LLB Examination Criminal Law Syllabus

How is 'wrongful gain' defined under Section 23 PPC?

Wrongful gain is gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining is not legally entitled.

How is 'wrongful loss' defined under Section 23 PPC?

Wrongful loss is the loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled.

What is the meaning of 'dishonestly' under Section 24 PPC?

A person does a thing 'dishonestly' when he does it with the intention of causing wrongful gain to one person or wrongful loss to another.

What is the meaning of 'fraudulently' under Section 25 PPC?

A person does a thing 'fraudulently' if he does it with intent to defraud, but not otherwise.

How does the PPC define 'voluntarily' (Section 39)?

A person causes an effect 'voluntarily' when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing them, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it.

What is the definition of 'good faith' under Section 52 PPC?

Nothing is said to be done or believed in 'good faith' which is done or believed without due care and attention — good faith under the PPC requires due care and attention.

Define 'joint liability' under Section 34 PPC.

Under Section 34 PPC, when a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

What is the essential ingredient distinguishing Section 34 PPC liability?

The essential ingredient is a pre-arranged plan or 'common intention' shared by all participants, plus participation in the criminal act; mere similar intention is insufficient — there must be a meeting of minds prior to the act.

What is 'constructive liability' under Section 149 PPC (unlawful assembly)?

Under Section 149 PPC, every member of an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence committed by any member in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, or which members knew was likely to be committed — liability arises from membership.

Distinguish 'common intention' (Section 34) from 'common object' (Section 149).

Section 34 requires a common intention formed by a prior meeting of minds and active participation, applying to any number of persons; Section 149 requires a common object of an unlawful assembly of five or more persons, where mere membership suffices and no prior agreement need be proved.

What is the minimum number of persons required to form an 'unlawful assembly' under Section 141 PPC?

Five or more persons are required to constitute an unlawful assembly under Section 141 PPC, where they share one of the common objects enumerated in that section.

State the general rule regarding 'mistake of fact' in criminal law.

A reasonable and bona fide mistake of fact may be a defence: 'Ignorantia facti excusat' — a person who, by mistake of fact and in good faith, believes circumstances that would make the act lawful is not criminally liable (Sections 76 and 79 PPC).

State the general rule regarding 'mistake of law'.

Mistake of law is generally no excuse: 'Ignorantia juris non excusat' — ignorance of the law is not a defence, as every person is presumed to know the law of the land.

What protection does Section 76 PPC give?

Section 76 PPC exempts from liability an act done by a person who, by reason of a mistake of fact (not law) and in good faith, believes himself bound by law to do it.

What protection does Section 79 PPC give?

Section 79 PPC exempts an act done by a person who, by reason of a mistake of fact (not law) in good faith, believes himself to be justified by law in doing it.

Compare Sections 76 and 79 PPC.

Both excuse acts done under a good-faith mistake of fact: Section 76 covers a person who believes he is 'bound by law' to act, while Section 79 covers a person who believes he is 'justified by law' in acting. The difference is legal obligation versus legal justification.

What does Section 77 PPC provide regarding judicial acts?

Section 77 PPC provides that nothing is an offence which is done by a Judge when acting judicially in the exercise of any power which is, or which in good faith he believes to be, given to him by law.

What does Section 78 PPC provide regarding acts done pursuant to a court judgment or order?

Section 78 PPC provides that an act done in pursuance of, or warranted by, the judgment or order of a Court, while that judgment/order remains in force, is no offence even if the Court had no jurisdiction, provided the person in good faith believes the Court had jurisdiction.

Distinguish the protection under Section 77 from Section 78 PPC.

Section 77 protects the Judge himself acting judicially; Section 78 protects officers and others who execute/act in pursuance of a Court's judgment or order. Section 77 covers the judicial act; Section 78 covers the executive act of carrying it out.

What is the defence of 'accident' under Section 80 PPC?

Section 80 PPC provides that nothing is an offence which is done by accident or misfortune, without any criminal intention or knowledge, in the doing of a lawful act by lawful means with proper care and caution.

State the four conditions required to plead the defence of accident under Section 80 PPC.

(1) The act was an accident or misfortune; (2) done without criminal intention or knowledge; (3) in the course of a lawful act done by lawful means; and (4) with proper care and caution.

What is the defence of 'necessity' under Section 81 PPC?

Section 81 PPC provides that an act causing harm is not an offence if done without criminal intention, in good faith, to prevent or avoid other harm to person or property — i.e. choosing the lesser evil to avoid a greater one.

On what principle is the defence of necessity (Section 81 PPC) based?

It is based on the principle of choosing the lesser of two evils — 'quod necessitas non habet legem' (necessity knows no law) — where an act causing some harm is justified to avert greater imminent harm, done in good faith and without criminal intent.

Under Section 82 PPC, what is the rule regarding the criminal liability of a child under seven years?

Under Section 82 PPC, nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age — there is an irrebuttable presumption that such a child is doli incapax (incapable of crime).

Under Section 83 PPC, what is the rule for a child above seven and under twelve years?

Under Section 83 PPC, nothing is an offence done by a child above seven and under twelve years who has not attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the nature and consequences of his conduct — this presumption of incapacity is rebuttable on proof of maturity.

Compare the presumptions of incapacity under Sections 82 and 83 PPC.

Section 82 (under 7) gives an absolute/irrebuttable presumption of innocence; Section 83 (7 to under 12) gives a conditional/rebuttable presumption, where liability depends on whether the child had attained sufficient maturity of understanding.

State the defence of insanity under Section 84 PPC.

Section 84 PPC provides that nothing is an offence done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.

On which English legal rules is Section 84 PPC (insanity) based?

Section 84 PPC is based on the M'Naghten Rules (1843), which require that, due to a defect of reason from disease of the mind, the accused did not know the nature and quality of the act or did not know that it was wrong.

Distinguish 'legal insanity' from 'medical insanity' for the purposes of Section 84 PPC.

Only legal insanity is a defence: the accused must be incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it is wrong/unlawful at the time of the offence. Medical insanity (mere mental illness) without such incapacity does not exempt from liability.

Define the 'right of private defence' and cite the governing sections of the PPC.

The right of private defence (Sections 96-106 PPC) is the right of every person to defend his own body and property, and the body and property of others, against unlawful aggression, using reasonable and proportionate force when State protection is not immediately available.

When does the right of private defence extend to causing death under Section 100 PPC?

Under Section 100 PPC, the right of private defence of the body extends to voluntarily causing death when the assault reasonably causes apprehension of death, grievous hurt, rape, gratifying unnatural lust, kidnapping/abduction, or wrongful confinement preventing recourse to authorities.

What are the key limitations on the right of private defence under Section 99 PPC?

Under Section 99 PPC, there is no right of private defence against acts of public servants acting in good faith under colour of office, where there is time to seek protection of public authorities, and the harm inflicted must not be more than is necessary for defence (proportionality).