Law of Crimes (Part - 1) | Additional Study Material for CLAT PDF Download

Mental Element

One of the basic principles of Criminal law is incorporated in the Latin maxim ‘actus non facit reum. nisi mens sit rea'. This means, that to constitute a crime, the physical act of the offence as well as the mental intent of the offender must correspond / match. To put it simply, the person must have intended the act (ruling out genuine accidents). It is not sufficient to prove that a person of innocent mind has committed an act whose physical ingredients fall within the definition of an offence; the guilty intent of the offender at the time of commission of the offence also needs to be established In other words, it is necessary to establish the mental element that is requisite for the crime to be committed (as per the definition of the offence/crime). By mental intent, it is meant the criminal intention or the guilty state of mind of the person committing the act, i.e. either the clear and manifest intention to commit that particular criminal act or the knowledge of the nature of the act being committed and its consequences, or carelessness/ recklessness/ indifference as to the nature of the act itself or its consequences. Thus, no offence is proved unless the act and the mental intent is proved, which means Crime = Actus Reus (physical act) + Mens Rea (accompanying mental element)
Q.1. Facts: If I accidentally trip and fall while walking on the pavement and seriously hurt a fellow pedestrian, would I be guilty of a crime?
The answer is NO, because in this case, even if the act of injury was committed I had no intention to do it! There was 'actus reus' but no 'mens rea' Just remember the concept very simply - I must not only have done the wrongful act. I must also have intended to do that particular wrongful act!
Principle: Nothing is an offence which is done by person who at the time of doing it by reason of unsoundness of mind is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
Explanation: Unsoundness of mind is a stage when a man is incapable of understanding the nature and course of his action.

General Exceptions

General Exceptions are provided in Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code (Sections 76-95 and Sections 96-106 dealing with the right to private defence). A general exception is a defence (that is why it is called an ‘exception’) that can be used for all crimes, and therefore, is incorporated in the Code as a chapter, and not repeated in every provision dealing with a different crime. Some general exceptions incorporated in the IPC include intoxication, mistake of fact, accident, unsoundness of mind, acts done under some compulsions, etc.

Exceptions

What is the effect of a general exception? Does it help the accused? If you study the above discussion explaining the necessity for an act to be done with mental intent in order to qualify as a crime, you will understand the significance of a general exception. The effect of a general exception applying to an act is that even though all elements of a crime are proved, the accused is shielded from the consequences (imprisonment/fine) of committing the crime. This is because most of the general exceptions cater to one of the following situations

1. Where the person is not capable of forming or possessing the mental intent or state of mind that is required by the IPC (e g. when a person of unsound mind assaults another, this is not a crime, since the person, being insane, is not capable of knowing that the act being committed is wrong and one that is prohibited by Law)
2. Where the person, though aware of the consequences and though aware that the act is illegal, commits it for a lawful purpose (e g. seeing that a child is trapped in a house on fire and that persons below are getting ready to catch the child, a person throws the child out of the window. While the act of throwing the child out of the window is definitely a crime, the actual act that has occurred in this fact situation is deemed not to be a crime since it has been done in order to protect the child.)
Before we start examining some general exceptions in details, make sure you're clear on the basic concept underlying this area: Exceptions are comparatively less in number than crimes themselves, but are significant because given a situation where you have to decide about the guilt of an accused, you just need to analyse it if his act falls under any of the exceptions.

General Exception - Intoxication

The general exception of intoxication is provided in Section 85 of the IPC as follows:
‘Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, is by reason of intoxication, incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will'
The reasoning behind this is that if a person is intoxicated against her/ his will or without her/ his knowledge, say by mixing drinks without knowledge, because of which s/he is no longer in a position to differentiate between right and wrong or legal and illegal, then si he will be deemed to not have committed a crime, because the act has been committed without the necessary mental intent, and without the knowledge of its wrongness If, however, the person contributes in any manner to such incapacity of judgement or intoxication, then this exception will not be applicable to her/him.

Q.1. Facts: Supriya goes to a party where she asks for orange juice. The bartender, for a joke, gives her orange juice with some alcohol mixed in it two or three times. Not used to drinking, she doesn’t realise this, and is intoxicated upon drinking these two or three drinks. While under the influence of these drinks, she has a fight with someone at the party and slaps that person a few times
Question: Does it constitute a crime?
Solution: This will not constitute a crime, as alcohol was administered to her without her knowledge.

Q.2. Facts: Supriya herself asks for some alcoholic drinks, and when under the influence of the drinks, slaps someone. In this case, though she has committed the crime under the influence of the alcohol without realising that it is wrong,
Question: Is she liable for the offence?
Solution: she will not be able to avail of the general exception in Section 85 because she voluntarily drank alcohol and put herself in such a position.
'In cases where an act done is not an offence unless done with a particular knowledge or intent, a person who does the act in a state of intoxication shall be liable to be dealt with as if he had the same knowledge as he would have had if he had not been intoxicated, unless the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or against his will.’

The Right of Private Defence

The practical effect of both the above is that a person who commits the crime will not be punished. The reasons for this assumption, however, may differ across the two cases, e g in a general exception, the law makes such an assumption either because it thinks that the person committing the crime is not in a position to understand that the act being committed is wrong, or because it is done for a lawful purpose AND in the case of private defence because the crime has been committed by the person in order to protect her/ his body or property. This means that though the act committed satisfies all requirements of a crime under the I PC. it is not treated as one.
Q.1. Fact: Nanjappa, guarding the field for his master, shoots at some thieves in the night. The shots kill one of the thieves. The question is whether Nanjappa is protected from being prosecuted for murder on the ground that he has exercised his right of private defence. In this case, Nanjappa is under the apprehension that his master's property may be stolen, since he noticed some thieves with machetes in the fields. He is well within his right of private defence in deciding to take some action and use the necessary force to ensure that his master's property is protected.
Solution: The only question to be answered is whether he has exceeded his right by firing at the thieves thereby killing one of them. Here, Nanjappa is guilty; the force used by him is disproportionate because he could have shot in the air to disperse the thieves; furthermore, the thieves never saw him and were only carrying machetes. Only if that didn’t work, should he have fired the gun at the intruders. Thus, Nanjappa has exceeded his right of private defence.

Theft

The crime of theft is dealt with in Section 378 of the IPC. Theft is defined as follows
' Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said to commit theft '
‘.. .Explanation 5: The consent mentioned in the definition may be express or implied, and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied'
The term 'dishonestly' has also been defined in the IPC. ‘Whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongfuI gain to one person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing dishonestly.'
Reading these two sections together, we may conclude that whoever takes any moveable property out of the possession of another person without that person’s consent, with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person and wrongful loss to another, and moves the property in accordance with such an objective, commits theft as per the provisions of the IPC.
Thus, mere taking without the dishonest intention, i.e without the intention to either cause wrongful gain to any person or wrongful loss to any other person, is not theft So long as the taking of the property causes a wrongful loss to the owner of the property, it falls within the purview of the IPC, though it is important to remember that there is absolutely no requirement that the taker herself/ himself should have a wrongful qain from such act.

Q.1. Facts: Veerappan, while cutting sandalwood trees in a Government Reserve Forest, was caught by the police as he and his associates started chopping the tree. As soon as Veerappan and his associates started to chop the tree, they caused it 'to move'. Veerappan-and his associates started chopping the tree with the intention of taking it with them, i.e. with the intention of causing wrongful gain to themselves and wrongful loss to the government. As such, they intended to take the tree dishonestly and in pursuance of the same, began to chop the tree. They also did not have the government's consent to remove the tree.
Solution: As per Explanation 1 to the Section, a tree is immoveable property till it has been severed from the earth. Till such time as it is still attached to the earth, it constitutes immoveable property, the taking of which does not qualify as theft. Therefore, the severance of the tree not having been completed, the property was not a moveable property This means that Veerappan does not fulfil the criteria laid down in the section for theft.

Q.2. Facts: Kumud left her less valuable bangle in the casket by mistake. Though she did take the bangle out of the possession of the shop-owner without taking the consent of the owner, causing a loss to the owner. she did not have a dishonest intention. She did not take the bangle with the purpose of causing wrongful gain to herself or wrongful loss to the shop.
Solution: Thus, even though her actions have resulted in wrongful loss to the shop-owner, she is not liable for theft since she did not possess the requisite dishonest intention.

Extortion

‘Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion "

Points to note:

• The phrase used is 'any injury1 - injury need not necessarily be physical in nature. Injury to reputation or character may also be an injury - what needs to be proved is an injury of a real nature so as to disturb the mind of a reasonable man. Also, what needs to be proved is that a person was put in fear of injury to himself or another
• deliver to any person...’ means the person who puts a person in fear may be different from the person to whom property is delivered.

Robbery

Theft is robbery if, in the process of committing theft or in carrying away or attempting to carry away the property (obtained by theft), the offender, causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint, or fear of instant death or of instant hurt, o of instant wrongful restraint.
Extortion is robbery if the offender, at the time of committing extortion, is in the presence of the person put in fear, and commits extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or some other person.

Dishonest misappropriation of property

'Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property...'
When the property of another person comes into possession of the offender8 and is dishonestly converted or misappropriated either temporarily or permanently. No entrustment is required for this offence.

Mischief

"Whoever, with intent to cause, or knowing that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person, causes the destruction of any property, or any such change in any property or in the situation thereof as destroys or diminishes its value or utility, or affects it injuriously, commits mischief'.''
A few points of note need to be mentioned here. Imagine that the offence of mischief has been committed, is it necessary that the offender should have intended to cause injury to the owner of the property that has been destroyed? No, because to make out an offence of mischief, it is sufficient if you can show that the offender intended to cause, or knew that s/he was likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to any person by injuring any property, whether or not it belongs to that person.
It's extremely important to understand the principle. Mischief requires "an injury to property" with "intention of causing wrongful loss to any person or public." It is also specified that the person to whom the loss is wrongfully caused "need not be the owner."

Cheating

'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 oris 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.'
The term dishonestly has been discussed above; the term ‘Fraudulently’ is defined in Section 25 as a person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with an intent to defraud but not otherwise.
Deceive means to cause someone to believe something that it is not true.

Ingredients of the Offence

The ingredients of the offence are:
1. deception of a person;
2. to fraudulently or dishonestly induced her/ him to
a. deliver any property to any person, or
b. consent that any person shall retain any property

OR
3. the deceived person should intentionally be induced to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, such act causing or being likely to cause damage or harm to the person induced in body, mind, reputation or property. (The person who practices deception need not have contemplated such damage, though the damage, a natural and probable result of the act that the deceived person was induced to perform, should occur because the deceived person has acted under the influence of the deception.)
There is a fine distinction here; it is not sufficient if a false representation is made It is necessary that the person making the false representation should know it to be false, but should make it in order to deceive the person to whom it is made. Such a false representation may be made either through words or inferred through conduct or the Surrounding Circumstances.
To hold a person guilty of cheating, it is necessary to prove that a dishonest or fraudulent intention existed in the mind of the deceiver at the time of making the representation that induced the deceived person to do or omit to do something. Remember here that the intention of the victim is irrelevant - all you need to do is check whether the person making the false representation did so fraudulently or dishonestly, in order to deceive the victim. order to deceive the victim.

Q.1. Facts A person A falsely pretends 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. Has A committed the crime of cheating?
Solution: In the problem, A has falsely represented himself to be a sales tax officer. Believing this to be true, and hoping to get a favourable assessment, B agrees to sell a costly television to A on an installment basis It seems apparent from the facts that A represented himself to be a sales tax officer knowing it to be incorrect, hoping to gain something from B, for which it was never his intention to pay, for if he was actually willing to pay for the television, he need not have represented himself to be a sales tax officer. When A bought a costly television from B on an installment basis, A never had the intention of paying the installments.
The cheating occurred when a false representation was made with the fraudulent intention of inducing B to deliver some property to A. The non payment of instalments is only one aspect of the entire plan to cheat A. B’s motivation may have been to get a favourable assessment, but if A had not represented himself to be a sales tax officer, such a motivation would not have arisen in B either. Thus, A has in fact committed cheating at the time of making the representation, hoping to gain from it, and never having the intention to lawfully procure the property.

Sedition

‘Whoever by words, either spoken or written, orby signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the government established by law in India, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine maybe added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years to which fine may be added, or with fine.'
Explanation 1: The expression “disaffection" includes disloyalty and all feelings of enmity.
Explanation 2: Comments expressing disapprobation of the measures of the government with a view to obtain their alteration by lawful means, without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this Section '
Explanation 3: Comments expressing disapprobation of the administration or other action of the government without exciting or attempting to excite hatred, contempt or disaffection, do not constitute an offence under this Section.'

Ingredients of the Offence

1. Whoever, by words (spoken or written), by signs, or by visible representations;
2. Brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the government established by law in India; commits sedition.
Now, for Legal Reasoning questions, you need to know nothing apart from of course meaning of the above mentioned words and phrases - you only need to ascertain the presence of these two elements in order to prove sedition. For Legal Knowledge, the principle of sedition needs to be understood against the backdrop of issues discussed in the next two paragraphs.

Q.1. Facts: The opposition leader stated in a public meeting that “This government of scoundrels, bootleggers and scamsters should be thrown out. They do not deserve your allegiance Teach them a lesson at the earliest"
Solution: From the words it is clear that the words attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards, the government established by law in India It is obvious that the words are sufficient to cause disaffection among the people. Hence, it is a fit case for sedition.

Counterfeit

Whoever sells to, or buys or receives from, any other person, or otherwise traffics in or uses as genuine, any forged or counterfeit currency-note or bank-note, knowing or having reason to believe the same to be forged or counterfeit, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description fora term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable for fine ’
Q.1. Facts: Mr. Ramchandran, being himself a cashier, realises that the shopkeeper gave his wife a counterfeit note. In order to get rid of the note, Mr Ramchandran goes to the same shop and tries to pass off the note, which he knows to be counterfeit, as genuine.
Solution: The fact that Mr. Ramchandran delivered the currency as genuine, knowing it to be counterfeit, thus he is liable for the offence. He is therefore, guilty of the crime of delivering counterfeit currency as genuine.

Joint Liability

‘When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.'

Q.1. Facts: A, B and C had decided to commit the crime of burglary, during the commission of which, C stabs X, a domestic servant who sees them. Is A. B. C liable for the offence of murder or burglary?
Solution: It is fairly obvious that the intention of A, B and C was to commit burglary, since that is the crime that they had all initially decided to commit. During the commission of this crime, C stabs X. The murder does not form part of the common intention of the three persons. Their minds met only in so far as they had all agreed to burgle a house. They never agreed to commit murder. Thus, in the absence of a common intention to commit murder, C alone will be liable for the murder and the rest only for burglary.

Criminal Negligence

'Whoever causes the death of any person by doing any rash or negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.'
Rashness is when a dangerous activity is carried out:

• with the knowledge that it is dangerous and injurious;
• without the intention to cause that injury or even the knowledge that the injury may be caused, but
• with recklessness or total indifference as to the consequences.

Q.1. Fact: The owner of the property, in order to protect his crops, strings a live electric wire around his farm. When his friend Z comes to visit him at night, he is electrocuted. X should have realised the following:

1. Live wires are dangerous and potentially lethal.
2. Since he lives within the boundary of the farm, many persons other than potential thieves may want to get past the boundary if they come to meet him.
3. Unless he puts up a lit sign board (so that it can be seen at night) stating the existence of the live wire, no one would be aware of it and therefore, every person coming to his house past the boundary would be exposed to its threat.
Solution: X should have realised the danger inherent in his actions, and taken some sort of care and exercised some caution to ensure that it did not result in harmful effects to others. However, X has not done so, and therefore, he will be liable for the same.

Q.2. Facts: Suppose a passenger is standing on the footboard of a bus, and the driver knows it and yet he takes a sudden sharp turn, as a result of which the passenger falls to his death. Is the driver liable?
Solution: The driver would be liable under Criminal Negligence.

Q.3. Facts: A lady is boarding a bus. and the conductor signals to the driver to start the bus, without waiting for her to board fully. As a result, the lady falls, and succumbs to her injuries. Is the conductor liable?
Solution: The conductor would be liable under this section in such a situation.

Wrongful Restraint

“ 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. “Exception - The obstruction of a private way overland or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of the section."

Ingredients of the offence

1. Voluntary obstruction of a person;
2. So as to prevent her/him from proceeding in any direction in which she/he has a right to proceed

Q.1. Facts: Neha tells Salim that she will let loose her ferocious dog on him if he uses the street in front of her house, and Salim, believing the same, is prevented from using the street. Does this amount to wrongful restraint?
Solution: Now there are two possibilities - either Neha’s dog is actually ferocious or it is not, but Neha has represented that it is, and Salim has believed her In either case, therefore, this will amount to wrongful restraint.

Wrongful Confinement

Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said wrongfully to confine that person.