The term Crime is derived from Latin word

crimen meaning offence and also wrongdoer.

In ordinary language, the term crime
denotes an unlawful act punishable by a
State. The term crime does not, in modern
Criminal Law, have any simple and
universally accepted definition, though
statutory definitions have been provided for
certain purposes.

A Public wrong is a 'Crime'. It is an injury

to the State even though the victim of the
crime is an individual. Acts of crime are
considered anti-social. Hence the States
takes the responsibility of punishing the
criminal in the interest of state.

Sir William Blackstone in his

'Commentaries on Law of England',
Sir William Blackstone defined
Crime as "an act committed or
omitted in violation of Public Law
forbidding or commanding it".

Sir James Stephen

"Crime is an act forbidden by law and revolting
to the moral sentiments of the society".

Kenny
"Crimes are wrongs whose sanction is punitive
and in no way remissible by an private person,
but is remissble by the Crown alone, if
remissible at all"

The following elements are to be satisfied to

constitute an act as a crime.
Human Being
Mens rea
Actus reus
Injury
Human Being
The first essential element of a Crime is that it
must be committed by a human being. In case,
the crime is committed by an animal, its owner
is subject to Civil/Tortious liability.

2. mens rea
A crime is done with a criminal intent.
3. actus reus
There should be an external act. The Act and
the mens rea should be concurrent and
related.
4. Injury
There should be some injury or the act should
be prohibited under the existing law. The act
should carry some kind of punishment.

To be classified as a crime, the act of

doing something bad Actus Reus must
be usually accompanied by the
intention to do something bad Mens rea
with certain exceptions Strict Liability

"Culpable homicide" is an offence under 299 of

the Indian Penal Code(IPC), defined as "Whoever
causes death by doing an act with the intention of
causing death, or with the intention of causing
such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or
with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to
cause death, commits the offence of culpable
homicide."
"Culpable homicide not amounting to murder" is
an offence under 304 of the Indian Penal Code. It
applies to an event where the death is intentional
but does not come within the IPC definition of
"murder". Accused charged with culpable
homicide will not get bail. It is non-bailable.

I. Culpable homicide amounting to

murder.
II.Culpable homicide not amounting to
murder.
Culpable homicide is the Genus, and murder
is the Species
It is to be noted here that culpable homicide
not amounting to murder is not defined
separately in IPC, it is defined as part of
Murder in the section 300 of IPC.

Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide

is murder, if the act by which the death is caused
is done with the intention of causing death, or-If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury
as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the
person to whom the harm is caused.
If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any
person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death,
If the person committing the act knows that it is so
imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause
death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and
commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk
of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

Exception 1 to 5 of s300 of IPC defines

conditions when culpable Homicide is
not amounting to murder:
I.Provocation.
II.Right of private defense.
III.Public servant exceeding his
power.
IV.Sudden fight.
V.Consent.

Theprovocation is not sought or

voluntarily provoked by the offenderas an
excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.
Theprovocation is not given by anything
done in obedience to the law, or by a
public servant in the lawful exerciseof the
powers of such public servant.
3.The provocation is not given by anything
done in thelawful exercise of the right of
private defense.

Culpable homicide is not amounting to

murder if the offender, in theexercise in
good faith of the right of private
defenseof person or property, exceeds
the power given to him by law and causes
the death of the person against whom he is
exercising such right of defense without
premeditation, and without any intention of
doing more harm than is necessary for the
purpose of such defense.

Culpable homicide is not murder if the

offender, being apublic servant, or
aiding a public servant acting for the
advancement of public justice exceeds
the powers given to him by law, and
caused death by doing an act which he , in
good faith, believes to be lawful and
necessary for the due discharge of this duty
as such public servant and without ill will
towards the person whose deaths is caused.

Culpable homicide is not amounting to

murder if it is committed
withoutpremeditation in a sudden
fightin the heat of passion upon a
sudden quarrel and without the offender
having taken undue advantage or acted
in a cruel or unusual manner.
Explanation-it is immaterial in such
cases which party offers the
provocation or commits the first assault.

culpable homicide is not amounting to

murder when the murder whose death
is caused, being above the age of 18
years, suffers death or take the risk of
deathwith his own consent.

There are Four stages in commission of

a Crime.
Intention
Preparation
Attempt/Implementation
Commission/Accomplishment

1. Intention to Commit a Crime

This is the first stage in commission of a
crime. Intention to commit a crime is not
punishable unless it is made known to
others either by words or conduct.
Eg: Waging a War against the Government
is punishable. In this case, mere intention
to commit is punishable. Similarly, mere
assembly of persons to commit a dacoity
is punishable even though there is no
preparation to it.

2. Preparation
It is difficult for the prosecution to
prove that necessary preparation has
been made for the commission of the
offence. Eg: In case a person purchases
a pistol and loads it with bullets, it is
not possible to prove that the person is
carrying the pistol to kill some other
person.

In the Indian Law, Mere Preparation to

commit an offense is punishable in the
following offenses.
Waging War
Preparation to commit a dacoity
Preparation for counterfeiting coins and
Government stamps
Possessing counterfeit coins, false weight
or measurement and forged documents

3. Attempt
It is also known as the 'Preliminary
Crime'.
Section XXIII of the IPC, 1860 deals with
'of Attempt to Commit Offences' and
provides the punishment for attempt.

Essentials of Attempt
Guilty intention to commit an offence
Some act done towards committing the
offence
The act must fall short of the
completed offence

Completed offences and attempts have been

dealt in the same Section and same punishment
is prescribed. Eg: Waging War and Attempting to
Wage War (Sec. 121)
In certain cases, punishments for attempt to
offences and completed offences are dealt
separately. Eg: Punishment for murder is dealt in
Section 302, while attempt to murder is dealt in
Sec. 307.
In other cases, of attempt, are covered under
Section 511 which prescribes the longest term
of imprisonment or with fine or both.

4. Accompolishment
This is the last stage in the commission
of a crime. The accused is guilty of the
offence only if he succeeds in his act.
Otherwise, he is guilty of attempt only.

There are Five theories of punishments.

Deterrent Theory
Retributive Theory
Preventive Theory
Reformative Theory
Expiatory Theory

1. Deterrent Theory
'Deter' means to abstain from doing at
act. The main objective of this theory is
to deter (prevent) crimes. It serves a
warning to the offender not to repeat
the crime in the future and also to
other evil-minded persons in the
society. This theory is a workable one
even though it has a few defects.

2.Retributive Theory
Retribute means to give in return. The
objective of the theory is to make the
offender realise the suffering or the pain.
In the Mohammedan Criminal Law, this
type of punishment is called 'QISAS' or
'KISA'. Majority or Jurists, Criminologists,
Penologists and Sociologists do not
support this theory as they feel it is brutal
and barbaric.

3. Preventive Theory
The idea behind this theory is to keep
the offender away from the society. The
offenders are punished with death,
imprisonment of life, transportation of
life etc. Some Jurists criticize this
theory as it may be done by reforming
the behavior of criminals.

4. Reformative Theory
The objective is to reform the behavior of
the criminals. The idea behind this theory
is that no one is born as a Criminal. The
criminal is a product of the social,
economic and environmental conditions. It
is believed that if the criminals are
educated and trained, they can be made
competant to behave well in the society.
The Reformative theory is proved to be
successful in cases of young offenders.

5. Expiatory Theory
Jurists who support this theory believes
that if the offender expiates or repents,
he must be forgiven.
The Indian Penal Code is a combination
or compromise between the underlying
principles of all these theories.

There are Five theories of punishments.

Deterrent Theory
Retributive Theory
Preventive Theory
Reformative Theory
Expiatory Theory

1. Deterrent Theory
'Deter' means to abstain from doing at
act. The main objective of this theory is
to deter (prevent) crimes. It serves a
warning to the offender not to repeat
the crime in the future and also to
other evil-minded persons in the
society. This theory is a workable one
even though it has a few defects.

2.Retributive Theory
Retribute means to give in return. The
objective of the theory is to make the
offender realise the suffering or the pain.
In the Mohammedan Criminal Law, this
type of punishment is called 'QISAS' or
'KISA'. Majority or Jurists, Criminologists,
Penologists and Sociologists do not
support this theory as they feel it is brutal
and barbaric.

3. Preventive Theory
The idea behind this theory is to keep
the offender away from the society. The
offenders are punished with death,
imprisonment of life, transportation of
life etc. Some Jurists criticize this
theory as it may be done by reforming
the behavior of criminals.

4. Reformative Theory
The objective is to reform the behavior of
the criminals. The idea behind this theory
is that no one is born as a Criminal. The
criminal is a product of the social,
economic and environmental conditions. It
is believed that if the criminals are
educated and trained, they can be made
competant to behave well in the society.
The Reformative theory is proved to be
successful in cases of young offenders.

5. Expiatory Theory
Jurists who support this theory believes
that if the offender expiates or repents,
he must be forgiven.
The Indian Penal Code is a combination
or compromise between the underlying
principles of all these theories.

Bentham has said that fear of law can

never restrain bad men as much as the
fear of individual resistance andifyou
take away this right then you become
accomplice of all bad men.
It is said that the law of self defence is
not written but is born with us.

IPC incorporates this principle in

section 96, which says,
Section 96 - Nothing is an offence
which is done in the exercise of the
right of private defence.

It makes the acts, which are otherwise

criminal, justifiable if they are done
while exercising the right of private
defence. Normally, it is the accused
who takes the plea of self defence but
the court is also bound take cognizance
of the fact that the accused aced in self
defence if such evidence exists.

Section 97 - Every person has a right, subject to

the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend

first - his own body or body of any other person

against any offence affecting the human body.
second - the property, whether movable or
immovable, of himself or of any other person,
against any act which is an offence falling under
the definition of theft, robbery, mischief, or
criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to
commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal
trespass.

Under English law, the right to defend

the person and property against
unlawful aggression was limited to the
person himself or kindred relations or
to those having community of interest
e.g. parent and child, husband and
wife, landlord and tenant, etc.

However, this section allows this right

to defend an unrelated person's body
or property as well.
Thus, it is apt to call it as right to
private defence instead of right to self
defence.

It is important to note that the right exists

only against an act that is an offence. There
is no right to defend against something that
is not an offence.
For example, a policeman has the right to
handcuff a person on his belief that the
person is a thief and so his act of
handcuffing is not an offence and thus the
person does not have any right under this
section.

As with any right, the right to private

defence is not an absolute right and is
neither unlimited. It is limited by the
following restrictions imposed by
section 99 -

Section 99 - There is no right of private

defence against an act which does not
reasonably cause the apprehension of
death or of grievous hurt, if done, or
attempted to be done, by a public
servant acting in good faith under colour
of his office though that act may not be
strictly justifiable by law.

There is no right of private defence against

an act which does not reasonably cause
the apprehension of death or of grievous
hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by
the direction of a public servant acting in
good faith under colour of his office though
that direction may not be strictly justifiable
by law.

There is no right of private defence in

cases in which there is time to have
recourse to the protection of the public
authorities.

Extent to which the right may be

exercised - The right of private defence
in no case extends to the inflicting of
more harm that it is necessary to inflict
for the purpose of defence.

Explanation 1 - A person is not

deprived of his right of private defence
against an act done or attempted to be
done by a public servant, as such,
unless he knows or has reason to
believe that the person doing the act is
such public servant.

Explanation 2 - A person is not deprived

of his right of private defence against an
act done or attempted to be done by the
direction of a public servant, unless he
knows or has reason to believe that the
person doing the act is acting by such
direction, or unless such person states the
authority under which he acts or if he has
authority in writing, unless he produces
such authority if demanded.

There are two types of Kidnapping:

Kidnapping from India
Kidnapping from lawful guardianship

Kidnapping from India - Kidnapping from

India means taking anybody, without his
consent, out of the borders of India. Section
360 defines it as follows Section 360 - Whoever conveys any person
beyond the limits of India without the consent
of that person or of some person legally
authorized to consent on behalf of that
person, is said to kidnanap that person from
India.

For example, if A takes B without his consent

or without B's lawful guardians consent to
Pakistan, A would be committing this offence.
The essential ingredient of Kidnapping are The person should be conveyed out of the
borders of India.
The person should be conveyed without his
consent or without the consent of the person
who is legally authorized to consent on his
behalf.

Thus, if a person is not capable of

giving valid consent as in the case of a
minor or a person with unsound mind,
the consent of his lawful guardian is
required to take him outside India.

Kidnapping from Lawful guardianship Kidnapping from lawful guardianship means

taking a child away from his lawful guardian
without the guardian's consent. Section 361
defines it as follows Section 361 - Whoever takes or entices any
minor under 16 yrs of age if male or 18 yrs of age
if female, or any person of unsound mind, out of
the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor
or person of unsound mind, without the consent
of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or
person from lawful guardianship.

Explanation - The words lawful guardian in this

section include any person lawfully entrusted with
the care or custody of such minor or other person.
Exception - This section does not extend to the
act of any person who in good faith believes
himself to be the father of an illegitimate child or
who in good faith believes himself to be entitled
to the lawful custody of such child, unless such
act is committed for an immoral or unlawful
purpose.
Based on this section the essential ingredients are
-

The person should either be a minor or a

person of unsound mind - This implies that
the person is not capable of giving consent.
In case of male child the age is 16 yrs while in
case of a female child the age is 18 yrs. For a
person on unsound mind, age is immaterial.
.

Such person be taken or enticed

away - This means that either force is
usedor any enticement that causes the
person to leave domain of the lawful
guardian is used. For example, if A
shows toffee to a child C thereby
causing the child to come out of the
house and follow A, it fall under this
category

Such person must be taken or enticed

away from the lawful guardian - Only
when the child is under the lawful guardian,
can he be kidnapped.This means that the
child should be under the domain of the
lawful guardian. For example, an orphan
wandering on the streets cannot be
kidnapped because he doesn't have a lawful
guardian. However, this does not mean that
a child must be with the lawful guardian.

However, this does not mean that a

child must be with the lawful guardian.
a child siting in a school is also under
the dominion of his father and if A
takes such a child away, it would be
kidnapping

A legal guardian may entrust the custody

of his child to someone else. Taking a child
away from such custody will also fall
under this section.
For example, A entrusts his child to B, his
servant, to take the child to school. If, C
takes the child away from the servant, this
would be kidnapping because the servant
has the lawful guardianship of the child.

Section 362 of IPC defines Abduction as follows

Section 362 - Whoever by force compels, or

by any deceitful means induces, any person to
go from any place is said to abduct that person.
It means compelling a person, or to induce him
to go from where he is to another place. The
essential ingredients are -

A person goes from one place to another -

Eitherby forcible compulsion or by
inducement Here, the age of the abducted person is
immaterial.
Thus, even a major can be abducted if he is
forced to go from one location. But if a minor is
abducted, it may amount to Kidnapping as well.
Further, it is a continuing offence. As long as a
person is forced to go from place to place,
abduction continues.

A person goes from one place to

another - A person cannot be
abducted at the same place where he
is. For abduction to take place, the
person should physically move from
one place to another.

Eitherby forcible compulsion or by

inducement - The movement of the
person must be because of some
compulsion or because of some
inducement. For example, A threatens
B on gun point to go from his house to
another city. Here, A has compelled B
to go from his house and is thus guilty
under this section.

Kidnapping from lawful guardian

(Section 361) and Abduction (Section
362)
A person is taken away from the lawful
guardian in Kidnapping While in Abduction,
a person is compelled by force or induced
by deception to go from any place.
The person must be less than 16 yrs of age
if male, less than 18 if female, or of
unsound mind in Kidnapping While in
Abduction, Age of the person is immaterial.

Kidnapping is not a continuing offence

While Abduction is a continuing offence.
Consent of the person kidnapped is
immaterial in Kidnapping While in
Abduction, Person moves without his
consent or the consent is obtained by
decietful means.
Kidnapping can be done without use of force
or deception, while in Abduction, is always
done by the use of force or deception.

Definition of Theft :-

The offence of Theft has been defined

by Section 378 of IPC . According to
this Section , whoever , intending to
take dishonestly any movable
property out of the possession of any
person without that persons consent ,
moves that property in order to such
taking , is said to commit theft.

a) Subject matter should be a

movable property,i.e., corporal
property except land and things
attached to the earth ;

b) The subject matter should be

moved out of the possession of any
person. So the person in possession
need not be owner of the property ;

c) This moving out of the subject

matter should be without the consent
of the person in possession of it. And
so the moving out may be permanent
or temporary in nature and

d) Such taking out of the property

should be with dishonest intention
and not in good faith.

The offence of extortion is defined by

Section 383 of IPC .
According to Section 383 , whoever
intentionally puts any person in fear of
any injury to the person or to any other ,
and therebydishonestly induces the
person so put in fear to deliver to any
person any property or valuable security,
or anything signed or sealed which may be
converted into a valuable security ,
commits extortion.

a) The offender must put any person in

fear of injury to that person or any
other person .
The term Injury according to Section 44
is any harm whatever illegally caused
to any person in body , reputation ,
orproperty. It is not necessary that the
injury should be only in body
b) The putting of a person in such fear
must be intentional ;

c) The offender must thereby induce the

person so put in fear to deliver to any
person
i) any property ,
ii) valuable security or
iii) anything signed or sealed which may be
converted into valuable security . So fear
must precede the delivery of property; and
d) Such inducement must be done
dishonestly ,i.e., to cause wrongful gain or
wrongful loss.

a) The element of dishonest intention to

obtain property exists in both the two
offences.

b) In Theft the offender takes out the property

without consent of the possessor. On the other
hand , in extortion the offender obtains the
consent by putting the person in possession of
the property or to any other in fear of injury.

c)In Theft , the subject matter is always

movable property . But in extortion the subject
matter may be movable or immovable
property,

d) The element of delivery of property

does not exist in Theft . But in
Extortion it exists.

e) In Theft the element of applying

force or fear is absent . Whereas , in
Extortion , the offence is committed by
overpowering the will of the possessor
to induce him to deliver the property.

Definition of Robbery?

Section 390 of the Indian Penal

Code defines robbery . According
to this section robbery is the
aggravated form of either theft or
extortion because in all robbery
there is either theft or extortion.

The offence of theft becomes robbery if ,

in order to the committing of the theft , or
while committing the theft , or in carrying
away or attempting to carry away the
property obtained by theft , the offender ,
for that end ,voluntarily causes or
attempts to cause to any person death or
hurt or wrongful restraint , or fear of
instant death or of instant hurt , or of
instant wrongful restraint .

The offence of extortion becomes

robbery if , the offender , at the time of
committing the extortion , is in the
presence of the person put in fear , and
commits the extortion by putting that
person in fear of instant death or of
instant hurt , or of instant wrongful
restraint to that person or to some other
person , and , by so putting in fear,
induces the person so put in fear then
and there to deliver up the thing so
extorted

i) Offender committed theft as

defined in section 378 in the
process ;
ii) Offender caused or attempted to
cause to some persons -a) fear of death , or hurt or wrongful
restraint ,
b) fear of instant death , or of instant
hurt or of instant wrongful restraint ,

iii) Offender did such act either ---a)in order to the committing of the
theft , or
b) while committing the theft , or
c) in carrying away or attempting
to carry away the property.

DEFINITION
Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code
provides that when five or more persons
conjointly commit or attempt to commit a
robbery , or where the whole number of
persons conjointly committing or
attempting to commit a robbery , and
persons present and aiding such
commission or attempt , amount to five
or more , every person so committing ,
attempting or aiding , is said to commit
the offence of dacoity.

In what circumstances robbery

amounts to dacoity?

The offence of robbery takes the

character of dacoity when it is
committed conjointly by five or more
persons . The words conjointly refers to
united or concerted action of the
persons participating in the transaction
.

1) The offenders were five or more

in number who committed or
attemped or aided to commit
robbery ;

2) All such persons were acting

conjointly .

i) Accused persons were five or

more in number who committed
the dacoity ;
ii) They were acting conjointly ;
iii) Any one or more of them
committed murder
iv) And such murder was
committed in course of dacoity .

Section 396 speaks about joint liability of the

offenders conjointly committing a dacoity and for
the act of murder committed by any one or more
of them. To come within the purview of this
section , the murder must be committed in
course of dacoity or while committing dacoity .
Where murder is committed in attempting to
escape without carrying away the stolen
property , it does not come within the scope of
this section but if the murder is committed while
carrying away the stolen property , it falls within
the purview of this section . So carrying away
the stolen property is must for this section to
prove that the murder was committed in course
of dacoity .