Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

UNIT – II
GENERAL EXCEPTIONS AND SOME OFFENCES

1. Chapter IV of IPC (General Exception) deals with the various offences which a person accused of

S
an offence under this court or any special or local law can plead.

2. If an act accused plead an exception within the meaning of this chapter there is a presumption
against him and the burden to rebut that presumption is on him. (K.M. Nanavati vs. State of

U
Maharashtra, AIR 1962, SC 605)

3. Principle enunciated in chapter IV are in fact rules of evidence carrying either conclusive or
rebuttable presumption.

K
4. Huda calls these principles "conditions of non imputability" Kenny calls them "conditions of
exemption from criminal liability".

GENERAL EXCEPTIONS (SECTION 76 TO 106)

M
General Exceptions can be divided into two parts:

1. Excusable defences (Sections 76-95)

A
2. Justifiable defences (Sections 96-106)

Mistake of Fact (Section 76): Act done by a person bound, or by mistake of fact believing himself bound by
law.

K
According to section 76 IPC: "Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is, or who by reason of
a mistakes of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law, in good faith believes himself to be bound by law to
do it."

In the case of Chaman Lal (1940) 21 Lah 521; Mangal Singh, 1981 Cr. LJ 84 (Cal) : Held that for a
manifestly illegal superior order, that is an order which is illegal on the face of it, e.g., to kill an innocent
bystander or to torture an accused in custody or to fire on a group of people who have assembled for a
lawful purpose, the superior order affords no protection to a subordinate.

In the case of Gopalia Kalliaya1: A police-officer came to Bombay from up-country with a warrant to arrest
a person. After reasonable inquiries and on well-founded suspicion he arrested the complainant under the
warrant, believing in good faith that he was the person to be arrested. The complainant having proceeded
against the police-officer for wrongful confinement, it was held that the police-officer was guilty of no offence
as he was protected by this section.

12
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

Other Important Cases are:

R. Vs. Prince (1875) LR 154 and R. Vs. Tolson (1889) 23 QBD 168

Act of Judge when Acting Judicially - Section-77: Under this section a Judge is exempted not only in
those cases in which he proceeds judicially in the exercise of a power which the law gives him, but also in
cases where he, in good faith, exceeds his jurisdiction and has no lawful powers. It protects judges from
criminal process just as the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850, saves them from civil suits.

Act done Pursuant to the Judgment or Order of Court - Section-78: This section is merely a corollary to
Section 77. It affords protection to officers acting under the authority of a judgment, or order of a Court of

S
Justice. It differs from Section 77 on the question of jurisdiction. Here, the officer is protected in carrying out
an order of a Court which may have no jurisdiction at all, if he believed that the Court had jurisdiction;
whereas under section 77 the Judge must be acting within his jurisdiction to be protected by it.

U
Mistake of Law (Section 79): Act done by a Person Justified or by Mistake of Fact Believing himself
Justified, by Law.

According to Section 79 IPC - "Nothing is an offence which is done by any person who is justified by law, or

K
who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by reason of a mistake of law in good faith, believes himself to be
justified by law, in doing it."

Section 79 is based on the following Maxims -

M
a) Ignorantia facit excusat
b) Ignorantia legis neminem excusat

Mistake of Law is not Excusable: Mistake of Law is not excusable. Law presumes that everyone knows

A
the law of the land. The presumption had its basis in public policy.

Chaman Lal, 1940 Lahore: Held: The maxim ignorantia juris non excusat has no exceptions. Yet an act
done under the mistake of law may be a ground for a concessional punishment.

K
Latif Khan, 1895: Held: A person blindly following orders of his parents, superior or Master cannot avoid
liability. In such cases the maxim respondent superior (let the superior be liable) is inapplicable.

Justified by Law: Justified by Law means 'Not prohibited by Law' -

2
Keso Sahu v. Saligram : Where the accuseds while helping the police stopped a cart which they in good
faith believed to be incorrect, it was held that they could not be prosecuted for wrongful restraint under
Section 341 as their case was covered by section 791PC.

3
Raj Kapoor V/s Laxman : The producer of the film Sat yam Shivam Sundaram was prosecuted u/s 292
IPC. The censor board had in sued a certificate for public exhibition of the film. The producer in good faith
believed that now he was justified in the public exhibition of the film.

Held: In the circumstances of the case the producer may be said to have believed that he was justified by
law in the public exhibition of the film.

13
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

Accident in Doing a Lawful Act - Section-80

1. Accidents are not excusable. Injuries caused by an accidental act may be excused subject to the
fulfilment of requirements of Law.

2. This section exempts the doer of an innocent or lawful act in an innocent or lawful manner and
without any criminal intention or knowledge from any unforeseen evil result that may ensue from
accident or misfortune.

3. Nothing is an offence which is done :

S
a) By accident or misfortune.
b) Without any criminal intention or knowledge
i) In the doing of a lawful act.

U
ii) In a lawful manner.
iii) by lawful means
4. Illustration: 'A' is at work with a hatchet. The head flies off and kills a man who is standing by. Here,
if there was no want of proper caution on the part of '1\, his act is excusable and not an offence.

K
Accident of Misfortune

1) An effect may be accidental. It is to be seen whether the act done was intentional or with knowledge

M
or not. Any effect caused by an act which was not done with an intention to cause that effect or which
was done without a reasonable forcibility of the effect so caused cannot create a liability.

2) Accident and event are not one and the same thing. Accident contemplates something unexpected;

A
it is something which takes place outside the ordinary course of things.

Lawful Act: Accident may be a good defence only when the act done was lawful and it was done in a lawful
manner and by lawful means and with care but without mens rea.

1)

2)
K
Lack of Care and Cautions:

Any injury resulting frorn an act done without due care and caution cannot be said to be accidental
or occurring by misfortune.

Rangaswamy, 1952, Nag. 93: Accused fired a shot from an unlicensed gun. The court took a liberal
view and held that shooting with an unlicensed gun does not debar an accused from claiming immunity
under this section.

Act likely to cause harm, but done without criminal intent and to prevent other harm Section- 81

1) The principle in Sec. 81 is that where in a grave and sudden emergency one of the two evils is
inevitable, it would be logical as well as legal to direct the events so as to suffer the slighter of them.

14
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

2) Sec. 81 of the code in essence adopts the above principle but it adopts those principles only which
are conditional. The benefit of this section can be availed if done in good faith for the purpose of avoiding
other evils. Lack of mens rea shall be established.

3) Sec. 81 provides:- "Nothing is an offence merely by reason of its being done with the knowledge
that it is likely to cause harm, if :

4) For the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property."

The harm intended to be avoided is to be judged in reference to following:-
a) the nature of the harm intended to be avoided.

S
b) the imminence of the harm sought to be avoided.

To avail the benefit of Sec. 81 the accused must plead and prove the following:
1) That the act causing harm was not done with an intention of causing harm (although it was known

U
that the act was likely to cause that harm).
2) That he was acting in good faith while doing the act complained of.
3) That the act complained of was done to prevent any other harm to person or property.
4) That in view of the nature of the harm sought to be avoided the act complained of was justifiable or

K
excusable.

R. V/s Dudley & Stephens, (1884): The question was whether the need for self preservation extends to
causing harm to an innocent person, and that to what extent it would be justified.
Held: Accordingly, the court convicted the accused persons for murdering the minor boy,

M
R. V. Martin, (1889) - Sir James Stephen has Criticized : The decision; he suggests that when the two
persons holding a plank after a ship wrecked, and one of them pushes the other off resulting into death of
that person would not be an offence. At the best it can be said that he has left such person to a chance of
holding some other support.

1.

2.

K A
A minimum level of maturity of mind is a must to maintain mens rea. The legislature in its wisdom
declared that a child under seven years of age does not have that much maturity of mind which is a must
for entertaining a guilty intent. In that view of the matter, law declares a child under seven years of age
as doli in capex i.e. one incapable of committing an offence. (Sec. 82)

A conclusive presumption of innocence is raised in favour of a child under seven. The fact tha the
delinquent child is under seven can give a complete answer to every question and argument of the
prosecution.

Bakhul Shah, 1866 : The accused purchased for one anna, from a child aged six years, two pieces of cloth
valued at fifteen annas, which the child had taken from the house of a third person. It was held that,
assuming that a charge of an offence of dishonest reception of property (section 411) could not be
sustained owing to the incapacity of the child to commit an offence, the accused was guilty of criminal
misappropriation, if he knew that the property belonged to the child's guardians and' dishonestly
appropriated it to his own use.

Section 83
Relates to an act done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve.

15
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

It does not contemplate conclusive presumption of innocence of the child.

Benefit is given to a child who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the
nature and consequences of his conduct.

Section - 83 is based on Latin Maxim 'Malitia supplet aetaten. (Malice supplies the defect of years). Sec. 83
relates to exceptional immaturity of understanding. Therefore, the defence has to establish that the
accused did not have sufficient maturity. Generally, it is to be presumed that child had sufficient maturity.

Ulla Mahapatra v/s State4: Where the accused, a boy over eleven years but below twelve years of age,
picked up his knife and advanced towards the deceased with a threatening gesture, saying that he would
cut him to bits, and did actually cut him, his entire action can only lead to one inference, namely, that he did

S
what he intended to do and that he knew all the time that a blow inflicted with a kathi (knife) would effectuate
his intention.

Krishna v/s State5: Where a child of nine years of age stole a necklace, worth Rs. 2-8-0, and immediately
afterwards sold it to the accused for five annas, the accused could be convicted of receiving stolen property,

U
because the act of the child in selling the necklace showed that he had attained a sufficient maturity of
understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct on that occasion within the meaning of
this section.
Act of a Person of Unsound Mind - Section-84

1.
2.
3.
K
Legal insanity - incapable of knowing - Nature of his act or what he is doing is wrong/contrary to law.
At least legal insanity is required to give the benefit u/s 84.
It contemplates only legal insanity.

M
4. It does not provide benefit to medically/socially insane person.

Essential Elements of Sec. 84

A
Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who:
At the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundeness of mind, is incapable of knowing:
1) The nature of the Act; or

K
2) That he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
Following essentials are made out from the analysis u/s 84.
1. The act complained of must have been done by a person of unsound mind.
2. The accused must have been suffering from instant unsoundness of mind at the time of the act.
3. The accused must have become incapable of knowing the nature of his act or that what he was
doing was wrong or contrary to law.

16
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

Unsoundness of Mind: Persons of unsound mind are called non compos mentis.

Persons of unsound mind / non compos mentis.

Idiot - Acquired Non campos Non compos

- by birth Insanity mentis by mentis for any
- (Natural Insanity) -Curable/may reason of other reason e.g.
- Incurable be proved if some physical in shock fear
- Tested by not cured ailment. etc.

S
asking questions.

At the Time of Doing

U
1. Benefit under Sec. 84 IPC is available only to a person who suffered from legal insanity at the time of
alleged commission of the act complained of.

2. Neta Ram v/s State, 1866: In this case the accused suffered from legal insanity at the date of trial but

K
he did not suffer that on the date of alleged commission. The benefit u/s. 84 was not given.

3. Court must ensure that the insanity existed at the given point of time.

English Law as to Insanity: Under English law the principle laid down in Mc Naughton's, case6 where the

M
accused, Daniel Mc Naughton's, was charged for the murder of Edward Drummond, Secretary to then
Prime Minister, Sir Robert Peel, on January 20, 1843. The accused was suffering from an insane delusion
that Sir Robert Peel had injured him and that he mistook Drummond for Sir Robert. Accordingly, he shot and
killed him. The accused pleaded not guilty on the ground of insanity. The defence led evidence of accused's

A
insanity, particularly his obsession with the given morbid delusion. The jury returned a verdict of 'not guilty'
on the. ground of insanity. English law now recognized social and medical insanity.

Criticism u/sec. 84 IPC

1.

2. K
Sec. 84 is based on the principle laid down in Mc Naughton's case. The principle laid down in the
case is no longer a guiding principle under the English law. Therefore, it is hardly justified to base Sec.
84 IPC on that decision.

Sec. 84 IPC does not recognise medical or social insanity. This is hardly justified. Sec. 84 must be
amended to do justice in cases of partial insanity.

Act of a Person Suffering Intoxication - Section-85 read with Section-86

1. Sections 85&86 provide for law as to intoxication. Voluntary intoxication is no defence. Voluntary
intoxication may be relevant in the determination of particular intention or knowledge required for a
given offence.
2. Intoxication was no defense under English common Law till the beginning of 19th Century. In the
later half of the 19th Century involuntary intoxication was recognised as a defence.

17
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

3. Intoxication is a kind of insanity. Insanity is a disease while intoxication is an evil. Persons suffering
from insanity deserves mercy but an intoxicated person deserves to be condemned.
4. Under the IPC, intoxication may be a defence provided the intoxicant was administered to the
accused without his knowledge or against his wishes.

Essentials u/sec. 85-

a) At the time of doing it;
b) By reason of intoxication
a) Is incapable of knowing the nature of his ct; or
b) That what he is doing is wrong or contrary to law.

S
c) Provided that the thing which intoxicated him was administered to him without his knowledge or
against his will.

From the Analysis of Section-85 following Essentials are Made Out:

U
1) The act complained of must be done by an intoxicated person.
2) The accused must be suffering from intoxication at the time of the commission of the Act.
3) The accused must have become incapable of knowing the nature of the act and that what he is
doing is wrong or contrary to law.

K
4) The intoxication must be either without his knowledge or against his will.

Presumption of particular intention of knowledge- Section – 86

1) Sec. 86 provides for a presumption of law.

M
2) Thus where a person does an act requiring a particular knowledge or intention to constitute an
offence, such intention or knowledge is to be presumed against the accused person.

3) There shall be a presumption that accused did entertain the required criminal intent or criminal

A
knowledge.

4) The presumption is rebutable. Accused may show that he did not entertain the required criminal
intention or knowledge in as much as he was intoxicated against his will or without his knowledge.

5)

K
Basudev v/s State of PEPSU7: The appellant was charged with the murder of a young boy. The two
of them and others of the same village went to attend a wedding in another village. All of them went to
the house of the bride to take the mid-day meal. Some had settled down in their seats and some had
not. The appellant asked Maghar Singh, the young boy, to step aside a little so that he might occupy a
convenient seat. But Maghar Singh did not move. The appellant whipped out a pistol and shot the boy in
the abdomen. The injury proved fatal. He was charged rejecting the plea of the accused to allow him the
benefit of section 86 and reduce the charge from murder to culpable homicide.

8
The Director Public Prosecution v. Beard : In this case the accused was held guilty for his offence of
murder of a girl aged thirteen whom the accused raped and placed his hand over her mouth and pressed his
thumb on her throat in a bid to prevent her from screaming. In this endeavour he unintentionally killed her.
The Court of Criminal Appeal found him guilty of manslaughter but the House of Lords restored the
conviction for murder.

18
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

Acts not intended and not known to be likely to cause death or grievous hurt, done by consent -
Section-87

Following Two Benefits may be claimed on the Basis of Consent

1. A) Complete exemption from criminal liability. (87, 88, 89).

B) Reduction in criminal liability. (Exception 5-Sec.300)
2. Sec. 87, 88, 89 relate to law as to consent. (complete exemption)
3. Consent is a good defence against offences relating to property.
4. Consent is a good defence even against offence against human body (except cases where death or

S
grievous hurt is caused).
5. Causing death with consent is not excusable. Nor has a right to consent to self killing.

6. From the analysis of Sec. 87 following essentials are made out.

U
a) The victim must have consented to, expressly or impliedly to the act of the accused.
b) The person consenting (victim) must have been above 18 yrs at the time of consent.
c) The Act of the accused must have been without an intention or knowledge of likelihood of causing

K
death or grievous hurt.

Act not intended to cause death, done by consent in good faith, for person's benefit - Section-88

1. Nothing would be an offence which was not done with intention to cause death if it was done for a

M
person's benefit and in good faith by consent.

2. Sec. 88 does not provide for the age of the person giving consent.

A
Essentials of Sec. 88

a) The Act of the accused must have been done for the benefit of the victim.
b) The Act must have been under expressed or implied consent of the victim.

K
c) The Act of the accused must have been in good faith.
d) The accused must not have intended to cause death.

Illustration: 'A' is a surgeon. 'B' is suffering from a serious disease. 'A' not intending to cause B's death
though he knew that death may ensue, makes an operation with B's consent for B's benefit and in good
faith. 'A' commits no offence.

3. In Sec. 88 benefit does not mean only a pecuniary benefit. It may be a benefit of any kind.

4. For the purposes of Sec. 88 any person who is under 12 yrs. of age is not competent to give consent
u/s 88 (from Sec. 90)

Act done in Good Faith for Benefit of a Child or Insane Person, by or by Consent of Guardian -
Section- 89

19
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

1. "Nothing is an offence which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under 12 years or of
unsound mind, if done with the consent of the guardian."

Following essentials are made out

a) The act done by the accused must be in good faith.

b) The victim must be under 12 years or a person of unsound mind.
c) The Act must have been done with the consent of the guardian or any person incharge of

S
such person.
d) The Act done must have been for benefit of victim.

2. Benefit of Sec. 89 shall not be available in following cases:

U
a) An act done with the intention of causing death or with an intention of attempting to cause
death.
b) Anything about which the doer knows that death is likely thereby.
c) Anything done with an intention of voluntary act causing grievous hurt or attempt thereof.

K
d) Abetment of any offence when the offence is not within Sec.89.

Consent known to be given under fear or misconception - Section - 90

1. Consent given under fear or misconception is not a valid consent. Therefore, such a consent cannot

M
be the basis of defence.

In Poonai Fattemah vis State SC (1869): The accused, who professed to be a snake charmer
persuaded the deceased to allow himself to be bitten by a poisonous snake, inducing him to believe

A
that he had power to protect him from harm. It was held that the consent was given by the deceased
under a misconception of fact arising out of the misrepresentation made by the accused that he had
power by charms to cure snake bites and the accused knew that the consent was given in
consequence of such misconception and therefore, the accused was not entitled to protection on

K
the ground of consent of the deceased.

In Dasrath Paswan vIs State9: The accused had failed at an examination for three successive
years. He was very much upset at these failures. Accordingly he decided to end his life. He informed
of his decision to his wife who was a literate woman of 19 years of age. His wife asked him to kill her
first and then kill himself In consequence of this pact the accused killed his wife but was arrested
before he could kill himself It was held that the wife had not given her consent under fear of injury or
misconception of fact. Here the accused would not be liable for murder but for culpable homicide not
amounting to murder as the case is covered by exception 5 to section 300 of the Code.

2. Consent would not be valid when given by a person of unsound mind or an intoxicated person
unable to understand the nature and consequences of that to which he consents.

3. Consent by a child under 12 is also not valid (unless the contrary appears from the context).

20
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

Exclusion of Acts which are offence independently of harm caused- Section – 91

1. Sec. 91 relates to acts which are offences even without any harm. In such cases consent will be of
no use. Therefore Sec. 91 relates to cases where consent is no defence.

2. Sec. 91 is therefore an exception to Sections 87, 88 & 89.

3. Following are certain acts which are offences though no harm resulted from such acts:
a) Causing miscarriage
b) Public nuisance
c) Acts against the public safety and morality.

S
4. Essentials of Sec. 91:
a) The accused must have done some act.
b) The act must be an offence independent of any injury.

U
If the above requirements are satisfied the accused would be liable notwithstanding that the Act was
consented to.

Act done, in good faith for benefit of a person without consent - Section-92

K
1. Act done for another's benefit and in good faith though without consent is no offence though harm
might have resulted.

2. Sec. 88 & 89 excuse an act done for a person's benefit but a valid consent would be necessary

M
under these two sections. Therefore, cases are not covered u/s 88 or 89 may still be covered u/s 92.

3. Sec. 92 shall apply in following cases:

a) When it is not possible for the victim to give consent.

A
b) When the victim is incapable of giving consent.
c) When it is not possible to obtain consent from guardian or person in lawful charge.
d) Sec. 92 generally protects medical personnel. The medical men become guardians in the face of

K
necessity. A temporary emergency confers guardianship to them. In such a case every person may
take necessary steps.

4. Benefit of Sec. 92 shall not be available in the following cases.:

a) where the death is caused intentionally.
b) where there is knowledge that death may be caused.
c) where the hurt is caused voluntarily or where it is attempted voluntarily.
d) Where abetment of the above is made.

Where there was a knowledge of likely death benefit of Sec. 92 may still be available in following cases
a) when the intention was to prevent death or grievous hurt.
b) When the intention was to cure a serious disease or physical infirmity.

21
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

Despite voluntary hurt or attempt thereof benefit of Sec. 92 may still be available in following cases:
a) where intention was to prevent death.
b) where intention was to prevent hurt.

Communications Made in Good Faith - Section- 93

1) Communication made in good faith for the benefit of a person does not create any criminal liability.

2) Sec. 93 provides

"No communication made in good faith is an offence by reason of any harm to the person to whom it is

S
made, if it is made for the benefit of that person".

Illustration: 'A' is a surgeon. 'A' in good faith communicates to the patient his opinion that he (patient)
cannot live. The patient dies in consequence of the shock. 'A' has committed no offence though he knew
that death might be caused

a)
b)
c) U
Essentials of Section 93
Accused must have made a communication.

K
The communication must have been made for the benefit of the person to whom it was made.
The communication must have been made in good faith.

The communication of the above kind would not create any criminal liability notwithstanding the harm
caused thereby.

1.

2.

AM
Act to which a person is compelled by threats - Section- 94

Sec. 94 is based on the Latin maxim actus me invito factus non estmens actus' (Act done by me
against my will is not my act).

Any act done under the threat of instant death is no offence. The following acts are not excusable
u/s 94; an offence against the state is punishable with death.

3.

4.

b)
K
The policy underlining u/s 94 is as under:
a) if you have to choose between your death and that of any other you choose your own death.
b) Accept your own death instead of committing against the state any offence punishable with death.
Compulsion arising out of necessity is not within the preview of Sec. 94.

Essentials of Section 94
a) The accused must have done some act.
The accused must have been under the threat of instant death.
c) The act must not be any of the following:
i) Death
ii) Any offence against the state punishable with death.

5. The accused must not have of his own accord or from a reasonable apprehension of a harm shorter

22
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

than death, placed himself under such constraint.

A person who, of his own accord, or by reason of a threat of being beaten, joins a gang of dacoits, cannot
claim the benefit of Sec. 94 if he was aware of the character of those persons. (dacoits). (Exp I to Sec. 94)

6. Persons seized by a gang of dacoits and forced by threat of instant death to do an offence is entitled
to benefit of Sec. 94 (Exp II to Sec. 94)

7. Any compulsion arising out of necessity is not within purview of Sec. 94; therefore, a thief cannot
plead that he was dying of hunger.

8. An act done under the compulsion of instant death is no offence. Therefore, attempt to murder or

S
abetment of murder may be excused u/s 94. Any other offence may also be excused.

Sec. 94 relates to compulsion and not necessity. Necessity could be considered u/s 81 but not in 94. Act
causing slight harm - Section- 95

1.

2.

3.
U
Sec. 95 IPC is based on the Latin maxim' de minimis non curat lex' (law does not take care of trifles
or trivialities).

K
The underlining princjple of Sec. 95 is that law does take care of incivilities.

Acts which fall within the letters of law because of defect of languages but which do not fall within the
spirit of law, are not punishable.

M
4. Sec. 95 covers the acts which constitute offence but which are of very low degree in terms of
criminality. Therefore such acts are taken to be innocent.

5. Whether or not the act of the accused is criminal is to be determined by the courts. There is no fixed

A
standard therefor. The court is to be objective in determining the same. The court must analyze the facts
and circumstances. Triviality is therefore justiceable.

6. Sec. 95 provides: "Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause or

K
that it is known to be likely to cause any harm, that no person of ordinary sense or temper would
complain of such harm."

7. Shiv Ghulam Lata vis State, SC 1875: A policeman was dismissed. He filed a review petition
before a higher officer. The higher official refused to entertain. Annoyed by the same the dismissed
policeman struck the higher official at his chest by an umbrella. The injury was negligible. The accused
was punished u/s 323. IPC. The police force is a disciplined force, therefore, such a behaviour or
conduct cannot be excused.

Right of Priate Defence General

General
1. To protect the body and property of citizens is the primary duty of the state. Self defence and self
help is the primary duty of an individual.

2. It is not possible for the state to protect the life and property of every citizen.

23
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

3. In view of limitations of the State and the necessity of the protection of life and property, the state
gives preventive right to the individual to defend himself by personal violence within the limits
prescribed by law (statutory limitations).

Nature of Right of Private Defence

1. It is a right based on necessity, expediency and public policy. It is preventive I compensatory. It is

subject to statutory limitations.
2. This legal right can be exercised only against an offence

S
3. This right is purely a preventive right. It is not retributive or punitive.
4. A defender may exercise Right of Private Defence not only for his body or property but also for the
protection of body or property of any other person including a stranger (Indian Law).
5. Sections-96, 97, 98 & 99 relate to Right of Private Defence of body as well as of property. In fact,

U
these sections are general in character.
6. Sections-100,101,102 & 106 relate to Right of Private Defence against body. These sections are to
be read with clause-I of Sec. 97.

K
7. Sections-103, 104 & 105 relate to Right of Private Defence against property. These sections are to
be read with clause 1I of Sec. 97.
In fact this section is part of an integrated scheme of Right of Private Defence.
Under this code the section is subject to an implied limitation that statutory limitations must not have

M
been unguessed.

Right of Private Defence of The Body and of Property – Section - 97

A
It is a substantive provision.

1. It comprises two clauses. Its first clause confers Right of Private Defence against body. "Every
person has right subject to restrictions contained in Sec. 99, to defend his own body and the body of any

K
other person, against any offence affecting the human body."

2. The second clause confers Right of Private Defence against property.

Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind etc. - Section-98

This section makes the Right of Private Defence more practicable and effective.

This section declares that right could be available against the acts of following persons also:
a) Child
b) Person suffering from want of maturity of understanding.
c) Person of unsound mind.
d) Intoxicated person.
e) Person reacting under misconception.

24
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

Acts against which there is no right of private defence - Section-99

It provides for following four limitations:

a) As a general rule, there is no Right of Private Defence against the act of public servant.
b) There is no Right of Private Defence against the act of a person acting under the directions of a
public servant.
c) There is no Right of Private Defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the
protection of Public Authorities.
d) The Right of Private Defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary for

S
the purpose of defence.

There is no Right of Private Defence against acts of a public servant if the defender knows or has reason to

U
believe that person concerned is a public servant.

A person would be deprived of Right of Private Defence against the public servant only if the public servant
was acting in good faith under colour of his office and there is no apprehension of death or of grievous hurt.
The same rules apply to the act of person acting under the directions of a public servant u/s 21 IPC.

K
When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death- Section- 100

It provides for certain assaults against which the defender may voluntarily cause death or any other harm to

M
the assailant

Sec. 100 lists certain assaults on the face of which the defender may voluntarily cause death or any other
harm to the assailant. Sec. 100 is subject to Sec. 99. Following are the assaults listed u/s 100 :

A
a) Assault reasonably causing apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such
assault.
b) Assault reasonably causing apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of
such assault.

K
c) Assault with an Intention to commit rape.
d) Assault for gratifying unnatural lust.
e) Assault with an intention to commit kidnapping or abduction.
f) Assault for committing wrongful confinement (under circumstances causing reasonable
apprehension that defender would be unable to have recourse to public authorities for his release).

When such right extends to causing any harm other than death - Section- 101
It is residuary in nature
The assaults not covered u/s 100 would fall u/s 101.
Section 101 is also subject to Section 99.

Commencement and Continuance of the Right of Private Defence of the Body - Section-102 It takes into
account following two points:

25
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

a) When does Right of Private Defence against body commence.

b) How long Right of Private Defence against body continues. Section 102 Provides for following two
rules
1. The Right of Private Defence against body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of
danger to the body arises from the attempt or threat thereof, though the offence may not have been
committed.

Ram Parves vis State, 1975, SC: It was held that Right of Private Defence is a preventive right,
thus if may be exercised even before the actual assault.

2. Right of Private Defence remains till there is a reasonable apprehension of danger.

S
When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death

Section – 103

U
1) Right of private defence against property extends, under restrictions contained in Sec. 99, to the
voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the wrongdoer. It would be in regard to following
offences only:
a) Robbery

K
b) House breaking by night
c) Mischief by fire (committed on any building, tent or vessel used as human dwelling or as a place of
custody of property.)
d) Theft, mischief or house trespass (If the circumstances reasonably cause apprehension that death
or grievous hurt will be the consequence if such right is not exercised.)

2.
3.

A
Section - 104
1. M
When the right of private defence of property extends to causing any harm other than death

It is a residuary clause.
Provisions of Sec. 104 are to be read with Sec. 99
Sec. 104 provides: "If the offence or attempt thereof be a theft, mischief or criminal trespass as

K
described in Sec. 103, the Right of private defence does extend to the voluntary causing to the
wrongdoer of any harm other than death."

Commencement and continuance of Right of Private Defence of Property Section- 105

Section 105
1. It considers following two points:
a) When does the Right of private defence of property commence.
b) How long does the Right of private defence of poperty continues.
2. The Right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger to
the property commences (C1.1 of Sec.1 05)
3. Right of private defence against theft, continuance provided in CI.2 to Sec. 105.
4. Right of private defence against theft continues till the offender has effected his retreat with the
property or either the assistance of public authorities is obtained, or the property has been

26
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

recovered (C1.2 to Sec. 105).

5. The meaning of the words "till the offender has effected his retreat with the property", is not very
certain. It is difficult to say as to when the offender be taken to have effected his retreat with the
property.

5. Right of private defence against theft continues till the property has been recovered. Even this
clause is not very clear. It is not clear as to what of recovery of property is contemplated.

7. Right of private defence against robbery continues as long as offender causes or attempts to cause
to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or as long as the fear of instant death or of instant
hurt or of instant personal restraint continues (C1.3 of Sec-105).

8.

9. S
The right of private defence of property against robbery continues as long as the offender causes or
attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or as long as the fear of instant
death or of instant hurt or of instant personal restraint continues (CIA of Sec-1 05).

U
The right of private defence of property against criminal trespass or mischief continues as long as
the offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass or mischief (C1.5 of Sec-1 05).

K
Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is risk of harm to innocent person -
Section- 106

a) It extends the Right of Private Defence against an assault of body to the maximum possible limits.
b) Therefore, the defender can defend himself even by risking an innocent person.

M
Abetment (Sec. 107-120)

Abetment of a thing – Section -107 When the Abetment succeeds, both the abettor and the doer are

A
liable for the same offence.

General
a) Sec. 107 defines the word Abetment. Sec. 108 defines Abettor. Sec. 1 08-A provides for abetment in

K
India of offences committed outside India.

b) Sec. 109 is the first penal provision under the code. It is residuary. It provides for punishment for
such of the successful abetments which as not punishable under any other section of the code.

c) Sec. 110-120 provides for specific cases of abetment.

These sections are only amplification of Sec. 107 & Sec. 108.

Definition and Essentials of Abetment - Section 107:

1. Sec. 107 defines abetment as under:

A person abets the doing of a thing who:

a) Instigates any person to do that thing; or,

27
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

10
Rasookoollah v/s State : Where, of several persons constituting an unlawful assembly, some
only were armed with sticks, and A, one of them was not so armed, but picked up a stick and used it,
B (the master of A), who gave a general order to beat, was held guilty of abetting the assault made
by them.

Sheo Dial Mal v/s State11: Where one person instigates another to the commission of an offence by
means of a letter sent through the post, the offence of abetment by instigation is completed as soon
as the contents of such letter become known to the addressee.

b) Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing.

(If an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of

S
that thing); or,

Queen v/s Mohit Pandey (1871)-Where accused admitted that he told the woman to say "Ram
Ram", and she would become satti, it was held that this amounted to connivance in suicide on the

U
part of husband.

Intentionally aids by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

K
12
Muthammal vIs State : A priest, who officiated at a bigamous marriage was held to have
intentionally aided it but not the persons who were merely present at the celebration or who
permitted its celebration in their house, where such permission affords no particular facility for the
act.

M
3. Exp I to Sec. 107 explains the term instigation. It provides : "A person who, by willful
misrepresentation, or by willful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose,
voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to
instigate the doing of that thing."

3.

4.

K A
Exp II to Sec. 107 explains intentional aid. It provides : "Whoever, either prior to or at the time of
commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby
facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

Abetment may be committed even by conspiracy. Sec. 107 does not explain the term conspiracy.
The definition of term 'conspiracy' has been provided U/s 120-A, probably for that reason no
explanation was thought to be required.

In case of abetment through conspiracy it is enough that accused was engaged in a conspiracy. The
concert needs to be proved. This is sufficiently explained by Exp. V to Sec. 108. It provides. "It is not
necessary for abetment by conspiracy that abettor should concert the offence with the doer. This is
sufficient if he engages in conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed."

Who is Abettor- Section – 108

1. A person who abets for the commission of an offence, is an abettor. A person who abets an act
would also be an abettor.

28
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

2. The Abetment of an illegal omission may be an offence although the abettor may not himself be
bound to do that act (Exp I to Section 108)

3. To constitute the offence of the abetment it is not necessary that the act abetted should be
committed or that the requisite effect to constitute the offence should be caused. Exp II to Section 108)

4. It is not necessary the person abetted: (III to Sec.)

a) Should be capable by law of committing an offence, or,

b) That the person abetted should have some guilty intention or knowledge as that of abettor; or,
5. Abetment is an offence. Therefore, the abetment of an abetment is also an offence. It is not
necessary that the abettor should concert the offence with the doer in case of abetment by means of

S
conspiracy. It is enough that abettor has engaged in the conspiracy pursuant to which the offence is
committed. (Exp V to Sec. 108)

Abetment in India of Offences Committed Outside India - Section 108-A: A person abets an offence

U
within the meaning of this code who, in India, abets the commission of any act without and beyond India,
which would constitute an offence if committed in India.

Punishment for Abetment – Section -109

K
1. Sec. 109 is residuary. Therefore it can be invoked only in those cases where there is no express
provision for punishment of the abetment committed.

2. It applies in cases of successful abetments.

M
3. It provides for the same punishment for the abettor which is provided for the offender.

Punishment of Abetment (when person abetted does act with different intention from that of
Abettor) - Section- 110

A
a. The accused must have abetted an offence.
b. The person abetted must have done some act with a different intention or knowledge from that of
the abettor.

K
c. If the above requirements are satisfied the abettor is liable to punishment provided for the offence
which would have been committed if the act would have been done as per his intention or
knowledge.
(liability of abettor shall not extend).

Liability of Abettor when One Act Abetted and Different Act done - Section- 111

1. The Accused must have abetted an act.

2. The person abetted must have committed a different act
3. The abettor shall be liable for such different act.
(in the same manner and to the same extent as if he had directly abetted it)

a) Act done was a probable consequence of the abetment.

b) The Act must have been committed under the influence of instigation or aid or in pursuance of a

29
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

conspiracy.

When Abettor is Liable for Cumulative Punishment – Section – 112

1. Sec. 112 is to be read with Sec. 111

2. Where the abettor is liable U/s 111 (in addition to) he shall be liable for cumulative punishment or
double punishment.

3. Under this section the abettor is liable to cumulative punishment for the following:
a) For abetment of act abetted by him.

S
b) For the Act which has actually been done.

When the Abettor would be Liable for a Different Effect - Section- 113
1. The accused must have abetted a particular act (for causing a particular effect)

U
2. The person abetted must have committed the same act which was abetted. (but with a different
effect from one intended by the abettor).

3. The likelihood of the causing of such different effect must have been in the knowledge of the abettor.

K
Presence of Abettor at the time of Commission of Offence - Section- 114: When the abettor is present
when the act or offence abetted is committed, he is deemed to be the doer of the act or the offence.

Abetment of Offence Punishable with Death or Imprisonment for life- Section –115

AM
1. Sec. 115 provides for punishment for abetment of an offence punishable with death or life
imprisonment.
2. Imprisonment of either description which may extend to 14yrs and also fine.
3. If, as a result of abetment the offence is not committed and no harm is caused the punishment may
extend up to 7 yrs and with fine.
4. If in consequence of the abetment hurt is caused to any person, imprisonment may extend up to 14
yrs.

2.

3.
K
Abetment of Offence Punishable with Imprisonment - Section- 116

1. Sec. 116 is residuary (109 & 115 are also residuary).

Sec. 116 applies to unsuccessful abetment-(Sec. 115 also applies in cases of unsuccessful
abetment-but Sec. 109 applies in cases of successful abetment).
Sec. 116 provides for punishment of abetment of an offence punishable with imprisonment. The
section provides for following punishment:

a)
th
Up to ¼ of the imprisonment provided for the offence or with fine or with both.
b) Up to ½th of the imprisonment provided for the offence or with fine or with both. (If hurt is
caused).
4. If the abettor or person abetted is a Public servant whose duty is to prevent offence, punish men
given in (b) (1/2/fine/both) shall be given to the abettor or abetted irrespective of whether harm was
caused or not.

30
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

Concealment of Design to Commit Offence: 5-118

S-118 S-119 S-120

Offence concealed concealment by concealing design
punishable with public servant to commit offence
which it is his punishable imprisonment duty to prevent
- death
- life Imprisonment

S
Abetment not specified under chapter -V:
131 - Abetment of mutiny
132 - Abetment of mutiny and mutiny committed in consequence thereof
133 - Abetment of assault by soldier, sailor, airman on his superior officer when in execution of his office.

U
134 - Abetment and assault committed in consequence of such abetment. 135 - Abetment of desertion.
138 - Abetment of act of insubordination by soldiers, sailors, or airmen. 305 - Abetment of suicide of child or
insane person
306 - Abetment of suicide.

K
Criminal Conspiracy (Section 120A-120B)

1. Sec. 120-A defines criminal conspiracy. Criminal conspiracy is a substantive offence. It is different
from abetment.

M
2. Sec. 120-B provides for punishment for criminal conspiracy. Sec. 120-B provides for two different
punishments for criminal conspiracy.
3. The Criminal conspiracy falls U/s 120-B(1) is liable to be punished as abetment. U/s. 120-B para (2)
Criminal conspiracy is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or with

A
fine or with both.
4. U/s. 120-B para (2) Criminal conspiracy falling under it is a non-cognizable, bailable, non
compoundable offence.

K
Definition and Essentials of Criminal Conspiracy - 5ection-120-A

1) Sec. 120-A defines Criminal conspiracy as an agreement. It provides:

a) an illegal act or,
b) an act which is not illegal by illegal means,
2) An agreement to commit an offence amounts to a criminal conspiracy but any other agreement shall
not amount to criminal conspiracy unless it is

a) Some Act, besides the agreement

b) By one or more parties to the agreement
c) In pursuance of that agreement.

It is immaterial whether the illegal act is the ultimate object of the agreement or is merely incidental to that

31
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

object.

3) An act which is not an abetment through conspiracy (S.107 IPC) may be a criminal conspiracy.
4) Criminal conspiracy is essentially an agreement. Therefore, a minimum of two persons would be
necessary. Further such persons must be natural persons.

Wenhark V/s Margan, 1882: Held: Husband and wife are considered as one person. Defamatory
statements by husband to his wife against a third person will not constitute defamation.

Mouji v/s State, SC 1957: Husband and wife are taken to be one person. Therefore, any agreement
between them cannot be designated as criminal conspiracy.

S
Criticism: Husband and wife are one person, it is just a rule of courtesy and not a rule of law. Husband and
wife are two independent natural persons with separate rights and obligations under the law. Extension of
the rule to criminal cases is hardly in conformity with the considerations of public policy.

U
Punishment for Criminal Conspiracy - Section- 120-8
1. Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death or life
imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment for a term exceeding two years shall be punishable as
abettor of that offence.

K
(If there is no express provision for punishment for criminal conspiracy)

2. All other cases of criminal conspiracy are liable to be punished U/s 120-B(2)

M
Imprisonment of either description not exceeding 6 months or with fine or with both.

OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC TRANQUILITY

General

K A
Rioting And Affray General

1) Sec. 146 defines rioting Sub. Sections 147 & 148 provide for punishment for the offence of rioting.
Sec. 147 provides for punishment for simpler forms of rioting. Sec. 148 provides for punishment for
aggravated forms of rioting.

2) Sec. 159 defines the offence of Affray. Sec. 160 provides for punishment for offence of affray.

Definition and Essentials of Rioting - Section-146 : "Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful
assembly or by any member thereof, in prosecution of the common object of such assembly, every member
of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting."

From the analysis of Sec. 146, following essentials of rioting are made out:

a) There must be an unlawful assembly.

b) Force or violence must have been used by any member of such assembly in prosecution of
common object of that assembly.

32
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

If the above requirements are satisfied, every member of that assembly would be guilty of
committing rioting.
c) Unlawful assembly - five or more persons are designated as an unlawful assembly if they have any
of the seven common objects enumerated in Sec. 141.
d) Use of force or violence by any member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of its common object
makes all the members liable for rioting.
e) Here the word 'force' is to be used in the sense it has been defined in (Sec. 349-IPC) (Ganikhan, 46,
I.C.) & Oudh-IC-lndian cases.
The word 'force' in Sec. 146 is limited to men or persons.
f) The word 'violence' is comparatively a wider term than 'force'. Violence extends to men as well as to
property. Therefore, the word violence shall cover use of force even against things. (Samar-ud-din,

S
1912, Calcutta)
g) Rasool, 1889. In this case Plauden J. observed that it is the use of force which distinguishes the
rioting from unlawful assembly.
h) Use of force or violence is necessary for constituting rioting. The prosecution is bound to establish
that use of force or violence was made by a member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of

U
common object.

Punishment for Rioting - Section- 147, 148

K
1. Sec. 147 provides for punishment for simple rioting. Under it, the person found guilty is punishable
with imprisonment of either description for 2 yrs or with fine or with both.

2. Sec. 148 provides for punishment for aggravated forms of rioting. Under it, the person found guilty is

M
liable to punishment up to 3yrs or fine or with both.

Sec. 148 is attracted where rioting is committed being armed with deadly weapon. The section is
also attracted in cases in which the thing used as a weapon of offence is likely to cause death.

A
Rioting is a cognizable and a bailable offence. It is non compoundable.

K
Definition and Essentials of Affray - Section- 159

1. Sec. 159 defines Affray as under: "Where two or more persons, by fighting in a public place,
disturb the public peace, they are said to commit an affray."

A mere verbal wrangle is not fighting. So to constitute fighting there must be use of limbs and
violence by both parties.

From the analysis of Sec. 159, the following essentials of affray are made out:

a) There must be two or more persons.

b) There must have been a fighting between such persons.
c) The fight must have been at a public place.
d) Such fight must have resulted in the disturbance of public peace.

33
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

2. Two persons may be enough for affray. An unlawful assembly is not necessary.

3. Fight is an essential ingredient of affray. Fight suggests active opposition and conflict. It is serious in
so far as consequences are concerned.

A mere use of threatening words is not enough. The fight presupposes an attack. A scuffle with the
use of violence is a fight.

4. Fight must have been at a public place. A place is a public place if people may frequent it without any
hindrance. It is not material whether the public has a right to frequent that place or not.

5. Madan Mohan, 1883: Held: A Railway platform is not a public place when no other train except

S
goods train is to arrive there.

13
6. Joghe vis State : Held: Where one of the parties is beating the other and that other did not offer
any resistance or opposition, it would not constitute a fight.

7.

KU
Besides, the prosecution must establish that disturbance of public peace has occasioned on
account of fight. A mere public inconvenience does not constitute disturbance in public peace.

A general Sensation and obstruction or disturbance is necessary.

Punishment for Affray - Section- 160: The person found guilty is liable to be punished with imprisonment
of either description which may extend to one month or with a fine up to Rs. 100 or with both.

M
Affray is a cognizable, bailable and non compoundable offence.

Distinction between Rioting & Affray

A
Rioting Affray
1) Definition u/s 146 1) Definition u/s 159
2) Punishment u/s 147 & u/s 148 2) Punishment u/s 160
3) More serious offence 3) Less serious comparatively.

K
4) Unlawful assembly required 4) Requires two persons only.
5) Use of force or violence in prosecution of 5) Fighting at public place.
common object. (Public place not necessary)

FALSE EVIDENCE (SEC. 192)

DISTINCTION BETWEEN "GIVING FALSE EVIDENCE" AND "FABRICATING FALSE EVIDENCE":

The distinction between giving false evidence and fabricating false evidence lies in the following five
important points:

1. First of all, it is the intentional giving of false evidence or the intentional fabrication of false evidence
that is punishable. The law will not punish a witness who, through ignorance or mistake, or through
carelessness or inadvertence, foolishly makes a false statement.

The intention forms the essence of both offences. But there is a difference between the two as regards

34
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

the kind of intention. In the case of giving false evidence, only general intention is sufficient. It is
sufficient if the false evidence is intentionally given, i.e., if the person making the statement makes it
advisedly knowing it to be false and with the intention of deceiving the person conducting the
proceeding and leading such person to believe that what he states is true. In the case of fabricating
false evidence, a particular intention is essential. The offence cannot be committed unless the accused
fabricates evidence with a particular intention, viz., to use a false circumstance, entry or document in
evidence in a proceeding and to procure the formation of a material point.

2. Secondly, the offence of giving false evidence is committed by a person who is bound by an oath or
by an express provision of law to state the truth or to make a declaration upon any subject. In the case of
fabricating false evidence, this ingredient is not necessary.

S
3. Thirdly, in the case of giving false evidence, the false statement need not be made on a material
point. The offence is complete if any false statement is made. But in the case of fabricating false
evidence, the evidence fabricated must be on a material point; otherwise the offence cannot be
committed.

4.

U
Fourthly, the question of the effect of the evidence on the officer before whom the evidence is given
is of no consequence in the case of giving false evidence, but this is an important point to be considered
in fabricating false evidence. If the accused gives any information which he knows or believes to be

K
false he shall be punished.

Offences affecting Public Health (Section 268-278)

M
There are ten offences against public health. These fall in groups, viz.- Public nuisance: S. 268.
1. Acts likely to spread infection: Ss. 269-271.
2. Adulteration of food or drink: Ss. 272-273.

A
3. Adulteration of drugs: Ss. 274-276 and
4. Fouling water and vitiating atmosphere: Ss. 277-278.
A common nuisance is not excused on the ground that it causes some convenience or advantage: S. 268.

K
Kinds of Nuisance: It is to be remembered that nuisance is of two kinds- public and private.

A private nuisance is some unauthorized use of a man's own property causing damage to the property of
another, or some unauthorised interference with the property or proprietary rights of another, causing
damage, but not amounting to trespass. Private nuisance includes obstruction to light and air, wrongful
escape of foul gas, or noise, water, filth, germs etc. Thus, if one's neighbor plays rock-and-roll music at full
blast well past midnight, this may cause considerable inconvenience and annoyance, and one would have
a civil cause of action against such a music-minded neighbor. But, one cannot criminally prosecute the
neighbor, the act being a private nuisance, and not a public nuisance, which alone is made punishable
under the Code.

A public nuisance or common nuisance is an offence against the public, either by doing a thing which tends
to the annoyance of the whole community in general, or by neglecting to do anything which the common
good requires. Acts which seriously interfere with the health, safety, comfort or convenience of public
generally, or which tend to degrade public morals, have always been considered to be public nuisance.

35
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

Thus, a public nuisance cannot be committed with respect to a particular individual or individuals. When the
nuisance affects the public or a section of the public residing in the neighborhood or persons exercising a
public right, it is indictable, and there is no excuse to say that it causes some convenience or advantage.
Acts which seriously interfere with the health, safety, comfort or convenience of the public generally, or
which tend to degrade public morals, are always punishable as public nuisance. Thus, blasting stones near
a public road, on working a printing press at night in a residential quarter of a city, or keeping gaming houses
or slaughtering animals in a public place, are instances of public nuisances for remedying which, both a civil
suit, as also a criminal prosecution, will lie.

Public and private Nuisance Distinguished: There are five points of distinction between the two:

S
a) As to the Nature of the Right Involved: A public or common nuisance affects the public at large, or
some considerable portion thereof, whilst a private nuisance affects only one person or a determinate
body of persons. In other words, while a public nuisance is an offence against public rights, safety or
convenience, a private nuisance is a violation of the private right of a person to the comfortable

U
occupation of property.

b) As to who can Sue: Public nuisance does not create a civil cause of action for any person. An
action cannot be maintained by a private individual in his own name in respect of public nuisance,

K
except abatement, damages and injunction. Private nuisance, on the other hand, is actionable at the
suit of any person in possession of land who is injured by reason thereof.

c) As to Acquisition of Right of Nuisance: Whilst no length of time can legalize a public nuisance, a
right to continue a private nuisance may be acquired by prescription.

d)

e) M
Remedies Available: An action for damages lies in respect of a private nuisance, but not in respect
of public nuisance, unless the plaintiff has sustained special damage. In the case of a public nuisance,
the action generally is for declaration and injunction.

A
Abatement: While a private nuisance may be abated by the person injuriously affected thereby, a
public nuisance cannot be so abated by him.

K
Abatement of Nuisance: A private person can, under certain circumstances, abate a private nuisance,
i.e., take the law into his own hands, and stop it in a reasonable manner. But a public nuisance cannot be
abated by private individuals. There is no statutory provision in India justifying a private person or a member
of the public in demolishing a building and causing loss to another by way of abating a nuisance.

14
In Narsihulu v. Nagur , the complainants rebuilt their house which abutted on a public street. A portion of the
superstructure was an encroachment on a portion thereof. The accused gathered there for the purpose of
abating what they considered to be a public nuisance, and demolished a portion of the superstructure which
stood on the encroached portion. The harm caused by the encroachment was not of such a nature or so
imminent as to justify the accused to take the law into their own hands and demolish the superstructure. It
was held that, as the accused had no right of abating the public nuisance, the demolition of the
superstructure by them had no justification in law, the loss caused to the complainants by such demolition
was wrongful loss within the meaning of S. 23, and the accused were guilty of the offence of mischief.

Ingredients of Section 268: The following are the two ingredients of S. 268:

36
 Strictly for Internal Circulation - KCL

a. Doing any act or being guilty of an illegal omission. Illegal omission.-It is to be remembered
that every omission causing a nuisance is not punishable. The omission must be illegal. The
word illegal is defined in S. 43 as applicable to everything which is an offence or which is
prohibited by law or which furnishes ground for a civil action.
b. Such act or illegal omission-

i. must cause any common injury, danger or annoyance. (i) to the public. or (ii) to the
people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or

ii.must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who

may have occasion to use any public right.

S
Common Injury, Danger etc.: The injury contemplated in this section must be common, i.e., it must affect
the public, and not any solitary individual. There is no nuisance where there is no annoyance to the public.

U
Acts likely to spread infection (5s. 269-271): Acts likely to spread infection (and which are made
punishable) are two:

1) Negligent or malignant act likely to spread infection or any disease dangerous to life: Ss. 269-270.

2)

K
Willful disobedience to a quarantine rule: S 271

IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q.1.

Q.2.

Q.3.

Q.4.

AM
Discuss the offence of criminal conspiracy and distinguish it from abetment and conspiracy.

What is abetment? Discuss the various modes of abetment.

Mistake of fact is defence but not the mistake of law.

State the extent to which Mc Naughtier rules have been incorporated in Sec. 84 of I.P.C

Q.5.

Q.6.

Q.7.

Q.8.
K
State the law relating to criminal liability of insance person and intoxicated person.

Criminal conspiracy can be executed in the dark. Discuss the statement in the light of Section
120-A of IPC.

What is nuisance? Distinguish Public nuisance and Private nuisance.

Point out difference between fabricating false evidence and giving false evidence.

37