PREVIOUS QUESTION SOLUTION-2021

Penal laws

1. Crime, the intentional commission of an act usually deemed socially harmful or

dangerous and specifically defined, prohibited, and punishable under criminal law.

Most countries have enacted a criminal code in which all of the criminal law can be found,
though English law—the source of many other criminal-law systems—remains uncodified. The
definitions of particular crimes contained in a code must be interpreted in the light of many
principles, some of which may not actually be expressed in the code itself. For example, many
legal systems take into account the mental state of the accused person at the time
the alleged crime was committed. Most legal systems also classify crimes for the purpose of
assigning cases to different types of court. Social changes often result in the adoption of new
criminal laws and the obsolescence of older ones.

This article focuses on the definition and classification of crime, how it is measured and
detected, the characteristics of offenders, and the various stages of criminal proceedings. The
material draws principally from common, or Anglo-American, law, with supplementary treatment
of civil-law and other systems, including Islamic, African, and Chinese law. For full treatment of
particular legal aspects of crime, see criminal law; civil law; common law; court; police;
and procedural law. Particular legal systems are treated in Roman law; Germanic law; Chinese
law; Indian law; Sharīʿah (Islamic law); and Soviet law. Aspects related to crime are also
addressed in criminal justice; criminology; juvenile justice; parole; prison; and punishment.

The concept of crime: criminal codes

Criminal behaviour is defined by the laws of particular jurisdictions, and there are sometimes
vast differences between and even within countries regarding what types of behaviour are
prohibited. Conduct that is lawful in one country or jurisdiction may be criminal in another, and
activity that amounts to a trivial infraction in one jurisdiction may constitute a serious crime
elsewhere. Changing times and social attitudes may lead to changes in criminal law, so that
behaviour that was once criminal may become lawful. For example, abortion, once prohibited
except in the most unusual circumstances, is now lawful in many countries, as is homosexual
behaviour in private between consenting adults in most Western countries, though it remains a
serious offense in some parts of the world. Once criminal, suicide and attempted suicide have
been removed from the scope of criminal law in some jurisdictions. Indeed, in the U.S. state
of Oregon the Death with Dignity Act (passed in 1997) allows terminally ill individuals to end
their lives through the use of lethal medications prescribed by a physician. Nonetheless, the
general trend has been toward increasing the scope of criminal law rather than decreasing it,
and it has been more common to find that statutes create new criminal offenses rather than
abolishing existing ones. New technologies have given rise to new opportunities for their abuse,
which has led to the creation of new legal restrictions. Just as the invention of the motor vehicle
led to the development of a whole body of criminal laws designed to regulate its use, so the
widening use of computers and especially the Internet has created the need to legislate against
a variety of new abuses and frauds—or old frauds committed in new ways.

Essential element of crime

See the PQS of Criminology-2021 (1)
 CHAPTER III
OF PUNISHMENTS
Punishments
53. The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of this Code are,-

Firstly,- Death;

Secondly,- 2[Imprisonment for life];

Thirdly,-[Omitted by the Criminal Law (Extinction of Discriminatory Privileges) Act 1949 (Act No.
II of 1950].

Fourthly,-Imprisonment, which is of two descriptions, namely:-

(1) Rigorous, that is, with hard labour;

(2) Simple;

Fifthly,- Forfeiture of property;

Sixthly,- Fine.
3
[Explanation.-In the punishment of imprisonment for life, the imprisonment shall be rigorous.]
Construction of reference to transportation
4
[53A.(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any reference to “transportation for life” in
any other law for the time being in force shall be construed as a reference to “imprisonment for
life”.

(2) Any reference to transportation for a term or to transportation for a shorter term (by whatever
named called) in any other law for the time being in force shall be deemed to have been
omitted.

(3) Any reference to “transportation” in any other law for the time being in force shall

(a) if the expression means transportation for life, be construed as a reference to imprisonment
for life;

(b) if the expression means transportation for any shorter term, be deemed to have been
omitted.]
Commutation of sentence of death
54. In every case in which sentence of death shall have been passed, 5[the Government] may,
without the consent of the offender, commute the punishment for any other punishment provided
by this Code.
Commutation of sentence of 6[ imprisonment ] for life
55. In every case in which sentence of 7[imprisonment] for life shall have been passed, 8[the
Government] may, without the consent of the offender, commute the punishment for
imprisonment of either description for a term not exceeding 9[twenty] years.
Saving for President’s prerogative
10
[55A. Nothing in section fifty-four or section fifty-five shall derogate from the right of the
President to grant pardons, reprieves, respites or remissions of punishment.]
[Repealed]
56. [Repealed by Schedule of the Criminal Law (Extinction of Discriminatory Privileges Act,
1949 (Act No. II of 1950).]
Fractions of terms of punishment
57. In calculating fractions of terms of punishment, 11[imprisonment] for life shall be reckoned as
equivalent to 12[rigorous imprisonment for thirty years].
[Omitted]
58. [Omitted by section 6 of the Penal Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985 (Ordinance No. XLI
of 1985).]
[Omitted]
59. [Omitted by section 6 of the Penal Code (Amendment) Ordinance, 1985 (Ordinance No. XLI
of 1985).]
Sentence may be (in certain cases of imprisonment, wholly or partly rigorous or simple
60. In every case in which an offender is punishable with imprisonment which may be of either
description, it shall be competent to the Court which sentences such offender to direct in the
sentence that such imprisonment shall be wholly rigorous, or that such imprisonment shall be
wholly simple, or that any part of such imprisonment shall be rigorous and the rest simple.
[Repealed]
61. [Repealed by section 4 of the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1921 (Act No. XVI of
1921).]
[Repealed]
62. [Repealed by section 4 of the Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1921 (Act No. XVI of
1921).]
Amount of fine
63. Where no sum is expressed to which a fine may extend, the amount of fine to which the
offender is liable is unlimited, but shall not be excessive.
Sentence of imprisonment for non-payment of fine
64. In every case of an offence punishable with imprisonment as well as fine, in which the
offender is sentenced to a fine, whether with or without imprisonment,

and in every case of an offence punishable with imprisonment or fine, or with fine only, in which
the offender is sentenced to a fine,

it shall be competent to the Court which sentences such offender to direct by the sentence that,
in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall suffer imprisonment for a certain term, which
imprisonment shall be in excess of any other imprisonment to which he may have been
sentenced or to which he may be liable under a commutation of a sentence.
Limit to imprisonment for non-payment of fine, when imprisonment and fine awardable
65. The term for which the Court directs the offender to be imprisoned in default of payment of a
fine shall not exceed one-fourth of the term of imprisonment which is the maximum fixed for the
offence, if the offence be punishable with imprisonment as well as fine.
Description of imprisonment for non-payment of fine
66. The imprisonment which the Court imposes in default of payment of a fine may be of any
description to which the offender might have been sentenced for the offence.
Imprisonment for non-payment of fine, when offence punishable with fine only
67. If the offence be punishable with fine only, the imprisonment which the Court imposes in
default of payment of the fine shall be simple, and the term for which the Court directs the
offender to be imprisoned, in default of payment of fine, shall not exceed the following scale,
that is to say, for any term not exceeding two months when the amount of the fine shall not
exceed fifty taka, and for any term not exceeding four months when the amount shall not exceed
one hundred taka, and for any term not exceeding six months in any other case.
Imprisonment to terminate on payment of fine
68. The imprisonment which is imposed in default of payment of a fine shall terminate whenever
that fine is either paid or levied by process of law.
Termination of imprisonment on payment of propor-tional part of fine
69. If, before the expiration of the term of imprisonment fixed in default of payment, such a
proportion of the fine be paid or levied that the term of imprisonment suffered in default of
payment is not less than proportional to the part of the fine still unpaid, the imprisonment shall
terminate.

Illustration

A is sentenced to a fine of one hundred taka and four months imprisonment in default of
payment. Here, if seventy-five taka of the fine be paid or levied before the expiration of one
month of the imprisonment, A will be discharged as soon as the first month has expired. If
seventy-five taka be paid or levied at the time of the expiration of the first month, or at any later
time while A continues in imprisonment, A will be immediately discharged. If fifty taka of the fine
be paid or levied before the expiration of the two months of the imprisonments, A will be
discharged as soon as the two months are completed. If fifty taka be paid or levied at the time
the expiration of those two months, or at any later time while A continues in imprisonment, A will
be immediately discharged.
Fine leviable within six years, or during imprisonment Death not to discharge property
from liability
70. The fine, or any part thereof which remains unpaid, may be levied at any time within six
years after the passing of the sentence, and if, under the sentence, the offender be liable to
imprisonment for a longer period than six years, then at any time previous to the expiration of
that period; and the death of the offender does not discharge from the liability of any property
which would, after his death, be legally liable for his debts.
Limit of punishment of offence made up of several offences
71. Where anything which is an offence is made up of parts, any of which parts is itself an
offence, the offender shall not be punished with the punishment of more than one of such his
offences, unless it be so expressly provided.

Where anything is an offence falling within two or more separate definitions of any law in force
for the time being by which offences are defined or punished, or

Where several acts, of which one or more than one would by itself or themselves constitute an
offence, constitute, when combined, a different offence,

the offender shall not be punished with a more severe punishment than the Court which tries
him could award for any one of such offences.

Illustrations

(a) A gives Z fifty strokes with a stick. Here A may have committed the offence of voluntarily
causing hurt to Z by the whole beating, and also by each of the blows which make up the whole
beating. If A were liable to punishment for every blow, he might be imprisoned for fifty years,
one for each blow. But he is liable only to one punishment for the whole beating.
(b) But if, while A is beating Z, Y interferes, and A intentionally strikes Y, here, as the blow given
to Y is no part of the act whereby A voluntarily causes hurt to Z, A is liable to one punishment for
voluntarily causing hurt to Z, and to another for the blow given to Y.
Punishment of person guilty of one of several offences, the judgment stating that it is
doubtful of which
72. In all cases in which judgment is given that a person is guilty of one of several offences
specified in the judgment, but that it is doubtful of which these offences he is guilty, the offender
shall be punished for the offence for which the lowest punishment is provided if the same
punishment is not provided for all.
Solitary confinement
73. Whenever any person is convicted of an offence for which under this Code the Court has
power to sentence him to rigorous imprisonment, the Court may, by its sentence, order that the
offender shall be kept in solitary confinement for any portion or portions of the imprisonment to
which he is sentenced, not exceeding three months in the whole, according to the following
scale, that is to say

a time not exceeding one month if the term of imprison-ment shall not exceed six months:

a time not exceeding two months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed six months and shall
not exceed one year:

a time not exceeding three months if the term of imprisonment shall exceed one year.
Limit of solitary confinement
74. In executing a sentence of solitary confinement, such confinement shall in no case exceed
fourteen days at a time, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less
duration than such periods, and when the imprisonment awarded shall exceed three months,
the solitary confinement shall not exceed seven days in any one month of the whole
imprisonment awarded, with intervals between the periods of solitary confinement of not less
duration than such periods.
Enhanced punishment for certain offences under Chapter XII or Chapter XVII after
previous conviction
75. Whoever, having been convicted,

(a) by a Court in Bangladesh of an offence punishable under Chapter XII or Chapter XVII of this
Code with imprisonment of either description for a term of three years or upwards; 13[* * *]

(b) [Omitted by section 3 and 2nd Schedule of the Bangladesh Laws (Revision And Declaration)
Act, 1973 (Act No. VIII of 1973).]

shall be guilty of any offence punishable under either of those Chapters with like imprisonment
for the like term, shall be

subject for every such subsequent offence to 14[imprisonment] for life, or to imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to ten years.

2. Right of Private Defences:

CHAPTER IV

GENERAL EXCEPTIONS
 Of the Right of the Private Defence
Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is risk of harm to innocent
person
106. If in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which reasonably causes
the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that
right without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defence extends to the
running of that risk.

Illustration

A is attacked by a mob who attempt to murder him. He cannot effectually exercise his right of
private defence without firing on the mob, and he cannot fire without risk of harming young
children who are mingled with the mob. A commits no offence if by so firing he harms any of the
children.

Punishing someone without lawful authority is not accepted in any civilised legal system. This
principle applies to irrespective of any innocent or accused person under trial. Inflicting
punishment is the absolute authority of the State mechanism. However, it does not necessarily
mean that no one can prevent any crime that is going to happen before him/her. It is reasonably
expected that citizens ought to protest against oppression and be the defenders against any
unjust act. But this protest must be reasonable and in a defensive mode.

Defending one's own life and property against any kind of offence has been recognized in the
legal system of Bangladesh through the idea of 'private defence' in its Penal Code, 1860.
According to section 96 of such, nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right
of private defence. According to section 97, anyone has the right to defend his/her own body or
property and of another person facing threats as such.

The law of private defence is founded on two principles: firstly, everyone has the right to defend
one's own body and property as also the body and property of another. Secondly, the right
cannot be used as a matter of pretention for justifying aggression. This right can never be
exercised to take revenge over the alleged offender but rather only as a means of one's own
protection; it is not reckless, unrestricted and absolute right.

However, private defence must be weighed with due prudence. It is totally justified on certain
circumstances. As per the aforementioned sections of penal code, it is clear that an unlawful
offender can never claim private defence. Anyone claiming this right should use force only
intending to prostrate the offender or make the offender disable so that he/she would not be
able to commit the crime. Killing of the offender should not be the primary intention unless
he/she faces death apprehension.

Section 99 of the Code limits the rights of private defence in three cases. Firstly, where a public
servant does an act strictly in accordance with law, he/she commits no offence at all; and in that
scene private defence will not be applicable. Secondly, if a public servant acts in good faith
without his jurisdiction, there is no private defence unless it causes an apprehension of death or
grievous hurt. Lastly, if any person gets enough time to take protection of the public authorities,
the right of private defence is not applicable to him.
Section 100 of Penal Code provides that right of private defence of body extends to causing
death or any other harm to the assailant, where the assault can either reasonable cause the
apprehension of death, grievous hurt, rape, gratification, unnatural lust, kidnapping or abduction
or wrongful confinement.

According to section 102 of the Code, the right of defence in case of body commences as soon
as a reasonable apprehension of death of the body arises from a threat or attempt to commit the
offence and ends when the other party is disposed of the weapon. In case of property, the right
of private defence commences when there is a reasonable apprehension of danger to the
property. The right in relation to the property continues till the apprehension of danger or actual
danger ceases. In case of right to private defence, the burden of proof lies on the person who
claims he/she has exercised this right.

When the right of private defense of the body extends to causing death

The law authorizes a man who is under a reasonable apprehension that his life is in danger or
his body in risk of grievous hurt to inflict death upon his assailant either when the assault is
attempted or directly threatened, but it must be proportionate to or commensurate with the
quality and character of the act it is intended to meet and what is done in excess is not
protected.

The right of private defence of the body extends to the causing of death or any other harm to the
assailant under the following circumstances:

 An assault causing reasonable apprehension of death.

 An assault causing reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt.
 An assault with the intention of committing rape.
 An assault with intention of kidnapping or abducting.
 An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust.
 An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person under circumstances which
may cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public
authorities for his release.

Any harm short of death can be inflicted in exercising the right of private defence in any case,
which do not fall under the above circumstances

The right of private defence commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to

the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence, though the offence may not
have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body
continues

Punishment

The Court will decide the punishment after considering whether there was a reasonable
apprehension of death or not.

3. Def of Hurt

CHAPTER XVI
 OF OFFENCES AFFECTING THE HUMAN BODY

Of Hurt
Hurt
319. Whoever causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is said to cause hurt.

Simple Hurt
Hurt may be described as the bodily pain that is resulting from real contact with the frame by an
aggravated assault. There’s no radical difference between assault and harm. Section 319 of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter “IPC”) defines hurt as: “whoever reasons bodily pain, disorder
or disease to any man or woman is said to have caused harm.” The section does not outline the
offence of inflicting harm. It defines best the time period hurt and does not describe the situations
underneath which it can be brought on.

To constitute any one or more of essentials of simple hurt must be present:

 Bodily Pain
 Infirmity to another
 Disease

Bodily Pain
According to Section 319 of the Indian Penal Code, whoever causes bodily ache, disorder or
disease to any individual is said to cause hurt. The expression ‘physical pain’ means that the
pain must be physical instead of any mental pain. So mentally or emotionally hurting anyone will
no longer be ‘harm’ inside the meaning of Section 319. However, to be covered under this
section, it isn’t always important that any visible injury should be precipitated at the sufferer. All
that the section contemplates is the inflicting of bodily pain. The diploma or severity of the ache
or pain isn’t a fabric element to decide whether Section 319 will apply or not. The duration of
ache or pain is immaterial. Pulling a girl with her hair would amount to hurt.
In the State vs Ramesh Dass on 22 May 2015 In a hospital, passing through the corridor, in the
new surgical block location, an unknown public individual came from the front and attacked the
woman. That individual pulled her hair and threw her to the ground. He hit her on her head
together with his hand. Accused was convicted for the offences under Section 341 and 323 of
the IPC and acquitted for the offence under Section 354 of the IPC.

Infirmity to another
Infirmity denotes the bad state of frame of mind and a state of transient intellectual impairment
or hysteria or terror would constitute disease inside the meaning of this expression inside the
section. It is an incapability of an organ to carry out its everyday function, whether temporarily or
completely. It may be delivered through the administration of a toxic or poisonous substance or
by means of taking alcohol administered by way of any other person.
Jashanmal Jhamatmal vs Brahmanand Swarupanand [AIR 1944 Sind 19]:In this situation, the
respondent has been evicted with the aid of the owner. He attempts to get revenge via vacating
others from that constructing too. Respondent later confronted with A’s spouse with a pistol in
his hand.

Disease
A communication of ailment or disease from one individual to another through the way of touch
would constitute hurt. But, the idea is unclear with respect to the transmission of sexual
sicknesses from one individual to every other. For instance, a prostitute who had intercourse
with a person and thereby communicated syphilis changed into held in charge under Section
269 of the IPC for spreading infection and not for inflicting hurt due to the fact that the interval
between the act and sickness turned into too far away to attract Section 319 of the IPC.

CHAPTER XVI
OF OFFENCES AFFECTING THE HUMAN BODY

Of Hurt
Grievous hurt
320. The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous":-

Firstly.-Emasculation.

Secondly.-Permanent privation of the sight of either eye.

Thirdly.-Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear.

Fourthly.-Privation of any member or joint.

Fifthly.-Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint.

Sixthly.-Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.

Seventhly.-Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth.

Eighthly.-Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of
twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.

Distinguish between hurt and grievous hurt

BASIS SIMPLE HURT GRIEVOUS HURT

Law pertaining to the Section 319 defines simple Section 320 defines grievous hurt as
act hurt as whoever causes a hurt that is more than a little
bodily injury, pain, sickness, causing harm as defined in section
or disability to another person 95 of the IPC and less than culpable
by an act; such conduct is homicide. If the injury ends in death
termed simple hurt. and meets the standards of Section
299, it is considered culpable
homicide; otherwise, it is considered
grievous hurt.
Intensity and nature of The risk to one's life is less In grievous hurt, the injuries are
the crime severe than the case of caused to the body's essential
grievous hurt. Thus, it is less organs like the eye, Ear, joints,
severe than grievous hurt. permanent face or head
disfiguration, fracture, etc.
Type of injury caused In simple hurt, the injuries In grievous hurt, the injuries
 to its victim caused are bodily pain, arecaused to the body's essential
disease, infirmity, etc organs like the eye, Ear, joints,
permanent face or head
disfiguration, fracture, etc.
Bailable/ Non- Bailable Simple hurt is non-cognizable Grievous hurt is cognizable,
and bailable. bailable.
Law pertaining to Punishment of simple hurt is Punishment of grievous hurt is
Penalty described underSec. 323 of described underSec. 325 of the IPC.
the IPC.

Punishment for Punishment for Simple hurt is Punishment for grievous hurt is
committing the crime one-year imprisonment ora imprisonment which may be
fine of Rs. 1000/- or both. extended up to seven years with a
fine.

Grievous Hurt
The draftsman of IPC found it tough to draw a line among those physical hurts, which can be
severe, and people who are moderate. However, they special certain types of hurts as grievous
hurt.

The following kinds of hurt only are termed as “grievous”:

1. Emasculation,
2. Permanent injury to eyesight or either of the eye,
3. Permanent deafness or injury to either of the eye,
4. Privation of any member or joint (loss of limb),
5. Impairing of Limb,
6. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face,
7. Fracture or dislocation of a bone or tooth,
8. Any hurt which risks life or which causes the victim to be during the time of twenty
days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.
(a) Emasculation: The first type of grievous hurt is depriving a person of his virility. This clause
is confined to men and was inserted to counteract the practice commonplace in India for women
to squeeze men’s testicles at the slightest provocation. Emasculation can be resulting from
causing such harm to the scrotum of a person as has the effect of rendering him impotent. The
impotency prompted ought to be permanent, and no longer simply temporary and curable.

(b) Injuring eyesight: Some other injury of identical gravity is the permanent deprivation of the
sight of either eye or of both the eyesight. Such harm has to have the effect of permanently
depriving the injured of the usage of one or both of his eyes. The test of gravity is the
permanency of the harm because it deprives a person of the usage of his sight and additionally
disfigures him.
(c) Inflicting deafness: The everlasting deprivation of hearing of both ears is less serious than
the above-mentioned harm as it does no longer disfigure a person, however handiest deprives
him of using his ear. But, it’s serious damage depriving someone of his sense of listening to.
The deafness has to be permanent to attract this provision. Such harm may be resulting from
blow given on head, ear or the one’s elements of the head which speak with and injure the
auditory nerves or with the aid of thrusting a stick into the ear or placing into ear a substance
which reasons deafness.

(d) Loss of limb: Everlasting deprivation of any member or joint is some other grievous
hurt, whereby a person is rendered much less able to guard himself or to harass his adversary.
‘member’ method not anything extra than an organ or a limb. ‘Joint’ refers to an area where two
or more bones or muscle mass be a part of. Their permanent deprivation needs to involve such
damage to them as makes them permanently stiff, so that they are not able to perform the
everyday function assigned to the human body structure.

(e) Impairing of a limb: The deprivation of a person to the use of member or joint includes
lifelong crippling and makes a person defenceless and depressing. The provision speaks of
destruction or permanent impairing of their powers, which might encompass no longer only
overall however additionally a particular use of the limb or joint. Any permanent decrease of
their utility would constitute grievous hurt.

(f) Everlasting disfiguration of the pinnacle or face: ‘Disfigure’ means to do a person a few
outside hurts which detract from his private look, but does not weaken him. Branding a ladies
cheek with red warm iron, it leaves permanent scars, amounts to disfiguration. a cut at the
bridge of the nostrils of a woman due to a sharp weapon has been held to be everlasting
disfigurement despite the fact that the inner wall become intact.

(g) Fracture or dislocation of a bone or teeth: It’s far every other species of grievous harm,
which may additionally or may not be attended with everlasting disability. A fractured or
dislocated bone may be set or rejoin, but on account of the extreme suffering to which it gives
upward thrust, the harm is named as grievous. The number one means of the word fracture is
‘breaking’, though it isn’t always essential in case of fracture of the cranium bone that it should
be divided into separate parts due to the fact it may consist simply of a crack; but if it is a crack,
it must be a crack which extends from the outer floor of the skull to the inner surface. If there
may be spoil with the aid of cutting or splintering of the bone or there is a break or gap in it,
would add up to a crack inside the importance of clause 7 of Section 320. What must be seen is
whether the cuts during the bones saw in the damage report are just shallow or do they impact a
break in them. ‘Dislocation’ implies dislodging, being applied to a bone expelled from its typical
associations with a neighbouring bone. A bone moved out of its attachment or put out of its joint
is a disjoint bone.

(h) Any hurt which risks life or which causes the victim to be during the time of days in severe
bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits.

 Dangerous hurt: Three distinct classes of hurt are assigned as risky or dangerous
hurt. These classes are autonomous of one another and hurt of any of the three
classes would be grievous hurt. Injury is said to endanger life in the event that it might
 put the life of the harmed in danger. Basic injury can’t be called offensive or grievous
since it happens to be caused on an indispensable piece of the body except if the
nature and measurements of the damage, or its belongings, are with the end goal that
in the assessment of the specialist, it really endangers the life of the victim. There is
an exceptionally meagre line of distinction between ‘hurt which endangers life’ and
‘injury as is probably going to cause death’. In Mohammad Rafi v. Emperor, the
accused caused damage on the neck of the perished from behind, the Lahore High
Court held the accused at risk for under Section 322 (intentionally causing grievous
hurt) for causing demise by grievous hurt as against guilty of culpable homicide not
adding up to the murder. The articulation ‘endangers life’ is a lot more grounded than
the articulation ‘risky or dangerous to life’. With a perspective on the reality of the
damage bringing about the weakening of the person in question for a base time of
twenty days, the Indian Penal Code has assigned certain hurts as grievous however
they probably won’t be fundamentally risky or dangerous to life. A hurt may cause
extreme substantial and severe bodily pain, but not be dangerous to life. Such a hurt
is grievous hurt. In any case, it must be indicated that such hurt was adequate to
cause serious bodily pain for twenty days. Else, it might happen that such agony or
pain was caused yet there might be nothing to show that it was caused in outcomes of
that damage. In conclusion, the trial of terribleness is the sufferer’s failure to take care
of his standard interests for a time of twenty days. On the off chance that, where the
impact of damage doesn’t last for twenty days, such a hurt can’t be assigned as
grievous.
Click Above

Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt

Section 322 of the IPC characterizes ‘deliberately causing grievous hurt’ as pursues: Whoever
deliberately causes hurt, if the hurt which he expects to cause or realizes that himself will
generally be prone to cause is grievous hurt, and if the hurt which he causes is grievous hurt, is
said “willfully to cause grievous hurt.” Explanation-An individual isn’t said willfully to cause
grievous hurt with the exception of when he, the two causes grievous hurt and means or
realizes that he generally will probably cause grievous hurt. Be that as it may, he is said
intentionally to cause offensive hurt, if proposing or realizing that himself generally will probably
cause grievous hurt of one kind, he actually causes grievous hurt of another sort. The
clarification is undeniable and self-evident.

In any case, there must be proof that what the accused had planned or known to be likely wasn’t
only hurt, yet grievous hurt. So as to attract this provision, Court needs to see that the accused
expected to cause hurt, or that he realized that grievous hurt is probably going to be caused and
that such grievous hurt is really caused. Regardless of whether the individual knows himself
prone to cause grievous hurt, he is said to be intentionally causing terrible hurt. All together that
an individual might be held liable for an offence of causing grievous hurt, it must be
demonstrated that he either expected to cause or realized that himself will generally be liable to
cause grievous hurt and not otherwise. The prerequisite in the clarification will be fulfilled if the
guilty party had the information that by his demonstration he was probably going to cause
grievous hurt. Clarification clarifies that either the element of aim or on the other hand that of
information must be available so as to establish the offence of grievous hurt. So as to decide if
the hurt is intolerable one, the degree of the hurt and the expectation of the guilty party must be
considered.

Section 325 of the IPC recommends the discipline for intentionally causing hurt as pursues:
Whoever, aside from for the situation accommodated by Section 335, willfully causes grievous
hurt, will be rebuffed with the detainment of either portrayal for a term which may stretch out to
seven years, and will likewise be obligated to fine. An individual is said to willfully cause
grievous hurt when the hurt brought about by him, is of the idea of any sort of hurts listed in
Section 320 of the IPC, and he expects or realizes that himself will generally be likely to cause
grievous hurt. In Kalika Singh v. Province of Uttar Pradesh, a few wounds caused to
complainant by blamed by clench hands and lathi incorporated a break caused to one side
thumb by his fall on the ground during his beating by the accused. The Allahabad High Court
held that the accused was liable under Section 325, even though the fracture was caused by the
fall and not by the lathi. Sections 326, 329 331, 333, 335 and 338 prescribe punishment for
causing grievous hurt under various other circumstances.

Causing Hurt or Grievous Hurt by “Dangerous Weapons”

As indicated by Section 320, grievous hurt means hurt which brings about a particular sort of
explicit wounds. These wounds incorporate deprivation of eyes or ears, harm to joints,
undermining, and so on. Section 326 fundamentally depicts an irritating type of unfortunate hurt.
Under this offence, the deplorable hurt must outcome from instruments of firing (weapons),
wounding or cutting (blades). It can likewise emerge from different weapons which are probably
going to cause demise or death. Indeed, even explosives, harms, destructive substances or
flames bringing about grievous hurt attract this provision. Since the odds of offensive wounds
are progressively under these conditions, the discipline is likewise increasingly serious. An
accused under Section 326 can be punished with life detainment or detainment as long as 10
years.

Causing Hurt or Grievous Hurt on Provocation

1. Willfully causing hurt on provocation (Sec. 334)

“Whoever deliberately causes hurt on grave and sudden provocation, on the off chance that he
neither means nor realizes that himself will generally probably make hurt any individual other
than the individual who provoked, will be rebuffed with detainment of either description for a
term which may reach out to one month, or with fine which may stretch out to 500 rupees, or
with both.”

2. Intentionally causing offensive hurt on incitement (Sec. 335)

“Whoever intentionally causes grievous hurt on grave and unexpected incitement or
provocation, on the off chance that he neither expects nor realizes that himself will generally
probably make intolerable hurt any individual other than the individual who gave the incitement
or provoked him, will be rebuffed with detainment of either depiction for a term which may reach
out to four years, or with fine which may stretch out to 2,000 rupees, or with both.
Explanation:-

The last two sections are dependent upon the same provision as Exception 1, Section 300.”

The fundamental elements of Sections 334 and 335 are as per the following:

1. The guilty party ought to intentionally cause hurt or shocking hurt;

2. It ought to be caused by provocation;
3. The incitement caused ought to be both grave and abrupt;
4. He ought not wished or intended to cause hurt to any individual other than the
individual who incited;
5. He ought not to have information that his demonstration is probably going to make
harmed or offensive hurt any individual other than the individual who incited.
All together that Sections 334 and 335 ought to apply, it is critical to building up that there was
incitement and such incitement was grave and abrupt. On the off chance that the incitement is
just unexpected yet not grave, the offence won’t be one culpable under both of these Sections.
Thus, if the incitement is just grave and not unexpected, the demonstration won’t add up to an
offence under these sections. The trial or check of ‘grave and unexpected’ incitement is whether
a sensible man having a place with a similar class of society as the accused, put in the
circumstance in which the accused was set, would be so incited as to lose his control. In the
event that the hurt caused is basic hurt, at that point the discipline endorsed under Section 334
is detainment of either depiction, which may stretch out to one month or with fine which may
reach out to Rs. 500 or with both. On the off chance that the hurt is grievous hurt, at that point
the discipline endorsed under Section 335 is detainment of either depiction for a term which may
reach out to four years or with fine which may stretch out to Rs. 2000 or with both. The offence
under Sections 334 and 335 is cognizable however summons will usually issue in the main
example. It is bailable, compoundable and is triable by a Magistrate.

Dangerous Weapons or Dangerous Means

In criminal law, the expression, “dangerous weapon” alludes to a gun, or whatever another
article that is utilized or proposed to be utilized so that it could make demise or genuine damage
another individual. Legitimately, the term is a lot more extensive than what many people think.
For example, respondents who have been seen as liable of ambush with a savage weapon
have acted in an accompanying way:

 Assaulting somebody with a bat or other sports equipment

 Employing a blade at somebody, expecting to harm her
 Pointing a firearm at somebody’s head and taking steps to pull the trigger
 Deliberately utilizing a vehicle to hit another driver or person on foot
 Pursuing an individual with a hatchet
Notwithstanding firearms and blades, different things can be utilized as lethal or dangerous
weapons. A couple of models include broken jugs, hounds, control instruments, cultivating
devices, gruff items, pontoons, and any mechanized vehicles. There is a motivation behind why
the law is expansive, and that is to keep away from any escape clauses in figuring out what
comprises a dangerous weapon. Fundamentally, anything that can prompt incredible substantial
damage and additionally passing is culpable in an official courtroom. In certain states, an
individual’s hands, feet, and teeth may all be utilized as destructive weapons. In spite of the fact
that the human body itself is anything but a lethal weapon, it can positively be utilized to cause
someone else extraordinary real hurt or demise/death. Different states, for example, California
characterize a lethal weapon as an article that is outer to the human body. Be that as it may,
California additionally has a provision that expresses “any methods for power liable to create
extraordinary substantial damage,” which would warrant an attack with a dangerous weapon
charge. On the off chance that somebody assaults an individual by stifling, kicking, or punching,
he could confront attack with a fatal weapon. A vehicle is viewed as a lethal and dangerous
weapon in situations where the driver planned to hit another driver or walker. Some driving
impaired cases are additionally accused as an attack of a lethal or dangerous weapon.

Causing Grievous Hurt by use of Acid

As per Section 326A of Indian Penal Code,” Whoever makes changeless or halfway harm or
distortion, or consumes or mutilates or distorts or cripples, any part or parts of the body of an
individual or causes offensive hurt by tossing corrosive on or by regulating corrosive to that
individual, or by utilizing some other methods with the expectation of causing or with the
information that he is probably going to cause such hurt, will be rebuffed with
detainment/imprisonment of either portrayal for a term which will not be under ten years
however which may stretch out to detainment forever(life imprisonment), and with fine.

“According to Section 326B of Indian Penal Code,” Whoever tosses or endeavors to toss
corrosive on any individual or endeavors to control corrosive to any individual, or endeavors to
utilize some other methods, with the aim of causing lasting or fractional harm or deformation or
distortion or inability or grievous hurt to that individual, will be rebuffed with detainment of either
depiction for a term which will not be under five years yet which may reach out to seven years,
and will likewise be subject to fine.” Section 357B of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 sets
down, ” The remuneration payable by the State Government under Section 357A will be
notwithstanding the payment of fine to the unfortunate casualty under Section 326A or Section
376D of IPC. Section 357C of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 sets out, “All emergency clinics,
public or private, regardless of whether run by the Central Government, nearby bodies or some
other individual, will quickly give the emergency treatment or therapeutic treatment, free of cost,
to the casualties of any offense secured under Section 326A, 376, 376A, 376C, 376D or 376E of
IPC and will promptly educate the police about such an incident.

Recently included seventh provision of Section 100 of the IPC sets out that the privilege of
private barrier of body stretches out to deliberately causing death or of some other damage to
the attacker in the event of a demonstration of tossing or managing corrosive or an endeavour
to toss or regulate corrosive which may sensibly cause the dread that terrible hurt will generally
be the result of such act. For the first time remuneration was given to corrosive unfortunate
casualty on account of Laxmi v UOI. In Morepally Venkatasree Nagesh v State of AP, the
accused was suspicious about the character for his significant other and emptied mercuric
chloride into her vagina, she later kicked the bucket because of renal disappointment. The
accused was charged under Section 302 and 307 of the IPC. In the State of Karnataka by
Jalahalli Police Station v Joseph Rodrigues, one of the most popular cases including corrosive
assault. The accused tossed corrosive on a young lady named Hasina for declining his
employment bid. Because of the corrosive assault, the shading and presence of her face
changed which left her visually impaired. The accused was convicted under Section 307 for IPC
and condemned to detainment forever(life imprisonment). Remuneration of Rs 2,00,000
notwithstanding Trial Court fine of Rs 3,00,000 was to be paid by the accused to the guardians
for the victim.

The previously mentioned cases are obvious of the brutal repercussions looked by the
unfortunate casualties because of the corrosive assaults. The administration is still in the quest
for stringent measures.

Causing Hurt or Grievous Hurt to Extort Property

Under Section 330, the guilty party causes hurt for coercing an admission or data identifying
with an offence or unfortunate behaviour. This, for the most part, applies to cops or police
officers who mischief accused people to compel them to admit. The coercion on the unfortunate
casualty can likewise happen to blackmail such admission or data from someone else. This hurt
can likewise occur to oblige the unfortunate casualty to reestablish some property or significant
security. For instance, an income official may torment an individual to propel him to settle up
back payments of land income. Discipline for Section 330 incorporates
detainment/imprisonment as long as 7 years alongside a fine. Section 331 is like Section 330
however it identifies grievous hurt rather than simply basic hurt. Since grievous hurt is
progressively extreme, the discipline can reach out to detainment for a long time rather than 7
years.

Causing Hurt by Means of Poison

Under this provision, the guilty party must manage toxic substance or some other stunning, or
unwholesome medication to the person in question. The guilty party must do as such with the
aim of causing hurt or for submitting or encouraging an offence. Such a goal is significant and
no offence emerges without it. Discipline for Section 328 incorporates detainment as long as 10
years with fine. Whoever directs to or causes to be taken by any individual any toxic substance
or any stunning, or unwholesome medication like poison, or other thing with plan to make hurt
such individual, or with aim to submit or to encourage the commission of an offence or realizing
that it will generally be likely that he will in this manner cause hurt, will be rebuffed with
detainment of either portrayal for a term which may stretch out to ten years, and will likewise be
at risk to fine.”

Coming up next are the basic elements of Section 328:

1. The wrongdoer ought to manage a toxic stunning or unwholesome medication; or

2. Such an individual ought to be with the goal to cause hurt; or
 3. With an aim to submit or encourage the commission of an offence; or
4. Such an individual ought to be with the information that it is probably going to cause
hurt.
The object of Section 328 is clearly to rebuff people who violate others by putting them out of
their faculties by methods for stunning medications, which encourages the commission of
wrongdoing as well as in an incredible measure counteracts its recognition. In any case, there
must be the regulating of any toxic substance, and so forth., making it be taken by another. The
words ‘any individual’ means any individual other than the guilty party. The words ‘manage’ and
’cause to be taken’ are planned to apply to two particular strategies for conferring poison and so
on. The principal refers to the giving of toxic substance legitimately to the sufferer, while the
expression ’cause to be taken’ refer to a taking by the sufferer under conditions when he was
not a free operator to do something else.

The models for regulating ‘unwholesome medication’ are:

1. the juice of certain leaves to certain residents by method for the experience;
2. powder of dhatura to a lady to loot her adornments while she was silly;
3. a spouse, not knowing the hazardous properties of aconite, managed it to her
significant other by blending it in with his nourishment and he kicked the bucket;
4. where an accused directed a poisonous substance to an individual so as to burglarize
him when the individual was oblivious or stunned, it would be an occurrence of
overseeing inebriating substance for encouraging the commission of an offence. The
offence under Section 328 is finished regardless of whether no hurt is caused to the
individual to whom the toxic or some other stunning or unwholesome medication is
given. Under Section 324 genuine causing of hurt is basic; under Section 328
unimportant organization of toxin is adequate to carry the guilty party to equity. This
offence is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable and is triable by the Court of
Session. The most extreme discipline awardable under Section 328 is thorough
detainment stretching out as long as ten years.

Causing Hurt or Grievous Hurt to Deter Public Servants

1. Deliberately causing hurt to deter public servant from his obligation (Sec. 332)
“Whoever willfully hurts any individual being a community worker/public servant in the release of
his obligation all things considered local official, or with aim to forestall or hinder that individual
or some other local official from releasing his obligation in that capacity local official, or in result
of anything done or endeavored to be finished by that individual in the legitimate release of his
obligation accordingly local official, will be rebuffed with detainment of either portrayal for a term
which may stretch out to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

2. Deliberately making grievous hurt to deter public servant from his obligation (Sec.
333)
“Whoever intentionally makes grievous hurt any individual being a local official in the release of
his obligation all things considered community worker, or with goal to avoid or deflect that
individual or some other local official from releasing his obligation all things considered local
official, or in outcome of anything done or endeavoured to be finished by that individual in the
legitimate release of his obligation all things considered local official, will be rebuffed with
detainment of either portrayal for a term which may reach out to ten years, and will likewise be
at risk to fine.”

Coming up next are the fundamental elements of Sections 332 and 333:

1. The guilty party ought to willfully hurt or grievous hurt a local official or public servant;
2. It ought to be caused:
a) When the community worker acted in the release of his obligations;

b) To avoid or dissuade that local official or some other community worker from releasing his
obligation; or

c) In the outcome of anything done or endeavoured to be finished by the local official in

the release of his obligation.

The term ‘public servant’ is characterized under Section 21 of the Code. Section 332 and 333
apply just if the local official was acting in the release of his obligation as a community worker or
it ought to be demonstrated that it was the expectation of the blamed to avoid or stop the public
servant from releasing his obligation. The articulation ‘in the release of his obligation all things
considered local official’ signifies in the release of an obligation forced by law on such
community worker in the specific case, and doesn’t cover a demonstration done by him in
accordance with some basic honesty under the shade of his office. The obligation need not be
to do a particular demonstration. ‘Counteractive action’ alludes or refers to a phase when the
execution of the obligation is entered upon; ‘hinder’ refers to a phase when it has not been at
this point entered upon. “Or on the other hand in result of anything done” where case the attack
would be submitted by method for the counter. These words show that the offence under the
section can be submitted not just when an individual is attacked while he is releasing an open
obligation yet in addition when he is attacked in the outcome of the release of his obligation.

Section 353 of the Code also manages criminal attack on community worker to discourage him
from the release of his obligation. People other than community workers who may go with them
for help and direction are not qualified to guarantee unique security under Sections 332 and
333. The offence under Section 332 is cognizable and warrant ought to customarily issue in the
principal occurrence. It is non-bailable and not compoundable and is triable by a Magistrate of
the top of the line. The offence under Section 333 is cognizable, however, warrant ought to
commonly issue in the primary occurrence. It is both non-bailable and non-compoundable and
solely triable by the Court of Sessions. Discipline under Section 332 is detainment/imprisonment
of either depiction for a term which may stretch out to three years, or with fine or with both.
Discipline under Section 333 is detainment of either portrayal for a term which may reach out to
ten years, and will likewise be subject to fine.
Causing Hurt or Grievous Hurt by Endangering Life of Personal Safety of Others

1. Act endangering life or individual wellbeing of others (Sec. 336)

“Whoever does any demonstration so impulsively or carelessly as to imperil human life or the
individual security of others, will be rebuffed with the detainment of either portrayal for a term
which may stretch out to a quarter of a year, or with fine which may reach out to 200 and fifty
rupees or with both.”

2. Causing hurt by act endangering life or individual wellbeing of others (Sec. 337)
“Whoever hurts any individual by doing any demonstration so impulsively or carelessly as to
imperil human life, or the individual wellbeing of others, will be rebuffed with detainment of either
depiction for a term which may stretch out to a half year, or with fine which may reach out to 500
rupees, or with both”.

3. Causing grievous hurt by act endangering life or individual wellbeing of others (Sec.
338)
“Whoever makes shocking hurt any individual by doing any demonstration so imprudently or
carelessly as to jeopardize human life, or the individual wellbeing of others, will be rebuffed with
detainment of either depiction for a term which may reach out to two years, or with fine which
may stretch out to one thousand rupees, or with both”.

The fundamental elements of these sections are as per the following:

 The act of the charged probably brought about simple or grievous hurt;
 The act must be done in a rash and careless way;
 The impulsiveness or carelessness must be to the degree of imperilling human life
or individual wellbeing of others.
These areas will be pertinent in situations where hurt caused is an immediate consequence of
the carelessness or rash act. Unimportant carelessness or imprudence isn’t sufficient to bring a
case inside the ambit of Section 337 or Section 338. Carelessness or imprudence demonstrated
by proof must be, for example, ought to essentially convey with it a criminal obligation.
Regardless of whether such risk is available may rely upon the level of culpability having respect
for each situation to the specific time, spot and conditions. On the off chance that it is only an
instance of remuneration or reparation for damage or harm caused to an individual or property,
it is plainly not culpable under both of the areas. The culpability to be criminal ought to be, for
example, concerns not just the individual harmed or property harmed however the security of
people in general out and about. In any case, the nature and degree of the hurt or harm will be
excess in fixing criminal obligation for carelessness under these areas.

An offence under Section 336 is punishable with the detainment of either depiction for a term
which may stretch out to a quarter of a year or with fine which may reach out to Rs. 250 or with
both. An offence under Section 337 is punishable with detainment/imprisonment of either
depiction for a term which may reach out to a half year, or with fine which may stretch out to 500
rupees or with both. An offence under Section 338 is punishable with the detainment of either
depiction for a term which may stretch out to two years, with fine which may reach out to one
thousand rupees or both. Offences under Sections 336, 337 and 338 are cognizable and
subject: Offense under Section 336 is non-compoundable, though under Sections 337 and 338
are compoundable.

CHAPTER XVI
OF OFFENCES AFFECTING THE HUMAN BODY

Of Hurt
Voluntarily causing hurt to extort confession, or to compel restoration of property
330. Whoever voluntarily causes hurt, for the purpose of extorting from the sufferer or any
person interested in the sufferer, any confession or any information which may lead to the
detection of an offence or misconduct, or for the purpose of constraining the sufferer or any
person interested in the sufferer to restore or to cause the restoration of any property or
valuable security or to satisfy any claim or demand, or to give information which may lead to the
restoration of any property or valuable security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Illustration

(a) A, a police-officer, tortures Z in order to induce Z to confess that he committed a crime. A is

guilty of an offence under this section.

(a) A, a police-officer, tortures B to induce him to point out where certain stolen property is
deposited. A is guilty of an offence under this section.

(b) A, a revenue officer, tortures Z in order to compel him to pay certain arrears of revenue due
from Z. A is guilty of an offence under this section.

(c) A, a zamindar, tortures a raiyat in order to compel him to pay his rent. A is guilty of an
offence under this section.

4. Dacoity
According to the dictionary of oxford, dacoity means an act of violent robbery which is
committed by an armed gang. There is only one factor which differentiates dacoity from robbery
and that is the number of offenders. One person can also commit a robbery and more than 1
person can also commit robbery. But when 5 or more than 5 commit a robbery it is termed as
dacoity.

Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code defines robbery. It says that when 5 or more than 5
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”.

Essential Ingredients
In order to commit dacoity, there are 3 essentials which must be there. These essentials are:

 There should be at least five or more than five persons;

 They should conjointly commit or attempt to commit dacoity;
 They should have dishonest intention.

Sentence for Dacoity

Punishment for dacoity is defined under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. This
section says that a person who commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or
with rigorous imprisonment for a term which can be extended to ten years, and shall also be
liable to pay the fine. This offence is cognizable, non-bailable, and non-compoundable in nature.

The State vs Sadhu Singh and Ors in this case, four and one kurda Singh was involved in
committing a dacoity. They all were armed with deadly weapons such as rifles and pistols. They
committed a robbery at the house of gharsiram. They injured Gharsiram, jugalkishore, Sandal
and Jugalkisore. The dacoits, in this case, tried to take a wristwatch and a shawl of one person
but as they were villagers the dacoits were not able to take anything with them. When dacoits
started running from the villagers they received a hot chase from them and in return dacoits shot
a fire. As a result, dharma, one of the villagers died but the villages captured one of the dacoits.
In this case, the dacoits were charged under Section 395 of the Indian Penal Code.

Aggravated form of Dacoity

Aggravated form of dacoity is defined under Section 396 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Under
Section 396 aggravated form is defined as dacoity with murder. It says that if anyone of five or
more than five persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder in so committing
dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death and shall also be liable to fine.

The ingredients of Section 396 are:

 The offence of dacoity must be committed with the joint act of the accused persons;
 Murder must be committed in course of the commission of the dacoity.
If anyone of the five or more persons who are committing robbery commit murder while
committing dacoity then, every one of them will held liable for murder even if some of them did
not participate in committing the murder. Under Section 396 of the IPC, it is not necessary to
prove whether the murder was committed by a single person or it was committed by all of them.
It is also not necessary to prove the common intention. The prosecution is only required to prove
that the murder was committed while committing the dacoity. If the prosecution successfully
proves that the murder was committed while committing dacoity, then all of the members will be
punished under Section 396 of the IPC.

If the offenders are running and while chasing them if one of the dacoits kill someone then the
other members of the gang can not be held guilty under Section 396 of the IPC. In one of the
landmark case laws i.e. Laliya v state of Rajasthan it was observed that whether the murder is a
part of dacoity or not, it totally depends on the circumstances of that time.

The court decided that the attention has to be paid on these points before coming to a
conclusion. These points are:

 Whether the dacoits retreated or not and the murder was committed while retreating or
not?
 What is the time interval between the attempt of murder and dacoity?
 What is the distance between the places where they attempt to murder and attempt to
dacoity was committed?
In one of the cases i.e. in Shyam Behari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the dacoit killed one of the
victims, who had caught the robber’s associate in an attempt to commit dacoit. The robber was
convicted under Section 396 of IPC because any murder committed by the dacoits during their
fight would be treated as murder.

Offences Connected with Dacoity

Before committing any offence intention plays a very important role in it. Under criminal law, the
intention is known by Mens Rea. Mens rea means guilty of Mind. For every criminal offence,
there should be Mens rea on the part of the offender. If put in other words it means that there
has to be intention to commit a crime. The term “Intention” has not explicitly defined under the
Indian Penal Code, 1860 But under IPC Section 34 of it deals with common intention.

Section 34 of IPC defines acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
This section says that “when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the
common intention of all, every such person is liable for the act in the same manner as if it were
done by him alone.”

This section requires a particular criminal intention or knowledge and the act should be
committed by more than one person. Everyone who joins the act with the knowledge of the
consequences, all of them should be made liable under this section.

Preparation to Commit Dacoity

Section 399 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has talks about preparation to commit dacoity. It
says that whoever makes any preparation for committing dacoity shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Assembling for the Purpose of Committing Dacoity

Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity is defined under Section 402 of the Indian Penal
Code. It says that whoever, at any time after the passing of the act, shall be one of five or more
persons assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

Belonging to Gangs of Dacoits

Belonging to gangs of dacoits is defined under Section 400 of the IPC. It says that anybody who
at any time after the passing of this act, shall belong to a gang of persons associated for the
purpose of habitually committing dacoity will be punished with imprisonment for life, or with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Difference Between Robbery and Dacoity

The table provided below illustrates the sharp distinction between Robbery and Dacoity −

Basis Robbery Dacoity

Definition Robbery includes theft and extortion. Dacoity involves robbery, hence
However, it can either be robbery with consequently it involves theft and
theft or robbery with extortion. extortion as well.

Number Of Minimum one person is necessary to Minimum five persons are essential to
Accused commit robbery. commit dacoity.

Possession Property is acquired by the offender Property can either be acquired by

himself or herself when robbery the offender or delivered to them.
includes theft, however, property is
delivered to the offender when robbery
includes extortion.

Property It can only be movable property when Dacoity includes both movable and
robbery includes theft, however, both immovable property’s acquisition by
movable and immovable can be the offender.
delivered when robbery includes
extortion.

Punishment Section 392 – Rigorous imprisonment Section 395 – Rigorous imprisonment from
from 10 to 14 years and Fine. 10 years to life imprisonment and Fine.
 Court Magistrate of I Class. Court of Session.

Liability The attempt and commission of The intention, preparation, attempt

robbery is punishable under the code. and commission of dacoity is
punishable under the code.

Dacoity
391. 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".
Punishment for robbery
392. Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the
highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
Attempt to commit robbery
393. Whoever attempts to commit robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a
term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Voluntarily causing hurt in committing robbery
394. If any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily causes hurt,
such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting to commit such
robbery shall be punished with 9[imprisonment] for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Punishment for dacoity
395. Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with 10[imprisonment] for life, or with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Dacoity with murder
396. If any one of five or more persons, who are conjointly committing dacoity, commits murder
in so committing dacoity, every one of those persons shall be punished with death,
or 11[imprisonment] for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years,
and shall also be liable to fine.
Robbery or dacoity, with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt
397. If, at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or
causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person,
the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.
Attempt to commit robbery or dacoity when armed with deadly weapon
398. If, at the time of attempting to commit robbery or dacoity, the offender is armed with any
deadly weapon, the imprisonment with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less
than seven years.
Making preparation to commit dacoity
399. Whoever makes any preparation for committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous
imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Punishment for belonging to gang of dacoits
400. Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall belong to a gang of persons
associated for the purpose of habitually committing dacoity, shall be punished
with 12[imprisonment] for life, or with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten
years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Punishment for belonging to gang of thieves
401. Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall belong to any wandering or other
gang of persons associated for the purpose of habitually committing theft or robbery, and not
being a gang of thugs or dacoits, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Assembling for purpose of committing dacoity
402. Whoever, at any time after the passing of this Act, shall be one of five or more persons
assembled for the purpose of committing dacoity, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment
for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

5. Defamation: see the PQS LTCP-2021

CHAPTER XXI
OF DEFAMATION
Defamation
499. Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible
representations, makes or published any imputation concerning any person intending to harm,
or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation or such
person, is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted, to defame that person.

Explanation 1.-It may amount to defamation to impute any thing to a deceased person, if the
imputation would harm the reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the
feelings of his family or other near relatives.

Explanation 2.-It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an

association or collection of persons as such.

Explanation 3.-An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically, may amount to
defamation.

Explanation 4.-No imputation is said to harm a person's reputation, unless that imputation
directly or indirectly, in the estimation of others, lowers the moral or intellectual character of his
caste or of his calling, or lowers the credit of that person, or causes it to be believe that body of
that person is in a loathsome state, or in a state generally considered as disgraceful.

Illustrations
(a) A say's – “Z is an honest man; he never stole B's watch”; intending to cause it to be believed
that Z did steal B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions.

(b) A is asked who stole B's watch. A points to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole
B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions.

(c) A draws a picture of Z running away with B's watch, intending it to be believed that Z stole
B's watch. This is defamation, unless it fall within one of the exceptions.

Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made or published

First Exception.-It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it
be for the public good that the imputation should be made or published. Whether or not it is for
the public good is a question of fact.

Public conduct of public servants

Second Exception.-It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting
the conduct of a public servant in the discharge of his public functions, or respecting his
character, so far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Conduct of any person touching any public question

Third Exception.-It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting
the conduct of any person touching any public question, and respecting his character, so far as
his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Illustration

It is not defamation in A to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting Z's conduct in
petitioning Government on a public question, in signing a requisition for a meeting on a public
question, in presiding or attending at such meeting, in forming or joining any society which
invites the public support, in voting or canvassing for a particular candidate for any situation in
the efficient discharge of the duties of which the public is interested.

Publication of reports of proceedings of Courts

Fourth Exception.-It is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceedings of
a Court of Justice, or of the result of any such proceedings.

Explanation.-A Justice of the peace or other officer holding an enquiry in open Court preliminary
to a trial in a Court of Justice, is a Court within the meaning of the above section.
Merits of case decided in Court, or conduct of witnesses and others concerned
Fifth Exception.-It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion whatever respecting the
merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court of Justice, or respecting
the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or respecting the
character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and no further.

Illustrations

(a) A says- "I think Z's evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must be stupid or
dishonest." A is within this exception if he says this in good faith, inasmuch as the opinion which
he expresses respects Z's character as it appears in Z's conduct as a witness, and no further.
(b) But if A says- "I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because I know him to be a man
without veracity." A is not within this exception, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of
Z's character, is an opinion not founded on Z's conduct as a witness.

Merits of public performance

Sixth Exception.-It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits
of any performance which its author has submitted to the judgment of the public, or respecting
the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance, and no further.

Explanation.-A performance may be submitted to the judgment of the public expressly or by acts
on the part of the author which imply such submission to the judgment of the public.

Illustrations

(a) A person who publishes a book, submits that book to the judgment of the public.

(b) A person who makes a speech in public, submits that speech to the judgment of the public.

(c) An actor or singer who appears on a public stage, submits his acting or singing to the
judgment of the public.

(d) A says of a book published by Z- "Z's book is foolish: Z must be a weak man. Z's book is
indecent; Z must be a man of impure mind." A is within this exception, if he says this in good
faith, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of Z respects Z's character only so far as it
appears in Z's book, and no further.

(e) But if A says "I am not surprised that Z's book is foolish and indecent, for he is a weak man
and a libertine." A is not within this exception, inasmuch as the opinion which he expresses of
Z's character is an opinion not founded on Z's book.
Censure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another
Seventh Exception.-It is not defamation in a person having over another any authority, either
conferred by law or arising out of a lawful contract made with that other, to pass in good faith
any censure on the conduct of that other in matters to which such lawful authority relates.

Illustration

A Judge censuring in good faith the conduct of a witness, or of an officer of the Court; a head of
a department censuring in good faith those who are under his order; a parent censuring in good
faith a child in the presence of other children; a school master, whose authority is derived from a
parent, censuring in good faith a pupil in the presence of other pupils; a master censuring a
servant in good faith for remissness in service; a banker censuring in good faith the cashier of
his bank for the conduct of such cashier as such cashier- are within this exception.

Accusation preferred in good faith to authorized person

Eighth Exception.It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person
to any of those who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject-matter of
accusation.
Illustration
If A in good faith accuses Z before a Magistrate; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z,
a servant, to Z's master; if A in good faith complains of the conduct of Z, a child, to Z's father- A
is within this exception.
Imputation made in good faith by person for protection of his or other’s interests
Ninth Exception.-It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another,
provided that the imputation be made in good faith for the protection of the interest of the person
making it, or of any other person, or for the public good.

Illustrations

(a) A, a shopkeeper, says to B, who manages his business-"Sell nothing to Z unless he pays
you ready money, for I have no opinion of his honesty.” A is within the exception, if he has made
this imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of his own interests.

(b) A, a Magistrate, in making a report to his own superior officer, casts an imputation on the
character of Z. Here, if the imputation is made in good faith, and for the public good, A is within
the exception.

Caution intended for good of person to whom conveyed or for public good
Tenth Exception.It is not defamation to convey a caution, in good faith, to one person against
another, provided that such caution be intended for the good of the person to whom it is
conveyed, or of some person in whom that person is interested, or for the public good.

Punishment for defamation

500. Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Printing or engraving matter known to be defamatory

501. Whoever prints or engraves any matter, knowing or having good reason to believe that
such matter is defamatory of any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term
which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter

502. Whoever sells or offers for sale any printed or engraved substance containing defamatory
matter, knowing that it contains such matter, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

6. a) Difference Between Common Intention and Common Object

Common intention refers to a situation where two or more individuals have a shared goal or
plan to commit a crime. Common object, on the other hand, refers to a situation where two or
more individuals have a shared goal or objective during a riot or unlawful assembly.

Common Intention Common Object

A pre-existing agreement between two or more The objective or goal of the crime that the
individuals to commit a crime. This means that individuals have agreed to commit. This refers to
before the commission of the crime, the the end result or the main purpose of committing
individuals had a prior understanding and the crime. It is the objective or goal that the
agreement to commit the crime together. accused had in mind when committing the crime.

Established before the commission of the crime: Established during commission of the crime:
Common intention is established before the Common object is established during the
commission of the crime, as it refers to a pre- commission of the crime, as it refers to the
existing agreement between individuals. objective or goal of the crime that is being
committed.

Need not be the same as the actual intention of Must be the same as the actual intention of the
the accused: Common intention does not have accused: Common object must be the same as
to be the same as the actual intention of the the actual intention of the accused, as it refers to
accused, as it refers to a pre-existing agreement the objective or goal that the accused had in mind
between individuals. when committing the crime.

Can be inferred from the actions and statements Must be proven through evidence: Common
of the accused: Common intention can be object must be proven through evidence, as it
inferred from the actions and statements of the refers to the objective or goal that the accused
accused, as it refers to a pre-existing agreement had in mind when committing the crime.
between individuals.

Examples: Conspiracy, criminal breach of trust: Examples: murder, theft, rioting: Common object
Common intention is often used in cases is often used in cases involving crimes such as
involving conspiracy and criminal breach of trust, murder, theft, and rioting, as it refers to the
as it refers to a pre-existing agreement between objective or goal of the crime that is being
individuals to commit a crime. committed.

Punishment: Same as the punishment for the Punishment: Same as the punishment for the
intended crime: The punishment for common committed crime: The punishment for common
intention is the same as the punishment for the object is the same as the punishment for the
intended crime, as it refers to a pre-existing committed crime, as it refers to the objective or
agreement between individuals to commit a goal that the accused had in mind when
crime. committing the crime.

b) Difference between Culpable Homicide and Murder

Basis of Culpable Homicide Murder

Difference
Nature It is the GENUS. It is the SPECIES of Culpable
Homicide.
Meaning Someone who causes the death of another Someone who does any act
by doing an act likely to cause that person’s resulting death of another with the
death. sufficient intention to cause that
person’s death.
Ingredients 1. Causing death 1. Causing Death

2. Doing an act 2. Doing an act

3. Intention and knowledge must exist 3. Presence of knowledge

Section 299 and 304 300 and 302
Intention to cause May or may not have a direct intention to Intention to cause death is a primary
death cause death. characteristic.
Types Lawful and unlawful First- degree Murder, Second-
degree Murder, third-degree
Murder, Voluntary manslaughter,
and Involuntary manslaughter.
Degree of Intention Less Sufficient
Knowledge The knowledge that the act will likely cause Compulsory
death.
Explanation/ Explanation: Exception:
Exception
a. Causing injury to a disabled person a. Grave and sudden
b. Causing injury when remedies could provocation
be adopted b. Private defence
c. Causing the death of a child inside a c. Performing Legal duty
mother’s womb d. Sudden tussle
e. Death with consent

Punishment Imprisonment for life or 10 years with or Death or Life imprisonment

without a fine.

7. Definition of criminal Trespass

CHAPTER XVII

OF OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY

Of Criminal Trespass
Criminal trespass
441. 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".
Definition of House Trespass

CHAPTER XVII

OF OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY

Of Criminal Trespass
House-trespass
442. Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building, tent or
vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship, or as a place for
the custody of property, is said to commit "house-trespass".

Explanation.-The introduction of any part of the criminal trespasser's body is entering sufficient
to constitute house-trespass.

Definition of House Breaking

CHAPTER XVII

OF OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY

Of Criminal Trespass
House-breaking
445. A person is said to commit “house-breaking" who commits house-trespass if he effects his
entrance into the house or any part of it in any of the six ways hereinafter described; or if, being
in the house or any part of it for the purpose of committing an offence, or, having committed an
offence therein, he quits the house or any part of it in any of such six ways, that is to say:

Firstly.-If he enters or quits through a passage made by himself, or by any abettor of the house-
trespass, in order to the committing of the house-trespass.

Secondly.-If he enters or quits through any passage not intended by any person, other than
himself or an abettor of the offence, for human entrance; or through any passage to which he
has obtained access by scaling or climbing over any wall or building.

Thirdly.-If he enters or quits through any passage which he or any abettor of the house-trespass
has opened, in order to the committing of the house-trespass by any means by which that
passage was not intended by the occupier of the house to be opened.
Fourthly.-If he enters or quits by opening any lock in order to the committing of the house-
trespass, or in order to the quitting of the house after a house-trespass.

Fifthly.-If he effects his entrance or departure by using criminal force or committing an assault,
or by threatening any person with assault.

Sixthly.-If he enters or quits by any passage which he knows to have been fastened against
such entrance or departure, and to have been unfastened by himself or by an abettor of the
house-trespass.

Explanation.-Any out-house or building occupied with a house, and between which and such
house there is an immediate internal communication, is part of the house within the meaning of
this section.

Illustrations

(a) A commits house-trespass by making a hole through the wall of Z's house, and putting his
hand through the aperture. This is house-breaking.

(b) A commits house-trespass by creeping into a ship at a port-hole between decks. This is
house-breaking.

(c) A commits house-trespass by entering Z's house through a window. This is house-breaking.

(d) A commits house-trespass by entering Z's house through the door, having opened a door
which was fastened. This is house-breaking.

(e) A commits house-trespass by entering Z's house through the door, having lifted a latch by
putting a wire through a hole in the door. This is house-breaking.

(a) A finds the key of Z's house door, which Z had lost, and commits house-trespass by entering
Z's house, having opened the door with that key. This is house-breaking.

(b) Z is standing in his doorway. A forces a passage by knocking Z down, and commits house-
trespass by entering the house. This is house breaking.
(h) Z, the door-keeper of Y, is standing in Y's doorway. A commits house-trespass by entering
the house, having deterred Z from opposing him by threatening to beat him. This is house-
breaking.

Ingredients of Criminal Trespass

Criminal trespass has two limbs, firstly, entering into the property of another with criminal intent
and secondly, entering lawfully but remaining in the property with a criminal intent to harm or
cause annoyance. Thus the essential ingredients for committing Criminal trespass are:

‘Whoever enters’

To commit the offence of criminal trespass, there must be an actual entry into the property of
another by the accused person. No trespass can occur if there is no physical instrument by the
accused into the private property of the victim. In the State of Calcutta vs Abdul Sukar, the court
held that constructive entry by a servant does not amount to entry, under this Section as even
though there was no possession in law, there was possession in fact. For instance, X throws
garbage outside Y’s house on a daily basis, in this case, X may be liable for nuisance but he
has not committed criminal trespass as there is no entry by X into Y’s property.

Property

The term property under this Section includes both movable and immovable property. Wrongful
entry into one’s car or other movable property would have similar liability as wrongful entry into
one’s house. In Dhannonjoy v Provat Chandra Biswas, the accused drove away from the boat of
the possessor after attacking him. The court held that this would amount to criminal trespass
even though it was a movable property. But the term property does not include incorporeal
property or something which cannot be touched, such as patent rights.

Possession of another

The possession of the property should be in the possession of the victim and not the trespasser.
Having the ownership of the property is not necessary, mere possession is sufficient to claim
criminal trespass against the trespasser. However, it is not necessary for the person having
possession or the owner of the property to be present at the time when the trespassing
occurred, no presence of owner or possessor would also amount to trespassing as long as the
premises are entered into by the trespasser to annoy. For instance, writing love letters and
delivering them to a girl’s house against her will would also amount to criminal trespass, even if
at the time of delivering such letters, the girl was not at home.

Intention

If it is proved that the intention of the accused parties was not to insult, harm or annoy the
owners or possessors of the property, then it would not amount to criminal trespass. The
Intention is the essence of this crime, and if there is no dominant motive to commit the crime, no
criminal trespass. The test for determining whether the entry was done with an intent to cause
annoyance or any kind of harm is to determine the aim of a trespasser at the time of such entry.
In Punjab National Bank Ltd v All India Punjab National Bank Employees’ Federation, the court
held that as the employees who were on strike entered the bank with the intention to only put
pressure on the management to concede their demands, and there was no intent to insult, harm
or annoy any of the superior officers, their entrance into the bank cannot amount to criminal
trespass. However, if in the given circumstances, the strikers would have stormed into the
private cubicles or offices of the superior staff with the aim of causing annoyance to such
members, then it would amount to criminal trespass.

Further, it is to be proved that the intention of the accused was not probable but an actual one,
this principle was laid down in Ramjan Misrty v Emperor. It is not sufficient to show that the
person entering into the property of another had the knowledge that his entrance would cause
annoyance, it is to be proved that there was an intention to commit an offence, or intimidate,
insult or annoy any such person for an offence of criminal trespass to take place.

Punishment for criminal trespass

CHAPTER XVII

OF OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY

Of Criminal Trespass
Punishment for criminal trespass
447. Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may extend to five
hundred taka, or with both.

Punishment for house trespass

CHAPTER XVII

OF OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY

Of Criminal Trespass
Punishment for house-trespass
448. Whoever commits house-trespass shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to one
thousand taka, or with both.

Elements of house trespass and house breaking

House-trespass
Section 442 of IPC, defines house-trespass as committing criminal trespass by entering into or
remaining in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling, place of worship or as a
place for the custody of the property. A place of human dwelling does not always have to be a
permanent resident of the defendant, temporary residents like school or railway platforms also
count as a human dwelling. However for a building to be a human dwelling it must have some
walls or some kind of security and a mere fence cannot amount to a human dwelling. This
offence is an aggravated form of criminal trespass, thus every house-trespass is criminal
trespassing but not vice versa. As house-trespass is against the possession of a property, it
cannot take place if the defendant is not in actual possession of the property.
As per Section 448 of IPC, the defendant guilty of house-trespass may be imprisoned for a term
not exceeding 1 year, fined for INR 1,000 or less or both.

Lurking house-trespass
Section 443 of IPC, deals with a further aggravation of house-trespass, known as lurking house-
trespass. The section defines this offence as committing house trespass and taking precautions
to conceal the offence of house-trespassing from any person who has a right to exclude or eject
the trespasser from the building which is the subject of the trespass. In Prem Bahadur Rai v
State, the court held that unless active steps are taken by the accused to conceal his presence,
no charge under Section 443 can be made. Thus the ingredients of lurking house-trespass
would include:

1. Trespass;
2. House-trespass;
3. Concealing the house-trespass from someone who has the right to exclude to the
trespasser.
Therefore hiding in a porch behind a tree would fall within this section and the trespasser,
under Section 453 of IPC, would be liable to imprisonment for a maximum of 2 years and fine as
may be prescribed by the court.

Lurking house-trespass by night

Section 444 of IPC, talks about an aggravated form of lurking house-trespass, i.e trespass
committed at night. Any lurking house-trespass committed after sunset and before sunrise fall
within the ambit of this section. This offence is punishable with imprisonment not exceeding
three years and fine, according to Section 456 of IPC.

House-breaking
Housebreaking is also an aggravated form of house-trespass and implies forceful entry into
one’s house. Section 445 of IPC lays down 6 ways in which housebreaking can occur, namely:

1. Through passage made by the house breaker himself;

2. Through any passage not used by any person other than the intruder;
3. Through any passage opened for committing an offence of housebreaking which was
not intended by the house occupier to be open;
4. By opening any lock;
5. By using criminal force at either entrance or departure;
6. By entering or quitting any passage fastened against such entrance or exit. The word
‘fasteners’ implies something more than being closed, merely pushing of door shutters
would not amount to house-breaking.
The first three ways are the one in which entry is effected by using passage which is not the
ordinary means of entry or exit and the last three ways are the ones in which entry is effected by
use of force. The entry of any part of the human body is sufficient to constitute housebreaking
under Section 445 of IPC if the following ingredients are present:

1. Trespass;
2. House-trespass;
3. The entrance by the trespasser must be done in any of the 6 ways prescribed above.
In Pullabhotla Chinniah case, the court held that the breaking open of a cattle-shed in which
agricultural implements are kept would also amount to house-breaking. Further, making a hole
in the wall to enter a house, using a window to enter a house, assaulting the guard or
doorkeeper to enter a house, all amount to housebreaking and the accused will be liable for
imprisonment not exceeding 2 years and fine under Section 453 of IPC.

Housebreaking by night
When housebreaking is committed after sunset and before sunrise, it is considered an
aggravated form of house-breaking and is governed by Section 446 of IPC. This offence is
punishable with imprisonment not exceeding three years and fine, according to Section 456 of
IPC.

Dishonestly breaking open receptacle containing property

Meaning and punishment for dishonestly breaking open receptacle containing property are
defined under Section 461 of IPC. The said section punishes whoever dishonestly or with the
intent of committing mischief, breaks or open any receptacle or container used as storing place.
The offence is cognizable, non-bailable and triable by any magistrate and the punishment for
the same may extend up to 2 years, fine, or both. The ingredients of this offence would be:

1. There was a closed container or receptacle;

2. It contained property or the accused believed it contained property;
3. The accused intentionally broke opened the receptacle;
4. The accused did so dishonestly;
5. The accused did so with the intent to cause mischief.
The term ‘receptacle’ signifies all kinds of vessels and not only includes a safe box, chest or
closed package but also includes a room or a part of a room such as a warehouse, or godown.
The only condition is that such a vessel must be closed by means of chain or bolt or fastened in
any manner. The offence is said to be completed as soon as the receptacle is broken or
unfastened with dishonest attention to steal or cause any other kind of mischief.

Conclusion
If a stranger or for that matter even a known person enters any property in your possession with
an intent to cause harm or injury, then such a person would be liable for committing an offence
of criminal trespass under IPC and remedy can be sought by any court of law. While
determining the offence of criminal trespass it is necessary to have an intention to commit wrong
and mere knowledge would not amount to criminal trespass. Further, the punishment prescribed
for the offence of criminal trespass would depend upon the aggravation that occurred while the
crime was committed. House-trespass is a more serious offence than mere criminal trespass,
lurking house-trespass and house-breaking are aggravated forms of house-trespass and lastly
lurking house-trespass by night and housebreaking by night would attract the highest kind of
punishment.
Punishment for house breaking
CHAPTER XVII

OF OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY

Of Criminal Trespass
Punishment for lurking house-trespass or house-breaking
453. Whoever commits lurking house-trespass or house-breaking, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be
liable to fine.

8. Capital punishment in Bangladesh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Capital punishment in Bangladesh is a legal form of punishment[1] for anyone who is over 16,
however in practice it would not apply to people under 18. [2] Crimes that are currently punishable
by death in Bangladesh are set out in the Penal Code 1860.[3] These include waging war against
the State, abetting mutiny, giving false evidence upon which an innocent person suffers death,
murder, assisted suicide of a child, attempted murder of a child, and kidnapping. [4] The Code of
Criminal Procedure 1898 provides that a person awarded the death penalty "be hanged by the
neck until he is dead."[5] For murder cases, the Appellate Division requires trial courts to weigh
aggravating and mitigating factors to determine whether the death penalty is warranted. [6]
The Constitution of Bangladesh does not anywhere expressly recognise International Human
Rights law, although some articles recognise international human rights. Article 25 of the
Constitution recognises the United Nations Charter. Article 47 recognises international
humanitarian law and provides that the Constitution will not limit the application of international
treaties and the law of war.[7]
A person can receive the death penalty if they are found guilty of crimes against women and
children. The Women and Children Repression Prevention Act 2000 provides that the death
penalty can be imposed for murder or attempted murder involving burning, poison, or acid.
[8]
Causing grievous bodily harm by burning, poison or acid, if the victim's eyesight, hearing,
face, breasts or reproductive organs are damaged.[9] Therefore, criminals in Bangladesh can be
sentenced to death for attempted crimes and causing grievous bodily harm.
A number of offences (crimes not resulting in death) are punishable by death when committed
by armed forces personnel. These offences include: providing aid to the enemy, cowardice and
desertion and inducement to such and cowardly use of a flag of truce or any act calculated to
imperil Bangladesh.[10]
According to the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty, Bangladesh carried out six
executions in 2017.[11]
International human rights law[edit]
Bangladesh was created as a consequence of human rights abuses. [12] When the Awami
League won Pakistan's first election in 1970, the Pakistani Army brutally suppressed the Bengali
people in East Pakistan. More than three million people were left dead, millions of women were
raped, tens of millions of people were forced into extremely dirty and unpleasant refugee camps
in India.[12] After India briefly invaded, Bangladesh was free from the brutality of Pakistani rule
but faced a difficult task of rebuilding a country that was already desperately poor and prone to
natural disasters.[12] To this day, Amnesty International believes Bangladesh is still wracked with
human rights violations.[12]
The People's Republic of Bangladesh has ratified some International Human Rights Treaties.
[13]
However, the government has registered some declarations and reservations to particular
articles of certain treaties. One reservation of particular importance is the reservation to Article
14 paragraph 1 of the Convention Against Torture (CAT).[14] The reservation grounds were that
Bangladesh would apply it "in consonance with the existing laws and legislation of the
country."[15]
Bangladesh has not yet ratified or acceded to a number of International Human Rights Treaties.
The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: 1976 was ratified in 2000. [16] However,
the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights (ICESCR) and the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) have not yet been ratified.[16] The Second Protocol to the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty: 1991 has also not yet
been ratified.[16]
The Human Rights Council under the Universal Periodic Review reviewed Bangladesh in 2009.
A strong recommendation was made for the abolition of the death penalty. [17] The Bangladesh
government in response to this said: "The death penalty is maintained in Bangladesh only as an
exemplary punishment for heinous crimes such as throwing of acid, acts of terrorism, planned
murder, trafficking of drugs, rape, abduction of women and children. Both the judiciary and
administration deal with these cases of capital punishment with extreme caution and
compassion, and such punishment is extended only in ultimate cases that relates to gross
violation of human rights of the victims. Bangladesh has an extremely low rate of
implementation of such death penalties."[18]
The fact that a very wide range of crimes are punishable by death potentially conflicts with
Bangladesh's International obligations. Allowing the death penalty for crimes such as kidnapping
or drug trafficking is contrary to the ICCPR's mandate which states that the death penalty should
only be applied in the most serious of cases.[14]
Mandatory death sentences[edit]
The Women and Children Repressive Prevention Act 2000 provides that the punishment
required for a person who causes death for dowry is a mandatory death sentence. This
therefore means there is no other alternative punishment available and the jury are deprived the
ability to apply discretion to certain circumstances relating to the crime or the accused.
State v Shukar Ali[edit]
This case is an example of the potentially unjust outcomes that can result from mandatory death
sentences. On 12 July 2001, Shukar Ali, a 14-year-old boy who was convicted of sexually
assaulting a 7-year-old girl which resulted in her death. At the time, the summer of 1999, Ali
lived with his mother and elder sister in the slums of western Bangladesh’s Manikganj District.
[19]
He was not in a financial position to afford legal assistance, so he was appointed a defence
lawyer by the State. This was not standard practice; however in this case was necessary
because of the severity of the punishment that Ali would face if found guilty. [19] Ali was
sentenced by the High Court Division to death by hanging under section 6 of an earlier version
of the Women and Children Repressive Prevention Act, 1995. [20] The court held that they were
compelled to make this decision regardless of his age. The court held "no alternative
punishment has been provided for the offence that the condemned prisoner has been charged
and we are left with no other discretion but to maintain the sentence if we believe that the
prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt. This is a case, which may be
taken as "hard cases make bad laws".[21] On appeal, the Appellate Division commuted Ali's
death sentence to life imprisonment for "until natural death". This was the first time the Supreme
Court of Bangladesh ever overturned a decision. [19] The criminal law in Bangladesh has
advanced significantly since Ali was first imprisoned. A law was introduced prohibiting the death
penalty and life imprisonment for children. However, children are still held to be criminally
responsible at the age of nine.
On 16 May 2010, the High Court Division of the Supreme Court of Bangladesh declared that
sections 6(2), 6(3), and 6(4) of the Women and Children Repressive Prevention (Special
Provision) Act, 1995 unconstitutional.[22] The court held that regardless of the offence, legislation
may not provide that mandatory death sentences are the only available punishment. [14] The
judge held, "A provision of law which deprives the court to use of its beneficent discretion in a
matter of life and death, without regard to the circumstances in which the offence was
committed and, therefore without regard to the gravity of the offence cannot but be regarded as
harsh, unfair and oppressive. The legislature cannot make relevant circumstances irrelevant,
deprive the court of its legitimate jurisdiction to exercise its discretion not to impose death
sentence in appropriate cases. Determination of appropriate measures of punishment is judicial
and not executive functions [sic]. The court will enunciate the relevant facts to be considered
and weight to be given to them having regard to the situation of the case. Therefore we have no
hesitation in holding the view that these provisions are against the fundamental tenets of our
Constitution, and therefore, ultra vires the Constitution and accordingly they are declared
void."[23]
International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh)[edit]
The International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) (ICT of Bangladesh) is a domestic war tribunal
in Bangladesh, which was set up to investigate and prosecute suspects for the genocide
committed in 1971 by the Pakistan Army during the Bangladesh Liberation War. [24] The first
person to be convicted in the Tribunal was Abul Kalam Azad, who had left the country and was
not present for his trial. He was sentenced to death in 2013. The United Nations offered its
support in 2009 to make sure that similar mistakes made by other Crimes tribunals were not
made in Bangladesh. The head of the United Nations in Bangladesh said "this is the first time
Bangladesh is conducting war crimes tribunals and it is important it understands how other
countries have held them. There are some countries where mistakes were made and we don't
want Bangladesh to repeat those mistakes."[25] However, there has been a shift since the
commencement of the trials because there is concern the International Crimes Tribunal are not
carrying out their obligations under Bangladesh's international human rights obligations,
International Criminal law, and the Bangladesh Constitution. [26] Bangladesh is a State party to
the ICCPR, therefore they have an obligation to meet the key provisions. Especially the
provisions regarding fair trials and the rights of accused persons

Rationale Behind Death Penalty: A Critical Analysis

Abstract
“Capital Punishment is against the better judgment of modern criminology, and, above
all, against the highest expression of love in the nature of god.”
-Martin Luther King, Jr.
In the 21st century, each and every developed and developing country is dealing with the issue
related to increasing crime rate. As a developing country, India has a wide range of written
legislation that offers various punishments to punish the wrongdoer and reduce the crime rate.
There are different types of punishment in India such as capital punishment, life imprisonment,
imprisonment, fine, etc. Capital punishment/Death punishment considered a grave type of
punishment that is ordered in the rarest and rare cases.
INTRODUCTION
Through the passing centuries, we have seen the rise and fall of various dynasties but the only
thing common between them was their use of death penalty as a means of administering justice.
The later dynasties followed different types of punishments such as dragging the body by a
horse, cutting of head or any body part, stamping by an elephant which was very brutal in
nature. But in the present era with codified laws and awakened conscience, is death penalty still
really the best option of punishment? Despite many organizations protesting for the abolishment
of a death sentence, it is still being carried out in different countries. The UN in its Charter of
Rights has declared death penalty or capital punishment as a crime against humanity and had
also asked its member countries to get abolish it. One of the member countries of the UN –
India, has still not got rid of capital punishment even though the Constitution of India has stated
that the government has no right to take the life of any person as per article 21. Consequently,
India’s international stand on the Moratorium on death penalty both at the General Assembly
and at the Human Rights Council has always been against the resolution saying, it goes against
the statutory law of the country where an execution is carried out in the “rarest of rare” cases.
Statement of Problems
India's view on the issue of capital punishment is still very topsy-turvy. The debate isn't only
regarding the legality of the punishment however it also includes social and moral aspects. If the
question of law is kept aside, two views the issue given on the difficulty. The primary view is the
security of society and the public sentiments. The counter view is that it promotes the principle
of &eye for an eye that cant be accepted in a civilized society. On one hand, by retaining the
death sentence, we might condemn someone to death, who turns out to be innocent. On the
other hand, by giving a second chance to someone, we would be giving them a bullet to shoot
us, just because they missed the primary time.
Research methodology
The research methodology used in the research paper is doctrinal and relies on secondary
sources. Secondary sources of information include online websites, research papers, books
based on the Indian penal code, Reports published by renowned authorities, newspapers, legal
databases that help us to give an interpretation on various cases,etc.
Objectives of Research
The objective of the study is to try and find the validity of capital punishment and view of public
on capital punishment in India.
Research Questions
● What is the test thats required to give capital punishment to a person in India?
● Whether the death penalty is an appropriate mode for society in the present era?
● What are the arguments that are against or in the favor of capital punishment?
Literature Review
There is a variety of material that's available on the concept of the death penalty. The literature
review is analyzed in such a way, so as to ascertain the work that has been done by various
Scholars on this idea so far.
● According to Article 6 of ICCPR, 1979 that provides the right to life is a wider concept and the
death penalty should only be given in serious crimes however only minority states abolished it
till 1954. ECOSOC in 1984 affirmed that capital punishment shouldn't have extreme
consequences.
● Mahatma Gandhi is one who was against the death penalty as he believed that Ahimsa is the
only way to handle matters. He beseeched Hate Sin however not the sinner.
● Dr Ambhedkar believed in the principles of non-violence to be considered as a moral
mandate.
● The theory of the death penalty based on the rarest of rare cases relies on deterrent and
retributive theory. The deterrent theory aims to punish an offender to create a sense of fear in
his mind and abstain from committing the crime again, whereas retributive theory relies on the
principle of the tooth for tooth and an eye for an eye.
● In India, there are various laws that have the provision of capital punishment like under Indian
penal code, 1860 ( Sec. 120- B, 121,132, 302, 303, 305, 364 A, 376 AB, etc.), Commission of
Sati Act,1987, 1985, Protection of children from sexual harassment Act, 2012 and criminal law
amendment Act, 2013, etc.
● The Law Commission 187th Report considered ascertaining the mode of execution during
capital punishment however it didn't draw attention towards the constitutionality of capital
punishment. In its 262nd report on capital punishment, the Law Commission stated that the
practice of capital punishment should be abolished and should only be restricted to cases of
terrorism and waging war against the State.
● Dr S. Murlidhar in his article examines the test that has been applied for capital punishment
and states that there's a need to understand the restrictions of the judicial system and the
importance of retributive theory in bringing the impact of peace and non-violence
Analysis
● In India, the death penalty is principally given for brutal crimes. The President has the facility
to grant mercy in capital punishment cases. When an individual has been given the death
penalty by the Sessions Court, it should be affirmed by the high court. If the convict appeals in
the Supreme Court and fails then at that time the convict can ask a mercy petition to the
President of India. The Ministry of Home Affairs will set out the Appeals made to the Supreme
Court and the solicitations made for the extraordinary leave to appeal to the Court by the
convict.
● Capital punishment should be maintained to safeguard society from criminals. The main aim
behind the execution of capital punishment is to satisfy society's feeling of hatred towards
crimes. The security of the society lies in removing the criminals from the society and the mercy
petitions should be rejected by the president and by the governor.
● There is no alternative punishment for the death penalty as such, imprisonment is considered
as an alternate at times, and however, it's a lesser impact. The crime rate keeps on
increasing. If one offender is punished with capital punishment it sets an example for other
offenders. By giving lesser punishment the criminal will continue to do the same offence.
Compared to imprisonment, capital punishment is quick and painless. If capital punishment is
abolished it might encourage the criminal.
● Like a coin with two sides, capital punishment also has a negative impact on society. This
penalty is an admission of the state's failure to achieve deterrence by threat of the death
penalty. A criminal is also a human being and they can be reformed. Capital punishment is
barbaric and cruel.
● The rich rule the law and escapes from punishment, whereas the poor become its prey.
Morally its unjustifiable because it's a murder by the state. Capital punishment itself is an
offence against humanity. Nobody has a right to kill another person because God has given it
this life. If the state executes capital punishment, the state is considered to
Crimes associated with capital punishment
The crimes which are deserving of death are:
Aggravated murder
According to Section 302 of the Indian penal code, 1860, an individual who commits murder
shall be given the death penalty. In Bachan Singhs case, the Court held that the death penalty is
constitutional only when its applied as an exception in &the rarest of the rare cases.
Other offenses resulting in death
In the Indian penal code, the death penalty is given to an individual who submits a murder
during a furnished theft. Submitting or submitting Sati to someone else is additionally deserving
of the death penalty.
Terrorism- related offences not resulting in Death The utilization of any exceptional classification
of explosives thus as to complete a blast that could jeopardize ones life or cause genuine hurt to
one's property is deserving of capital punishment.
Rape not leading to Death
An individual who inflicts injury in rape, because of that he passes on or is left in a &persistent
vegetative state might be granted the death penalty under the criminal law Act, 2013.Gang
rapes are punishable with the death penalty. These were formed when the gang rape of
medicinal understudy Jyoti Singh Pandey in 2012 in New Delhi.
Kidnapping not resulting in Death
As indicated by Section 364A of the Indian penal code, 1860, grabbing not bringing about death
is an offence deserving of the death penalty. On the off chance that anyone kidnapped
somebody and takes steps to kill him during which the abductor act brings about the death of
the person in question, he will be at risk under this section.
Drug trafficking not resulting in Death
On the off chance that an individual endeavors to commit any of the scopes of drug trafficking
offenses or financing such kind of drug-related acts, the person in question can be condemned
to death. Punished by the death penalty.
Military offenses not resulting in Death
If a member of the army, Navy or Air Force commits an abetment of assault, mutiny, and other
related offences, he shall be punished by the death penalty.
Other offences not resulting in death
If a person is a party to criminal conspiracy in order to commit a capital offence, he's
punishable
by the death penalty.
A person who attempts to kill a life convict is punishable by a death sentence if the victim is
harmed in the attempt.
If an individual provides any false evidence against an innocent person, despite being of the
knowledge that based on that evidence that person can be given a punishment of death penalty,
and if it results in the execution of an innocent person, then the person who provides such
evidence will be given the death penalty.
Category of offenders excluded from capital punishment
Minor
As per Indian Law, an individual who is younger than eighteen years at the time of commitment
to the crime can't be given capital punishment.
Pregnant woman
As per the alteration made in the year 2009, Clemency must be conceded to a pregnant lady
who is condemned to the death penalty.
Intellectually Disabled
As indicated by the Indian penal code, an individual whereas committing out grievous
wrongdoing, was rationally sick or can't comprehend that the nature of the demonstration
performed by him is risky, can't be rebuffed by capital punishment.[4]
Relevant case laws
•The case of Bachchan Singh v State of Punjab again brought up the question of the validity of
capital punishment and in this case, the doctrine of & rarest of the rare; was formulated. The
five-judge Bench declared that the taking of human life shouldn't be encouraged even in the
kind of punishment except in &rarest of the rare ; cases where no alternative method can be
used and is foreclosed.
•In the judicial pronouncement of Mithu v. State of Punjab, mandatory death sentence, under
Section 303 of IPC was declared unconstitutional and deleted from the IPC. This section was
based on the logic that any criminal who has been convicted for life and has committed a
murder while in custody is beyond reformation and don't deserve to live.
•The case of Machchi Singh v State of Punjab elaborated the doctrine of "rarest of rare.
The Court gave guidelines regarding the things to be considered when deciding on the issue
whether the case falls under the category of rarest of rare; or not. Principle-based on capital
punishment in India -
•The doctrine of rarest of the Rare Cases:
Capital punishment in India relies on the doctrine of the rarest cases. The doctrine implies that
to sentence a person to death the crime check should be fully happy and it shouldn't favor the
accused in any circumstances The applicability of this doctrine is ambiguous as Justice
Bhagwati himself believed that the life of an offender decided by the minds of the bench is
violative of the fundamental rights as guaranteed in Article 14 and Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution.
•In the case of Bacchan Singh v/s State of Punjab, the court provided the principles and
guidelines that should be considered in granting capital punishment to someone is as follows: A
court could impose capital punishment, If the murder has been committed after previous
planning and involves extreme brutality.
The court while giving a death sentence should be rigorous and honest irrespective of the
emotions and the sentiments. One should consider the social nature of the crime as a murderer
may belong to a backward category and cases like the burning of a bride; dowry death comes
under the scope of it.
In Bachan Singh, the court had derived the rarest of rare doctrine to ensure that the judges are
not conferred with unguided discretion in awarding capital punishment. According to the
doctrine, life imprisonment is the rule and death sentence an exception and the death penalty
should be awarded only when all the alternatives are unquestionably foreclosed. It also
mandated the judges to consider the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case which
includes the circumstances of the crime and criminal in determining punishment Arguments
against Capital Punishment: Human life is considered to be a valuable thing and people
presume that even the offenders in their worst case shouldn't be deprived of their right to life.
Their right to life can't be taken away simply because of their bad conduct. Its the
obligation of the State to safeguard the society and punish the offenders however it should be
done in the least harmful way and other various alternatives are chosen to punish the
wrongdoer. Capital punishment leads to the execution of innocent people because of the
deficiency in the system of justice. People included in the sphere of justice like prosecutors,
witnesses and the jury may be in error.
It is simply an act of violence that leads to the risk of taking the lives of innocents. People
believe that capital punishment based on retribution to provide justice is morally wrong and is
simply an emerged form of revenge. Killing can't be termed as wrong by killing. People that
believe the theory of retribution argue that the death penalty is against it as sentencing
imprisonment to a wrongdoer can cause endless pain to the wrongdoer. Such punishment has
failed to provide the deterrence effect as social scientists consensus proves that it affects only a
small percentage of murderers. Capital punishment only leads to the brutalization of society as
well as the states relation with its citizens. The approach by which the political and social issues
in society will be curbed by killing is morally wrong and unacceptable. The current society
doesn't endure torture and capital punishment isnt the answer to deal with dreadful crimes.
Problems of the Capital Punishment System
1) International trends and capital punishment The first problem of the capital punishment
system is that the abolition of capital punishment is an international trend and that its retention in
Japan is divergent from this trend. The number of abolitionist countries has recently increased to
exceed that of retentionist countries. Japan is one of the few industrialized countries which has
not yet abolished the death penalty: with the exception of the USA, all other members of
the “Group of Seven” largest industrialized nations have abolished the death penalty.
(2) Miscarriages of justice and capital punishment It is impossible to recover lives taken away by
executions resulting from a miscarriage of justice. Rulings on four capital punishment cases,
which had become final under the new Constitution and the existing Code of Criminal
Procedure, which came into force after World War Ⅱ, were overturned to “not guilty” after
retrials. This proves that miscarriages of justice may inevitably exist even in final rulings of
capital Punishment cases.
(3) Capital Punishment and Its Deterrent Effects on Crime Although retentionists argue that
capital punishment is meaningful as a criminal policy due to its threatening power and deterrent
effects on crime, there has been no scientific evidence for this argument. Various empirical
studies have been carried out on this issue of capital punishment; most results show negative
conclusions regarding the deterrent effects, while very few prove positive.
4) Cruelty of capital punishment Although the Supreme Court rulings say that capital
punishment is not cruel, its cruelty nonetheless is undeniable. Capital punishment definitely and
inevitably takes away human life and dignity. No matter how it may be carried out, capital
punishment itself can be said to be cruel. Many death-row inmates are mentally disturbed in fear
of execution.
5) Crime victims and capital punishment The bereaved of victims who were killed in crimes are
especially in deep sorrow and tend to be occupied with strong retributive feelings. In addition to
direct damages by the crime itself, insensitive intrusion by media-persons, people involved in
the judicial procedure and by some members of the public may hurt them. Furthermore, it is
possible that given the lack of victim support net, a sense of isolation made worse by the
government and society ignoring them, the bereaved are further damaged, turning their feelings
into yet more hatred.
6.Capital punishment and public opinion According to various polls, it is reported that the
proponents of the retention of capital punishment account for a fair proportion of the population.
In the latest poll released by the Prime Minister’s Office on November 27, 1999, retentionists
account for 79.3% of the population while abolitionists 8.8%. However, there is some criticism of
the poll conducted by the government on the ground that sufficient information was not provided
and those who support abolition under certain conditions are orientated to support the
retentionist side.
(7) Capital punishment and its alternatives Many of the abolitionist countries adopt life
imprisonment that does not permit a release on parole for at least 15 to 30 years as a substitute
for capital punishment. There are countries that had adopted life imprisonment without parole,
but many of them later shifted to systems that permit parole after a certain period
Arguments for Capital Punishment:
● The primary argument that supports capital punishment is that every guilty person should be
punished and the punishment shall be proportional to the crime that he/she has committed. This
argument supports the idea of justice. J. Anand and J. N.P. Singh in one of their judgments
stated that: Imposition of appropriate punishment is the way by which one can respond to
society's cry for justice against the criminals. Justice asks for imposing punishment and befitting
crime, so that it can contemplate hatred of the crime.
● Society has always utilized punishment as a mode to discourage criminals since society aims
to reduce heinous crimes, therefore, the strongest punishment shall be awarded and capital
punishment is apt for it. Offenders should be killed to prevent them from committing a crime
again. It's considered sensible to kill a person who is dangerous to the community and
execution is treated as a remedy to safeguard the interest of society.
● There is no proof that capital punishment has taken the lives of innocent people, even if any
case appears, it's rare to happen. Discretion has always played a significant role, every
case has different circumstances and they are minutely observed. Hence, it shouldn't be
considered discriminatory in nature. The fear definitely impacts human psychology, therefore,
the death penalty ensures that the violation of any law shall not be taken in a lighter way;
mandatory actions shall be enforced to uphold the law.
Future of capital punishment in India
In Chhannulal Verma v. the State of Chattisgarh, Justice Kurian Joseph in his dissenting opinion
expressed his various concerns over the inconsistent application of the principles laid down in
Bachan Singh. In this case, he opined that the constitutional regulation of the death penalty
attempted in Bachan Singh has failed to prevent death sentences from being arbitrarily and
freakishly imposed and that death penalty has failed to achieve any constitutionally valid
penological goals.
Conclusion
● India is a democratic country and the preamble mentions, we the people of India where the
advantage of people at large prevails. The Constitution of India guarantees people to live in a
dignified manner, for this, the State can punish anyone against the crime that's done
against it. Considering the punishments, the death penalty is the highest punishment that one
can get irrespective of one(accused) right and dignity. ● India being a member of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights didn't abolish the death penalty however restricted the scope of
such practice by establishing the philosophy of the rarest of rare cases.
● As mentioned above, the current capital punishment system contains numerous serious flaws,
which should be corrected immediately.
(1) To improve the criminal justice system regarding capital punishment.
(2) To activate a discussion of the issue of whether to retain or abolish capital punishment
among the association and promote public discussion.
(3) To realize disclosure of information on capital punishment.
(4) To recommend a maximum penalty in place of capital punishment.
(5) To support crime victims and their families, recover damages and establish rights.
Recommendations
● Capital punishment is considered the most inhuman and cruel punishment in the world.
Several countries have abolished it, however India being an active member of the United
Nations and numerous other commissions of Human Rights has not abolished it yet.
● However, there are various arguments that contend for abolishing capital punishment. The
emotional stigma of revenge would lead us nowhere else than in a cycle of violence and
sadness. Thus, in my view, executing criminals by awarding them capital punishment should be
abolished and that there is no place in the modern world for such killings by the State, and that
India should abolish capital punishment as soon as possible.
1. Efforts to Improve the Criminal Justice System Concerning Capital Punishment
2. Activation of Discussion on Preservation or Abolition of Capital Punishment and Promoting
Public Discussion
3. Disclosure of Information Concerning Capital Punishment
4. Recommendations for a Maximum Penalty in Place of Capital Punishment
5. Efforts to Support, Recover and Establish the Rights of Crime Victims.

9. The way in which Unlawful assembly constituted

 CHAPTER VIII

OF OFFENCES AGAINST THE PUBLIC TRANQUILITY

Unlawful assembly
141. An assembly of five or more persons is designated an "unlawful assembly," if the common
object of the persons composing that assembly is

First.-To overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, Government or Legislature, or any
public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant; or

Second.-To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process; or

Third.To commit any mischief or criminal trespass, or other offence; or

Fourth.-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; or

Fifth.-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.

10. Overview of the difference between Abduction and Kidnapping

Grounds of
Kidnapping Abduction
differentiation

Section 359 defines the offence of Section 362 defines the

Section
kidnapping. offence of abduction.

Meaning Kidnapping refers to taking away a minor or Abduction refers to compelling

person of unsound mind from its legal or inducing any person by
guardianship or taking away any person using force or through any
beyond the limits of India. deceitful means, to take
him/her from one place to
 another.

It is a continuing offence. It
It is not a continuing offence. It is completed
Nature of continues till the person is
soon at the moment a person is separated
offence removed from one place to
from lawful guardianship.
another.

Section 359 defines two types of kidnapping:

Types 1. Kidnapping from India (Section Section 362 defines only one
360) type of abduction.
2. Kidnapping from lawful
guardianship (Section 361)
It involves minors, i.e., girls upto the age of
18 years or boys upto the age of 16 years, It can take place in reference
Parties referred
or persons of unsound mind and a lawful to a person of any age.
guardian.

Force, compulsion or deceitful

Means used Means used are immaterial.
means should be involved.

In the case of “kidnapping from lawful

guardianship”, the consent of a lawful
guardian is relevant to decide the The consent of the person is
Nature of commission of the offence. But in the case induced by force or
consent of “kidnapping from India”, it must be shown compulsion or means of
that it was done without the consent of the deceit.
person or the person legally authorised to
give consent on that person’s behalf.

Intention of the person kidnapping is Intention to commit an offence

Intention
immaterial. is essential.

It is not a substantive offence.

It is a substantive offence. It means merely
It constitutes an offence when
Type of offence the act of taking away constitutes
it was done with the intention
kidnapping.
to commit other offences.

Mere abduction is not

Section 363 prescribes punishment for punishable unless done with
Punishment kidnapping which is imprisonment that may intent to commit other
extend to 7 years and a fine. offences as provided in
Sections 364 to 369.

Illustration A takes away B, a girl of 16 years of age, out A induces B by force to go

of her lawful guardianship without the from one place to another
 place in order to compel her
consent of the guardians. A has committed
for marriage. A has committed
kidnapping.
abduction.

11. when does a stolen property cease its 'Stolen' character?

CHAPTER XVII

OF OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY

Of the Receiving of Stolen Property

Stolen property
410. Property, the possession whereof has been transferred by theft, or by extortion, or by
robbery, and property which has been criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal
breach of trust has been committed, is designated as "stolen property," whether the transfer has
been made, or the misappropriation or breach of trust has been committed, within or without
Bangladesh. But, if such property subsequently comes into the possession of a person legally
entitled to the possession thereof, it then ceases to be stolen property.

CHAPTER VA
2

CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

12. Definition of criminal conspiracy.

120A. When two or more persons agree to do, or cause to be done,-
(1) an illegal act, or
(2) an act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy:
Provided that no agreement except an agreement to commit an offence shall amount to a criminal
conspiracy unless some act besides the agreement is done by one or more parties to such agreement in
pursuance thereof.
Explanation.-It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of such agreement, or is merely
incidental to that object.
Punishment of criminal conspiracy
120B. (1) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with
death, [imprisonment for life] or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall, where
3

no express provision is made in this Code for the punishment of such a conspiracy, be punished in the
same manner as if he had abetted such offence.
(2) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence
punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term not
exceeding six months, or with fine or with both.]

Ingredients or Essentials of Conspiracy:– To constitute criminal conspiracy, the following

ingredients are to be satisfied.
1. There must be an agreement between the persons, who are alleged to conspire;
and
2. The agreement should be:
(i) for doing of an illegal act; or
(ii) for doing by an illegal means an act, which may not itself be illegal.

13. Abetment
CHAPTER V

OF ABETMENT

Abetment of a thing
107. A person abets the doing of a thing, who

Firstly.-Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly.-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of
that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order
to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly.-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation 1.-A person who, by wilful misrepresenta-tion, or by wilful concealment of a material

fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or
procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

Illustration
A, a public officer, is authorized by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z. B, knowing
that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally
causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C.
Explanation 2.-Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything
in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is
said to aid the doing of that act.
Abettor
108. A person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an offence, or the
commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of
committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor.

Explanation 1.-The abetment of the illegal omission of an act may amount to an offence
although the abettor may not himself be bound to do that act.

Explanation 2.-To constitute the offence of abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted
should be committed, or that the effect requisite to constitute the offence should be caused.

Illustrations

(a) A instigates B to murder C. B refuses to do so. A is guilty of abetting B to commit murder.

(b) A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of the instigation stabs D. D recovers from the
wound. A is guilty of instigating B to commit murder.
14. Def. of forgery
CHAPTER XVIII

OF OFFENCES RELATING TO DOCUMENTS AND TO TRADE OR PROPERTY MARKS

Forgery
463. Whoever makes any false document or part of a document, 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 intend to commit fraud
or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.

How can you tell if a document is real or fake?

There are several ways to determine whether a document is genuine or fraudulent. The first
step is to understand the purpose of the document. Is it being used as proof of identity? If so,
you should absolutely verify the document’s validity before accepting.
In the finance industry, commonly faked identity documents include bank statements,
paychecks, IDs, Social Security cards, and insurance policies. The typical documents required
to apply for loans, credit cards, mortgages, car loans, and insurance.
Finding alterations in these documents is crucial to determining their authenticity. A forged
document used to be possible to detect with the naked eye using high-powered magnification.
Not so much today, thanks to technological advancements.
However, manually detecting pseudo documents is still possible if it's done by amateurs. Things
you can look for include:

o Missing or altered numbers

o Errors in the data (e.g., misspelled names)

o Altered text or images

o Unusual formatting

o Mismatched logos and addresses

You can also compare documents to official databases to find inconsistencies, including
possible cases of false documentation. For instance, if a lot of your customers use Wells Fargo,
Capital One, and other known banks, you can verify the authenticity by looking at their
statements.
Unfortunately, this isn't always enough to detect a counterfeit document. Photo editing tools
allow criminals to manipulate photos and graphics quickly, making it challenging to catch cases
of false documentation solely through visual inspection. So if you're relying solely on visual
inspection, it'll be challenging to catch.
Fortunately, tools are available to assist you. Inscribe is an AI-powered fraud detection and
automation platform that identifies inconsistencies in data, fonts, and format, as well as
alterations like text boxes placed over documents.
15. Meaning of wrongful restraint
CHAPTER XVI

OF OFFENCES AFFECTING THE HUMAN BODY

Of Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement

Wrongful restraint
339. 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 over land 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 this
section.

Illustration

A obstructs a path along which Z has a right to pass, A not believing in good faith that he has a
right to stop the path. Z is thereby prevented from passing. A wrongfully restrains Z.

Wrongful Restraint

Definition
According to Section 339 of the Indian Penal Code;
“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.”
Further, the section also lays down an exception, which is that if a person in good faith believes
himself to have a lawful right to obstruct and so obstruct a private way over land or water, then it
does not amount to wrongful restraint.
To understand this, let us look at the following
illustration-
Chitra is walking on a public road on which she has a right to pass. Rajesh obstructs this path
despite knowing that he had no right to stop the path. As Chitra was prevented from passing,
Rajesh can be said to have wrongfully restrained Chitra.

Ingredients
To establish the offence of wrongful restraint the complainant must prove all the following
essential:

1. That there was an obstruction;

 2. That the obstruction prevented the complainant from proceeding in any direction;
3. That the person/complainant so proceeding must have a right to proceed in the
direction concerned.

Objective
The objective of this section is to ensure that the freedom of a person is protected. When a
person has a right to proceed in a particular direction then the law must ensure that such right is
available to the person. Even if there is a slight unlawful obstruction, it is deemed to be wrongful
restraint.
It is neither necessary that the obstruction caused must be physical nor is the presence of the
accused essential for the restraint to be wrongful under this section.
The presence of assault is not required for the act to amount as wrongful restraint. Even use of
mere words to cause obstruction to the path of a person may constitute as an offence under this
section.
When a person obstructs another by-

1. Causing it to appear to that other person that to proceed would be;

1. impossible
2. difficult
3. dangerous
2. Or by actually causing it to be impossible, difficult or dangerous for that other person
to proceed
Lastly, it must be noted that in order to invoke this section and to prove the offence under this
section, it is essential for the complainant to prove his right of way over the land.

Punishment
Section 341 of the Indian Penal Code imposes punishment against the wrongdoer under
Section 339 with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or with fine
which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both.
The classification of the offence under this section is that the offence is Cognizable, Bailable
and Triable by any Magistrate, it is also compoundable by the person restrained or confined.
CHAPTER XVI

OF OFFENCES AFFECTING THE HUMAN BODY

Of Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement

Wrongful confinement
340. Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person form
proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person.

Illustrations
(a) A causes Z to go within a walled space, and locks Z in. Z is thus prevented from proceeding
in any direction beyond the circumscribing line of wall. A wrongfully confines Z.

(b) A places men with firearms at the outlets of a building, and tells Z that they will fire at Z if Z
attempts to leave the building. A wrongfully confines Z.

Wrongful Confinement
Definition
According to Section 340 of the Indian Penal Code; “Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in
such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits
is said to have committed the offence of wrongful confinement.”

Illustrations:

1. Radhika causes Anamika to go within a walled space and locks Anamika in. Anamika
is thus prevented from proceeding in any direction beyond the circumscribing line of
the walls and so Radhika has wrongfully confined Anamika.
2. Gabbar places men with firearms at the outlets of a building and tells Veeru that they
will fire at him if he attempts to leave the building. Here, Gabbar has wrongfully
confined Veeru.

Ingredients
The essential ingredients of the offence of wrongful confinement are:

1. The accused should have wrongfully restrained the complainant (i.e. all ingredients of
wrongful restraint must be present)
2. Such wrongful restraint was to prevent the complainant from proceeding beyond
certain circumscribing limits beyond which he or she has the right to proceed.

Punishment
Section 342 of the Indian Penal Code states that whoever wrongfully confines any person shall
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year,
or with fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both The classification of this
offence is that it is cognizable, Bailable and Triable by any Magistrate. Further, it is
Compoundable by the person confined with the permission of the court.

16. Discussion on mens rea and its relevancy

See the Jurisprudence and English for law notes