Introduction to Criminal Law Video Lecture - CLAT

hello friends welcome to our asaki here
popular education in this video we are
starting with the criminal law so let's
discuss the concepts of criminal law the
first and foremost thing you need to
understand in criminal law is what is
crime crime is a violation of public
rights violation of public rights and
duties which affects the society as a
whole so it's a crime against the
society
unlike civil law and law of torts in
which it'sá-- it was an offense against
a individual so in this case it is a
crime against society it's an unlawful
act or omission which is an offence
against the public and renders the
person guilty of an act or default hence
liable to legal punishment in case of a
civil law we used to put up an you know
we did not get the imprisonment or
punishment there was a concept of
compensation in this case due to
criminal law you are given punishment so
the epics code that is Supreme Court of
India has held a criminal charge could
be identified by three elements it's a
nature as a offence against the public
at large so the first and foremost
ingredient of a crime or a criminal
charges it's an offense against public
at large the punitive nature of the
sanction that is it attracts the
punishment this act would attract the
punishment the requirement of mens RIA
this term we will be using time and
again in the criminal law
this means guilty mind okay so there's
the requirement of Mencia that is you
must have guilty mind so the kind of
punishment that is given under criminal
law is either fine or imprisonment or
imprisoning and fine you could be
imposed fine only or you can be given
imprisonment and fine or imprisonment
all fine okay so these are the kinds of
punishment that can be given in criminal
law what are the fundamental ingredients
of a crime act as non
Katrien Missy Mensa tria this is the
principle which governs the whole
concept of criminal law it says without
a guilty mind and a guilty act they
cannot be a crime so this is the whole
concept of and fundamental nature of the
crime so we understand what does actus
Reis means this is the term which is
used in principal actors tears to the
term used for physical act that is there
must be a physical act that is a guilty
Act the the explanation of this
principle says that there must be a
guilty act to constitute a crime in
other words it can be an award as a
consequence movement a physical result
of human conduct and it must be an
voluntary act so physical act means act
as years the next is men's rhea we
discuss the mental act Mencia means the
mental act a crime is not committed if
the mind of a person doing the act is
innocent and devoid of wrongful and
criminal intention if a person is doing
something with the innocent mind that
person cannot be held responsible for
the act that could not be termed as a
crime so crime is combination of two
things first is access to use that is
physical act
Plus mens riah that is mental act so the
principle of actors real actors non non
facit reham Nyssa men citria says
without a guilty mind and a guilty Act
they cannot be a crime so these third
two things must be there to constitute a
crime let's understand what does or
criminal intention means since we said
that there must be a criminal intention
or mensier present so we need to
understand what a criminal intention
means first of all let's see what
intention means intention is the
conscious exercise of a mental faculties
to do one at fixed direction of the mind
to do particular object determination to
act in a particular manner intention
means that you decide or there is a
determination to act in a particular
manner
particular way let's take an example to
understand what does an intention me
example a practiced very hard in order
to become the best tennis player in the
state so what is an act here that is
working very hard practicing very hard
but why did he practice very hard to
become the best tennis player in the
state so here the motive of the person
is to become the best tennis player in
the state and to fulfill that motive the
intention is formulated which which is
shown through the practicing very hard
your work your actions decide what your
intention is so if you are practicing
very hard that means you're focused
towards your motive of becoming the best
tennis player so intention and motive
are not the same thing however motive
forms the basis of forming an intention
right let's go further
next thing is knowledge what is a
knowledge mean a conscious awareness of
the consequences of the act this means
that you are aware of the consequences
that is whatever act you are doing you
aware that what would be the results and
consequences of such act will be so
intentional knowledge are often merge
into each other intention can be
presumed from knowledge if you have the
knowledge and you still do the act it is
produced resume that you have the
intention to do such act and you are
intending towards the consequences of
that act let's take an example to
understand it better
a a crowd has a ZEM assembled in the
street X starts throwing bricks into the
crowd P got severely injured and later
died is X guilty of killing P so what
was X is act that is he was throwing
bricks in the crowd he was acting in
such manner what is X is intent the
facts do not show anything to show the
intent of the person what does what was
there what was his intention behind
throwing the bricks into the crowd can
we presume that X knew somebody would
get injured yes we can because every
reasonable person
knows that there is a cloud and you're
throwing bricks into the crowd every
reasonable person would know that this
the bricks would definitely injure one
person or the other so in this case he
had the knowledge that his brick would
hurt somebody so we can presume that he
had intention of hurting somebody so in
this case the intention can be presumed
from the knowledge of the person let's
understand what is motive we had
discussed motive briefly in the previous
slides the definition of motive is
motive is something that prompts a
person in person to form a intention it
is sometimes a compelling force to
commit a crime and is therefore a
relevant - not not conclusive factor for
determining whether a crime has been
committed or not example he practiced
very hard in order to become the best
tennis player in the state this is the
same example we are taking forward
what is the act that is practicing very
hard which shows the intention of the
person but why did he practice very hard
to become the best tennis player in the
state the same thing is indicated here
that his motive was and he wanted to
become the best tennis player in the
state so he started working and
practicing very hard so his intention is
formulated as in to work very hard for
fulfilling his motive so in this way it
prompts the person to form an intention
like let's take another example P and Q
were our enemies and P had publicly
stated that he wanted to kill Q one day
while driving some home driving work
work to whom P ran over the pedestrian
who turned out to be Q in this case the
facts show that he had ran over a
pedestrian but he did not know that he
was Q later on it was discovered that it
was Q is P guilty of murdering Q no
because he did not had the knowledge or
even intend to he had the intention to
kill the person that is he
wanted to kill P because he had publicly
announced that he was his enemy so he
wanted to kill him but while doing this
act he did not have the knowledge that
it was Q who was walking around walking
on the side of the road when he ran over
the pedestrian there was no intent or
knowledge as to kill Q so in this case
he cannot be held liable for murdering Q
if you're a class parent this can be
this example can be applied on you also
for example if you like like aspirin and
toppling flat is your motive so to
fulfill this motive your intention could
be seen if you put on the effort to
study for the class and this would show
your intention the effort you put in
that would show you show your intention
hasn't you actually want to talk to
clatter or not the important concepts
which are used in criminal law the first
and foremost very it's very very
important concept that is presumption of
innocence every person has the best
inner best defense in this case he would
say that I am in innocence and innocent
and he can actually deny the whole fact
you know the law presumes that until and
unless you're proved guilty the
prosecution has to prove the gate and in
this case the person is presumed to be
innocent until and unless the guilt has
been proved beyond reasonable doubt it
is not the defense that has to prove
their innocence it is upon the
prosecution that is if you put an
allegation you are the one who have to
prove that that your allegation is true
and not the other person or the person
that I am innocent let's take an example
is arrested and prosecuted for bees for
stealing these car the burden of proof
is on prosecution that is prosecution
must prove that a has stolen the car
it's not the duty of a to prove that he
had not stolen the car so in this case
there is a presumption of innocence
which is applied on is on in the
criminal cases that is a person is
presumed to be innocent until a unless
his or her guilt is true
so it's a very very important concept
which is applied in criminal law
next is proof beyond reasonable doubt
this means the prosecution has to show
that only their version is possible and
there is no other alternate situation
could which could have been possible
they have to show that whatever they are
saying for example taking this case if
they are saying that B has stolen the
car so they have to prove that in no way
there could be any other person who had
who had who must have stolen the car
it's only B who could steal the car
so it's upon the prosecution to prove
their vs. version beyond reasonable
doubt the burden of proof somebody who
alleges the fact must prove the fact
it's the burden of the prosecution we
have already discussed let's take
another example now it's the same
example which is stated here is arrested
and prosecuted for stealing B's car the
prosecution must prove that a has stolen
the cracka car the prosecution must
discharge their burden of proof their
burden of proof must be discharged
completely and beyond all reasonable
doubt if they have to prove that it's
only and only B who could steal the car
and no other person in any circumstance
what are the defenses which a person can
take in all the cases in first case you
can prove that if you did the act
you lack min stria even if you were
doing the act but you did not have the
guilty mind for example you had
involuntary intoxication we will discuss
this concept later this can be used as a
defense it is you did not have the
guilty mind while doing the act because
it's one of the essentials of the
criminal in criminal act
next you can prove even if you had mens
Riya even if you were doing even if you
were doing the art with the knowledge of
its consequences you were justified in
doing the act for example self defense
if you are doing something and
preventing a loss to yourself or your
property under the defense of
self-defense
in that case you would not be held
liable and you can use this defense
let's discuss the defense of involuntary
toxication section 85 of Indian Penal
Code says this is a bare wording that I
am reading it out you can read it again
by pausing the video so that you will
have the better clarity of this
definition nothing is an offense which
is done by the person who at the time of
doing it is by reasonable toxification
reason by reason of intoxication
incapable of knowing the nature of the
Act this is very important phrase used
incapable of knowing the nature of the
act or that he is doing that which is
either wrong or contrary to law provided
that the thing which intoxicated him
was it administered to him without his
knowledge or against his will this is
second but important thing which is used
here the first one is here incapable of
knowing first and foremost thing to take
the defense of involuntary toxic
intoxication is it itself says that the
intoxication should be against the
knowledge of the person or against his
or her will for example somebody mixes
and call with your soft drinks in that
case it was administered without your
knowledge or even against your will if
you are forced to drink that so in that
case you would you can take the defense
of involuntary intoxication
so the clarification under Section 86
which is given is if you are not
intoxicated against your will then law
will ignore your intoxication in
deciding your guilt if you took alcohol
on your own then this defense is not
available to you while the court is
deciding your guilt another thing which
is important here is incapable of
knowing the nature of the Act even if
you were intoxicated in there if the
person is intoxicated to the extent that
the person has the knowledge and
capacity capacity to understand the
situation and the nature of act he is
doing in that case this would not be
available as a defense that person
should
that person is incapable to know the
nature of the app in that case only this
defense is available not other way round
let's take the example to understand the
concept better principle the same you
know your definition is given here you
can read it out let's go to the facts
straight away pokey is a regular at the
local bar knockout though he does not
consume alcohol one day at the bar
his friends mix alcohol with his apple
juice so it's a involuntary intoxication
after five glassy glasses pokies quite
drunk and leaves the bar after finding
the door with difficulty
so he's drunk he's intoxicated without
his will or without his knowledge he
spends some time outside admiring the
beautiful night sky he notices a person
walking down a dark alley near the bar
and sets off sets off behind him with a
view to steal his wallet when he nears
the person and asks him for his wallet
the person refuses and pokey beats simha
pokey is arrested and claims the defense
of intoxication so what were the
essentials we discuss let's go back to
the slide there are two things which
must be present first thing is it must
be without his knowledge or against his
will right which is present in this case
and second is that he must be incapable
of knowing the nature of the act so
first thing is there that the
intoxication was against his will
because his friends mix the alcohol with
his apple juice however there are two
things which provide for the capacity of
pokey to understand the situations are
the nature of fact which he was doing
first is when he finds out the person
that he was walking down the dark away
near the bar and then he sets off behind
him with the intention to steal his
wallet so he he had this capacity of
understanding that the person is walking
alone so he sets off behind him next
thing is he consciously asked the person
from this before his wallet
so he knew that he was asking the person
for his wallet for stealing it
the next thing is when he refuses he
beats him up so all these facts show
that the person was able to understand
what he was doing
right so in this case even after
intoxication his incapacity is not there
to understand the situation so the
defense of intoxication would not be
available to Porky because he did
everything under the conscious mind and
he knew whatever he was doing and the
nature of the that next concept we need
to discuss his right to self-defense the
self defense we have already discussed
in the case of in the deputies of toss
it means when you're protecting yourself
or your property against the imminent
danger by using you know warranted force
the force should be you know adequate
enough to protect the harm so it should
not be unwarranted or excessive force so
let's understand the ingredients of a
right to self-defense you should be
protecting your body or property or even
others in in the cases of others this
could be a tricky whole tricky area
wherein it would depend upon the facts
and circumstances whether you know
protecting others in certain
circumstances you would be given the
right to self-defense or not so this is
upon the circumstantial basis whether
the protection of other or others
property is covered under the right of
self-defense against an offense against
human body or property the protection
should be against the offense even if an
act is not an offense because of general
defense of intoxication and insanity
every person has the right of private
defense against that act which he would
have if the Act were end offense the
even if that act which is a know going
to harm the person is not an offense do
to the defense is available of
intoxication and insanity even in that
case the right of cyber defense would be
available right so it does not matter if
the person is aware of the fact that
it's not an offense the right of private
defense is
in every circumstance where when there
is a reasonable apprehension of danger
or when the danger has actually began so
the protection could be started in case
of reasonable apprehension of danger or
when the danger has actually begun the
apprehension of danger also provides you
the right of self-defense provided the
force uses you know adequate and not
excessive response must be a
proportionate like proportionate force
should be used the terminology or the
language is used here is a pin is not to
be warded off by a SWAT so warding off a
pin would be an unprofessional or
unwarranted force is used if it's warded
off by a SWAT so next thing is there is
no self defense against self-defense
self-defense is available against an
offense so they couldn't cannot be to
self defenses available in a single
situation there will be an offense and
there will be a self defense available
against that offense so there cannot be
a self defense against the self defense
so it's a very simple concept that you
can protect your body against the
imminent harm let's take a problem a
person may use reasonable force in order
to protect his property or person
however the force employed must be
proportionate and proportionate to the
danger post facts now Jabba was sleeping
in his Apple Garden to protect the apple
fruit from the thieves at midnight he
woke up by the noise of apple branches
falling down and saw a few dark people
armed with machetes it's a kind of a
thief or I guess uh you know to use for
killing somebody so kind of firm I can
say a nice a big knife it is called my
Sturgis mature tase in fact they
apparently did not notice Naja pause
presence Naja / shot at them with his
gun the shot killed one of the thieves
and the other fled from the scene Naja
power was sought to be prosecuted by the
police are for culpable homicide
Naja back lanes the right of
self-defense
so in this fact with the fact there was
no imminent danger of harm to none Joppa
even even in this case a thief's I've
had not noticed him like you know they
apparently did not notice him he used
excessive force by shorting one of them
so one of them was killed so it there
has to be a imminent danger to the
person on his property there was a
danger to the property of the person but
the force which he used by you know
firing a shot on them was a an excessive
force and thereby killing one person so
he cannot be given the right of
self-defense next concept is under
Section 378 of Indian Penal Code that is
theft let's take the bare wordings their
wording is the wording is used in the
Indian Penal Code
whoever intending to take there should
be an intention intending to take this
honestly any movable property so theft
is applicable in only in the cases of
movable property not immovable 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
there must be an intention to take do
not take the property movable property
out of the possession of the person
dishonestly without that persons
concerned and that moving would amount
to theft the ingredients of theft is are
intending to take dishonestly intention
of dishonest taking any movable property
out of the possession of a person
without his consent
the possession is the you know the word
of the use of word possession means that
the person need not to be the owner of
the person it could be any person who's
possessing the property so the ownership
is not necessary in the case of theft
moving that property in order to such
taking so there should be a movement of
that property offenses against the
possession and not the ownership like
like I already told you that Delhi not
to be the owner
and it the possession of the property is
enough so this these are the ingredients
of the theft let's take the problem the
principle is the same one who ever
intending to take the take dishonestly
any movable 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 let's take the facts we're upon
with his associates entered into our
government reserve forest with you to
take with you to taking out valuable
sandalwood trees reserved for it's all a
forest I I know
reserved by the government and nobody is
allowed to you know go into the forest
and or take out the prof any any of the
flora and fauna from the forest without
permission of Kerman so these people
will have bananas associate associates
entered the government reserved forest
and they wanted to take the valuable
sandalwood trees he selected the
sandalwood tree and started chopping it
suddenly the police appeared on the
scene and arrested him they seek to
prosecute with a bun and his associates
for theft sake state whether they will
succeed so let's start applying the in
the ingredients of theft so there was an
intention you know to take dishonestly
any movable property trees would turn
out to be movable property when they are
chopped up whenever a tree is chopped
out or cut in that case it would become
a movable property so they had the
intention to take trees that is movable
property dishonestly out of the
possession of the person that is the
person here would be government and they
wanted to take it out of their
possession without the person's consent
they did not take the consent or
permission to enter into the forest
because facts do not show that moves
that property in order to you know in
order of such taking so there is a
movement of that property and in this
case the trees are still there in the
forest and there is no movement so one
of the ingredients is missing so in this
case the government will not will not
succeed right so this is not the case of
theft because one of ten ingredients
that is very essential that is moving up
to property is not there they were still
in the process of cutting the trees and
they would have moved it if the police
had not arrived in time let's take the
next concept this is the diverting of
section for one fiber of Indian Penal
Code it defines cheating as whoever by
deceiving any person fraudulently or
dishonestly induces the person so
deceived to deliver the property to any
person or to the consent that person
shall retain any property or
intentionally induces the person so
deceived to do or omit to do which he
would not do or omit if they were not so
deceived and which the 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 by simplifying all the clauses of
section four one five the basic concept
that comes out to be is that you make
someone to do something that he would
not have otherwise done by fraudulently
deceiving him if the person was not
getting deceived the person would not
have done the act which you made him do
so in this case the basic basic concept
is you make the person do something or
ask him not to do something which that
person would not have otherwise done so
this is the basic concept of cheating
let's take the problem a person commits
cheating when he fraudulently induces
other person to deliver the latter's
property to him fax a falsely
represented to be a shop owner that he
is an officer from sales tax sales tax
department in the course of going
through the vouchers a expressed his
interest to buy a costly television on
installment basis be readily agreed
hoping that he would get a favor
we'll assessment from a regarding his
tax liability a paid the first
installment and took the TV and
disappeared he is caught and prosecuted
for cheating so in this case the person
has fraudulently and you know by falsely
representing himself to be a officer
from sales tax department had induced be
know by because he was giving the given
the hope that he might get favorable
assessment from the person so he was in
the position of inducing that person to
deliver the property that is T V in this
case so a were a a would be held liable
for chipping so in this case he would be
prosecuted and the government would
succeed so these are the concepts basic
concepts of criminal law thank you for
being with us