Law of Crimes (Part - 2) | Additional Study Material for CLAT PDF Download

Adultery

Adultery.-Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery. In such case the wife shall not be punishable as an abettor.

Criminal Misappropriation

Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property of another will be guilty of criminal misappropriation.

Forgery

'Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record or part of a document or electronic record, with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.'

Fraud v. Forgery 

Criminal force

Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.

Death by Negligence

Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, shall be liable for causing death by negligence and shall be punished.

Attempt

Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with imprisonment for life or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-half of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one-half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence, or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both.

Criminal Trespass

Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property, or having lawfully entered into or upon such property, unlawfully remains there with intent thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such person, or with intent to commit an offence, is said to commit "criminal trespass”.

Kidnapping

Whoever takes or entices any minor under [sixteen years of age if a male, or under [eighteen] years of age if a female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.
Explanation: The words "lawful guardian" in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person.

Abduction

Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place, is said to abduct that person.

Unlawful Assembly

An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly", if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is:
(1) To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legis-lature of any State] or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant.
(2) To resist the execution of any law. or of any legal process.
(3) To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence.
(4) By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right.
(5) By means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
Explanation: An assembly which was not unlawful when it assembled, may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.

Law of exemption from criminal liability in the case of juveniles

Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.
Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.

Defamation

“Whoever by words, either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such im p u ta tio n w ill harm, the reputation of s ch person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.”
The ingredients of the offence of defamation are as follows:

1. Making or publishing an imputation concerning any person;

2. Imputation made by:
a. words, spoken or intended to be read;
b. by signs;
c. by visible representations

3. With the intention of (or with the knowledge or with reason to believe that) the same will harm the reputation of the person concerned.
The meaning of 'publish' here is the same as for the definition of tort of 'defamation', i.e it must be communicated to some person other than the person being defamed. This is because a person's opinion of herself himself Hnss nnt constitute her/his 'reputation'.
It is relevant to point out here that a deceased person may also be defamed if the defamatory statement is of a nature that would have harmed the reputation of the person.
Q.1. Principle: Anyone who publishes a statement that is likely to injure the reputation of another is guilty of defamation.
Facts: Anup, a journalist, publishes an article accusing Namit Shah of encouraging the police to undertake encounters. Later on, it was discovered that Namit Shah had rewarded certain policemen for encounters. Is Anup liable for defamation?
Solution: Yes, Anup is liable for defamation as his statement that was published amounts to injury to Namit Shah's reputation.

Culpable Homicide & Murder

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
‘Explanation 1: -4 person who causes bodily injury to another who is labouring under a disorder, disease, 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 will be deemed to have caused the death, although by resorting to proper remedies and skilful treatment the death might have been prevented.
‘Explanation 3: The causing of the death of a 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.'
Thus, for the offence of culpable homicide to be made out, it is necessary to make out the following ingredients:
1. Causing of death by a person:
2. By the doing of an act with
i. the intention of causing death; or
ii. the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death; or
iii. the knowledge that doing such an act is likely to cause death.
The intention to cause death includes both acts as well as omissions. Thus, if a person intentionally omits to do something, which omission causes the death of another, then s/he is liable for culpable homicide.
Q.1. Facts: Yogesh gives grave and sudden provocation to Amit. Amit, on this provocation, fires a pistol at Yogesh, neither intending nor knowing himself to be likely to kill Ramesh, who is near him, but out of sight. Amit kills Ramesh. What should Amit be booked for?
Principle 1: An act which causes death and is done with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such injury as is reasonably likely to lead to death, amounts to murder
Principle 2: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, while 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.
Solution: Amit has committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Amit was attempting to kill Yogesh who gave him sudden provocation but mistakenly killed Ramesh.

Murder

Section 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 o f 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.'
Note: Imminently dangerous act + knowledge that it will in all probability cause death + commission of act without any lawful excuse
In murder, as in culpable homicide, an act includes an omission so that if death is caused by an intentional omission, as long as the other requirements of the section are satisfied the omission (or the act) will amount to murder. Death should have been caused directly by the act committed by the offender. The Supreme Court has held in a number of cases that the last clause usually covers those cases where the person commits an imminently dangerous act. without intending it to affect any particular person, for example, throwing a grenade in the middle of a crowded marketplace.

Q.1. Facts: Ramesh strikes Brajesh. Brajesh is by this provocation excited to violent rage. Amit, a bystander, intending to take advantage of Brajesh’s rage, and to cause him to kill Ramesh, puts a knife into Brajesh's hand for that purpose. Brajesh kills Ramesh with the knife. Here who is guilty of what crime?
Principle: An act which causes death and is done with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such injury as is reasonably likely to lead to death, amounts to murder.
Explanation: Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, while 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. Provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defence.
Solution: Amit has committed murder. Brajesh has committed culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Q.2. Facts: Sheela told Munni that her husband is in a five star hotel with a woman. Munni takes a revolver and drives to the hotel. There she makes inquiries about which room her husband is in. She enters the room finds her husband with Jalebi Bai in a compromising position. She fires intending to shoot her husband but gets Jalebi bai instead. Munni is booked for murder, but pleads grave and sudden provocation.

Principle: An act which causes death and is done with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such injury as is reasonably likely to lead to death, amounts to murder.
Explanation: However, if an act, that otherwise amounts to murder, is done under grave and sudden provocation, it only amounts to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The provocation must be such as would deprive any sane man of the powers of reasoning and control he has over himself and the act must have been done when he was not in such a provoked state.
Solution: Munni is guilty of murder Munni went there prepared to kill. The provocation was grave but not sudden.

Evidence

The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 specifies provisions related to adducing evidence in any legal proceedings, including in criminal trials. The provisions in the Act strive to maintain a balance between certain requirements of investigating authorities for establishing the case, as well as the rights of the accused persons. One such set of provisions addresses all admission and confession related issues, i.e. Sections 17-31. Of these, Sections 17-23 deal with admissions, which are statements that suggest an inference as to a fact in issue cr a relevant fact made by any of the persons. On the other hand, a confession is a specific admission, i.e. an admission of guilt.
It is a well-known fact that the police sometimes employ violent methods in order to extract a confession (admission of guilt) from an accused person. While there have been many efforts at regulating such behaviour, it is impossible to guarantee in any given case that the confession of the accused has not been extracted by extra-legal methods. In order to rule out such a possibility, and in order to ensure that basic rights of accused persons are also protected, the legislature has enacted certain provisions related to confession.

Confession

A confession is a statement admitting guilt. Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act lay down how to deal with confessions made to police officers.
Section 25: No confession made to a police officer, shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.
Section 26: No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a Magistrate, shall be proved as against such person.
While the first of these sections deals with a situation where a confession is directly made to a police officer, the next deals with a situation where the confession is merely made in the custody of the police officer.
A study of these sections raises the question of who is a police officer. Is the protection of these Sections restricted to only those situations where a confession is made to a police officer, or does it also include other persons who are authorised to be. and are, involved in investigating a particular matter that falls under a particular Act? It has been decided in a large number of cases that "the term ‘police officer' should not be interpreted in a narrow manner, though it is important to also remember that every person on whom certain police powers are conferred, need not be a police officer within the meaning of these sections.”
From an analysis of the cases, it seems apparent that the type of powers required for an authority to fall within the meaning of the term ‘police officer1 include investigative powers, powers related to the recording of evidence, and framing of a charge sheet for the crime in question.

Dacoity

When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery, or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery, and persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every person so committing, attempting or aiding, is said to commit "dacoity".