IPC Notes

Points to remember: 1. 2.

Death caused without requisite knowledge or intention IS not culpable homicide. Acts neither intended nor likely to cause death may amount to grievous hurt even though death is caused.

Mohinder Singh v Emperor: Mohinder Singh inflicted a wound on the leg of Swaran Singh on his leg and gave blows. The wound was not sufficient to cause the death of a person but he contacted tetanus, an infection and died. Problems: 20.

A quarrel cropped between A and B and A slapped on the face ofB. With this blow, B lost the balance of his body and fell down on a large stone behind him. A serious wound was caused in the head of B and he died. Discuss the offence of A.

When a person causes the death of another person by doing any rash and negligent act not amounting to culpable homicide, he is guilty under section 304A. However, a person cannot be held guilty under section 304 A, if death of the deceased is caused by an act of accused which is too remote to have been caused by accused. In the given case the act of A, ie: slapping B was too remote a cause for A to imagine or think that his slap will cause B to lose the balance of the body and B will fall down on a stone and sustain serious wound in his head leading to his death. It was only a coincidence and the sequence of events could not have been foreseen. Thus A will be liable for causing hurt or grievous hurt. 21.

A has knocked down two teeth ofB. What is the offence?

According to Section 320, Clause (7), fracture, dislocation of bone or tooth amounts to grievous hurt and if it is voluntary, then it constitutes the offence of causing grievous hurt punishable under section 325. 24.

A causes hurt to B as a result of which B was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits for a period of two weeks. What is the offence?

According to the 8th Clause of section 320, a hurt becomes grievous hurt when it causes the other unable to follow daily pursuits for a period of 21 days. In this……. 25.

A slaps his friend. It caused him severe pain but only for a few seconds. What is the offence?

Causing bodily pain IS an offence under section 319 and punishable under section 323. 26.

A gave a simple blow to B over the stomach. B was suffering from enlarged liver which ruptured and B died. A was not aware of this condition of B. What offence is committed by A?

In this condition if he was aware of the condition of B and caused the injury it will be a case culpable homicide. If he was unaware of the condition, then it will be a case of causing hurt under section 319 and punishable under section 323. 27.

A pulls his wife by hairs out of annoyance. What offence if any has committed by A?

He has caused the offence of voluntarily causing hurt punishable under Section 323

28.

Several people lost their eye sight as a result of consuming adulterated liquor. What offence if any has committed by the seller?

Offence of causing grievous hurt under section 320 and punishable under section 325.

ACID ATTACKS Preeti Rathi, a 23-year-old woman from New Delhi with dreams of becoming an Indian navy nurse, alights from a train in the bustling Bandra station in India's financial hub of Mumbai on May 2,2012 She was to join the Colaba Naval Hospital as a staff nurse and fulfill her lifetime dream to eke out a secure life for herself. But as soon as the young woman got off the train, a man appeared from nowhere, tapped her back and as she turned round, threw acid into her face. The attacker then melted away into the crowd. Her eyes were damaged, her liver and kidneys were affected and she suffered excruciating pain for a month before breathing her last on June 2 in Mumbai. One of the most horrific cases was reported in October from Bihar state. On October 21, 2012, four men threw acid onto 19-year-old Chancal Paswan and her sister, 15, after the girls rejected their sexual advances. The family still awaits justice. According to report of the law commission 174 acid attack cases were reported in India in the year 2000 alone. Writ petition: Laxmi, the victim of a gruesome acid attack, has filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court of India in May, 2006 in which the Law Commission of India has been arrayed as the Respondent No.2. Two things were specifically argued in this case: (i) (ii)

Present punishment is not adequate to act as a deterrent Cost of treatment is so expensive (plastic surgery and repeated operations)

Compensation to victims of acid attacks is of vital importance as huge medical costs are often involved. The victims of acid attack need both short term as well as long term specialized medical treatments and plastic surgeries. The provisions in the Indian law for giving compensation to the victims are insufficient. The writ petition therefore they prayed for amendment to the IPC including acid attack as a specific offence. Amendment: Due to demand from various quarters, the law regarding acid attack was amended as under: Section 326A

Offence Acid attack

326B

Attempt to Acid attack

IPC 2013 amendments Punishment Imprisonment not less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life and with fine which shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses and it shall be paid to the victim Imprisonment not less than five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine The above sections are Gender Neutral

Explanation I: Acid includes any substance which has acidic or corrosive character or burning nature that is capable of causing bodily injury leading to scars or disfigurement or temporary or permanent disability. Explanation II: Permanent or partial damage or deformity shall not be required to be irreversible. Section 339/341: Wrongful restraint: 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 the section. Wrongful restraint means obstructing a man from moving from one place to another where he has the right to be and wants to go. Malice (intentionally committing an act from wrong motives) is not a necessary element. Restraint means an abridgement of the liberty of a person against his will. However, when a person is deprived of his will power to movement by sleep or otherwise, he cannot be said to have been subject to any restraint. What is essential is the obstructer must intend, know or have reason to believe it to be likely that the means adopted by him would cause obstruction to the complainant. To hold a person liable for wrongful restraint, the obstruction must be: (i) Voluntary obstruction of a person (ii) The obstruction must be such as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which he has a right to proceed. (Voluntary = done without being forced) Neither physical presence of the obstructer nor an actual assault is necessary under this section. Thus a when the accused removed the ladder and thereby detailed the person on the roof, he was held to cause obstruction within the meaning of the section. Again one part of the community obstructed the other the use of public streets, they were held liable for wrongful restraint. For example: A tenant has the right to enter the tenanted house/property, if the owner prevents him from entering the premises, he is guilty of wrongful restraint. Exception: Good faith defence to wrongful restraint. If the obstruction is made in good faith and the accused believes himself to have lawful right to obstruct, no offence is committed. A person is justified in obstructing another from entering in to a private way, over land or water, over which he has a legal right to obstruct. But a person cannot be said to have been wrongfully restrained, if he has no right to proceed in any direction.

Vijay Kumari v S.M Rao AIR 1996 SC 1058: the complainant, a teacher licencee of a room in a hostel has no right to live the after the expiry of the term of licence and she cannot claims to be in the room and any obstruction will not amount to wrongful restraint. Section 341: Punishment for wrongful restraint: The punishment for wrongful restraint may extend up to imprisonment of one month or fine up to five hundred rupees or with both. Nature of offence: Offence under this section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable and is triable by a magistrate. SECTION 340/342: WRONGFUL CONFINEMENT Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said "wrongfully to confine" that person. It is a form of wrongful restraint under which a person is wrongfully prevented from proceeding beyond certain circumscribed limits. For example: Arrest or locking up a person in a room or tying a person to a tree etc. To support a charge of wrongful confinement proof of actual physical obstruction is not necessary. It is sufficient if such an impression was created in the mind of the victim as to cause reasonable apprehension that he was not free to deport and that he would be forthwith restrained, if he attempted to do so. (i) A causes Z to go within a walled space, and locks Z in. A is thus prevented from proceeding in any direction beyond the circumscribing line of wall. A wrongfully confines Z FORCE: SECTION 349 Difference between force/assault/criminal force/hurt 1. A aims a stick at B: Force is used 2. If it causes fear in the mind of B: Assault has been committed (Apprehension of violence without physical contact in the mind of B) 3. Stick hits B : Criminal force has been committed (Action of the wrong doer completed) 4. Injury causes bodily pain: Hurt The term force means an exertion of energy producing a change in the outer world. The section defines force in relation to a human being and not against an inanimate object. Further it may be exercised directly or indirectly. For example: If A raises a stick to strike B and the later moves away, A is said to use force within the meaning of this section. The following are the ingredients of this section: 1. The causing of motion 2. Change of motion 3. Cessation of motion As bring that substance in to contact with: 1. Any part of that others body 2. with anything that the other is wearing or carrying 3. With anything l so situated that such contact affects that other's sense of feeling.

Provided that the person causing such motion, change of motion, or cessation of motion causes it: 1. by his own bodily power 2. By disposing any substance in such a manner that the motion, or change of motion or cessation of motion takes place without any further act on his part or on the part of any other person. 3. By inducing any animal to move, to change its motion or to cease to move. Section 350: Criminal Force: A force becomes criminal force when it is caused: 1. Intentionally against any person 2. without the persons consent 3. To commit an offence 4. With the intention to cause or knowing it to be likely to cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom it was caused. The nature and extent of the offence will depend upon the offender's intention, or knowledge, or the likelihood of causing injury, fear or annoyance. Criminal force must be directed against a person and not against a thing. Breaking open a lock is no use of criminal force. It may be used either directly or indirectly, causing injury, fear or annoyance to that person. For example: (i) A throws a stone, intending or knowing it to be likely that the stone will be thus brought in to contact with Z or with Z's clothes, or with something carried by Z, or that it will strike water and dash up the water against Z's clothes or something carried by Z. Here if the throwing of the stone produces the effect of causing any substance to come into contact with Z, or Z's clothes. A has used force to Z; and if he did so without Z's consent intending thereby to injure, frighten or annoy Z, he has used criminal force to Z. (ii) A incites a dog to spring upon Z without Z's consent. Here if A intends to cause injury, fear or annoyance to Z, he uses criminal force to Z. (iii) A intentionally pulls up a woman's veil. Here, he intentionally uses force to her. If he does it without her consent knowing it to be likely that he may thereby injure, frighten or annoy her, he has used criminal force to her. Nature of offence: Non-cognizable, bailable, compoundable and triable by magistrate Punishment: imprisonment of either description for three months or with fine which may extend to Rs.5001- or both.

Section 351: Assault Assault consists of an overt act, or making gestures, or a preparation intending, or knowing it to be likely that such gestures or preparations are with reference to the use of criminal force against the person. To constitute an assault, there must be some threatening physical act or by which the offender intentionally causes another to apprehend that criminal force is about to be used against him. The most important thing about this offence lies in the effect which the threat creates in the mind of the victim. In other words, the prosecution must establish the following two ingredients to prosecute a person for assault. Ingredients: It must be proved that: (i) the accused made a gesture or preparation to use criminal force. (ii) the accused knew that it was likely that such gesture or preparation to use criminal force would cause apprehension that such assault or use of force would be done; and

(iii)

That no grave or sudden provocation was received from the complainant.

Also to constitute the offence of the use of criminal force it is not necessary that the offender had any particular implement in his hand. Thus assault is something less than the use of criminal force, the force being cut short before the blow actually falls. Nature of offence: Non-cognizable, bailable, compoundable and triable by Magistrate. (i)

A shakes his fist at Z, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause Z to believe that A is about to strike Z, A has committed an assault.

(ii)

A begins to unloose a ferocious dog, intending or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause Z to believe that he is about to cause the dog to attack Z. A has committed an assault upon Z.

Distinction between assault and battery: An assault is an act which intentionally or possibly or recklessly - causes another person to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence. Battery means the actual application of unlawful force, however slight, to another, whether directly or indirectly. Battery includes every touching and laying hold on another person or clothes in an angry, revengeful, rude, insolent or hostile manner. Even an act such as striking a horse on which a man is riding so that he is thrown will amount to battery. The Code has classified infliction of bodily pain in to three categories; (i) Assault (ii) Criminal force (iii) Hurt. Punishment for assault: Imprisonment of either description for three months, or with fine which may extend to Rs.500/- or both.