Criminal Laws in India Chapter Notes | Legal Studies for Class 12 - Humanities/Arts PDF Download

Understanding Crime

Crime refers to an illegal act that is punishable by the state. However, crime is a broad concept and there is no single definition that is accepted universally. Different countries have legal definitions for various unlawful activities that are considered crimes. A key principle of Criminal Law is that an act does not qualify as a crime unless it is prohibited by law. Criminal acts harm not only individuals but also society as a whole, which is why they are forbidden and subject to punishment. Criminal Law is the body of laws that deals with imposing penalties for crimes.

Objectives of Criminal Law

As society evolves, the theories of punishment within criminal law have also transformed significantly. Initially, these theories were more rigid, but over time, they have adapted to better fit the changing social structure. Renowned legal scholars have noted the lack of coherence and stability in the current theories of criminal punishment. For instance, Malinowski argues that legal institutions are essentially mechanisms to address and rectify illegal or intolerable situations, restore social equilibrium, and express the collective feelings of oppression and injustice experienced by individuals.

There are five main objectives widely accepted for the enforcement of criminal law through punishments:

Retribution:

• Retribution focuses on "righting the balance." When a criminal wrongs a person or property, they must face a penalty that balances the harm done. For instance, in cases of murder, capital punishment may be imposed to offset the suffering caused to the victim and their family.

Deterrence:

• Deterrence is a crucial tool for maintaining law and order in society, particularly concerning crime. Criminal acts are punished to discourage individuals from committing them, either by preventing initial involvement or by deterring repeat offenses.

Incapacitation:

• The goal of incapacitation is to separate criminals from the rest of society. Offenders are subjected to imprisonment, effectively banishing them from the community. In severe cases, such as capital crimes, the ultimate form of incapacitation is applied through execution.

Rehabilitation:

• Rehabilitation aims to transform offenders into positive members of society. The primary objective is to prevent reoffending by convincing the offender that their behavior was wrong and harmful. This approach focuses on addressing the underlying issues that led to the criminal behavior.

Restoration:

• Restoration is a victim-centered approach to punishment. The aim is to repair any injury inflicted upon the victim by the offender, using state authority to facilitate this process. For example, an embezzler may be required to repay the stolen funds, effectively restoring the victim to their original position before the harm occurred. Restoration is often combined with other goals of criminal justice and is closely related to civil law concepts.

Overview of Criminal Laws in India

Criminal laws in India are primarily governed by three key legislations:

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
3. Indian Evidence Act, 1872

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860

(i) Fundamental Elements of a Crime
a. Mens Rea or Guilty Intention
b. Actus Reus or Illegal Act or Omission

For an action to be considered a crime, it generally requires both mens rea (the intention to commit a wrongful act) and actus reus (the actual act or omission that is illegal). These principles are encapsulated in a Latin maxim that underscores their fundamental role in defining criminal behavior.

“Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea”

This Latin maxim signifies that an individual is not considered guilty of a crime unless their mind is also legally culpable. In simpler terms, for an action to be deemed criminal, it must be accompanied by the necessary mental intent. Without this mental element, an act is typically not considered criminal. Therefore, all crimes consist of both a physical element and a mental element, commonly referred to as actus reus and mens rea respectively.

What is Actus Reus?

Actus Reus refers to the physical component of a crime, encompassing the voluntary actions or conduct of an individual. It is a crucial element in establishing criminal liability, as it signifies the outward manifestation of a criminal intent. The term itself is derived from Latin, where "actus" means "act" or "deed," and "reus" means "guilty" or "culpable." To understand Actus Reus more comprehensively, it is essential to break it down into its constituent parts:

• Action or Conduct: At the core of Actus Reus is the concept of an action or conduct that is prohibited by law. This can include a wide range of activities, from physical acts like theft or assault to omissions or failures to act in certain circumstances. The key aspect is that the conduct must be voluntary and intentional.
• Result of the Action:Actus Reus also involves the consideration of the result that arises from the action or conduct. For instance, in cases of homicide, the act of killing (actus reus) results in the death of another person. The connection between the conduct and its consequences is vital in establishing criminal liability.
• Prohibition by Law: To qualify as Actus Reus, the conduct must be explicitly prohibited by law. This means that the act or omission falls within the scope of criminal legislation. For example, stealing someone else's property is an actus reus because it is forbidden by law.

Actus Reus is essentially an act that is considered bad, prohibited, blameworthy, or culpable. However, there are unique situations where an act may appear to be criminal, yet it does not constitute Actus Reus.

Illustrations

No Actus Reus

• An executioner’s job is to hang: In this case, the act of hanging is not considered Actus Reus because the executioner is carrying out a legal duty as per the law.
• An army man kills as a part of his duty: Similarly, when an army personnel kills as part of their duty, it does not constitute Actus Reus because they are acting within the scope of their legal responsibilities.

Does Actus Reus Include Omissions?
Actus Reus does include omissions, which refer to illegal failures to act. Section 32 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) clarifies that words referring to acts extend to illegal omissions as well. However, mere moral omissions, such as failing to save someone in distress, do not fulfill the requirement of Actus Reus.

• For instance, if a bystander fails to save a drowning boy in a swimming pool, it is a moral omission, and the bystander cannot be held criminally liable.
• However, if a lifeguard on duty fails to save the drowning boy, he can be held criminally liable for his omission, as it falls under Actus Reus.

What is Mens Rea?
Mens Rea, a Latin term meaning "guilty mind," refers to the mental state or intention of an individual when committing a crime. It signifies the presence of a culpable mindset, indicating that the perpetrator had the requisite intention or knowledge to engage in unlawful conduct. The components of Mens Rea include:

• Intent: The individual must possess the intention to commit the act, demonstrating a purposeful desire to bring about the consequences specified in the law.
• Knowledge: In some cases, awareness of the circumstances surrounding the act is crucial. For instance, knowing that the act is illegal or that it may cause harm to others can establish Mens Rea.
• Recklessness or Negligence: Depending on the nature of the offense, reckless or negligent behavior may also constitute Mens Rea. Recklessness involves consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk, while negligence pertains to failing to exercise reasonable care, leading to foreseeable harm.

Mens Rea is a fundamental aspect of criminal liability, as it distinguishes between individuals who commit acts with wrongful intentions and those who may act without such malice. For instance, causing harm to an assailant in self-defense is not a crime because it lacks Mens Rea. However, if the same act is carried out with the intention of revenge, it becomes criminal due to the presence of Mens Rea. The concept of Mens Rea has its roots in English legal history, where judges in the 17th century emphasized the importance of a guilty state of mind in establishing criminal liability. In India, while Mens Rea is not explicitly defined in the Indian Penal Code (IPC), its essence is reflected in various provisions of the Code. The requirement of Mens Rea for framing charges under the IPC has been upheld by the Supreme Court of India in cases such as State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George.

Facts of the Case

• Respondent: Mayer Hans George, a German smuggler, attempted to bring 34 kilos of gold into India without declaring it to the Customs Authorities.
• Flight: George's flight arrived in Bombay on November 28, 1962.
• Customs Inspection: The Customs Authorities inspected George and seized the gold, accusing him of violating the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act (FERA).
• Legal Basis: The accusation was based on Section 8(10) and 23(1-A) of FERA, in conjunction with a notification from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) published on November 8, 1962, and Gazette dated November 24, 1962.
• Initial Acquittal: George was initially acquitted by the High Court.
• State Appeal: The State of Maharashtra appealed the High Court's decision.

Issues before the Court

• Whether Mayer Hans George violated Section 8(1) and 23(1-A) of FERA by bringing gold into India without proper declaration.
• Mens Rea Argument: The State argued that mens rea (guilty mind) was irrelevant in this case, emphasizing strict adherence to the act.
• Defence Argument: The defence contended that mens rea was essential for criminal liability, as George was unaware of the RBI notification and had no intention to violate Indian law.

Mens Rea

• Mens rea, meaning "guilty mind," is a crucial element in determining criminal liability. It refers to the mental state or intention of the perpetrator at the time of committing an offense. The concept of mens rea is essential because it helps to differentiate between individuals who commit crimes with wrongful intent and those who may have acted without malicious intent. In many legal systems, establishing mens rea is necessary to prove the culpability of the accused and to determine the appropriate level of punishment.

(ii) Distinction Between Intention and Motive

• Intention in criminal law refers to the deliberate and conscious decision to engage in a specific act that is prohibited by law. It implies that the person is aware of the consequences of their actions and chooses to proceed regardless of those consequences. For example, if someone intentionally steals a car, they are aware that their actions are illegal and choose to commit the crime anyway.
• Motive, on the other hand, refers to the underlying reason or purpose behind committing a particular act. It explains why a person chooses to engage in a specific behavior, but it is not always relevant in determining criminal liability. For instance, if someone steals a car to provide food for their starving family, the motive (to feed their family) does not absolve them of the crime of theft.

Key Differences

• Legal Relevance: Intention is a crucial factor in establishing criminal liability, while motive is often not considered in determining guilt.
• Focus: Intention focuses on the mental state of the offender at the time of the act, whereas motive looks at the reasons behind the action.
• Example: If a person commits fraud to pay for their child's education, the intention to commit fraud is what matters legally, not the motive of wanting to educate their child.

Criminal Liability: The law holds individuals liable for their actions based on intention rather than motive. This means that even if someone has a good reason for committing a crime, they can still be punished if their actions meet the legal criteria for wrongdoing.

Conclusion: Understanding the difference between intention and motive is crucial in criminal law. While intention is key to establishing liability, motive is often irrelevant in determining guilt. This distinction helps ensure that individuals are held accountable for their actions, regardless of their underlying reasons.

(iii) Stages of Crime
The stages of a crime refer to the various phases that an individual goes through when committing an illegal act. Understanding these stages is crucial in determining when criminal liability arises and how different actions are treated under the law.

Intention:

• Definition: The first stage involves having the intent to commit a crime. This is purely a mental stage where the individual plans to engage in an unlawful act.
• Legal Perspective: The law does not penalize individuals at this stage because proving someone's intention is challenging for the prosecution.
• Example: If someone decides to rob a bank but hasn’t taken any steps towards it yet, they are at the intention stage.

Preparation:

• Definition: This stage involves making necessary arrangements to carry out the intended crime. However, preparation itself is not illegal.
• Legal Perspective: Preparation is generally not punishable unless there are specific circumstances that warrant it.
• Example: Gathering tools to commit a burglary falls under preparation.

Attempt:

• Definition: The attempt stage marks the point where an individual goes beyond preparation and starts taking tangible steps towards committing the crime.
• Legal Perspective: This is where criminal liability begins to arise as the individual is actively trying to commit an unlawful act.
• Example: Entering a bank with the intention to rob it constitutes an attempt.

Commission:

• Definition: The final stage is when the crime is actually committed, and all elements of the offense are fulfilled.
• Legal Perspective: At this stage, the individual is fully liable for the crime as all legal requirements for culpability are met.
• Example: Successfully stealing money from a bank during a robbery is the commission of the crime.

Preparation When Punishable

Preparation to commit certain serious offences is penalised under IPC. Some of the offences where preparation is punishable under IPC are-

• Preparation to commit dacoity (Section 399)
• Preparation to commit robbery (Section 402)
• Preparation to commit mischief by fire or explosive substance (Section 436)
• Preparation to commit riot (Section 146)
• Preparation to commit unlawful assembly (Section 141)

Stages of Crime

• Preparation: This is the initial stage where a person plans and gathers the necessary means to commit a crime. For example, collecting arms with the intention to wage war against the Government of India falls under this stage (as per Section 122 of IPC).
• Preparation for Counterfeiting: Preparing Indian coins or Government stamps for the purpose of counterfeiting is also part of the preparatory stage (Sections 233 to 235, 255, and 257 of IPC).
• Possession of Counterfeit Items: Being in possession of counterfeit coins, Government stamps, or false weights and measures is considered an offence at this stage (Sections 242, 243, 259, 266 of IPC).
• Making Preparations for Dacoity: Preparing to commit dacoity is an offence under Section 399 of IPC.

Attempt:

• The third stage in the conduct of a crime is "attempt," which is punishable under the law. Criminal liability arises when the crime has progressed beyond preparation and has entered the realm of attempt.
• Section 511 of the IPC does not provide a definition for "attempt," but it does impose penalties for attempting to commit an offense.
• An attempt is defined as a direct step toward the commission of a crime after necessary preparations have been made.

Commission of Crime:

• Committing the crime is the final step in the process. If the accused succeeds in his attempt, he commits a crime and will be found guilty of it.
• If he fails, he will only be charged with attempting. If the crime is complete, the offender will be tried and punished as per the specific provisions provided in the Indian Penal Code.

Definition of Theft in IPC

• The Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides a legal definition of theft in Section 378. According to this section, a person is said to commit theft if they dishonestly intend to take movable property out of someone else's possession without their consent.
• The key elements of this definition include:
• Dishonest Intention: The person must have the intention to take the property dishonestly.
• Movable Property: The property in question must be movable.
• Possession: The property must be in the possession of another person.
• Consent: The property must be taken without the consent of the person in possession.
• Movement: The property must be moved with the intention to commit theft.

Punishment for Theft in IPC

• Section 379 of the IPC outlines the punishment for theft. It states that whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment for a term that may extend to three years, or with a fine, or with both.
• Varying Punishments: Different crimes carry different punishments based on the severity of the offence. For instance, the punishment for murder can be either death or life imprisonment.
• Structure of IPC: The IPC is organized by first providing a definition of an offence, followed by the stipulated punishment for that offence.

Crimes under Special and Local Laws:
Certain acts are considered criminal even if they are not listed in the Indian Penal Code (IPC) because they are defined as crimes in Special and Local Laws. Here are some examples of such statutes:

I. Arms Act, 1959

II. Narcotic Drugs & Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985

III. Gambling Act, 1867

IV. Excise Act, 1944; Prohibition Act

VI. Explosives & Explosive Substances Act, 1884 & 1908

VII. Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956

VIII. Railways Act, 1989

IX. Registration of Foreigners Act, 1930; Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955

XI. Indian Passport Act, 1967

XII. Essential Commodities Act, 1955

XIII. Terrorist & Disruptive Activities Act

XIV. Antiquities & Art Treasures Act, 1972

XV. Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

XVI. Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929

XVII. Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986

XVIII. Copyright Act, 1957

XIX. Sati Prevention Act, 1987

XX. SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989

XXI. Forest Act, 1927

XXII. Other crimes under Special and Local Laws, including Cyber Laws under the Information Technology Act, 2000

2. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC)

The Criminal Procedure Code aims to establish a framework for investigating and trying offenders. It outlines the procedures for police investigations and court proceedings against individuals accused of crimes under any criminal law, including the IPC and other legal provisions.

Types of Offences Covered:

• The CrPC encompasses all offences mentioned in the Indian Penal Code. The IPC defines the legal criteria for determining whether an act constitutes a criminal offence.
• The CrPC, on the other hand, provides the guidelines for initiating legal proceedings and prosecutions for criminal offences.
• It specifies the procedures and locations for the investigation, inquiry, and trial of offences.

Burden of Proof:

• In India, the prosecution bears the burden of proving the accused's guilt "beyond reasonable doubt," a high standard of proof.
• The accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, a principle recognized in common law and Indian law.
• However, there are exceptions where the burden of proof may shift to the accused, such as in dowry death cases.

Reverse Onus Clauses:

• Reverse onus clauses shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defendant under certain conditions.
• This means that the defendant must prove their innocence or raise reasonable doubts about their guilt.

Dowry Death Cases:

• In dowry death cases, the accused is presumed to have a guilty mental state, establishing a presumption of guilt rather than the usual presumption of innocence.

3. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The Indian Evidence Act governs how facts can be established through evidence in a court of law. Its purpose is to outline the rules and guidelines for proving or disproving the facts of a case before a judicial authority. The Act serves as a framework for courts to ensure that evidence is presented and evaluated in a fair and consistent manner.

The Evidence Act is essential for judges to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information during court proceedings. It governs what evidence can be admitted, how it can be presented, and the burden of proof. The Act is based on key principles such as:

• Relevance: Evidence must pertain to the matter at hand.
• Hearsay: Hearsay evidence is generally not admissible.
• Best Evidence: The best available evidence should be presented in all cases.

One of the Act's main goals is to ensure accurate and uniform standards for evidence admissibility.

The Act is divided into three parts:

• Part I: Deals with the relevancy of facts and what can be proven (Sections 5 to 55).
• Part II: Focuses on how relevant facts are to be proved, including oral and documentary evidence (Sections 56 to 100).
• Part III: Covers the procedure for producing evidence and its effects (Sections 101 to 167).

(i) Admission and Confession
Admissions:

• Admissions are statements, either oral, documentary, or electronic, that suggest an inference about a fact in issue.
• Section 17 of the Indian Evidence Act defines admissions and sets the groundwork for understanding their role in legal proceedings.

Confessions:

• The term "confession" is introduced in Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, under the broader category of admissions.
• Confessions are a specific type of admission made by a person charged with a crime, indicating or suggesting that they committed the offense.
• Justice Stephen's interpretation of confession highlights its nature as an admission of guilt related to a crime.

Difference between Confession and Admission

(ii) Forms of Confession
A confession can take different forms. When a confession is made directly in court, it is called a judicial confession, whereas when it is made outside the court to any other person, it is termed as an extra-judicial confession. In some cases, even talking to oneself, if overheard, can be considered a confession.
For instance, in Sahoo v. State of U.P. (AIR 1996 SC 40), the accused, who was frequently in conflict with his daughter-in-law, was heard leaving his house on the day of her murder saying, “I have finished her and with her the daily quarrels.” The court held this statement as a valid confession, as a confession does not necessarily have to be communicated to another person to be relevant in evidence.

1. Judicial Confession:

   • Made before a magistrate or in court as part of legal proceedings.
   • Defined as a plea of guilty given in court, voluntarily and in a fit state of mind.

2. Extra-Judicial Confession:

   • Made outside the court to any person other than a judge or magistrate.
   • Can be in any form, including private conversations, written letters, or even prayers.
   • For example, if a person writes to a relative expressing remorse over a crime, it may be considered a confession.

(iii) Dying declaration – Statements by Persons who cannot be called as Witnesses

A dying declaration refers to a statement made by a person on the verge of death, explaining the cause or circumstances leading to their demise. It is considered reliable evidence under the belief that a person who knows they are about to die is unlikely to lie.

Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act governs the admissibility of dying declarations. It applies when statements made by a deceased person regarding the cause of their death or the circumstances surrounding it are relevant in legal proceedings. The statement remains relevant regardless of whether the person was under the expectation of death at the time.

Judicial Precedents on Dying Declarations

In K.R. Reddy v. The Public Prosecutor (SC 1976 AIR 1994), the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of scrutiny before accepting a dying declaration as evidence. Since the statement is not made under oath and cannot be cross-examined, courts must ensure:

1. The deceased was in a fit state of mind to make the statement.
2. The statement was made voluntarily, without tutoring, prompting, or imagination.
3. If the statement is clear, coherent, and trustworthy, it can serve as the sole basis for conviction without additional evidence.

The court’s key propositions on dying declarations include:

1. A coherent, consistent, and voluntary dying declaration is sufficient for conviction, even without corroboration (R. Mani v. State of T.N., 2006 SC).
2. Each case must be assessed based on its unique facts.
3. A dying declaration is not weaker evidence than other forms of evidence.
4. A dying declaration recorded by a competent magistrate in question-and-answer form, using the declarant’s exact words, is considered highly reliable.