is moved to sudden and violent passion in consequence, and kills Z. This is murder, in as much as the provocation was given by a thing done in the exercise of the right of private defence.
(f) Z strikes B. B is by this provocation excited to violent rage. A, a bystander, intending to take advantage of B’s rage, and to cause him to kill Z, puts a knife into B’s hand for that purpose. B kills Z with the knife. Here B may have committed only culpable homicide, but A is guilty of murder.
Exception 2.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defence of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defence without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defence.
Z attempts to horsewhip A, not in such a manner as to cause grievous hurt to A. A draws out a pistol. Z persists in the assault. A believing in good faith that he can by no other means prevent himself from being horsewhipped, shoots Z dead. A has not committed murder, but only culpable homicide.
Exception 3.—Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice, exceeds the powers given to him by law, and causes death by doing an act which he, in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of his duty as such public servant and without ill-will towards the person whose death is caused.
Exception 4.—Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Explanation.—It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.
Exception 5.—Culpable homicide is not murder when the person whose death is caused, being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own consent. Illustration A, by instigation, voluntarily causes, Z, a person under eighteen years of age to commit suicide. Here, on account of Z’s youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death; A has therefore abetted murder.
The obscene actor song must cause annoyance. Though annoyance is an important ingredient of this offence, it being associated with mental condition has often to be inferred from proved facts. The essential elements are:
(i) Does any obscene act in any public place,
(ii) Sings, recites or utters any obscene song ballads or words, in or near public place. Whoever causes annoyance to others shall be punished with an imprisonment, which may extend to three months, or with fine, or both.
Where the death of a woman is caused by any bums 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 other relative of the husband, then such death shall be called "dowry death". Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to life imprisonment.
Forgery may be termed as the fraudulent making or alteration of a writing to the prejudice of another man's right. A person commits forgery if he makes any false document or any part of it, with an intent to:
(i) cause damage or injury to the public or any person,
(ii) support any claim or title,
(iii) cause any person to part with property
(iv) cause any person to enter into express or implied contract,
(v) commit any fraud or that the fraud may be committed.
Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of Criminal Misappropriation of property. According to this section whoever, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property commits this offence .
The offence of criminal misappropriation of property is committed where the initial possession is innocent but the retention thereof becomes wrongful and fraudulent by a subsequent conversion for his own use.
The essential elements of the offence are as follows:-
a) The property belongs to a person other than the offender ;
b) The offender appropriated the said property or converted it to his own use ;
c) He did so dishonestly or with the intention to cause wrongful gain to him or to cause wrongful loss to the other person : and
d) Dishonestly misappropriated property must be movable.
Definition of Criminal breach of trust :-
Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code defines the offence of Criminal breach of trust .
According to this section whoever, being in any manner entrusted with property , or with any dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use that property , or dishonestly uses or dispossess of that property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged , or of any legal contract, express or implied , which he has made touching the discharge of such trust , or willfully suffers any other person so to do , commits criminal breach of trust.The essential elements of the offence of Criminal breach of trust are as follows :-
a) There must have Criminal intention or mens rea to constitute the offence ;
b) There must be an entrustment with the property or domain over it ;
c) That the offender dishonestly
i) misappropriated it , or
ii) converted it to his own use , or
iii) used it , or
iv) disposed it of ;
d) That the offender or some other person at his instance did so in violation of direction of law or legal contract.
Criminal Misappropriation of property vs. Criminal Breach Of Trust :-
The differences between the offence of Criminal misappropriation of property and Criminal breach of trust are as follows :-
a) In the offence of Criminal breach of trust, there is a contractual relationship between the parties. Whereas, in the offence of criminal misappropriation of property no contractual relationship exists in between the parties.
b) In Criminal breach of trust conversion takes place with respect to the property held by a person in a fiduciary capacity. But in criminal misappropriation of property the person does not hold the property in a fiduciary relationship rather it comes to the possession of offender in any manner; and
c) In criminal breach of trust, the property is lawfully entrusted to the offender. And the offender holds the property subject to some obligations , duties or trust but he dishonestly misappropriates it.
On the other hand, in criminal misappropriation of property, possession of the property is acquired by the offender not lawfully but casually or otherwise and the offender misappropriates the property afterwards.
Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to “cheat”.
Explanation— A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section.
(a) A, by falsely pretending to be in the Civil Service, intentionally deceives Z, and thus dishonestly induces Z to let him have on credit goods for which he does not mean to pay. A cheats.
(b) A, by putting a counterfeit mark on an article, intentionally deceives Z into a belief that this article was made by a certain celebrated manufacturer, and thus dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.
(c) A, by exhibiting to Z a false sample of an article, intentionally deceives Z into believing that the article corresponds with the sample, and thereby, dishonestly induces Z to buy and pay for the article. A cheats.
(d) A, by tendering in payment for an article a bill on a house with which A keeps no money, and by which A expects that the bill will be dishonored, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to deliver the article, intending not to pay for it. A cheats.
(e) A, by pledging as diamonds article which he knows are not diamonds, intentionally deceives Z, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend money. A cheats.
(f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money. A not intending to repay it. A cheats.
(g) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to deliver to Z a certain quantity of indigo plant which he does not intend to deliver, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to advance money upon the faith of such delivery. A cheats; but if A, at the time of obtaining the money, intends to deliver the indigo plant, and afterwards breaks his contract and does not deliver it, he does not cheat, but is liable only to a civil action for breach of contract.
(h) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A has performed A’s part of a contract made with Z, which he has not performed, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to pay money. A cheats.
(i) A sells and conveys an estate to B. A, knowing that in consequence of such sale he has no right to the property, sells or mortgages the same to Z, without disclosing the fact of the previous sale and conveyance to B, and receives the purchase or mortgage money from Z. A cheats.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND MURDER
|SECTION 299 (Culpable|
|SECTION 300 (Murder)|
|A person commits culpable homicide if the act by which|
the death is caused is done -
|Subject to certain exception|
culpable homicide is murder if
the act by which death is
caused is done
|a) with the intention of causing death; or||1. with the intention of|
causing death; or
|b) with the intention of causing such bodily injury as|
is likely to cause death; or
|2. 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;
|3. with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or|
|c)||3. 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 without any risk of causing death or such injury as mentioned above.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION
|1. Kidnapping is committed only in respect of minor or a person of unsound mind.||1. Abduction is committed in respect of person of any age.|
|2. In kidnapping, the person kidnapped is removed from lawful guardianship.||2. Abduction has reference exclusively to the person|
|3. In kidnapping, the minor is simply taken away. The|
means used may be innocent.
|3. In abduction, force, compulsion, or deceitful|
means are employed.
|4. In kidnapping, consent of the person taken or enticed is immaterial.||4. In abduction, consent of the person moved, if freely|
and voluntarily given condones the offence.
|5. In kidnapping, the intent of the offender is wholly|
|5. In abduction, the intent of the offender is very important.|
|6. Kidnapping is not a continuing offence. The offence is completed as soon as the minor is removed from|
the custody of his or her guardian.
|6. Abduction is a continuing offence. A person is being|
abducted both when he is first taken from any place and
also when he is removed from one place to another.
|7. Kidnapping is a substantive offence punishable under|
Section 363, IPC.
|7. Abduction is an auxiliary act, not punishable by itself|
unless accompanied with some criminal intent (section
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ACQUITTAL AND DISCHARGE:
|1. The acquittal is a judicial decision. It means innocence of accused after complete inquiry.||1. It means that there is no justifiable evidence against the accused and any further inquiry in the matter will serve no purpose. It neither establishes guilt nor innocence of the accused.|
|2. A person once acquitted cannot be re-arrested.||2. The person once discharge can be called back for re- inquiry and if the evidence demands can be re-arrested also.|
|3. The person once acquitted cannot be tried for the same offence again on the same facts.||3. The discharge does not bar the institution of fresh|
proceedings, if new evidences is available against him.
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COMPOUNDABLE OFFENCE AND NON-COMPOUNDABLE OFFENCE:
|Compoundable offence||Non-compoundable offence|
|1. A compoundable offence is punishable with imprisonment for two years or less as mentioned in Section 320 Cr.P.C.||1. Offences other than those mentioned in Section 320|
Cr.P.C. are non- compoundable.
|2. In these offences compromise can be made|
between the parties.
|2. No compromise is allowed in these offences.|
|3. These are private in nature and damages may be|
recoverable in civil law.
|3. These offences are public in nature.|
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BAILABLE OFFENCES AND NON-BAILABLE OFFENCES
|Bailable Offence||Non-Bailable Offence|
|1. These offences are less serious in nature.||2. These offences are grave and more serious.|
|2. Bail is a matter of right and it can be granted in the police station.||2. It is the discretion of the court to give the bail or not.|
DIFFERENCES BETWEEN COGNIZABLE OFFENCES AND NON-COGNIZABLE OFFENCES
|1. It means an offence for which the police authorities have the power to arrest without warrant.||1. The police has no authority to arrest without|
|2. Cognizable offenses are those offenses which are serious in nature. Example- Murder, Rape, Dowry Death, Kidnapping, Theft, Criminal Breach of Trust, Unnatural Offenses.||2. Non-Cognizable offenses are those which|
are not much serious in nature. Example- Assault,
Cheating, Forgery, Defamation.
|3. Section 154 of CrPc provides, that under a Cognizable offense or case, The Police Officer has to receive the First Information Report (FIR) relating to the cognizable offense, which can be without the Magistrate’s permission and enter it in the General Diary and immediatly start the investigation.||3. Section 155 of CrPc provides that in a non-|
cognizable offense or case, the police officer
cannot receive or record the FIR unless he obtains
prior permission from the Magistrate.
|4. If a Cognizable offense has been committed, a Police Officer can investigate without the Magistrate’s permission.||4. Under a Non-Cognizable offense/case, in order to|
start the investigation, it is important for the police
officer to obtain the permission from the