Law of Crimes - 1

- Saina Rinu
Assistant Professor, BMS College of Law, Bangalore
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
▪
Unit 1
General Principles of Crime
▪ Conceptions of Crime
▪ Distinction between Crime, Morality and other wrongs.
▪ Principles of criminal liability – Actus reus and mens rea and other related maxims
▪ Variations in liability - Mistake, intoxication, compulsion, legally abnormal person;
▪ Possible parties to the crime, State obligation to detect/punish.
▪ Historical background, Extent and Operation of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
▪ Definitions and General explanation (Ss 2-3)
▪ Trends towards Gender Neutrality
▪ Punishments-Community Services (Ss 4 – 13); Commutation, Amount of Fine, Liability in
default of payment of fine,
▪ Solitary Confinement
▪ General exceptions (Ss 14 – 44).
 Introduction
❖ What is crime?
❖ What is law
❖ Substantial vs Procedural law
❖ Is BNS a substantial or procedural law
❖ Nature of crime
❖ Elements of crime
Right and Wrong
▪ Inborn sense of right and wrong in human nature
▪ Moral wrong and legal wrong
▪ Crime vs. Sin
▪ Lie vs. criminal breach of trust
▪ Lawful remedy for unlawful contracts. Eg. Abetment of murder, gambling, drug
dealings, bet etc.
 Law as a Social Discipline
▪ Man is a social animal (Aristotle)
▪ A balance between selfishness and self sacrifice
▪ Object of law is to curtail or limit the natural liberty of men. (Hobbes)
▪ Not to harm but assist one another.
▪ Law is the will of state , the command of the sovereign.
▪ Conflict between the laws of nature and laws of men
▪ Uniformity in Law is important to ensure social acceptance
▪ Law is the body of principles recognized and applied by the state in
the administration of justice. (Salmond)
Idea of Criminal law and Crime
▪ Maintenance of peace and order in the society is one of the important
and legitimate functions of every state.
▪ In order to main the peace and order certain acts and omissions of
human beings are prohibited by law.
▪ The instrument by which the state discharges its primary function
of maintaining law and order is the penal law or law of crimes.
▪ The main object of criminal law is the protection of life, liberty and
property of the people living in the society.
▪ Crime is a wrong against public at large or against the state.
 Crime is not a civil or a moral
▪
wrong
Crime is basically disobedience of penal law.
▪ A thief disobeys the prohibition against theft. He is liable to be punished. The consequence
of violation of law is sufferance of punishment by the offender.
▪ The object of criminal law is penal retribution.
▪ Crimes are not civil wrongs.
▪ In a civil wrong, the defendant is liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff.
▪ This is because the object of civil law is to restore the plaintiff to his/her original position
by compensating him/her.
▪ The object of civil law is restorative justice.
▪ Moral wrongs are not punishable.
▪ Moral wrongs do not create a claim for compensation.
▪ There is no liability for a person who commits a moral wrong.
▪ For example, disobedience of parents is a moral wrong. The child is not liable for
punishment or liable for paying compensation to his/her parents for disobeying them.
 Civil wrong Crime
▪ Indemnification or compensation ▪ Punishment or reformation
▪ Intention or ill motive(mens rea) ▪ Mens rea is a deciding factor
is not necessary
▪ Grave in nature and against
▪ Against individual public
▪ Procedural differences ▪ Burden of proof is on prosecution
▪ Compoundable ▪ According to the statute

Exceptions: Public Nuisance, Defamation etc.

Tort v. Crime
▪ Private wrongs
▪ Public wrongs
▪ Wrong for which there lies an action for damages.
▪ Conduct that deserves punishment under law.
▪ Injury or breach of duty to an individual for which he is entitled to
get reparation from the wrong-doer.
▪ Breach of duty to public as a whole for which the offender is
punished by the society or the state.
 CRIME?
▪ “An action committed or omitted, which constitutes an offence and is
punishable by law, is a crime.”

▪ Crime is an unlawful act that is forbidden and punished by the State or

the law.

▪ Anything which is injurious to public welfare is a crime.

▪ The distinction between right and wrong is different at an individual,

societal, and international level.

▪ We have the concepts of sin and crime. An act or behavior may be a

sin, but it is not necessary that it is punishable by law as well.
Definitions of Crime
▪ Blackstone – “an act committed in violation of public law forbidding or
commanding it.”
▪ Stephen – “violation of right considered in reference to evil tendency of such
violation as regards the community at large.”
▪ Austin – “a wrong which is pursued at the discretion of injured party and his
representatives in a civil injury, a wrong which is pursued by the sovereign or
his subordinate is a crime.”
▪ Halsbury – “Crime is an unlawful act or default which is an offence against the
public order and which renders the perpetrators of the act or default liable to
legal punishment.”
▪ According to Kenny, “crimes are wrongs whose sanction is
positive and in no way remissible by any private person,
but remissible by state alone, if remissible at all.”
▪ Kenny’s definition means that punishment of wrongful
deeds of people by the state is morally good.
▪ However, punishment must be inflicted by the state alone
and not by a private vigilante or even by the victim to the
offender.
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
▪ In India, the criminal jurisprudence came into existence from the times of
Manu.
▪ Manu has recognized assault, theft, robbery, false evidence, slander, criminal
breach of trust and many more as offences.
▪ The king protected his subjects and subjects in return owed him taxes.
▪ Different laws came into force during the reign of different rulers.
▪ Muslim law was applicable in major part of India when the Britishers came to
India
▪ Britishers adopted different set of rules.
▪ In the year 1834, India’s 1st Law Commission was appointed which was
chaired by Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay and four other members. The
commission was assigned three major tasks, namely,
→ Codification of India’s penal laws.
→ Defining laws for individuals who were neither Hindus nor Muslims.
→ Codification of civil and criminal procedural laws.
▪ It prepared and submitted a report to the government in 1837.
▪ This draft was enacted into law in 1860.
▪ Uniform code for whole of India was adopted – IPC 1860
▪ In 2024 July 1st 2024, the Indian Penal Code was repealed and BNS came into
force.
▪ There are total 358 Sections and 20 chapters.
▪ 20 new sections have been added in BNS and 20 provisions of IPC have been
deleted.
Categorization of Laws:

•Substantive Law •Procedural Law

 Procedural v/s Substantive Law ❖ Deals with the subject matter of the case and
❖ Prescribes the methods, procedure and machinery
for the enforcement of rights and obligations states the rights and obligations of the parties

❖ Applies to both legal and non-legal matters. concerned.

❖ Determines the manner in which the case is filed or ❖ Cannot be applied to non-legal matters.
appeal is made.
❖ Regulates the conduct of the individual or

❖ Creates the mechanism for the enforcement of the government agency.

law.
❖ States the rights and obligations of the citizens.
 Is BNS a substantial or procedural law?

Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, came in to force from July 1 2024, is a

substantive law as it contains the de nition of all the o ences,
essential ingredients of an o ence to be called an o ence, and the
punishment to be awarded for all such o ences.
Thus, whenever there is a commission of an o ence, the police
authorities use it to prepare the charge sheet.
The BNS is considered a substantial law for several reasons:
◈ Definition of Offences: The IPC defines a wide range of criminal offences, specifying
what constitutes a crime. This includes everything from theft and assault to more
complex crimes like fraud and conspiracy.
◈ Prescribed Punishments: It outlines the punishments for each offence, providing a
clear framework for sentencing. This helps ensure consistency and fairness in the
judicial process.
◈ Rights and Responsibilities: The IPC establishes the legal rights and responsibilities
of individuals, detailing what actions are punishable and the corresponding legal
consequences
◈ Comprehensive Coverage: As a comprehensive code, the IPC covers all substantive
aspects of criminal law in India, making it a foundational legal document for the
country’s criminal justice system.
◈ Historical Significance: Enacted in 1860, the IPC has been a cornerstone of Indian
law for over a century, evolving through amendments to address new types of crimes
and changing societal norms.
These elements collectively make the BNS a substantial and essential part of India’s
legal framework.
 Importance of Criminal law
❖ Protects society from harm from criminal behavior by deterring people
from committing crimes, punishing those who do commit crimes, and
rehabilitating those who have been convicted of crimes.
❖ Provides predictability, letting people know what to expect from others.
❖ Resolves disputes and conflicts between quarreling citizens.
❖ Protects individuals and property.
❖ Defines the rights and obligations of individuals in society.
❖ Concerns the enforcement of individuals’ rights during the criminal
process.
 Burden of proof in crimes
▪ The burden of proving a crime is on the prosecution.
▪ The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. If any doubt is present in
the mind of the court, then the court shall have to acquit the accused.
▪ In civil litigation however the burden of proof is different than in criminal litigation. In civil litigation, one must
prove the case on preponderance of probabilities. This is an easier burden of proof than in criminal litigation.
▪ The burden of proving crime is more onerous and difficult to discharge in criminal litigation and all benefit of
any doubt present in the mind of the court is reaped by the accused.
▪ The task of proving the guilt of accused is performed by the prosecution. The task of proving the
innocence of the accused is performed by the defense. The state is the prosecutor in the criminal trial. The
state fights the case on behalf of the victim and the society at large.
▪ Criminal trials are adversarial in nature. Two adversaries show the guilt and innocence of the accused
person to the court upon which the court gives a decision.
▪ Exceptions when it comes to specific legislations
▪ Generalia specialibus non derogant
The main elements that make up a crime are:
1. A human being [Sec. 2(26)- Person]
▪ Illustration: Person A kills Person B – crime
▪ Person A steals from Person C - crime
2. Evil intent or guilty mind on the part of a human being. (Mens
rea)
▪ "actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit reas" meaning "an
act is not guilty unless the mind is not guilty".
3. Any act committed or omitted in accordance with the evil
intent and is forbidden by law. (Actus reus)
4. Injury
“Actus non facit reum nisi
mens sit rea”
(Act alone does not amount to guilt,
it must be accompanied by a guilty mind)
▪ A killed B while he was sleepwalking at night.
▪ A was sitting inside his car parked in the parking area of a mall. B hit
into the car with his motorbike. B dies.
▪ A stood up from his seat in the bus and accidentally hits B, who was
standing next to him. B dies.
▪ Mother dreamt that her daughter was harassed by a soldier.
Immediately she got up in her sleep took an axe and killed her
daughter thinking she was killing the soldier. (Melbourne case)
▪ A child living with a man and women was denied food and thereby
the child dies. (Gibbins v. Proctor)
 Elements of Crime
Actus reus
▪ Actus reus means guilty act.
▪ It consists of physical actions which are prohibited by law.
▪ Examples of actus reus include theft, extortion, murder, cheating, bribery, forgery, hurt,
assault, rioting, cruelty, bigamy etc.
Mens rea
▪ Mens rea means guilty mind.
▪ Almost all crimes have some mental element.
▪ Examples of mens rea include intent, knowledge, rashness, recklessness, reason to
believe, fraudulent, dishonest, corruptly, allowing, omitting, maliciously, deliberately,
voluntarily etc.
 ACTUS REUS, PHYSICAL ACT OF THE CRIME
DEFINITION:
- A guilty act that is conscious and voluntary.
- "Are we going to hold somebody criminally liable for an act that is not wilful
and not voluntary?"
▪ Actus reus is the first essential element or ingredient of a crime.
▪ An act is any event which is subject to the control of human will.
▪ An act is a conscious movement.
▪ It is the conduct that results from the operation of will.
▪ “Actus reus” refers to the result of human conduct which the law seeks to
prevent.
▪ If any human conduct (actus) is not prohibited by law, the act or conduct
will not be termed as a crime. A person who commits such an act is not
liable for a crime.
▪ Any movement of the body that is not a consequence of the
determination of the will is not an act.
▪ Thus, involuntary actions will not become criminal acts.
 ▪ Actus reus may be negative or positive. 'X' shoots 'Y' and kills him. It is a positive actus
reus.
▪ The mother of a child does not feed the child and causes the death of the child by putting
it in starvation. The actus reus is negative. Thus actus reus in this illustration is omission
to act.
▪ In order to be liable for a crime, the act or omission should be one prohibited by law.
The following illustrations will make the point more clear.
(i) A who is having sufficient means, and he failed to help a starving man. The man dies
due to starvation. 'A' is not criminally liable since his omission is not prohibited by law.
(ii) 'A', who knows swimming, failed to save the life of a drowning child, and the child
died as a result of the omission. The omission is not prohibited by law, and 'A is not
liable for any crime. If 'A' was a coast-guard, the omission to act would have been a
crime.
(iii) 'A' is a jail warden. He failed to supply food to the prisoners in jail, and several
prisoners died due to starvation. A is liable to be punished for murder as ho violated a
prohibited omission.
(iv) 'A' shoots 'B' and causing the death of 'B'. 'A' is liable to be punished for murder since he
violated a prohibited act.
► EXAMPLES:
- Someone who is driving a car
suddenly had a heart attack and
they hit somebody along the
sidewalk. Are they going to be
guilty of hitting somebody?
- A person who has a sleepwalking
disorder commits murder. Are
they going to be found guilty of
the crime?
MENS REA, MENTAL INTENT TO DO THE CRIME

DEFINITION:
- A guilty mind.
- The defendant knew that what he was doing was wrong.
▪ There exists no place in the Sanhita mentioning “mens rea” as such, but
▪ Voluntarily [Sec.2 (33)]
▪ Intentionally
▪ Knowledge
▪ Reason to believe [Sec.2 (29)]
▪ Fraudulently [Sec.2 (8)] and
▪ Dishonestly[Sec.2 (6)] are found in the code.
▪ A prohibited act will become a crime when It is accompanied by certain state of
mind.
▪ There must be a mind at fault before any crime can be committed.
▪ An act or omission alone is not sufficient to constitute a crime. The act or
omission should have followed by an evil intent.
▪ Thus, we may say,

A crime = a prohibited act or omission + Guilty mind.

▪ The combination of an act with the evil or guilty intent makes a crime.
▪ An act by Itself is not a wrong.
▪ An act which has done with guilty mind makes it a crime, If the act is prohibited by
law.
▪ Mens rea is an evil intention or knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act.
 Different kinds of Mens rea involves:
▪ Mens rea may be of different kinds:
▪ (1) Intention: Intention indicates the state of mind of a man who not only fore sees but
also desires the possible consequence of his conduct.
Example: 'X' threw a stone at 'Y’ with a desire to cause Injury to 'Y'. As a result of that, injury
was caused to 'Y'. The desire of 'X' to cause Injury to 'y' is the Intention or mans rea and the
act of throwing the stone and the consequential Injury ls the actus reus.
▪ (2) Recklessness/ Rashness: When a person does an act with the foresight of injury but
without desire to cause harm to any person, the state of mind can be
called "recklessness.“
Example: 'X' drives a vehicle at high speed through a busy street without any desire to
commit injury to any person. He foresees the possibility of accident but consciously takes
the risk that may result from such a driving. The accident may or may not happen. The state
of mind of 'X at the time of driving, is recklessness. It is a mind at fault (mens rea) for
constituting a crime.
▪ (3) Negligence: Negligence means 'want of care’. When a person who is bound to
take care fails to take care of an ordinary prudent man, his mind is at fault, and the
faulty state of mind is known as "negligence." Recklessness includes negligent
conduct.
▪ (4) Knowledge: Knowledge refers to the personal information of a person who does
an act. It is a state of mind of a person. Under law, doing an act with knowledge may
constitute a crime.
Example: 'X' receives stolen property from' Y' with knowledge that it is stolen property.
The act of' X' is an offence punishable under law.
▪ (5) Motive: Motive is an attitude of the mind. It is the emotion that prompting to do an
act. Love, compassion, fear, jealousy, hatred, perverted lust, de sire for money, etc., are
examples of emotion promoting us to do an act, and they constitute motive. Motive
refers to the ultimate intent of a person.
Example: 'X is a starving man. He decides to commit theft of bread to satisfy his hunger,
and he commits theft of bread from B's shop. The immediate intention of his act is theft of
bread, and the motive is to satisfy his hunger. Thus, motive is the ulterior object of an act,
which prompted him to do an act. Purity of motive or good motive will not convert an act
which otherwise is criminal Into one which is not punishable.
The accused must have specific intent to commit the crime.
Mentally, he has to mean for that crime to occur.

EXAMPLES:
1. Attempt, Conspiracy
2. Theft Crimes
3. Intent to Kill
4.Heat of Passion Killings
CONCURRENCE, OF ACTUS REUS AND MENS REA

“Accused must both have a guilty act and guilty

mind at the time he committed the crime.”

ACTUS REUS + MENS REA = CRIME

 Mens rea in BNS
The term “mens rea” is not included in the sanhita.
▪ Voluntarily [Sec.2 (33)] :
A person is said to have done an act or caused an effect “voluntarily” when:
▪ He has caused an effect by any means with intention to cause it.
▪ He has caused an effect by any means and at the time of employing those means he
knew that it is likely to cause
▪ He has caused an effect by any means and at the time of employing those means he
had reason to believe that it is likely to cause.
▪ It covers the idea of intention and knowledge.
Illustration: ‘A’ sets fire at night to an inhabited house for the purpose of facilitating
robbery, and thus causes death of a person. He has caused death voluntarily.
▪ Wrongful Gain Sec. 2(36) and Wrongful Loss Sec. 2(37)
In order to constitute “wrongful gain”, the following conditions are to be satisfied.
▪ A person should gain some property.
▪ By unlawful means.
▪ Not be legally entitled to it.
In order to constitute “wrongful gain”, the following conditions are to be satisfied.
▪ There should be loss of some property to one person.
▪ The loss must be caused by unlawful means
▪ The person suffers loss of property should be legally entitled to it.
▪ Dishonestly Sec 2(7)
If a person has done anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain or
wrongful loss to another person is said to do that person dishonestly.
▪ He should’ve done the act
▪ The act was done with the intention to cause wrongful gain of any property to
himself or the act was done with the intention to cause wrongful loss of property
to another person.
▪ The person who has gained the property should not be legally entitled to it or
the person who has lost the property should be legally entitled to it.
Illustration: ‘A’ finds a ring belonging to ‘Z’ on a table in the house which ‘Z’
occupies. Here the ring is in ‘Z’s possession. If ‘A’ takes the ring out of ‘Z’s
possession without ‘Z’s consent, with the intention of causing wrongful gain to ‘A;,
and thereby wrongful loss to ‘Z’, ‘A’ does the act ‘Dishonestly’. Here, ‘A’ is guilty of
theft.
▪ Fraudulently Sec 2(9)
A person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing
with intend to defraud but not otherwise.
▪ He should’ve done an act.
▪ He should’ve intention to defraud another
▪ The intention should be to defraud another and not
otherwise.
Exceptions to the Doctrine of
‘Mens rea’
Illustration 1: A person is bringing 34 kg gold to India not
knowing that it is unlawful. (State of Maharashtra v. MH
George)

Illustration 2: A person received a parcel containing fruits.

Parcel was found to have opium in it. Accused had no
knowledge about the existence of opium in the parcel.
(Inder Singh v. State of Punjab)
 Statutory Offences
▪ Strict liability
▪ NDPS 1985
▪ Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947
▪ Prevention of food adulteration act, 1954
▪ No necessity of mens rea
▪ State of Maharashtra v. M.H George – Bringing gold to India in violation
of statutory provision. Act itself is sufficient to attract punishment.
▪ Inder Singh v. State of Punjab- Parcel containing fruits. No knowledge of
existence of Opium.(Exception to the idea “no mens rea, no crime”)
State of mind of the accused is immaterial.

▸ Defendant's conviction will rest solely on the fact that he/she has committed the
prohibited act.
R v. Prince – Henry prince abducted a girl under 16 years, under belief she was 18
 Vicarious Liability in Crimes
▪ Vicarious liability is a principle by which one person is held liable for another's
wrong.
▪ In the case of crimes, the person who has actually committed the crime only is
normally responsible.
▪ There are certain exceptions to the general rule that in case of crime only the person
who committed the crime is liable.
▪ The following are the exceptions:
(i) By S. 193(1) BNS, If an unlawful assembly or a riot takes place on the land of a person,
the owner or occupier of such land is liable to be punished with fine not exceeding one
thousand rupees, where he or his agent or manager falls to give the earliest notice of the
unlawful assembly or the riot to the principal officer of the nearest police station.
▪ In R. v. Prayag Singh (1890)12 All 550, a riot took place on the land of one Prayag
Singh during the course of which one Pir Khan was killed. Prayag Singh was
punished with fine of Rs.1000/-.
(ii) By s. 193 (2) of the BNS., whenever a riot is committed for the benefit of the
owner or occupier of any land who claims any Interest in such land, If such
person has reason to believe that such riot was likely to be committed, the
owner or occupier is liable for fine If he has not taken all lawful means to
prevent such riot.
(iii) Section 3(5) BNS deals with Joint Liability or vicarious Liability on the basis
of "common Intention". By virtue of section 3(5) BNS, "when a criminal act is
done by several persons In furtherance of the common Intention of all each of
such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as it It were done by him
alone".
(iv) Section 61(1) and 61(2) deal with joint liability of a member of a conspiracy
to commit an offence.
(v) Section 190 BNS deals with joint liability or vicarious liability of members of
an unlawful assembly when an offence is commit- ted by a member in
prosecution of the common object of the unlawful assembly.
(vi) Section 310(3) deals with joint liability or vicarious liability of dacoits' when
a dacoit commits murder for committing dacoity.
Possible parties to the crime
Principal in the first degree
▪ A principal in the first degree is a person who directly
commits a crime and is therefore held fully responsible for
its commission.
▪ In criminal law, a principal in the first degree is the
individual who actually commits the crime, whether
through their own actions or by directing others to commit
the crime on their behalf.
▪ This individual is considered the primary actor in the
commission of the crime and is therefore held fully
responsible for its commission.
Principal in the second degree:
▪ The principal in the second degree is not the perpetrator (i.e., the one who actually
commits the crime) but the individual or individuals who are present and help the
principal in the first degree commit the crime.
▪ In the robbery example, that would be the individual who stood by the door as the
lookout, and the individual in the car serving as a getaway driver. The elements of acting
as a principal in the second degree are:
1. Presence at the scene of the crime
2. Consent to the felonious purpose (i.e., that you share the criminal intent of the principal)
3. Contribute to its execution (i.e., that you do some an overt act in furtherance of the
commission of the crime).
4. A principal in the second degree differs from an accessory before the fact or
an accessory after the fact by their actual presence at the commission of the crime.
Accessory to the crime
▪ An accessory before the act would be an individual who knowingly and
voluntarily participated in the commission of a crime before it is committed.

▪ One who voluntarily provides the principal with the gun knowing that it would
be used in a crime, he is now an accessory to the robbery before the fact.
 Accessory before the fact
▪ The person who is guilty of felony for acts which aid, counsel, command or encourages the
culpable act, without being present either actually or constructively at the time of perpetration.
▪ Though not present in the scene of occurrence or where the crime is committed, counsel,
procure or command another to commit the crime.
▪ The accessory before the fact is unable to render aid at the actual moment of perpetration,
because anyone in such a position is held to be constructively present and therefore known as
a principal.
▪ But he may render aid in advance, as by procuring for the perpetrator the weapon or other
means by which the felony is to be committed.
▪ The element of time requires special mention here, but this is only to emphasize the want of
any legally established time limit within which the accessory's incitement may be recognized.
▪ It is no ground of immunity to him, for example, that his counsel and advice were given more
than a year prior to the perpetration of the crime.
 Accessory after the fact
▪ With knowledge of the other's guilt, renders assistance to an offender in the effort to
hinder his detection, arrest, trial or punishment.
▪ All those who knowing that a person has committed an offence knowingly receive,
relieve, comfort, harbor or assist him from escaping from the clutches of law is
identified as Accessories after the fact.
▪ A person who is an accessory before the fact may also become an accessory to the
same offense after the fact but this is not same in the case of principal offender.
▪ Moreover, absence at the time of perpetration is not necessary in the case of an
accessory after the fact.
▪ For instance, a person who was present at the time a murder was
committed and he assisted in concealing the evidence of the crime,
to protect the principal from prosecution, without abetting the
offender in any way, would be held guilty as an accessory after the
fact.
Examples:
▪ Throwing suspicion away from the principal
▪ Concealing the evidence by hiding corpse in a homicide case
▪ Performing surgical operation upon a fugitive by altering his facial
expression
▪ Obliterating his finger prints and to enable him to evade arrest are
some of the examples for a person to be guilty as an accessory
after the fact.
 Accessory v. Accomplice
➢ An accessory usually helps the principal before or after the crime
An accomplice helps the principal before and during the crime.
➢ Accessory is not usually present during the crime
Accomplice may or may not be present during the crime.
For example, an employee of the bank may give the plan of the bank and the vault to a gang of
robbers. Although this employee may not be present at the scene of the crime but he is an
accomplice therefore he is also guilty of the crime.
➢ Accessory may receive lesser charges and punishments
Accomplice may receive the same charges and punishments as the principal offender.
For example, one person secures the victim with ropes whereas the other stabs with him a knife.
Here, the person who stabbed the victim may be the principal and the one who tied up the victim
may be charged as the accomplice. Despite their presence or absence, they are considered to be
equally guilty of the crime.
Public servant- Sec. 2(28)
▪ Public Servants take part in the elevation of society, and direct an ample
amount of respect and potentiality.
▪ They are considered the connection between the Government and the
people in general.
▪ Their title role in the public is all the more important one as they are the
ones accountable for the execution of government plans and propound the
issues looked towards by the public to the appropriate authorities which
are proficient to address them.
▪ This amazement of being behind a public servant prompts lakhs of
applicants to learn and get ready for examinations that will build them
into a public servant has universal implications which may or may not be
precise.
▪ A public servant, as defined by Section 2(28) BNS, encompasses a wide range of
individuals working in governmental roles.
▪ From elected officials and bureaucrats to law enforcement officers and judges,
anyone engaged in public service falls under this category.
▪ The primary characteristic that distinguishes a public servant is their authority
and duty to serve the public interest.
▪ In Ramesh Balkrishna Kulkarni V. State of Maharashtra, it was held that a
Municipal councilor who is not assisting any public servant is not a ‘public
servant’ within the meaning of section 21 of the I.P.C.
▪ One, a “public servant” is an authority who must be appointed by the
Government or a semi-governmental body and should be in the pay or salary of
the same. Two, a “public servant” is to discharge his duties to the rules and
regulations made by the Government.
Territorial and Extra territorial
application of the code

Territorial application

Personal application

Extra territorial application

Territorial Application
▪ IPC 1860 was enacted to provide a general penal code for India

▪ The code applies to the whole of India except JK. (RPC)

▪ After THE JAMMU AND KASHMIR REORGANISATION ACT, 2019, JK has also
been added to the territory.

▪ The territorial waters of India are part of India and offences committed in India
and is made punishable in India.
Personal Application
▪ All persons who have committed an offence under IPC anywhere in India.
▪ Anyone, citizens and foreigners, who has committed an offence punishable
under IPC.
▪ ‘A’ is Pakistani national residing in Pakistan. He made false representations to
the complainant in Bombay by telegram and as a result of which the
complainant lost 5 lakh rupees. As a result, extradition proceedings were taken
against the accused, he was arrested while he was in England and was brought
to Bombay where he was tried and convicted. (Mobarak Ali Ahmed v. State of
Bombay)
▪ X, a foreigner, commits murder of Y, a foreigner within territorial waters of India
while they were on board a foreign ship. Whether X is liable to be punished
under BNS? (Sec 1 BNS)
▪ If a foreigner commits an offence under the IPC within the territorial waters of
India, he is liable to be punished under IPC even though the offence was
committed on board a foreign ship.

Persons who enjoy immunity

• President and Governor
• Foreign Sovereign
• Ambassadors and other
Diplomatic Agents
• Foreign Army
Extra-territorial Application
▪ The jurisdiction to try an offence committed outside India
▪ Sec. 1(4) and 1(5) of code provide for the punishment of offences committed
outside India
▪ If an Indian citizen commits an offence punishable under IPC, beyond India he
can be tried and convicted for such offence in India.
▪ Offence inside a ship or aircraft registered in India can be tried and convicted
in India
▪ X is a citizen of India. He commits murder in England. Whether he can be tried
and convicted for the murder in India ?
▪ Central Bank of India v. Ram Narain (subsequent acquiring of citizenship)
▪ Republic of Italy v. UOI(fisherman Kerala)- Contiguous Zone
 Punishments
Section 4 (a to f) of BNS defines the punishments are as follows:
1. Death Penalty
The death penalty is reserved for the most heinous crimes, such as specific types of murder and
acts of terrorism. The BNS 2023 maintains the death penalty as a deterrent and punitive
measure for the gravest offenses. Case Law: Mukesh & Anr vs State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors
(2017) Commonly known as the Nirbhaya case, this landmark judgment reaffirmed the death
penalty for the convicts of brutal gang rape and murder, highlighting the severity with which such
crimes are treated.
2. Imprisonment
• Rigorous Imprisonment: This involves hard labor and is prescribed for serious offenses.
• Simple Imprisonment: This does not involve hard labor and is usually for less severe
crimes. Case Law: State of Gujarat vs Kishanbhai (2014) – The Supreme Court discussed the
appropriateness of rigorous imprisonment for the convict in a kidnapping and murder case.
▪ 3. Life Imprisonment
Life imprisonment entails incarceration for the convict’s natural life. It is a common
alternative to the death penalty for heinous crimes. Case Law: Swamy Shraddananda vs
State of Karnataka (2008) – This case illustrated the use of life imprisonment instead of the
death penalty, emphasizing rehabilitation and reform.
▪ 4. Fine
Fines are monetary penalties that can be imposed alone or in conjunction with other
punishments. They serve as a deterrent for financial and regulatory offenses. Case
Law: M.C. Mehta vs Union of India (1987) – The Supreme Court imposed heavy fines on
industries for environmental violations, showcasing the application of fines as punitive and
corrective measures.
▪ 5. Forfeiture of Property
This involves the confiscation of property derived from or used in criminal activities. It is
aimed at depriving offenders of the economic benefits of their crimes. Case Law: T.
Venkatesan vs State of Tamil Nadu (2003) – The court upheld the forfeiture of property of a
public servant convicted of corruption, reinforcing the principle of no gains from crime.
▪ 6. Community Service
Introduced as a reformative punishment, community service mandates offenders to
engage in community-beneficial activities. This aims at rehabilitating offenders
while benefiting society.
▪ Case Law: Appropriate sentencing decisions involving community service Although
specific case laws may evolve, community service is recognized as a rehabilitative
approach.
1. Probation
Probation allows offenders to stay in the community under supervision, instead of
serving time in prison. It is often used for first-time offenders and minor crimes.
Case Law: Joginder Singh vs State of Punjab (1979) – The Supreme Court discussed
the conditions under which probation can be granted, emphasizing rehabilitation over
incarceration.
2. Restitution
Restitution requires offenders to compensate victims for their losses. This form of
punishment emphasizes restorative justice by directly addressing the harm caused by
the crime.
Case Law: K.A. Abbas H.S.A vs Sabu Joseph (2010) – The court ordered restitution
to the victim in a case of fraud, highlighting the importance of compensating victims.
 Solitary confinement
▪ Sec 11 of the BNS defines solitary confinement as a form of imprisonment in which the inmate lives
in a single cell with little or no meaningful contact with other people . Solitary confinement is a type
of punitive tool within the prison system to discipline or to separate disruptive prison inmates who
are security risks to other inmates, the prison staff, or the prison itself.
• 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 say:
A time not exceeding one month if the term of imprisonment 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.
▪ In leading case of Kishore Singh V. State Of Rajasthan, it was held by SC that solitary
confinement is a type of imprisonment in which there is complete isolation of prisoner from
the co prisoner and segregation from outside world and fellow prisoner
▪ Solitary confinement in any sentence can be awarded not more than 14 days at a time for a
maximum of 3 months. It must be awarded in intervals and periods .
▪ If imprisonment exceeds 3 months, then solitary confinement should not exceed 7 days in a
month. If the imprisonment does not exceed more than 6 months, then solitary confinement
should be for 1 month.
▪ If the imprisonment exceeds 6 months and does not exceed one year, then solitary
confinement can be imposed for 2 months. If the imprisonment exceeds one year, then solitary
confinement should not exceed 3 months.
Theories of Punishment
Preventive Theory-
▪ Justice Holmes
▪ Prevention is the chief and only universal purpose of punishment
▪ To avoid repeating the crime, punishment is provided
▪ e.g. chopping off hands
Deterrent Theory-
▪ England in middle ages till beginning of 19th century.
▪ To make the wrongdoer an example to other people who have criminal tendencies.
▪ Inhuman punishments even for minor offences.
▪ e.g. public execution
Retributive Theory-
▪ Plato, Kant
▪ Person
▪ Restoring social balance disturbed by the offender
State is substituted to the place of individual. Idea of crime against state
Expiatory Theory-
▪ make up for the victim
Reformative Theory-
rehabilitate rather than avenge(Muhd. Giasudhin v. State of UP)
▪ Punishments are no longer retributory, they are reformative (Bhagirath v. Delhi
Administration)
▪ Bachan Singh v State of Punjab – rarest of the rare principle
▪ Machchi Singh v State of Punjab
Exam oriented topics
▪ Crime
▪ Mens rea
▪ Territorial jurisdiction and it’s exceptions
▪ Ideas of mens rea in BNS(voluntarily fraudulently etc.)
▪ Common intention
▪ Forms of Punishments
▪ Public servant
▪ Possible parties to a crime
▪ Solitary confinement
Thank You!