THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA

Regal Mentor-Mob-9995400709

INTRODUCTION

When the entire world observes the world's largest democracy, remnants of colonialism persist in

many aspects of its legislature. The formal codification of laws had to await the 'white man's

burden' to adopt laws in the British model in Indian legislative and executive systems, despite

the ancient compilation of laws such as Upanishads and Dharmasasthra that stood as mighty

mountains in the entire spectrum of laws.

In overcoming these historical hindrances, India has made significant strides with the

enactment of the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhitha (BNS). This marks a fundamental shift in India’s

approach to criminal justice. Etymologically, Bharatiya Nyaya Samhitha seeks truth rather than

mere punishment. It introduces new offenses, enhanced penalties, gender inclusivity,

incorporates digital records into legal definitions, and removes outdated and unconstitutional

provisions. Notably, the introduction of community service in sentencing deserves special

mention.

In bypassing its colonial history and adopting a justice-centric approach, the Bharatiya

Nyaya Samhitha represents more than old wine in a new bottle—it opens new doors for the

world's largest democracy, offering a fresh perspective on criminal adjudication.

DEFINITION OF CRIME

The expression ‘crime’ has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code. A crime is an act

or omission in respect of which a punishment may be inflicted on the person responsible for the

act or omission. A crime can be defined as any act or omission of duty that results in harm to the

society at large and which is punishable by the state. A crime, by definition, harms society as a

whole. For this reason crimes are generally prosecuted by the state, i.e. it is not the role of the

victim to prosecute the person(s) committing the crime.

Definition

It is difficult to attach an exact definition to the term crime. There are motoring offences ranging

from simple parking errors, to death by dangerous driving. Offences against the person range

from a slap to murder.

In Halsbury’s Laws of England, the crime is defined as “an unlawful act or default, which

is an offence against the public. Blackstone in his classical work, Commentaries on the Laws of

England, attempted to define crime as a public wrong. According to him “crime is an act

committed or omitted in violation of a public duty forbidding or commanding it”. Blackstone

identified the demerits of his first definition, so he modified it and said, “a crime is a violation of

the public rights and duties due to the whole community.

Later when Stephen got an opportunity to edit the work of Blackstone, Blackstone’s

commentaries, he made a modification to the definition. Thus from the definitions given by

Blackstone and Stephen, one can conclude that the crime is a breach of laws which injure the

community in general. But this concept has been criticized by Kenny as erroneous because in his

view all acts that are injurious to the community are not necessarily crime. A Crime is an act or

omission in respect of which legal punishment may be inflicted on the person who is in default

either by acting or omitting to act.

There are many different types of crimes, from crimes against persons to victimless

crimes and violent crimes to white collar crimes. With each type of crime also come different

sociological phenomena and demographic profiles.

Crimes against Persons

Crimes against persons, also called personal crimes, include murder, aggravated assault, rape,

and robbery. Personal crimes are unevenly distributed in the United States, with young, urban,

poor, and racial minorities committing these crimes more than others.

Crimes against Property

Property crimes involve theft of property without bodily harm, such as burglary, larceny, auto

theft, and arson. Like personal crimes, young, urban, poor, and racial minorities generally

commit these crimes more than others.

Crimes against Morality

Crimes against morality are also called victimless crimes because there is not complainant, or

victim. Prostitution, illegal gambling, and illegal drug use are all examples of victimless crimes.

White-Collar Crime

White-collar crimes are crimes that committed by people of high social status who commit their

crimes in the context of their occupation. This includes embezzling (stealing money from one’s

employer), insider trading, and tax evasion and other violations of income tax laws.

White-collar crimes generally generate less concern in the public mind than other types of crime,

however in terms of total dollars, white-collar crimes are even more consequential for society.

Nonetheless, these crimes are generally the least investigated and least prosecuted.

Organized Crime

Organized crime is crime committed by structured groups typically involving the distribution of

illegal goods and services to others. Many people think of the Mafia when they think of

organized crime, but the term can refer to any group that exercises control over large illegal

James Stephen

enterprises (such as the drug trade, illegal gambling, prostitution, weapons smuggling, or money

laundering).

A key sociological concept in the study or organized crime is that these industries are

organized along the same lines as legitimate businesses and take on a corporate form. There are

typically senior partners who control the business’ profits, workers who manage and work for the

business, and clients who buy the goods and services that the organization provides.

PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY

Criminal liability is what unlocks the logical structure of the criminal law. Each element of a

crime that the prosecutor needs to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) involves a principle of

criminal liability. There are some crimes that only involve a subset of the principles of liability,

but these are rare and are called "crimes of criminal conduct." Burglary, for example, is such a

crime because all need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is an actus reus concurring with a

mens rea. On the other hand, there are crimes that involve all the principles of liability, and these

are called "true crimes" that reflect "black letter law." Homicide, for example, is such a crime

because need to prove actus reus, mens rea, concurrence, causation, and harm. The requirement

that the prosecutor must prove each element of criminal liability beyond a reasonable doubt is

called the "corpus delicti rule."

Liability needs to be distinguished from the following concepts:

● culpability (purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently) - infers intent

● capacity (infancy, intoxication, insanity) - capacity defenses

● responsibility (volition, free will, competency) - presumptions

In general, liability is one of the most important concepts in law. From the above list, it

is closest to responsibility, but more strictly refers to the idea of "legal responsibility" as in the

notion from civil law where a person is "legally liable" if they do not meet some "legal

responsibility." Some good synonyms for it are answerability or accountability. Liability is

inherently a social concept, which implies not only some harm is done to society, but there is

some collective accountability involved. Of course, pure collective accountability is called

"vicarious liability" but modern societies (and even Anglo-American common law) have moved

away from collective or community-based systems of responsibility to systems where

governments get to declare what is criminal or quasi-criminal.

There are five principles of liability in criminal law:

● Principle of Actus Reus

● Principle of Mens Rea

● Principle of Concurrence

● Principle of Causation

● Principle of Resulting Harm

THE PRINCIPLE OF ACTUS REUS

● Involuntariness -- sleepwalking, hypnotic behavior, etc. are seen as examples of acting upon

forces beyond individual control, and are therefore not normally included in the principle of

actus reus. However, certain "voluntarily induced involuntary acts" such as drowsy driving might

arguably be included if the prior voluntary act created the risk of a future involuntary act.

● manifest criminality -- caught red-handed, clear-cut case of actus reus proven beyond a

reasonable doubt

● Possession -- the law recognizes various degrees of this. Actual possession means physically on

your person. Constructive possession means physically under your control. Knowing possession

means you know what you are possessing. Mere possession means you don't know what you are

possessing. Unwitting possession is when something has been planted on you. The only

punishable types of possession are the ones that are conscious and knowable.

● procuring -- obtaining things with the intent of using them for criminal purposes; e.g., precursor

chemicals for making narcotics, "pimping" for a prostitute, and procuring another to commit a

crime ("accessory before the fact")

● Status or condition -- sometimes a chronic condition qualifies as action, e.g., drug addiction,

alcoholism, on the assumption that first use is voluntary. Sometimes the condition, e.g. chronic

alcoholism, is treated as a disease which exculpates an individual. Equal Protection and other

constitutional issues may be triggered.

● Thoughts -- sometimes, not often, the expression of angry thoughts, e.g., "I'll kill you for that" is

taken as expressing the resolution and will to commit a crime, but in general, thoughts are not

part of the principle of actus reus. Daydreaming and fantasy are also not easily included in the

principle of mens rea.

● Words -- these are considered "verbal acts"; e.g. sexual harassment, solicitation, terroristic

threats, assault, inciting to riot.

Criminal liability is what unlocks the logical structure of the criminal law. Each element of a

crime that the prosecutor needs to prove (beyond a reasonable doubt) involves a principle of

criminal liability. There are some crimes that only involve a subset of the principles of liability,

but these are rare and are called "crimes of criminal conduct." Burglary, for example, is such a

crime because all you need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt is an actus reus concurring with a

mens rea. On the other hand, there are crimes that involve all the principles of liability, and these

are called "true crimes" that reflect "black letter law." Homicide, for example, is such a crime

because you need to prove actus reus, mens rea, concurrence, causation, and harm. The

requirement that the prosecutor must prove each element of criminal liability beyond a

reasonable doubt is called the "corpus delicti rule."

Liability needs to be distinguished from the following concepts:

● culpability (purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently) - infers intent

● capacity (infancy, intoxication, insanity) - capacity defenses

● responsibility (volition, free will, competency) - presumptions

In general, liability is one of the most important concepts in law. From the above list, it

is closest to responsibility, but more strictly refers to the idea of "legal responsibility" as in the

notion from civil law where a person is "legally liable" if they do not meet some "legal

responsibility." Liability is inherently a social concept, which implies not only some harm is

done to society, but there is some collective accountability involved. Of course, pure collective

accountability is called "vicarious liability" but modern societies (and even Anglo-American

common law) have moved away from collective or community-based systems of responsibility

to systems where governments get to declare what is criminal or quasi-criminal.

● Elements of Crime

● With the exception of strict liability offences, for a criminal offence to have occurred, the

accused must have committed both elements of the crime:

o Actus reus: refers to the actions (or in rare cases the failure to act/the omission) of the accused;

that is that the accused actually did the act {Physical element}.

o Mens rea: refers to the mental state of the accused; i.e. that the accused intended the actions.

{Mental element}

To constitute a crime, two elements are necessary and they are:

A. Or Actus Reus.

B. Mental element or Mens Rea.

The fundamental principle of penal liability is based on the Latin maxim “Actus non facit

reum nisi mens sit rea” It means that an act does not become a crime unless done with a guilty

mind. So, the guilty mind and the act must concur to constitute a crime. Both the Actus Reus and

Mens Rea are essential to constitute a crime.

Actus Reus

The term ‘Actus’ means a deed, a physical result or conduct. It is defined as “such result

of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent”. For e.g. in the case of a murder, the conduct of

murderer is brought out by the victim’s death. Here, the conduct is ‘Actus reus’.

The conduct of the offender is experienced in 3 ways:

i. A certain wilful movement or omission.

ii. Certain surrounding circumstances including past acts.

iii. Certain consequents.

Act is a conscious movement. It results from the operation of will. The will may be by

thinking and working out by mind. It may also be expressed by way of working out of a problem

on a paper. The former is called Internal Act and the later is called External Act.

Elements of Act

a. Origin b. Circumstances c. Consequences.

Origin

If a person commits an act, he has to think of it and do some physical bodily activity. For

example if A wants to kill B, A must think of it and then raise his hand, apply his fingers on the

trigger and pull it.

Circumstances

In the above example, circumstances are the following:

1. The rifle must be already loaded.

2. B must be in the line of trigger point.

Consequences

Consequences are the outcome (result) of the origin or circumstances. In the

above example, the fall of the trigger and the explosion of the bullet constitute the consequences

of the act.

It is not the origin that completes the act as illegal, but it is only the circumstances and

consequences which make the act illegal or an offence.

Characteristics of Act

a) An act is an event subject to the control of will power. For e.g., ‘A’ falling from a tower

or building is an event where as ‘A’ jumping from a tower or building is an act.

b) An act may include omission also. For eg, a parent can be held liable for the murder of

his child by starvation.

c) A man is liable only for such acts, the consequences of which are foreseen by him.

d) If there are subsisting and intervening causes, the act is not punishable. For eg. if a man

shoot a girl, but if she dies from fever, then the accused is not guilty of murder, because the death

is not due to the act of shooting.

e) Under certain circumstances, even without physical participation, a man’s act is punishable.

For e.g. a man in Delhi can be held liable for arranging the commission of a crime at Madras.

Thus, acts like Abetment and Conspiracy are punishable even though there is no physical

participation in the commission of crime.

Mens Rea

A prohibited act will become a crime when it is accompanied by a certain state of

mind. There must be a mind at fault before any crime can be committed. An act or omission

alone is not sufficient to constitute a crime. The act or omission should have followed by an evil

intent.

The combination of an act with the intent makes a crime. An act by itself is not a

wrong. An act done with guilty mind makes it a crime if the act is prohibited by law. Mens rea

is an evil intention or knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act. Mens rea may be of different

kinds:

(1) Intention

Intention indicates the state of mind of a man who, not only foresees, but also

desires the possible consequence of his conduct.

Illustration

X throws a stone at Y with a desire to cause injury to Y. As a result of that injury

is caused to Y. The desire of X to cause injury to Y is intention or mens rea and the act of

throwing the stone and the consequential injury is the actus reus.

(2) Recklessness

When a person does an act with foresight of injury but without desire to cause harm to

any person the state of mind can be called "recklessness".

Illustration

X drives a vehicle at high speed through a busy street without any desire to commit injury

to any person. He foresees the possibility of accident but consciously takes the risk that may

result from such a driving. The accident may or may not happen. The state of mind of X at the

time of driving is recklessness. It is a mind at fault with mens rea for constituting a crime.

(3) Negligence

Negligence means want of care. When a person who is bound to take care fails to take

care of an ordinary prudent man his mind is at fault and the faulty state of mind is known as

"negligence”. Recklessness includes negligent conduct.

(4) Knowledge

Knowledge refers to the personal information of a person doing an act. It is a state of

mind of a person. Under law doing of an act with knowledge may constitute a crime.

Illustration

X receives stolen property from Y with knowledge that it is stolen property. The act of X

is an offence punishable under law.

(5) Motive

Motive is an attitude of the mind. It is the emotion prompting the act. Love, compassion,

fear, jealousy, hatred, perverted lust, desire for money etc. are examples of emotion prompting us

the act and they constitute motive.

Motive refers to the ultimate intent. X is a starving man. He decides to commit theft of

bread to satisfy his hunger and he commits theft of bread from B's shop. The immediate intention

of his act is theft of bread and the motive is to satisfy his hunger. Thus, motive is the ulterior

object of an act which prompted him to do an act. Purity of motive or good motive will not

convert an act which otherwise criminal into one which is not punishable.

Exceptions to the element of Mens Rea

Strict liability offences

● Strict liability offences are minor in nature, e.g. speeding. For these offences it is not necessary

for the prosecution to prove mens rea; proof of the act alone is sufficient to constitute a crime.

● Strict liability offences can only be successfully defended if the accused can prove that the actual

act did not occur as mens rea is irrelevant to this category of offences.

Mens Rea in Statutory Offences

There are certain enactments which defines offences without mentioning the necessity of

mens rea. In those statutes offences are defined in absolute terms. The Opium Act, 1878, The

Foreign Exchange Act, 1947, The Prevention Food Adulteration Act, 1954, The Narcotic Drugs

and Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985, etc, are examples of such enactments.

In olden days it was a common belief that legislature was not competent to over-ride the

established rules of common law. According to this view, even if the necessity of mens rea is

not expressly mentioned in a particular statute, the judges should read between lines the

necessary mens rea. In other words the necessity of mens rea should be taken as granted. Thus

even if the offences are defined without mentioning the necessity of mens rea, the courts used to

acquit the accused in the absence of guilty mind. But the present view is that when the

legislature defines an offence in absolute terms the courts cannot read in between lines the

necessary mens rea.

In State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George

, this case the accused was a passenger in a

Swiss Plane from Zurich to Manila. When the plain landed at the Bombay Airport, 34 Kg of

gold was recovered from him. He pleaded that he brought gold in to India for mere transit to

Manila. Supreme Court convicted him on the ground that violation of law itself is sufficient for

criminal liability even without mens rea.

AIR 1965 SC 722.

In Inder Singh v. State of Punjab

, the appellant received a parcel containing fruits. While

he was carrying the parcel from the railway station the Police arrested him. The parcel was found

to contain Opium along with fruits. The mere possession of Opium is punishable under the

Opium Act, 1878. The accused was punished for possession of Opium though he had no

knowledge of the existence of Opium in the parcel.

Thus the classical view that ‘no mens rea, no crime' has been avoided by several statutes

enacted by the legislatures in India and by such laws severe punishments have been prescribed

for mere actus reus. Thus the statutory offences constitute an exception to doctrine of mens rea.

CRIMINAL DEFENSES

Defendants of a crime must refute one or more elements of the crime of which they have

been accused by:

Arguing they were falsely accused and that the real culprit has yet to be identified.

May claim that although they engaged in the criminal act of which they are accused, they

lacked the intent needed to be found guilty of the crime.

Excuses - excuse criminal actions by claiming he or she lacked the capacity to form

sufficient intent to be held criminally responsible (insanity, intoxication, and ignorance)

Another type of defense is justification – the individual admits committing the criminal

act but maintains that the act was justified and that he or she should therefore not be held

criminally liable. (Justified under the circumstances – necessity, duress, self-defense, and

entrapment)

Ignorance or Mistake – ignorance of the law is no excuse; ignorance does not excuse evil

intent; can be an excuse when there was no intent to violate the law and unknowingly did so

(buying goods you did not know were stolen) or if the mistake is reasonable (some statutory

rape)

Insanity – a defense to criminal prosecution in which the defendant’s state of mind

negates his or her criminal responsibility

Insanity is a legal category in which psychiatric testimony is to prove a defendant legally

sane.

A person found to be legally insane at the time of trial is placed in the custody of state

mental health authorities until diagnosed as sane.

U.S. courts usually use the M’Naghten Rule or the substantial capacity test

1972 (2) SCC 372.

M’Naghten Rule is known as the right-wrong test; didn’t know what he was doing or

didn’t know it was wrong.

M’Naghten criticized due to confusion of terms “disease of the mind” and “ know the

nature and quality of the act” having never been properly clarified; mental health professionals

have pointed out that rule is unrealistic and narrow in that it does not cover situations in which

people know right from wrong but cannot control their actions.

Irresistible impulse test – could not control his conduct at the time of the crime; if jury

finds a person acted under an irresistible impulse, the defendant would be placed in a mental

health facility until considered capable of controlling his or her behavior.

Substantial capacity test is essentially a combination of M’Naghten and Irresistible

impulse requiring only a lack of substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of the

conduct or to control it, which must be proven by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt

Intoxication – which in legal terms is defined as the taking of alcohol or drugs, is not

generally considered a defense

Duress – defense to a crime when the defendant commits an illegal act because the

defendant, or a third person, has been threatened by another with death or serious bodily harm if

the act is not performed.

Necessity- as a defense is applied in situations in which a person must break the law to

avoid a greater evil caused by natural forces (storms, earthquakes, or illness) this defense is

available only when committing the crime is the lesser of two evils.

Self-Defense – involves a claim that the defendant’s actions were a justified response to

the victim’s provocative behavior.

Self-defense can be used to protect one’s person or property.

An individual is justified in using force against another to protect himself or herself.

Defendants must reasonably believe that they are in danger of death or great harm and

that it is necessary for them to use force to protect themselves.

The amount of force used must be no greater than that necessary to prevent personal

harm.

Entrapment – another defense that excuses a defendant from criminal liability.

Defendant maintains that law enforcement officers induced him or her to commit a crime

that the defendant would not have committed had it not been for trickery, persuasion, or fraud on

the officers’ part

Law enforcement officers plan a crime, implant the criminal idea in a person’s mind, and

pressure that person into doing the act is different than an officer providing an opportunity for

the crime to be committed and the defendant being willing and ready to do the act

Exotic Defences – based on pre-existing conditions or syndromes with which their clients

were afflicted

Vicarious Liability in Crimes

Vicarious liability is a principle by which one person is held liable for another's wrong. In

the case of crime only the person who actually commits the crime is normally responsible. There

are certain exceptions to the general rule that in case of crime only the person who committed the

crime is liable. The following are the exceptions:

(i) Section 154 of IPC provides that if unlawful assembly or riot takes place on the land of

person, the owner or occupier of such land is liable to be punished with fine not exceeding one

thousand rupees if he or his agent or manager fails to give the earliest notice of an unlawful

assembly or riot to the principal officer at the nearest police-station.

In R. v. Prayag Singh

, a riot took place on the land of one Prayag Singh during the

course of which one Pir Khan was killed. Prayag Singh was punished with fine of Rs. 1000/-.

(ii) According Section 155 of the I.P.C. whenever a riot is committed for the benefit of the

owner or occupier of any land who claims any interest in such land, if such person has reason to

believe that such riot was likely to be committed, the owner or occupier is liable for fine if he has

not taken all lawful means to prevent such riot.

(iii) Section 34 deals with joint liability or vicarious liability on the basis of "common

intention". By virtue of Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, "when a criminal act is done by

several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all each of such persons is liable for

that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone".

In Hari Ram v. State of UP

, the Court held that to prove the charge of common intention,

the prosecution must present evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, demonstrating a planned

or concerted effort among all accused individuals to commit the offence.

In State of U.P v. Kishan Chand and Others

, it was determined that the common object

of an unlawful assembly can be inferred from the assembly's nature, the weapons employed, and

the conduct exhibited by its members at or before the incident. This inference is drawn based on

the specific facts and circumstances of each case.

(iv) Section 120A and 120B deal with joint liability of a member of a conspiracy to commit

an offence.

1890 (12) All 550.

2004 (8) SCC 146.

2004 (7) SCC 629.

(v) Section 149 deals with joint liability or vicarious liability of members of an unlawful

assembly when an offence is committed by a member in prosecution of the common object of the

unlawful assembly.

(vi) Section 396 deals with joint liability or vicarious liability of dacoits when a dacoit

commits murder for committing dacoity.

(vii) Section 460 deals with joint liability of persons concerned in lurking-house trespass or

house breaking by night when death or grievous hurt is caused by one of them.

In Koppula Venkat Rao v. State of A.P

, it was held that an attempt consists in it the

intent to commit a crime, falling short of, its actual commission or consummation/completion. It

may consequently be defined as that which if not prevented would have resulted in the full

consummation of the act attempted.

Parties to a crime

Including principal in the first degree, principal in the second degree, accessory before the

fact, accessory after the fact

Crimes are often complex events with a range of criminal activity, undertaken by a number of

different people associated with the event. All the people involved in a crime are referred to as

parties to the crime. All parties can be convicted and be punished by the court. Their punishment

will depend in part on the extent to which they were involved in the crime. The more involved

the greater the punishment. There are four types of parties to a crime; these are:

1. Principal in the first degree: the person(s) directly responsible for the criminal act, e.g. robbed

the bank.

2. Principal in the second degree: the person, who assists the offender in the first degree to commit

the crime, e.g. drove the getaway car.

3. Accessory before the fact: the person(s) who helped to plan the crime e.g. stole the bank plans.

4. Accessory after the fact: the person(s) who knowingly assists the offender after the crime has

been committed, e.g. helped hide the offender from police.

THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023 NO. 45 OF 2023

[25th December, 2023.]

An Act to consolidate and amend the provisions relating to offences and for matters connected

therewith or incidental thereto.

BE it enacted by Parliament in the Seventy-fourth Year of the Republic of India as follows: ––

2004 (2) KLT SN 19.

CHAPTER I PRELIMINARY

1. Short Title, commencement and application

(1) This Act may be called the Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

(2) It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the

Official Gazette, appoint, and different dates may be appointed for different provisions of this

Sanhita.

(3) Every person shall be liable to punishment under this Sanhita and not otherwise for every act

or omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which he shall be guilty within India

(4) Any person liable, by any law for the time being in force in India, to be tried for an offence

committed beyond India shall be dealt with according to the provisions of this Sanhita for any act

committed beyond India in the same manner as if such act had been committed within India.

(5) The provisions of this Sanhita shall also apply to any offence committed by—

(a) Any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India;

(b) Any person on any ship or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be;

computer resource located in India.

Explanation. —In this section, the word “offence” includes every act committed outside India

which, if committed in India, would be punishable under this Sanhita.

Illustration

A, who is a citizen of India, commits a murder in any place without and beyond India.

He can be tried and convicted of murder in any place in India in which he may be found.

(6) Nothing in this Sanhita shall affect the provisions of any Act for punishing mutiny and

desertion of officers, soldiers, sailors or airmen in the service of the Government of India or the

provisions of any special or local law.

NOTE- This section corresponds to Sec 1 of IPC

Territorial Jurisdiction

According to Sec.1 of the I.P.C. The territorial jurisdiction extends all over India, except

the state of Jammu and Kashmir. So, every person who is within Indian Territory is punishable,

whether he is an Indian or a foreigner. The citizenship or nationality of the person is immaterial.

Exemptions

The following persons are exempted from jurisdiction:

i. The President of India or the Governor of a state.

ii. The Chief Justice and other Judges of the Supreme Court and the High Courts.

iii. Foreign Sovereigns and Ambassadors.

iv. Warships of Foreign States.

v. Alien Enemies.

vi. Former Rulers of the States.

Maritime Territory

For the purpose of jurisdiction, the land, internal waters such as rivers, lakes, and canals

are included. The sea was not under the territorial jurisdiction. But now, by enacting the

“Territorial waters Jurisdiction Act” the jurisdiction of I.P.C. extends to 12 nautical miles into

the sea.

R v. Keyn (Franconia case)

The German ship Franconia, while passing within three miles of the shore of England,

ran into a British ship and caused the death of a passenger, which amounted to the offence of

manslaughter. Mr. Keyn, the captain of the ship was tried for the offence of manslaughter. As a

statutory enactment was absent, the English criminal court had no power to try such an offence.

Hence the English parliament enacted the “Territorial waters Jurisdiction Act of 1878” which

extended the jurisdiction of English Courts to three miles into sea from the shore.

Similarly, the air space excluding outer space above a country is subject to its control and

the country can prohibit the disturbance of the air space by wireless communication from foreign

stations.

Extra Territorial Jurisdiction

Sec.3 and 4 says that if an offence is committed outside India, the offender can be

punished in two ways:

1. If he is a citizen of India, and commits an offence outside India, (but this offence must be

punishable under the I.P.C.)

2. If an offence is committed in any ship or aircraft registered in India, wherever it may be.

The word ‘offence’ means every act, which is punishable under Indian Penal Code,

though committed outside India. Thus Sec.3 and 4 extend the jurisdiction of Indian Courts

beyond the territorial limits of India. This is called Extra Territorial Jurisdiction of the I.P.C.

Illustration

A, who is a citizen of India commits a murder in Uganda. He can be tried and convicted

for murder in any place in India in which he may be found.

Extra territorial jurisdiction may be exercised by Indian Courts for offences committed

beyond the territories of India either in land or high seas.

The term ‘citizen of India’ means every person who has his domicile in the territory of

India and who is born in the territory of India, or either of whose parents was born in the territory

of India or who has been ordinarily resident in the territory of India for not less than five years

immediately preceding the commencement of the Indian constitution. The accused must be a

citizen of India at the time of committing the offence and not an individual who has become a

citizen subsequently.

Admiralty Jurisdiction

The jurisdiction to try offences committed on high seas is known as Admiralty

Jurisdiction. High seas are considered to be no man’s territory. The jurisdiction of a country over

its ships on the high seas is based on the principle that the ship is a floating island belonging to

the nation whose flag she is flying.

The Admiralty jurisdiction extends:

1. over offences committed on Indian ships;

2. Over offences committed on foreign ships in Indian territorial waters; and

3. over pirates.

2. In this Sanhita, unless the context otherwise requires, ––

(1) “Act” denotes as well a series of acts as a single act;

(2) “Animal” means any living creature, other than a human being;

(3) “Child” means any person below the age of eighteen years;

(4) “Counterfeit”. ––A person is said to “counterfeit” who causes one thing to resemble another

thing, intending by means of that resemblance to practise deception, or knowing it to be likely

that deception will thereby be practised.

Explanation 1. —It is not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be exact.

Explanation 2. —When a person causes one thing to resemble another thing, and the

resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby, it shall be presumed, until the

contrary is proved, that the person so causing the one thing to resemble the other thing intended

by means of that resemblance to practise deception or knew it to be likely that deception would

thereby be practised;

(5) “Court” means a Judge who is empowered by law to act judicially alone, or a body of Judges

which is empowered by law to act judicially as a body, when such Judge or body of Judges is

acting judicially;

(6) “Death” means the death of a human being unless the contrary appears from the context;

(7) “Dishonestly” means doing anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one

person or wrongful loss to another person;

(8) “Document” means any matter expressed or described upon any substance by means of

letters, figures or marks, or by more than one of those means, and includes electronic and digital

record, intended to be used, or which may be used, as evidence of that matter.

Explanation 1. —It is immaterial by what means or upon what substance the letters, figures or

marks are formed, or whether the evidence is intended for, or may be used in a Court or not.

Illustrations.

(a) A writing expressing the terms of a contract, which may be used as evidence of the contract,

is a document.

(b) A cheque upon a banker is a document.

(d) A map or plan which is intended to be used or which may be used as evidence, is a document.

(e) A writing containing directions or instructions is a document.

Explanation 2. —Whatever is expressed by means of letters, figures or marks as explained by

mercantile or other usage, shall be deemed to be expressed by such letters, figures or marks

within the meaning of this section, although the same may not be actually expressed.

Illustration.

A write his name on the back of a bill of exchange payable to his order. The meaning of the

endorsement, as explained by mercantile usage, is that the bill is to be paid to the holder. The

endorsement is a document, and shall be construed in the same manner as if the words “pay to

the holder” or words to that effect had been written over the signature;

(9) “Fraudulently” means doing anything with the intention to defraud but not otherwise;

(10) “Gender”. —The pronoun “he” and its derivatives are used by anys person, whether male,

female or transgender.

Explanation. –– “transgender” shall have the meaning assigned to it in clause (k) of section 2 of

the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019;

(11) “Good faith”. —Nothing is said to be done or believed in “good faith” which is done or

believed without due care and attention;

(12) “Government” means the Central Government or a State Government;

(13) “harbor” includes supplying a person with shelter, food, drink, money, clothes, arms,

ammunition or means of conveyance, or the assisting a person by any means, whether of the

same kind as those enumerated in this clause or not, to evade apprehension;

(14) “Injury” means any harm whatever illegally caused to any person, in body, mind, reputation

or property;

(15) “Illegal” and “legally bound to do”. —The word “illegal” is applicable to everything which

is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action; and a

person is said to be “legally bound to do” whatever it is illegal in him to omit;

(16) “Judge” means a person who is officially designated as a Judge and includes a person, ––

(i) who is empowered by law to give, in any legal proceeding, civil or criminal, a definitive

judgment, or a judgment which, if not appealed against, would be definitive, or a judgment

which, if confirmed by some other authority, would be definitive; or

(ii) Who is one of a body or persons, which body of persons is empowered by law to give such a

judgment.

Illustration.

A Magistrate exercising jurisdiction in respect of a charge on which he has power to sentence to

fine or imprisonment, with or without appeal, is a Judge;

(17) “Life” means the life of a human being, unless the contrary appears from the context;

(18) “Local law” means a law applicable only to a particular part of India;

(19) “Man” means male human being of any age;

(20) “Month” and “year”. ––Wherever the word “month” or the word “year” is used, it is to be

understood that the month or the year is to be reckoned according to the Gregorian calendar;

(21) “Movable property” includes property of every description, except land and things attached

to the earth or permanently fastened to anything which is attached to the earth;

(22) “Number”. —Unless the contrary appears from the context, words importing the singular

number include the plural number, and words importing the plural number include the singular

number;

(23) “oath” includes a solemn affirmation substituted by law for an oath, and any declaration

required or authorised by law to be made before a public servant or to be used for the purpose of

proof, whether in a Court or not;

(24) “offence”. —Except in the Chapters and sections mentioned in sub-clauses (a) and (b), the

word “offence” means a thing made punishable by this Sanhita, but––

(a) in Chapter III and in the following sections, namely, sub-sections (2), (3), (4) and (5) of

section 8, sections 9, 49, 50, 52, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 119,

120, 123, sub-sections (7) and (8) of section 127, 222, 230, 231, 240, 248, 250,

251, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 308 and sub-section (2) of

section 330, the word “offence” means a thing punishable under this Sanhita, or under any

special law or local law; and

(b) in sub-section (1) of section 189, sections 211, 212, 238, 239, 249, 253 and sub-section (1) of

section 329, the word “offence” shall have the same meaning when the act punishable under the

special law or local law is punishable under such law with imprisonment for a term of six months

or more, whether with or without fine;

(25) “Omission” denotes as well as a series of omissions as a single omission;

(26) “Person” includes any company or association or body of persons, whether incorporated or

not;

(27) “Public” includes any class of the public or any community;

(28) “Public servant” means a person falling under any of the descriptions, namely: —

(a) Every commissioned officer in the Army, Navy or Air Force;

(b) Every Judge including any person empowered by law to discharge, whether by himself or as

a member of any body of persons, any adjudicatory functions;

such officer, to investigate or report on any matter of law or fact, or to make, authenticate, or

keep any document, or to take charge or dispose of any property, or to execute any judicial

process, or to administer any oath, or to interpret, or to preserve order in the Court, and every

person specially authorised by a Court to perform any of such duties;

(d) Every assessor or member of a panchayat assisting a Court or public servant;

(e) Every arbitrator or other person to whom any cause or matter has been referred for decision

or report by any Court, or by any other competent public authority;

(f) Every person who holds any office by virtue of which he is empowered to place or keep any

person in confinement;

(g) every officer of the Government whose duty it is, as such officer, to prevent offences, to give

information of offences, to bring offenders to justice, or to protect the public health, safety or

convenience;

(h) every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property

on behalf of the Government, or to make any survey, assessment or contract on behalf of the

Government, or to execute any revenue-process, or to investigate, or to report, on any matter

affecting the pecuniary interests of the Government, or to make, authenticate or keep any

document relating to the pecuniary interests of the Government, or to prevent the infraction of

any law for the protection of the pecuniary interests of the Government;

(i) every officer whose duty it is, as such officer, to take, receive, keep or expend any property,

to make any survey or assessment or to levy any rate or tax for any secular common purpose of

any village, town or district, or to make, authenticate or keep any document for the ascertaining

of the rights of the people of any village, town or district;

(j) Every person who holds any office by virtue of which he is empowered to prepare, publish,

maintain or revise an electoral roll or to conduct an election or part of an election;

(k) Every person—

(i) In the service or pay of the Government or remunerated by fees or commission for the

performance of any public duty by the Government;

(ii) In the service or pay of a local authority as defined in clause (31) of section 3 of the General

Clauses Act, 1897, a corporation established by or under a Central or State Act or a Government

company as defined in clause (45) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Explanation: —

(a) Persons falling under any of the descriptions made in this clause are public servants, whether

appointed by the Government or not;

(b) Every person who is in actual possession of the situation of a public servant, whatever legal

defect there may be in his right to hold that situation is a public servant;

municipal or other public authority, of whatever character, the method of selection to which is

by, or under any law for the time being in force.

Illustration.

A Municipal Commissioner is a public servant;

(29) “Reason to believe”. —A person is said to have “reason to believe” a thing, if he has

sufficient cause to believe that thing but not otherwise;

(30) “Special law” means a law applicable to a particular subject;

(31) “valuable security” means a document which is, or purports to be, a document whereby any

legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or released, or whereby any

person acknowledges that he lies under legal liability, or has not a certain legal right.

Illustration.

A write his name on the back of a bill of exchange. As the effect of this endorsement is to

transfer the right to the bill to any person who may become the lawful holder of it, the

endorsement is a “valuable security”;

(32) “Vessel” means anything made for the conveyance by water of human beings or of

property;

(33) “Voluntarily”. —A person is said to cause an effect “voluntarily” when he causes it by

means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing those

means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it.

Illustration.

A set fire, by night, to an inhabited house in a large town, for the purpose of facilitating a

robbery and thus causing the death of a person. Here, A may not have intended to cause death;

and may even be sorry that death has been caused by his act; yet, if he knew that he was likely to

cause death, he has caused death voluntarily;

(34) “Will” means any testamentary document;

(35) “Woman” means a female human being of any age;

(36) “Wrongful gain” means gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is

not legally entitled;

(37) “Wrongful loss” means the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it

is legally entitled;

(38) “Gaining wrongfully” and “losing wrongfully”. —A person is said to gain wrongfully when

such person retains wrongfully, as well as when such person acquires wrongfully. A person is

said to lose wrongfully when such person is wrongfully kept out of any property, as well as when

such person is wrongfully deprived of property; and

(39) Words and expressions used but not defined in this Sanhita but defined in the Information

Technology Act, 2000 and the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 shall have the

meanings respectively assigned to them in that Act and Sanhita.

NOTE – This section corresponds to Sections 6-52A of IPC

S. 6 provides 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

S. 7 states that every expression, which is explained in any part of this Code, is used in every part

of this Code in conformity with the explanation.

Gender

According to S. 8 the pronoun “he” and its derivatives are used for any person, whether male or

female.

Number

S. 9 provides that unless the contrary appears from the context, words importing the singular

number include the plural number, and words importing the plural number include the singular

number.

By virtue of S. 14 the words “servant of Government” denote any officer or servant continued,

appointed or employed in India by or under the authority of Government.

S. 19 states that the word “Judge” denotes not only every person who is officially designated as a

judge, but also every person.

S. 20 provides that the words “Court of Justice” denote a judge who is empowered by law to act

judicially alone, or a body of judges, which is empowered by law to act judicially as a body,

when such a judge or body of judges is acting judicially.

The term public servant is contained in Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code. Actually, the term is

not defined in the Code. It gives a list of 10 categories of persons who are considered as public

servants. First of all, the public servant must be a servant. Public Servants are specially

protected by the Indian Penal Code. At the same time if they deviate from their powers they are

seriously dealt with. The servant who is performing public duty is generally called a public

servant. They are called statutory public servants.

According to S. 21 the words “moveable property” is intended to include corporeal property of

every description, except land and things attached to the earth or permanently fastened to

anything, which is attached to the earth.

Sec. 23 defines the words ‘Wrongful loss’ and ‘Wrongful gain’. It is curious to find that the word

“Wrongful” is not defined anywhere in the Code. But the word is indicative of some act which is

contrary to the dictates of law and which adversely affects some person. Both in wrongful gain

and loss some property should be involved. This is clear from the Section which reads

“Wrongful gain” as gain by “unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not

legally entitled.” Wrongful Loss” is loss by unlawful means of property to which the person

losing is legally entitled. In order to constitute wrongful loss the property should have been kept

out of it, by unlawful methods adopted by the accused.

“Dishonestly”

According to S. 24 whoever does anything with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one

person or wrongful loss to another person, is said to do that thing “dishonestly”.

“Fraudulently”

By virtue of S. 25 a person is said to do a thing fraudulently if he does that thing with intent to

defraud but not otherwise.

“Reason to believe”

S. 26 provides that a person is said to have “reason to believe” a thing, if he has sufficient cause

to believe that thing but not otherwise.

Property in possession of wife, clerk or servant

According to S. 27 when property is in the possession of a person’s wife, clerk or servant, on

account of that person, it is in that person’s possession within the meaning of this Code.

Explanation to S. 27 states that a person employed temporarily or on a particular occasion in the

capacity of a clerk or servant, is a clerk or servant within the meaning of this section.

“Counterfeit”

S. 28 provides that a person is said to “counterfeit” who causes one thing to resemble another

thing, intending by means of that resemblance to practice deception, or knowing it to be likely

that deception will thereby be practiced.

Explanation I to S. 27 states that it is not essential to counterfeiting that the imitation should be

exact.

Explanation II to S. 27 states that when a person causes one thing to resemble another thing, and

the resemblance is such that a person might be deceived thereby, it shall be presumed, until the

contrary is proved, that the person so causing the one thing to resemble the other thing intended

by means of that resemblance to practice deception or knew it to be likely that deception would

thereby be practiced.

“Document”

S. 29 provides that the word “document” denotes any matter expressed or described upon any

substance by means of letters, figures, or marks, or by more than one of those means, intended to

be used, or which may be used, as evidence of that matter.

Explanation I to S. 29 states that it is immaterial by what means or upon what substance the

letters, figures or marks are formed, or whether the evidence is intended for, or may be used in, a

Court of Justice, or no.

Illustrations

A writing expressing the terms of a contract, which may be used as evidence of the contract, is a

document.

A cheque upon a banker is a document.

A power of attorney is a document.

A man or plan which is intended to be used or which may be used as evidence, is a document.

Explanation II to S. 29 states that whatever is expressed by means of letters, figures or marks as

explained by mercantile or other usage, shall be deemed to be expressed by such letters, figures

or marks within the meaning of this section, although the same may not be actually expressed.

Illustration

A write his name on the back of a bill of exchange payable to his order. The meaning of the

endorsement, as explained by mercantile usage, is that the bill is to be paid to the holder. The

endorsement is a document, and must be construed in the same manner as if the words “pay to

the holder” or words to that effect had been written over the signature.

“Valuable security”

According to S. 30 the words “valuable security” denote a document which is, or purports to be,

a document whereby any legal right is created, extended, transferred, restricted, extinguished or

released, or whereby any person acknowledges that the security lies under legal liability, or has

not a certain legal right.

Illustration

A write his name on the back of a bill of exchange. As the effect of this endorsement is to

transfer the right to the bill to any person who may become the lawful holder of it, the

endorsement is a “valuable security”.

“A will”

By virtue of S. 31 the words “a will” denote any testamentary document.

“Words referring to acts include illegal omissions

S. 32 provides that in every part of this Code, except where a contrary intention appears from the

context, words which refer to acts done extend also to illegal omissions.

“Act”. “Omission”

S.33 states that the word “act” denotes as well a series of acts as a single act: the word

“omission” denotes as well as a series of omissions as a single omission.

Section 34 provides this principle. The Section says that if an offence is committed by two or

more persons in furtherance of common intention of all, each of such persons shall be held liable

as if the act was done by him alone. That means constructive liability will arise in such a case.

Section 34 does not create a specific offence. But it is only a rule of evidence.

The essential Ingredients of Section 34 are:

1) There must be two or more persons;

2) They must have a common intention;

3) The criminal act must be done in furtherance of the common intention; and

4) Participation in action by all the accused.

Ss.34 to 38 is in Chapter II of the IPC dealing with general explanation. These sections state the

conditions in which a man may be held constructively liable for the acts committed by the other

member of a group.

When such an act is criminal by reason of its being done with a criminal knowledge or intention

According to S. 34 whenever an act, which is criminal only be reason of its being done with a

criminal knowledge or intention, is done by several persons, each of such persons who joins in

the act with such knowledge or intention is liable for the act in the same manner as if the act

were done by him alone with that knowledge or intention.

Effect caused partly by act and partly by omission

By virtue of S. 36 wherever the causing of a certain effect, or an attempt to cause that effect, by

an act or by an omission, is an offence, it is to be understood that the causing of that effect partly

by an act and partly by an omission is the same offence.

Illustration

An intentionally causes Z’s death, partly by illegally omitting to give Z food, and partly by

beating Z. A has committed murder.

Co-operation by doing one of several acts constituting an offence

S. 37 provides that when an offence is committed by means of several acts, whoever

intentionally co-operates in the commission of that offence by doing any one of those acts, either

singly or jointly with any other person commits that offence.

Illustrations

(a) A and B agree to murder Z by severally and at different times giving him small doses of

poison. A and B administer the poison according to the agreement with intent to murder Z. Z

dies from the effects of the several doses of poison so administered to him. Here A and B

intentionally co-operates in the commission of murder and as each of them does an act by which

the death is caused, they are both .guilty of the offence though their acts are separate.

(b) A and B are joint jailors, and as such have the charge of Z, a prisoner, alternately for six

hours at a time. A and B, intending to cause Z’s death, knowingly co-operate in causing that

effect by illegally omitting, each during the time of his attendance, to furnish Z with food

supplied to them for that purpose. Z dies of hunger. Both A and B are guilty of the murder of Z.

to supply Z with food in consequence of which Z is much reduced in strength, but the starvation

is not sufficient to cause his death. A is dismissed from his office, and B succeeds him. B,

without collusion or co-operation with A, illegally omits to supply Z with food, knowing that he

is likely thereby to cause Z’s death. Z dies of hunger. B is guilty of murder, but, as A did not

cooperate with B. A is guilty only of an attempt to commit murder.

Persons concerned in criminal act may be guilty of different offences

S. 38 states that where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal

act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act.

Illustration

An attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only

culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill

him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z. Here, though A and B

are both engaged in causing Z’s death, B is guilty of murder, and A is guilty only of culpable

homicide.

“Voluntarily”

According to S. 39 a person is said to cause an effect “voluntarily” when he causes it by means

whereby, he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he

knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it.

Illustration

A set fire, by night, to an inhabited house in a large town, for the purpose of facilitating a

robbery and thus causing the death of a person. Here, A may not have intended to cause death;

and may even be sorry that death has been caused by his act; yet, if he knew that he was likely to

cause death, he has caused death voluntarily.

“Offence”

By virtue of S. 40 except in the [Chapters] and sections mentioned in clauses 2 and 3 of this

section, the word “offence” denotes a thing made punishable by this code

“Special law”

According to S. 41 a “special law” is a law applicable to a particular subject.

“Local law”

By virtue of S. 42 a “local law” is a law applicable only to a particular part of [India].

“Illegal”, Legally bound to do”

S. 43 provides that the word “illegal” is applicable to everything which is an offence or which is

prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action; and a person is said to be “legally

bound to do” whatever it is illegal for him to omit.

“Injury”

S. 44 states that the word “injury” denotes any harm whatsoever illegally caused to any person,

in body, mind, reputation or property.

“Life”

According to S. 45 the word “life” denotes the life of a human being, unless the contrary appears

from the context.

“Death”

By virtue of S. 46 the word “death” denotes the death of a human being unless the contrary

appears from the context.

“Animal”

S. 47 provides that the word “animal” denotes any living creature, other than a human being.

“Vessel”

According to S. 48 the word “vessel” denotes anything made for the conveyance by water of

human beings or of property.

“Year”, “Month”

S. 49 states that wherever the word “year” or the word “month” is used, it is to be understood

that the year or the month is to be reckoned according to the British calendar.

“Section”

By virtue of S. 50 the word “section” denotes one of those portions of a chapter of this Code

which are distinguished by prefixed numeral figures.

“Oath”

S. 51 provides that the word “oath” includes a solemn affirmation substituted by law for an oath,

and any declaration required or authorized by law to be made before a public servant or to be

used for the purpose of proof, whether in a Court of Justice or not.

“Good faith”

By virtue of S. 52 nothing is said to be done or believed in “good faith” which is done or

believed without due care and attention.

“Harbour”

S. 52 A states that the except in Section 157, and in Section 130 in the case in which the harbour

is given by the wife or husband of the person harboured, the word “harbour” includes the

supplying a person with shelter, food, drink, money, clothes, arms, ammunition or means of

conveyance, or the assisting a person by any means, whether of the same kind as those

enumerated in this section or not, to evade apprehension.

3. General Explanations (1) Throughout this Sanhita 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.

Illustrations.

(a) The sections in this Sanhita, which contain definitions of offences, do not express that a child

under seven years of age cannot commit such offences; but the definitions are to be understood

subject to the general exception which provides that nothing shall be an offence which is done by

a child under seven years of age.

(b) A, a police officer, without warrant, apprehends Z, who has committed murder. Here A is not

guilty of the offence of wrongful confinement; for he was bound by law to apprehend Z, and

therefore the case falls within the general exception which provides that “nothing is an offence

which is done by a person who is bound by law to do it”.

(2) Every expression which is explained in any Part of this Sanhita, is used in every Part of this

Sanhita in conformity with the explanation.

(3) When property is in the possession of a person’s spouse, clerk or servant, on account of that

person, it is in that person’s possession within the meaning of this Sanhita.

Explanation. —A person employed temporarily or on a particular occasion in the capacity of a

clerk or servant, is a clerk or servant within the meaning of this subsection.

(4) In every Part of this Sanhita, except where a contrary intention appears from the context,

words which refer to acts done extend also to illegal omissions.

(5) When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all,

each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

(6) Whenever an act, which is criminal only by reason of its being done with a criminal

knowledge or intention, is done by several persons, each of such persons who joins in the act

with such knowledge or intention is liable for the act in the same manner as if the act were done

by him alone with that knowledge or intention.

(7) Wherever the causing of a certain effect, or an attempt to cause that effect, by an act or by an

omission, is an offence, it is to be understood that the causing of that effect partly by an act and

partly by an omission is the same offence.

Illustration.

A intentionally causes Z’s death, partly by illegally omitting to give Z food, and partly by

beating Z. A has committed murder.

(8) When an offence is committed by means of several acts, whoever intentionally cooperates in

the commission of that offence by doing any one of those acts, either singly or jointly with any

other person, commits that offence.

Illustrations.

(a) A and B agree to murder Z by severally and at different times giving him small doses of

poison. A and B administer the poison according to the agreement with intent to murder Z. Z

dies from the effects of the several doses of poison so administered to him. Here A and B

intentionally cooperate in the commission of murder and as each of them does an act by which

the death is caused, they are both guilty of the offence though their acts are separate.

(b) A and B are joint jailors, and as such have the charge of Z, a prisoner, alternatively for six

hours at a time. A and B, intending to cause Z’s death, knowingly cooperate in causing that

effect by illegally omitting, each during the time of his attendance, to furnish Z with food

supplied to them for that purpose. Z dies of hunger. Both A and B are guilty of the murder of Z.

supply Z with food; in consequence of which Z is much reduced in strength, but the starvation is

not sufficient to cause his death. A is dismissed from his office, and B succeeds him. B, without

collusion or cooperation with A, illegally omits to supply Z with food, knowing that he is likely

thereby to cause Z’s death. Z dies of hunger. B is guilty of murder, but, as A did not cooperate

with B. A is guilty only of an attempt to commit murder.

(9) Where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they

may be guilty of different offences by means of that act.

Illustration.

An attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only

culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill

him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z. Here, though A and B

are both engaged in causing Z’s death, B is guilty of murder, and A is guilty only of culpable

homicide.

NOTE- This section corresponds to Sections 6, 7, 27, 32,35,36,37 and 38 of IPC