Indian Penal Code

ndian Penal Code (IPC, Hindi: भारतीय दणड संिहता) is the main criminal code of India. It is a comprehensive code, intended to cover all substantive aspects of criminal law. It was drafted in 1860 and came into force in colonial India during the British Raj in 1862. It has since been amended several times and is now supplemented by other criminal provisions. In the state of Jammu and Kashmir, the IPC is known as Ranbir Penal Code (RPC).[1] After independence, Indian Penal Code was inherited by Pakistan (now called Pakistan Penal Code) and Bangladesh, formerly part of British India. It was also adopted wholesale by the British colonial authorities in Burma, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei, and remains the basis of the criminal codes in those countries. Contents [hide]

1 History 2 Objective 3 Structure 4 Reforms 5 Acclaim 6 Popular references 7 See also 8 References 9 External links

[edit]History During the Moghul rule courts administered the "Sharia" to the exclusion of Hindu law. Islamic law gave way to English criminal law with the increase of British influence in theIndian subcontinent. Before 1860, The English criminal law, as modified by several acts was administered in the Presidency-Towns of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras. The draft of the Indian Penal Code was prepared by the First Law Commission, chaired by Thomas Babington Macaulay. Its basis is the law of England freed from superfluities, technicalities and local peculiarities. Elements were also derived from the Napoleonic Code and from Edward Livingston's Louisiana Civil Code of 1825. The first final draft of the Indian Penal

Code was submitted to the Governor-General of India in Council in 1837, but the draft was again revised. The drafting was completed in 1850 and it was presented to the Legislative Council in 1856 but it did not take its place on the Indian statute book until a generation later, following the Indian Rebellion of 1857. The draft then underwent a very careful revision at the hands of Sir Barnes Peacock, Chief Justice, and the puisne Judges of the Calcutta Supreme Court who were members of the Legislative Council, and was passed into law on 6 October 1860.[2] The Code came into operation on 1 January 1862. Unfortunately, Macaulay did not survive to see his masterpiece come into force, having died near the end of 1859. [edit]Objective The objective of this Act is to provide a general penal code for India.[3] Though not an initial objective, the Act does not repeal the penal laws which were in force at the time of coming into force in India. This was so because the Code does not contain all the offences and it was possible that same offences might have still been left out of the Code, which were not intended to be exempted from penal consequences. Though this Code consolidates the whole of the law on the subject and is exhaustive on the matters in respect of which it declares the law, many more penal statutes governing various offences have been created in addition to the code. [edit]Structure Indian Penal Code, 1860, sub-divided into twenty three chapters, comprises five hundred and eleven sections. The code starts with an introduction, provides explanations and exceptions used in the code, and covers a wide range of offences. The Outline is presented in the following table: INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 (Sections 1 to 511) Chapter

Sections covered

Classification of offences

Chapter Sections 1 Introduction I to 5 Chapter Sections 6 General Explanations. II to 52 Section 6 is about definitions in the code to be understood subject to exceptions. The section states that throughout this code every definition of an offence, every penal provision, and every illustration of every such definition or penal provision shall be understood subject to the exceptions contained in the chapter entitled "General Exceptions", though those exceptions are not repeated in such definition, penal provision, or illustration.--- Section 21 - "Public Servant"- - The word - "Public Servant"

defined - Lakshmi Man Singh {Dr.} Vs. Naresh K.C.Jah 1990 Cr.L.J. [Criminal Law Journal] Year of Judgment - 1921 ; AIR [All India Reporter] Year of Judgment -1990 SC [Supreme Court] Page No. 1976; (Year of Judgment - 1990) Volume No. 4 SCC [Supreme Court Cases] Page No. -169—The Test To determine whether a person is a public servant or not is : - 1. Whether he is in the service or pay of the Government. 2. Whether he is entrusted with the performance of any public duty. [4] Chapter Sections III 53 to 75 Chapter Sections IV 76 to 106

of Punishments General Exceptions of the Right of Private Defence (Sections 96 to 106)

Chapter Sections Of Abetment V 107 to 120 Sections Chapter 120A to VA 120B

Criminal Conspiracy Added in 1913

Chapter Sections Of Offences against the State VI 121 to 130 Of Offences relating to the Army, Navy and Air Force Chapter Sections VII 131 to 140 Navy and Air Force: Added in 1927 Chapter Sections Of Offences against the Public Tranquillity VIII 141 to 160 Chapter Sections Of Offences by or relating to Public Servants IX 161 to 171 Chapter Sections Of Contempts of Lawful Authority of Public Servants X 172 to 190 Chapter Sections Of False Evidence and Offences against Public Justice XI 191 to 229 Chapter Sections Of Offences relating to coin and Government Stamps XII 230 to 263

Chapter Sections Of Offences relating to Weight and Measures XIII 264 to 267 Of Offences affecting the Public Health, Safety, Convenience, Decency and Morals. - Indian Penal code—Section 294-Obscene acts and songsK.P Mohhamad Vs. State of Kerala (Year of Judgment-1984) Supp SCC [ Supreme Court Cases] Page No. 684- Performance of a cabaret dance devoid of nudity and obscenity in hotels and restaurants was held not to constitute Obscene acts. -B. Rosaiah Vs. State of A. P 1991 Cr L J [Criminal Law Journal] Page No. 189- Presence at Exhibition of Blue Film- While entering into the parlour the accused was not aware of the type of the film under exhibition. Immediately after his entry, the police raided the parlour and chargesheeted him as an abettor of offences under Sections 292,293 and 294 because blue films were under exhibition. Following the Supreme Court decision in Shri Ram Vs. State of U. P(AIR [All India Reporter - Year of Judgment 1975 SC [Supreme Court] Page No. 175: 1975 Cr L J [Criminal Law Journal] Page No. 240), the Court held that something more must be shown than mere presence. Chapter Sections XIV 268 to 294 Sections 292/294/298—2008 [2] JCC [Journal Of Criminal cases] 1433- In The High Court of Delhi- Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul- Maqbool Fida Husain case- Obscenity and artistic freedom- Issue raised- whether an artist be given the liberty to point a nation in the context of motherland in nude and whether such a painting would be considered as obscene or not – Held; The said painting cannot be said to fall within the preview of Section 292 thereby making it obscene- The impugned painting on the face of it neither lascivious nor appeal to the prurient interests- Said painting would not arise sexual interests in a perverted person or would not morally corrupt or debase a person viewing the painting- Depicting India in a human form in no manner has a tendency to make an average person feel embarrassed by named portrayed of a concept which ahs no particular face to it since the painting has not lost its artistic value/touch. {Par 98]--- Criminal Jurisprudence- For an offence to be made out against an accused the ingredients of mens rea and actus rea need to be proved [Par 100]--- Democracy- Has wider moral implications than mere majoritarianism. A crude view of democracy gives

a distorted picture- a real democracy is one in which the exercise of the power of the many is conditional on respect for the rights of the few. Pluralism is the soul of democracy—The right to dissent is the hallmark of democracy- In real democracy the dissenter must feel at home and ought not to be nervously looking over shoulders fearing captivity or bodily harm or economic and social sanctions for his unconventional or critical views— Freedom of speech ahs no meaning if there is no freedom after speech— The reality of democracy is to be measured by the extent of freedom and accommodation it extends. [Par 113]---- Indian Penal Code- Section 292Scope—For an offence to be made out it has to satisfy at least one of the three conditions: If it is lascivious: it appeal to prurient interests: and it tends to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely to read, see or hear the matter alleged to be obscene. [Par 59]--- Obscenity and art—where both are mixed, art must be so predominating as to throw obscenity into shadow or render the obscenity so trivial and insignificant that it can have no effect and can be overlooked. [Para 59]--- Obscene- A piece of art may be vulgar but not obscene- In order to arrive at a dispassionate conclusion where it is crucial to understand the art from perspective of a painter it is also important to picture the same from a spectator’s point of view who is likely to see it. [Para 71]-- Criminal Procedure Code- Section 202Jurisdiction- In this information age jurisdiction be more circumscribed so that an artist is not made to run from pillar to post facing proceedings. Of Offences relating to Religion-- Section 298- AIR [All India Reporter] Year of Judgment- 1963 [High Court of Orissa] Page No. 23 [23,24]; 1963 [1] [Criminal Law Journal] Cri.L.J. Page No. 212- Mere invasion of Chapter Sections civil rights of certain sevaks of a shrine or even an attempt to change the XV 295 to 298 mode of performance of the rituals does not amount to an offence under this section unless it can be inferred that the intention was to wound the feelings of other persons Of Offences affecting the Human Body Chapter Sections XVI 299 to 377

1. Of Offences Affecting Life including murder, culpable homicide (Sections 299 to 311) 2. Of the Causing of Miscarriage, of Injuries to Unborn Children, of the Exposure of Infants, and of the Concealment of Births

(Sections 312 to 318) 3. Of Hurt (Sections 319 to 338) 4. Of Wrongful Restraint and Wrongful Confinement (Sections 339 to 348) 5. Of Criminal Force and Assault (Sections 349 to 358) 6. Of Kidnapping, Abduction, Slavery and Forced Labour (Sections 359 to 374) 7. Sexual Offences including rape (Sections 375 to 376)-- Mathura Rape case- Tukaram Vs. State of Maharashtra- AIR [All India Reporter] Year of Judgment-1979 [Supreme Court] SC Page No. 185. "Sex Before Marriage on the basis of False promise of marriage is no offence and hence no rape"- 1. Year of Judgment -2003 [Volume No. -1] JCC [Journal Of Criminal Cases] Page No. -506- Supreme Court of India- Hon’ble Mr. Justice N.Santosh Hagde, B.P.Singh- UDAY Vs. STATE OF KARNATKA- Accused convicted under Section 376Prosecutrix was above the age of 18 years- Studying in college- gave consent to sexual intercourse on the ground of promise of marriage- girl went on cohabiting with accused and this continued for several monthsProsecutrix got pregnant and the accused refused to marry her- Apex court held that the prosecutrix willingly consented to have sexual intercourse with the appellant with whom she was badly in love- Promise of marriage loses all significance, particularly when they are overcome with emotions and passions and find themselves in situations and circumstances, where they, in a weak moment, succumb to the temptation of having sexual intercourse- Conviction set aside. (Para 24)----- Section 90 IPC—Misconception of fact—Consent given on the basis of false promise at a future date does not always amount to mis-conception- If a full grown girl consents to the act of sexual intercourse on a promise of a marriage and continues to indulge in such activity until she becomes pregnant it is an act of promiscuity on her part ad not a act induced by misconception of a fact- In such a situation criminal liability fastened on

the accused unless it is established that the accused never really intended to marry her. [Para 16]. 1. Of Unnatural Offences (Section 377) Of Offences Against Property 1. Of Theft (Sections 378 to 382) 2. Of Extortion (Sections 383 to 389) 3. Of Robbery and Dacoity (Sections 390 to 402) 4. Of Criminal Misappropriation of Property (Sections 403 to 404) 5. Of Criminal Breach of Trust (Sections 405 to 409)- Section 406. Punishment for criminal breach of trust-- essentials of crime under Section 406- Daityari, Tripathi Vs. Subodh Chandra Chaudhuri (Year of Judgment-1942) 2 Cal. 507—Section 406 Chapter Sections XVII 378 to 462

consists of any one of four positive acts, namely, misappropriation, conversion, user or disposal of property, Neither failure to account nor breach of contract, however dishonest, is actually and by itself the offence of criminal breach of trust. 6. Of the Receiving of Stolen Property (Sections 410 to 414) 7. Of Cheating (Section 415 to 420) 8. Of Fraudulent Deeds and Disposition of Property (Sections 421 to 424) 9. Of Mischief (Sections 425 to 440) 10.Of Criminal Trespass (Sections 441 to 462) Of Offences relating to Documents and Property Marks

Chapter Sections XVIII 463 to 489

1. Of Property and Other Marks (Sections 478 to 489) 2. Of Currency Notes and Bank Notes (Sections 489A to 489E) Added in 1958[5]

Chapter Sections Of the Criminal Breach of Contracts of Service XIX 490 to 492 Of Offences Relating to Marriage-- Section 493- Cohabitation caused by a man deceitfully inducing a belief of lawful marriage- Amruta Gadtia Vs. Trilochan Pradhan- Year of Judgment-1993 [Criminal Law Chapter Sections Journal]-Cr.L.J. Page No. 1022 [High Court of Orissa]-- Where a man XX 493 to 498 and woman exchanged garlands, the man promising to marry formally, and had sex as a result of which the woman became pregnant, it was held that the exchange of garlands did not amount to falsely inducing to believe that she was married to the man. Section 493 was not attracted. Of Cruelty by Husband or Relatives of Husband Added in 1983—Section 498-A and 304-B –"A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood" - 2012 [Volume No. 1] JCC [Journal of Criminal Cases] Page No. 340 – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Suresh Kait – Date of Judgment - 5 December 2011- Vinita & Anr. Vs. State N. C. T. of Delhi – Crl. Appeal No. 249 of 2009 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 498-A and 304-B – Conviction of husband and mother-in-law of deceased for offences under – Sustainability of – No complaint having ever been made against the accused by the deceased Chapter Sections XXA 498A

from the date of marriage till he death took place – No cruelty having been committed to deceased by accused being proved – Demand for dowry also not having been established – As such, question of proximity of cruelty for demand of dowry not arising – cause of death also having not been established – Merely because the deceased died within seven years of her marriage accused could not be held guilty – Conviction of appellants-accused: held not sustainable and set aside. [Paras 103 to 107] – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304-B – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 113-B – Presumption under Section 113-B Indian Evidence Act – Operation of – Conditions for – same would arise if prosecution is able to establish the ingredients set out in Section 304-B Indian Penal Code which are – 1. That the death of the women must have been caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under normal circumstances – 2. Such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage – 3. Soon

before her death, the women must have been subjected to cruelty of harassment by her husband or relatives of her husband – 4. Such cruelty or harassment must be for or in connection with demand of dowry – 5. Such cruelty or harassment must have been made soon before her death. [Paras 79,84,92] – Dowry prohibition act, 1961 – Section 2- Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 304-B – A demand for money on account of some financial stringency or for meeting some urgent domestic expenses cannot be termed as a demand for dowry as the said word is normally understood. [Paras 82,93]. Of Defamation—Section 499- Defamation- Sumat Prasad Vs. Sheo Dutt Sharma- AIR [All India Reporter] Year of Judgment -1946 ALL. Chapter Sections 213; Govind Vs. Gangadgar- AIR [All India Reporter] Year of Judgment XXI 499 to 502 -1944 Bom. 246, ILR 1944 Bom. 222- No suit for defamation lies against counsel. Chapter Sections Of Criminal intimidation, Insult and Annoyance XXII 503 to 510 Chapter Section XXIII 511

Of Attempts to Commit Offences

[edit]Reforms 

The Section 377 had been interpreted to suppress the rights of sexual minorities in India. This section has been termed as the biggest hurdle in dealing with control of AIDS in the country.[citation needed] But the Delhi High Court on 2 July 2009 gave a liberal interpretation to this section and laid down that this section can not be used to punish an act of consensual sexual intercourse between two adult males. This was incorrectly termed by many people[who?] including reputed media houses[which?] as amendment of this section which it was not. The case is pending in Supreme Court since then. -- Section 377- Gay Sex is no Crime- Delhi High Court judgment- Date of Judgment-19.08.2009- 2009 [3] [Journal of Criminal Cases] JCC Page No. 1787—In The High Court of Delhi— Hon’ble Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah, Hon’ble Dr. Justice S. Murlidhar- Naz Foundation Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. -- "Indian Penal Code- Section 377—Unnatural Offence- Constitution of India—Article 12—Universal Declaration of Human Rights—Article 17- International Covenant of Civil and Political rights- Article 1-2- European Convention on Human Right—Criminal Tribes Act, 1871 as amended in 1936—Tamil Nadu Government [M.S. No. 199 dated 21.12.2006- Recognizing Aravanis [Hijras] discrimination of society— Sexual Offence Act, 1967—petitioner NGO challenged constitutionality of Section 377

Indian Penal Code stating it violates Article 21, 19, 15,14 through civil writ petition—founded upon the plea that Section 377 Indian Penal Code infringes said articles when sexual acts between consenting adults in privates—held—So far consensual sexual acts of adults in private Articles 21, 14, 15 of Constitution of India is violative—Section 377 Indian Penal Code will continue to govern non-consensual penile non-vaginal sex involving minors. ---Sexual Offenders Act, 1967—Decriminalized homosexuality act of sodomy between consenting adults [above the age of 21 years]-- Indian Penal Code- Section 377Constitution of India- Article 21—section if infringes right ti life, protection, dignity, privacy— Any law interfering with the personal liberty of a person must satisfy triple test propounded under Articles 14,19, 21 of the constitution—Human dignity forms part of our constitutional culture—Constitution did not refer right to privacy expressly but can be traced under Article 21 –right to life—Right to privacy is a part of right to life- right to privacy to be implicit in the right to life and the liberty guaranteed to the citizen of India by Article 21—It is a right to be left alone [1994 [6] SCC page 632] invasion on that precinct is breach of privacy—Section 377 denied a person’s dignity—Criminalizes his/her core identity covenant solely on account of his/her sexuality thus violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India—Section as it stands denies a gay person right to full personhood which is implicit in notion of life under Article 21 Constitution of India- Section 377 Indian Penal Code grossly violates the right to privacy and liberty embodied under Article 21 in so far criminalizes consensual sexual acts between adults in private.-- Constitution of India—Article 21 & 12—The International Convent on Economic, Social and Cultural rights V. Section 377 Indian Penal Code and the HIV/AIDS prevention—Indian Constitution in the light of Article 12 of the International Convent, as held by Supreme Court, the right to health inhered in the right to life under Article 21- Section 377 acts as a serious impediment to the successful public health and intervention—Due to fear of law same-sex behavior persons to keeps invisible—Unreachable—Pushing the case of infection under ground making it very difficult for public health workers to access them— Sexual Practice of MSM/ gay community are hidden because they are subjected to criminal action.-- Indian Penal Code – Section 377--- Law Commission of Report of India, 1972— Section 172—Sexual Offence- Commission recommended deletion of Section 377 Indian Penal Code be effective recommended amendments in Section 375 Indian Penal Code along with Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 as well as Indian Evidence Act, 1872. --Constitution of India—Articles 14 v. Section 377 Indian Penal Code—article 14 forbids class legislation but not reasonable classification public morality—Not a province of criminal lawSection 377 makes no distinction between ‘acts engaged in public sphere’ and ‘acts engaged in private sphere’- Between consensual and non-consensual acts between adults —Consensual acts between adults in private dos not cause any harm to anybody—Public animus—Disgust towards a particular social group/ vulnerable society is not a valid ground for classification under Article 14—Section 377 targets homosexual community asa classNational AIDS control Organisation [NACO] specially stated that enforcement of Section 3777 adversely contributed to pushing the infliction underground—making risky—Sexual

Practice go unnoticed—hampering prevention of HIV/AIDS state interest must be legitimate and relevant for legislation to be non-arbitrary and proportionate towards achieving state interest—Referring Declaration of People on Equality 2008—Equal right Trust—Court held Section 377 has effect of viewing all gay men are criminals – They are subjected to extensive prejudice—Discrimination caused to MSM & gay community is unfair and in breach of Article 14 of Constitution of India. --- Constitution of India—Article 15 & Section 377 Indian Penal Code- Right to equality is found under Article 14 where in article 15 prohibits discrimination on the several grounds enumerated including sex—Article 14 is genus while articles 15 & 16 are spices in Doctrine of Equality—Question is sexual orientation is a ground analogous to sex and that discrimination on the basis of Sexual orientation is not prohibited under Article 15—Article 15[2] incorporates the notion of horizental application of rights—validity of a legislation is tested by clause contained in Article 14,15 and burden is on state- Relying 2008[3] SCC 1: Anuj Garg’s Case where a law discriminates on any of the prohibited grounds—It needs to be tested not merely against the reasonableness under Article 14 but to be subject to strict scrutiny—Section 377 Indian Penal Code criminalizes acts of sexual minorities—runs counter to constitutional values— MSM/GAY mensolely on sexual orientation- What is considered to be cornerstone of our constitution—Section 377 is in application to sexual acts of consenting adults in private is discriminative to a section of people solely on this sexual orientation—Amounts to prohibition on the rounds of sex- Held: section 377 Indian Penal Code—In so far it criminalizes consensual sexual acts of adults in private in concerned- violative of Articles 21,14, 15 of Constitution of India—Section 37 will continue to govern non-consensual penile —Non-vaginal sex and penile non-vaginal sex involving minors – held: It is clarified that Judgment will not result in re-opening of criminal cases involving Section 377 Indian Penal Code that ahs already attained finality.--- Words & Phrases—Adult-Everyone who is above 18 years of age.—Words & Phrases- Consent—Person below 18 years would be presumed not to be able to consent to a sexual act.—Words & phrases- Carnal Intercourse—used in Section 377 Indian Penal Code- Distinct form expression sexual intercourse as is under Sections 375 & 497 Indian Penal Code. --- Words & phrases—carnal—Means of flesh or body—Words & phrases—gay Community—Men who have sex with men [MSM] homosexuals—gay person/Community.-- Words & phrases—Un-natural—Orifice of mouth is not meant for sexual/carnal intercourse [not according to nature]. --- Words & phrases— Unnatural Offence—Unnatural sexual Acts has not rational nexus to the classification created between procreative and the non-procreative sexual act.-- Words & phrases— LGBT- Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender". 

Section 309 metes out punishment for an unsuccessful attempt to suicide. In September 2011, Government of India indicated that it is considering to amend this section and to decriminalize suicide attempts. The Government was responding to a PIL filed in theSupreme Court.[6]

In 2003, the Malimath Committee submitted its report recommending several far-reaching penal reforms including separation of investigation and prosecution (similar to the CPS in the UK) to streamline criminal justice system.[7] The essence of the report was a perceived need for shift from an adversarial to an inquisitorial criminal justice system, based on the Continental European systems. [edit]Acclaim The Code is universally acknowledged as a cogently drafted code, ahead of its time. It has substantially survived for over 150 years in several jurisdictions without major amendments. Nicholas Phillips, Justice of Supreme Court of United Kingdom applauded the efficacy and relevance of IPC while commemorating 150 years of IPC.[8] Modern crimes involving technology unheard of during Macaulay's time fit easily within the Code[citation needed] mainly because of the broadness of the Code's drafting. [edit]Popular

references

Some references to specific sections (called dafa'a in Hindi-Urdu, ‫ دفعہ‬or दफआ/दफा) of the IPC have entered popular speech in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh. For instance, conmen are referred to as 420s (chaar-sau-bees in Hindi-Urdu)) after Section 420 which covers cheating. [9] Similarly, specific reference to section 302 ("tazīrāt-e-Hind dafā tīn-sau-do ke tehet sazā-emaut", "punishment of death under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code"), which covers the death penalty, have become part of common knowledge in the region due to repeated mentions of it in Bollywood movies and regional pulp literature.[10][11] "Dafa 302" was also the name of a Bollywood movie released in 1975.[12] Similarly, "Shree 420" was the name of a 1955 Bollywood movie starring Raj Kapoor.[13]