Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Jurisprudence, Interpretation & General Laws Important Questions

Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Jurisprudence, Interpretation & General Laws Important Questions

Question 1.
Distinguish between: Crime & Civil Wrong
Answer:
Following are the main points of distinction between Crime & Civil Wrong:

Points Crime Civil Wrong
Meaning Crime means any act or omission made punishable under any law. Wrongs that affect the interests of a particular individual arc called civil wrong.
Wrong Crime is wrong against society. Civil wrong is against a private individual or individuals.
Seriousness More serious wrongs have been considered to be public wrongs and are known as crimes. Less serious wrongs are considered as private wrongs and have been labelled as a civil wrong.
Intention In crime, intention is an essential element. In civil wrong intention is not relevant.
Action In case of crime, action is taken by the State Le. Government. In case of civil wrong, the suit is filed by the aggrieved person himself.
Compromise In the case of crime, compromise is not possible except in certain cases. In the case of a civil suit, compromise is always possible.
Penalty The wrongdoer is punished. The wrongdoer pays compensation or damages to the injured party.

Question 2.
Mr David, a citizen of America had been charged in India for an offence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. However, he contends that acts for which he is charged do amount to the offence as per the law of his country. Examining the provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 state whether the contention of Mr David is acceptable.
Answer:
As per Section 2 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, every person shall be liable to punishment under the Code and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which, he shall be guilty within India.

A foreigner, who enters Indian territories and thus accepts the protections of Indian Laws virtually gives assurance of his fidelity and obedience to them and submit himself to their operation. It is no defence on behalf of a foreigner that he did not know he was doing wrong, the act not being an offence in his country.

Thus, the contention of Mr David is not acceptable and he will be punished for the crime as provided in the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Question 3.
State the fundamental elements of a crime.
Answer:
There are four elements that constitute a crime, these are as follows:
1. Human Being: The first element requires that the wrongful act must be committed by a human being. In ancient times, when criminal law was largely dominated by the idea of retribution, punishments were inflicted on animals also for the injury caused by them, for example, a pig was burnt in Paris for having devoured a child, a horse was killed for having kicked a man. But now, if an animal causes an injury we hold not the animal liable but its owner liable for such injury. So the first element of the crime is a human being who must be under the legal obligation to act in a particular manner and should be a fit subject for awarding appropriate punishment.

2. Mens Rea: There can be no crime of any nature without men’s rea or an evil mind. Every crime requires a mental element and that is considered as the fundamental principle of criminal liability. The basic requirement of the principal men’s rea is that the accused must have been aware of those elements in his act which make the crime with which he is charged. There is a well-known maxim in this regard, ie. “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea ’’which means that the guilty intention and guilty act together constitute a crime.

3. Actus Reus: The third essential element of a crime is actus reus. In other words, some overt act or illegal omission must take place in pursuance of the guilty intention. Actus reus is the manifestation of men’s rea in the external world.

4. Injury: The fourth requirement of a crime is an injury to another person or to society at large. The injury should be illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property. According to Section 44, the injury denotes any harm illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property.

Question 4.
Distinguish between: Mens Rea & Actus Reus
Answer:
Following are the main points of distinction between men’s retail actus reus:

Points Mens Rea Actus Reus
Meaning Men’s rea means the bad intention of the person committing a crime. Actus reus is some overt act or illegal omission that must take place in pursuance of the guilty intention.
What it is? Men’s rea is the intent a person has behind committing a crime. Actus reus is the action the person takes to perform the criminal act.
Element of crime Men’s rea is the second important essential element of a crime. Actus reus is the third important essential element of a crime.
Aspect Mens Rea refers to the mental aspect of crime. Actus Reus refers to the physical aspect of a crime.

Question 5.
State the exceptional cases where men’s rea is not required in criminal law.
Answer:
There are many exceptional cases where men’s rea is not required in criminal law. Some of them are as follows:
(a) Statute excludes men’s rea: Where a statute imposes liability, the presence or absence of a guilty mind is irrelevant. The classical view of that ‘no men’s rea, no crime has long been eroded and several laws in India and abroad, especially regarding economic crimes and departmental penalties, have j created severe punishment even where the offences have been defined to exclude men’s rea. Many laws passed in the interest of public safety and social welfare imposes absolute liability.

This is so in matters concerning public health, food, drugs, etc. There is an absolute liability (men’s rea is not essential) in the licensing of shops, hotels, restaurants and chemists establishments. The same is true of cases under the Motor Vehicles Act and the Arms Act, offences against the State like waging of war, sedition etc.

(b) Speedy disposal of the case: Where it is difficult to prove men’s rea and penalties are petty fines. In such petty cases, speedy disposal of cases is necessary and the proving of men’s rea is not easy. An accused may be fined even without any proof of men’s rea.

(c) Strict liability: In the interest of public safety, strict liability is imposed and whether a person causes public nuisance with a guilty mind or without a guilty mind, he is punished.

(d) Ignorance of the law: If a person violates a law even without the knowledge of the existence of the law, it can still be said that he has committed an act that is prohibited by law. In such cases, the fact that he was not aware of the law and hence did not intend to violate it is no defence and he would be liable as if he was aware of the law. This follows from the maxim ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’.

Question 6.
Discuss in detail various stages of crime.
Answer:
In every crime, there is first intention to commit it, secondly, preparation to commit it, thirdly, attempt to commit it and fourthly the accomplishment.

The stages can be explained as under
1. Intention: This is the first stage in the commission of a crime. The law does not take notice of an intention, mere intention to commit an offence not followed by any act, cannot constitute an offence. The obvious reason for not prosecuting the accused at this stage is that it is very difficult for the prosecution to prove the guilty mind of a person. This stage is significant progress from mere deliberation towards the actual commission of the crime. At this stage, the person has made up his mind to actually implement or execute his devious plans.

There is an intention to cause harm but yet no action taken that manifests intention. Further, there is no way to prove an intention because even the devil can’t read a human mind. Thus, this is not considered a crime. For example, the intention to kill anyone is not a crime in itself. However, it is an essential ingredient of crime because, without intention to cause harm, there can be no crime.

2. Preparation: Preparation is the second stage in the commission of a crime. It means to arrange the necessary measures for the commission of the intended criminal act. Intention alone or the intention followed by preparation is not enough to constitute the crime. Preparation has not been made punishable because in most of the cases the prosecution has failed to prove that the preparations in the question were made for the commission of the particular crime.

Example: If Arun purchases a pistol and keeps the same in his pocket duly loaded in order to kill his bitter enemy Ballu, but does nothing more. Arun has not committed any offence as still he is at the stage of preparation and it will be impossible for the prosecution to prove that Arun was carrying the loaded pistol only for the purpose of killing Ballu.

3. Attempt: Attempt, which is the third stage in the commission of a crime, is punishable. An attempt is the direct movement towards the commission of a crime after the preparation is made. A person may be guilty of an attempt to commit an offence if he does any act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the offence and a person will be guilty of attempting to commit an offence even though the facts are such that the commission of the offence is impossible.

4. Accomplishment/Completion: Last stage in the commission of an offence ) is its accomplishment or completion. If the accused succeeds in his attempt to commit the crime, he will be guilty of the complete offence and if his attempt is unsuccessful he will be guilty of an attempt only. For example,

A fire at B with the intention to kill him, if B dies, A will be guilty of committing the offence of murder and if B is only injured, it will be a case of attempt to murder.

Question 7.
Distinguish between: Motive & Intention
Answer:
Following are the main points of distinction between motive & intention:

Points Motive Intention
Meaning Motive refers to the reason a crime was committed. It is often the background of the suspect in committing the alleged crime. Intention means doing an act with one’s will or desire for some purpose.
Criminal liability Motive is insubstantial to determine criminal liability. The intention is substantial to determine criminal liability.
Purpose Motive is hidden or implied purpose. The intention is the expressly defined purpose of the crime
What is it? Motive is the driving force of crime. The intention is the first stage of crime.
Example Assume that Y is accused of murdering his wife and it turns out that his wife has a policy of ₹ 1 Chore that will come to Y after the death of his wife. The law will assume that the ₹ 1 Crore is a profit that Y will gain by his wife’s death and so the prosecution will try to establish that since Y’s wife death is a profit to him of ₹ 1 Crore, Y have a motive. Thus, Y has a reason to commit the crime. Assume that X is caught with 2 kilos of heroin in his house. A rational man will assume that X cannot be keeping the heroin at home for private consumption, so the normal assumption will be that X means to sell this heroin (i.e. distribute). So X will be charged with possession with intent to distribute. This means the law can assume what your intentions are with respect to a criminal offence.

Question 8.
Briefly discern various Type of punishments provided under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Answer:
The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of IPC are as follows
1. Death/Capital punishment: A death sentence is the harshest of punishments provided in the IPC, which involves taking the life of the accused as a form of punishment. The Supreme Court has ruled that a death sentence ought to be imposed only in die ‘rarest of rare cases.

The IPC provides for capital punishment for the following offences:

  • Murder
  • Dacoity with murder
  • Waging War against the Government of India
  • Abetting mutiny actually committed. (mutiny means forcible or passive resistance to lawful authority)
  • Giving or fabricating false evidence upon which an innocent person suffers death
  • Abetment of suicide by a minor or insane person
  • Attempted murder by a life convict.

Death punishment is also called ‘capital punishment. The word ‘capital’ means the head or top of the column. Thus, capital punishment means ‘removal of the head’, ’death penalty or ‘beheading’. Capital punishment is awarded only in two categories of offences, namely treason and murder.

2. Inifeimprisonment: Imprisonment for life meant rigorous imprisonment. that is, 1411 the last breath of the convict.

3. Imprisonment: Imprisonment is of two descriptions namely:

  1. rigorous imprisonment, that is hard labour;
  2. simple imprisonment.

4. Forfeiture of property: Forfeiture is the divestiture of specific property without compensation in consequence of some default or acts forbidden by law. The Courts may offer forfeiture of the property of the accused on certain occasions. The Courts are empowered to forfeit the property of the guilty person u/ss 126 & 127.

5. Fine: Fine is forfeiture of money by way of penalty. It should be imposed individually and not collectively.

6. Default sentence: Wheij, court sentences an accused of a punishment, which includes a fine amount, it can specify that in the event the convict does not pay the fine amount, he would have to suffer imprisonment for a further period as indicated by the court, which is generally referred to as default sentence.

Question 9.
In exceptional cases, mere ‘preparation’ to commit an offence is punishable under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Discuss. [Dec 2018 (4 Marks)!
Answer:
Preparation is the second stage in the commission of a crime. It means to j arrange the necessary measures for the commission of the intended criminal act. Intention alone or the intention followed by preparation is not enough to constitute the crime. Preparation has not been made punishable because in most of the cases the prosecution has failed to prove that the preparations in the question were made for the commission of the particular crime.

Example: If Arun purchases a pistol and keeps the same in his pocket duly loaded in order to kill his bitter enemy Ballu, but does nothing more. Arun has not committed any offence as still he is at the stage of preparation and it will be impossible for the prosecution to prove that Arun was carrying the loaded pistol only for the purpose of killing Ballu.

Generally, preparation to commit any offence is not punishable but in some exceptional cases preparation is punishable, following are some examples of such exceptional circumstances which are punishable under the IPC –

  • Preparation to wage war against the Government.
  • Preparation to commit depredation on territories of Power at peace with Government of India.
  • Preparation to commit dacoity.
  • Preparation for counterfeiting of coins or Government stamps.
  • Possessing counterfeit coins, false weights or measurements and forged documents.

Question 10.
The ‘men’s rea’ is an essential element to constitute an offence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Discuss briefly. [Dec 2018 (4 Marks)]
Answer:
It is a general principle that to constitute a crime there must be a \ guilty mind. If there is no guilty mind, there is no crime. Men’s rea is the mental intention or the defendant’s state of mind at the time of the offence, sometimes; called the guilty mind.

It stems from the ancient maxim of obscure origin, “actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit reas” that is “the act is not guilty unless the mind is guilty”. The guilty mind refers to the intention, knowledge or recklessness of the accused.

In Srinivasamall v. Emperor, the accused Srinivasamall was a salt distributor.

His servant infringed a rule without his master’s knowledge. The accused was: acquitted on the ground that he had no guilty intention since the act was committed without his knowledge.

Intention. Negligence and recklessness are the important forms of men’s rea.

Question 11.
Describe the kinds of offences under which capital punishment may be awarded by the Court under the Indian Penal Code. [Dec. 2019 (4 Marks)]
Answer:
A death sentence is the harshest of punishments provided in the IPC, which involves taking the life of the accused as a form of punishment. The Supreme Court has ruled that a death sentence ought to be imposed only in the ‘rarest of rare cases.

The IPC provides for capital punishment for the following offences:

  • Murder
  • Dacoity with murder
  • Waging War against the Government of India
  • Abetting mutiny actually committed. (mutiny means forcible or passive resistance to lawful authority)
  • Giving or fabricating false evidence upon which an innocent person suffers death
  • Abetment of suicide by a minor or insane person
  • Attempted murder by a life convict.

Death punishment is also called ‘capital punishment. The word ‘capital’ means the head or top of the column. Thus, capital punishment means ‘removal of the head’, ‘death penalty or ‘beheading’. Capital punishment is awarded only in two categories of offences, namely treason and murder.

Question 12.
Define ‘criminal conspiracy’ as per the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Answer:
Definition of criminal conspiracy [Section 120A]: When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done:

  • An illegal act or
  • An act that is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.

However, 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.

Question 13.
Neeraj & Ramesh decides to murder Sudhir when he gets down at the railway station from the evening train. They both go to the railway station for this purpose but Sudhir does not arrive by the evening train. Neeraj & Ramesh came back home. Whether any offence is committed by Neeraj & Ramesh under the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
Answer:
As per Section 120A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, when two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done:

  • An illegal act or
  • An act that is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.

Murder is an offence/illegal act under the IPC. As per facts given in the case, Neeraj & Ramesh decides to murder Sudhir when he gets down at the railway station from the evening train. They both go to the railway station for this purpose which shows that they have agreed to commit an illegal act and hence they both have committed the offence of criminal conspiracy u/s 120A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. They are liable to punishment as provided in Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Question 14.
X and Y an illiterate woman were on the railway platform of Kanpur. X had a ticket for n K input ticket Lucknow id if had a ticket, from Kanpur. Jhansi. Y handed over her ticket to X in order to ascertain that whether she had a genuine ticket. X under the pretence of returning Y’s ticket substituted, therefore, his own ticket and kept Y ticket. What offence is committed by X under the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
Answer:
As per Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years or with fine or with both.

Section 403 has the following ingredients:

  • Dishonest misappropriation or conversion of property by a person to his use
  • Movable property.

The facts of the case are similar to the facts of the case Raza Hussain v. Emperor, in which the accused was held guilty of the offence of criminal misappropriation of property u/s 403 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Question 15.
An accused was found in possession of some property that a murdered person was carrying at the time of the murder. There was neither eye-witness of the murder nor did the prosecution succeeds in establishing any other incriminating circumstances against the accused. Of what offence, if any, can the accused be convicted under the Indian Penal Code, 1860? Give reasons.
Answer:
Since the accused was found in possession of some property which a murdered person was carrying at the time of the murder and there was neither eye-witness of the murder nor did the prosecution succeed in establishing any other incriminating circumstances against the accused, the accused cannot be convicted of the offence of murder. However, the accused can be convicted for the offence of dishonest misappropriation of property possessed by the deceased person at the time of his death under Section 404 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

If the offence is proved then such offender shall be liable to punishment of imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years, and shall also be liable to fine. Such punishment may extend to 7 years if the offender was an employee of the deceased person.

Question 16.
Naveen takes properly belonging to Gauesh out of Ganesh possession In good h Ith belonging at the time w lien he takes It that the property belongs to himself. Later on, Naveen discovers his mistake, dishonestly misappropriates the property for his own use. Explain what offence he has done? [June 2019 (5 Marks)]
Answer:
Dishonest misappropriation of property [Section 403]: Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be punished:

  • With imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years or
  • With fine or
  • With both.

Thus, if A takes property belonging to Z out of Zs possession, in good faith, believing, at any time when he takes it, that the property belongs to himself. A is not guilty of theft; but if A, after discovering his mistake, dishonestly appropriates the property to his own use, he is guilty of an offence under this section.

Facts given in case are similar to the illustration appended to Section 403 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and thus if Naveen dishonestly appropriates the property to his own use he commits the offence of ‘dishonest misappropriation of property and will be liable to punishment as stated above.

Question 17.
Harish instructs Somnath to invest a certain amount of money in Government securities. Somnath buys shares of XYZ Ltd. instead, believing in good faith that it would be Harish advantage. The investment results in a loss. What offence, if any, is committed by Somnath under the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
Answer:
The problem is based on a Criminal breach of trust as defined in Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Section 405 has the following ingredients:

  • A person should be entrusted with property or should have control over the property.
  • Such person to whom the property is entrusted should dishonestly misappropriate or converts to his own use that property or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of law.

As per facts given in the case, Harish instructs Somnath to invest a certain amount of money in Government securities but Somnath invests in shares of XYZ Ltd. instead, believing in good faith that it would be Harish advantage. Somnath not having acted dishonestly has not committed a criminal breach of trust although he may be liable to civil action.

Question 18.
State the punishments for the following offences as provided in the Indian Penal Code, 1860:
(i) Criminal breach of trust by carrier
(ii) Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant.
Answer:
Criminal breach of trust by carrier etc. [Section 407]: Whoever, being entrusted with property as a carrier, wharfinger or warehouse keeper, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of such property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine.

Criminal breach of trust by clerk or servant [Section 408]: Whoever, being a clerk or servant or employed as a clerk or servant, and being in any manner entrusted in such capacity with property, or with any dominion over property, commits criminal breach of trust in respect of that property, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 7 years and shall also be liable to fine.

Question 19.
Distinguish between: Criminal misappropriation of property & Criminal breach of trust
Answer:
Following are the main points of distinctions between criminal misappropriation of property & criminal breach of trust:

Points Criminal misappropriation of property Criminal breach of trust
Meaning Dishonestly misappropriating or converting property of others for own use or benefit is known as criminal misappropriation of property. If a person entrusted with property dishonestly misappropriates or converts it to his own use that property, or dishonestly uses or disposes of property in violation of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged it is known as criminal breach of trust.
Section of IPC Criminal misappropriation of property is explained in dealt by sections 403 to 404 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Cheating is explained in dealt by sections 405 to 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Property Criminal misappropriation is always regarding the movable property. A criminal breach of trust may be regarding the movable and immovable property.
Person Generally, criminal misappropriation is done by near relatives, friends, joint owners etc. Generally, the criminal breach of trust is committed by bailee, carrier, executor, agent, employee etc.
Essential element Dishonest is the essential element of criminal misappropriation. In this case, the property is entrusted by the owner to the offender with good faith and trust. Thereafter, the wrongdoer misappropriates it causing a breach of trust.
Example A finds a letter on the road, containing a banknote. From the direction and contents of the letter he learns to whom the note belongs. He appropriates the note. He is guilty of an offence of criminal misappropriation. A is a warehouse-keeper. Z going on a journey, entrusts his furniture to A, under a contract that it shall be returned on payment of a stipulated sum for warehouse room. A dishonestly sells the goods. A has committed a criminal breach of trust.
Punishment
  • As per Section 403, for the offence of criminal misappropriation pun¬ishment is imprisonment of up to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.
  • As per Section 404, for the offence of criminal misappropriation pun¬ishment is imprisonment of up to 7 years.
  • As per Section 406, for the offence of criminal breach of trust punishment is imprisonment of up to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.
  • As per Sections 407 & 408, for the offence of criminal breach of trust punishment is imprisonment of up to 7 years and also liable to fine.
  • As per Section 409, for the offence of criminal breach of trust punishment is imprisonment of up to 10 years and also liable to fine.

Question 20.
Balwant is working as a taxation clerk in the Municipal Committee. He collects arrears of tax from tax-payer but the sum was not deposited in the funds of the committee which was deposited after 5 months. He pleads that he had given money to the cashier but fails to prove the same. Whether any offence is committed by Balwant under the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
Answer:
The facts of the given case are similar to Bagga Singh v. the State of Punjab. In this case, the appellant was a taxation clerk in the Municipal Committee, Sangrur. He had collected arrears of tax from tax-payers but the sum was not deposited in the funds of the committee after collection but was deposited after about 5 months. He pleaded that money was deposited with the cashier Madan Lai, a co-accused, who had defaulted on the same but the cashier proved that he had not received any such sum and was acquitted by the lower Court.

The mere fact that the co-accused cashier was acquitted was not sufficient to acquit the accused in the absence of any proof that he had discharged the trust expected of him. As such the accused was liable under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Considering the decision in the above case, Balwant has committed the offence of Criminal breach of trust and will be accordingly punished as provided in Section 409 of the IPC.

Question 21.
Discuss briefly the main ingredients of cheating.
Answer:
Cheating: Main Ingredients: The main ingredients of cheating are as under:

  1. Deception of any person.
  2. (a) Fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person:
    (1) to deliver any property to any person or
    (2) to consent that any person shall retain any property
    (b) Intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property.

Question 22.
A prostitute communicated venereal disease to X who had sexual intercourse with her, on the strength of her representation that she is free from any disease. Whether the prostitute is guilty of any offence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
Answer:
As per facts given in the case, X has sexual intercourse with a prostitute on the strength of her representation that she is free from any venereal disease but the prostitute communicated venereal disease to X. The prostitute is guilty of the offence of cheating under Section 415 as an act of prostitute caused damage to the body and mind of X.

X would not have done sexual intercourse with the prostitute if she had not fraudulently induced him to do sexual intercourse by representing her free from venereal disease. Thus, the prostitute will be held guilty of the offence of cheating u/s 415 and will be punished as per Section 417 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Question 23.
Write a short note on Cheating by personation
Answer:
Cheating by personation [Section 416]: A person is said to “cheat by personation” if he cheats by pretending to be some other person, or by knowingly substituting one person for another, or representing that he or any other person is a person other than he or such other person really is.

Punishment for cheating by personation [Section 419]: Whoever cheats by personation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both.

Example: Remika receives a FaceBook message and friend request that appears to have been sent from a young and smart boy – Rahul The information sent by Rahul shows that he is Government Officer working in Satara and draws an attractive salary and also that he is a bachelor and seeking a beautiful girl for marriage. Attracted by the message of Rahul, Renuka meets with Rahul and they fall in love.

Gradually it led to sexual relations. Later Rahul began to ask for money from Renuka for one or another reason. In enquiry, it is discovered that Rahul is not a Government employee and he has taken education only up to 10th Standard. Rahul has committed the offence of cheating by personation u/s 416 and will be punished u/s 419 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Question 24.
Write a short note on Frauds connected with insolvency
Answer:
Dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of property to prevent distribution among creditors [Section 421]: Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently removes, conceals or delivers to any person, or transfers or causes to be transferred to any person, without adequate consideration, any property, intending thereby to prevent, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby prevent, the distribution of that property according to law among his creditors or the creditors of any other person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.

Guwahati High Court in Ramautar Chaukhany v. Hari Ram Todi held that an offence under this section has the following essential ingredients:

  • That the accused removed, concealed or delivered the property or that he transferred, it caused it to be transferred to someone.
  • That such a transfer was without adequate consideration.
  • That the accused thereby intended to prevent or knew that he was thereby likely to prevent the distribution of that property according to law among his creditors or creditors of another person.
  • That he acted dishonestly and fraudulently.

This section specifically refers to frauds connected with insolvency. The offence under it consists in a dishonest disposition of property with intent to cause wrongful loss to the creditors. It applies to movable as well as immovable properties. In view of this section, the property of a debtor cannot be distributed according to law except after the provisions of the relevant enactments have been complied with.

Question 25.
Write a short note on Fraudulent concealment of property
Answer:
Dishonest or fraudulent removal or concealment of property [Section 424]: Whoever dishonestly or fraudulently conceals or removes any property of himself or any other person, or dishonestly or fraudulently assists in the concealment or removal thereof, or dishonestly releases any demand or claim to which he is entitled, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.

The essential ingredients to bring an offence u/s 424 are as follows:

  • There is a property.
  • That the accused concealed or removed the said property or assisted in concealing or removing the said property.
  • That the said concealment or removal or assisting in removal or concealment was done dishonestly or fraudulently.

Question 26.
What do you understand by the term ‘forgery’? Also state the punishment for the offence of forgery as provided under the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
Answer:
Forgery means fraudulently making or alteration of any record, deed, writing, instrument, register, stamp etc. to the prejudice of another person’s right. It is a false making of a written instrument for the purpose of fraud or deceit; including every alteration of or addition to a true instrument.

Forgery [Section 463]: Whoever makes any false documents or false electronic record 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 intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.

Punishment for forgery [Section 465]: Whoever commits forgery shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both.

Essential elements of forgery u/s 463 are as under:

  1. The document or electronic record or the part of it must be false in fact.
  2. It must have been made dishonestly or fraudulently.
  3. The making of a false document or electronic record should be with intent to
    (a) cause danger or injury to the public or any person or
    (b) support any claim or title or
    (c) cause any person to part with property or
    (d) enter into any express or implied contract or
    (e) commit fraud or that fraud may be committed.

Question 27.
Rani, the accused has been charged for the offence of forgery on the ground that she submitted a false certificate declaring that she had the experience of working as a teacher in school. However, on enquiry, it was found that the school is not a recognized school. State with reason, whether Rani has committed any offence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
Answer:
In Balbir Kaur v. the State of Punjab, the allegation against the accused was that she furnished a certificate to get employment as an ETT teacher which was found to be bogus and forged in as much as school was not recognized for the period given in the certificate. However, the certificate did not anywhere say that the school was recognized. It was held that merely indicating the teaching experience of the accused, per se, cannot be said to indicate wrong facts. So the direction which was issued for prosecution is liable to be quashed.

Question 28.
The allegation against the accused was that he furnished a certificate to get employment as ETT Teacher which was found to be bogus and forged in as much as school was not recognized for the period given in the certificate. However, the certificate did not anywhere say that the school was recognized. Whether the accused is guilty of any offence? Explain with the help of decided judicial precedent. [Dec. 2019 (4 Marks)]
Answer:
In Balbir Kaur. In the state of Punjab, the allegation against the accused was that she furnished a certificate to get employment as an ETT teacher which was found to be bogus and forged inasmuch as school was not recognized for the period given in the certificate. However, the certificate did not anywhere say that the school was recognized. It was held that merely indicating the teaching experience of the accused, per se, cannot be said to indicate wrong facts. So the direction which was issued for prosecution is liable to be quashed.

Question 29.
Explain the term ‘Defamation’.
Answer:

  1. Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said to defame that person.
  2. Example: A is asked who stole B’s watch. A point to Z, intending to cause it to be believed that Z stole B’s watch. This is defamation unless it falls within one of the exceptions.
  3. The wrong of defamation is of two kinds- libel and slander.
  4. In libel, the defamatory statement is made in some permanent and visible form, such as writing, printing or pictures.
  5. In slander, it is made in spoken words or in some other transitory form. whether visible or audible.

Question 30.
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.” Z prosecutes A for defamation. Decide.
Answer:
The facts of the given case are based on Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and illustration appended 9th Exception.

It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another provided that the imputation is made in good faith for the protection of the interests of the person making it. A is within the exception, as he has made this imputation on Z in good faith for the protection of his own interests. Thus, Z will not succeed in his case.

Question 31.
A was raped. B, the accused and owner of the newspaper, published the story of A. A filed a complaint against B. B filed a writ petition to quash the proceedings before the trial court seeking the defence of the first exception of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. State with reason whether B can be prosecuted and punished for the offence of defamation under the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
Answer:
The facts of the given case are similar to A.B.K. Prasad and others v. Union of India and others. The A.P. High Court dismissed the write petition and held that “right to privacy and right to freedom of the press has to be balanced”. Therefore, Laxman Rekha has to be drawn somewhere in the public interest. If publication of truth is in the public interest it would not be defamation, but if it has nothing to do with the public interest and relates to the privacy of an individual then it would certainly de defamatory.

Keeping in view of the above decision, A will succeed in his case against B.

Question 32.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 provides for general exceptions for a person accused of committing any offence under the code to plead in his defence. Explain any eight exceptions; [Dec. 2019 (4 Marks)]
Answer:
The Indian Penal Code, 1860 also provides for general exceptions for a person accused of committing any offence under the Code to plead in his defence. General defences or exceptions are contained in sections 76 to 106 of the IPC. In general exceptions to criminal liability, there will be the absence of men’s rea (guilty mind) on the part of the wrong-doer. If there is any general defence of the accused in a criminal case, the burden of proving lies on him under section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Some of these general exceptions are given below:
Mistake of fact: believing bound by law [Section 76]: Nothing is an offence, which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith believes himself to be, bound by law to do it.

Act of Judge when acting judicially [Section 77]: Nothing is an offence which is done by a Judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law.

The act did pursuant to the judgment or order of Court [Section 78]: Nothing which is done in pursuance of, or which is warranted by the judgment or order of, a Court of Justice; if done whilst such judgment or order remains in force, is an offence, notwithstanding the Court may have had no jurisdiction to pass such judgment or order, provided the person doing the act in good faith believes that the Court had such jurisdiction.

Mistake of fact – justified by law [Section 79]: Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law, in doing it.

Accident in doing a lawful act [Section 80]: Nothing is an offence, which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.

The protection under this section will apply only if the act is a result of an accident or a misfortune.

  1. Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent, and to prevent other harm [Section 81]: Any act done by anyone without any criminal intent for saving or preventing harm to a third person or property in good faith is no offence.
  2. Act of a child under 7 years of age [Section 82]: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under 7 years of age.
  3. Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding [Section 83]: Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above 7 years of age and under 12, who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion.
  4. Act of a person of unsound mind [Section 84]: Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
  5. Communication made in good faith [Section 93]: No communication made in good faith is an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is made if it is made for the benefit of that person.
  6. Act causing slight harm [Section 95]: Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm.

Question 33.
Anurag has a licensed gun. He goes into the jungle for shooting birds. He shoots at an owl sitting on a bush with intent to kill it but kills Rohan who was behind the bush. Whether Anurag is punishable for his act of killing Rohan under the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
Answer:
As per Section 80 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, nothing is an offence, which is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge in the doing of a lawful act in a lawful manner by lawful means and with proper care and caution.

Thus, in the act of Anurag, there is no want of proper caution, his act is excusable. From the facts of the case, it can be observed that Anurag accidentally killed Rohan without any criminal intention and hence he is not liable for any punishment under the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Question 34.
Dr Shreeram Nene is a well-known surgeon in his locality. The band comes to his hospital for a check-up. Dr Shreeram Nene in good faith communicates to Bandu his opinion that he cannot live more than 6 months. Band dies in consequence of the shock. Whether any offence is committed by Dr Shreeram Nene under the Indian Penal Code, 1860?
Answer:
As per Section 93 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, no communication made in good faith is an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is made if it is made for the benefit of that person.

Dr Shreeram Nene, in good faith, communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The patient dies as a consequence of the shock. Dr Shreeram Nene has committed no offence, though he knew it to be likely that the communication might cause the patient’s death.

Jurisprudence, Interpretation & General Laws Questions and Answers

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *