An appeal was filed by the husband on the previous order which directed him to pay a monthly maintenance of Rs. 3000/- to his wife.

It was contended by the Appellant that since his wife holds to Graduation degrees she is capable enough to earn a living for herself without him providing a maintenance.

The counsel on behalf of the wife submitted that holding high educational qualifications is not equivalent to being self-sustaining.

It was further submitted that though she is qualified to earn her own livelihood she is unable to do so due to various existing medical conditions and it is the duty of the husband to maintain her.

The Court observed that “it is not the capacity of the wife or the children which entitles them for claiming maintenance, but it is their inability to maintain themselves” as provided under Section 125(1)(a) and (b) of CrPC.

The ability of a person to maintain herself is not to be equated with their ability to earn her livelihood.

Unless it can be proved that the wife has resigned or quit her place of employment or business just to obtain maintenance from her husband, it is the responsibility of the husband to maintain her.

The Court stated that if the wife has a valid reason for living separately from her husband and is unable to maintain herself, it is merely a pleasure, but it is the duty of the husband to maintain her.

The post Higher qualifications don’t indicate ability to maintain oneself appeared first on LexForti .

Such evidence can be relied upon only if the same was exhibited by any other witness and not otherwise.

The issue place before the bench was that the accused was alleged for having fired bullets upon police officers during an encounter punishable under Section 186, 353, and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959.

The Petitioner was accused of conducting an illegal business operation of dealing with arms and ammunition and opened fire upon being raided by the Police.

Though the encounter had taken place in a public area, no independent witnesses were recorded and the examination-in-chief of all the police officers appears identical and rehearsed.

The court observed that the bullets allegedly recovered as stated in the CSFL reports were not exhibited during the proceedings.

The report indicated that the bullets were recovered from the bulletproof jackets and that the said bullets were shot of the weapon recovered from the possession of the accused.

Section 293 of the Criminal Procedure Code states provides for using any report or analysis provided by a Governmental scientific expert as evidence during the course of the trial.

Even if the evidence given by the Police Officers is admissible, it is not substantive enough to adjudge the matter in that favor and following the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’, the court set aside the Petitioners conviction.

The post Reports by expert witness needs to be substantiated with exhibits by other witnesses – Delhi High Court appeared first on LexForti .

‘Police’ is not defined under the CrPC, but the “officer in charge of a police station” [S.2(o)], police report [S.2(r)] and police station [S.2(s)] have been defined. The word ‘police’ is normally used as a noun, which has a dictionary meaning: the civil force of a state, responsible for the prevention and detection of crime and the maintenance of public order. (Oxford Dictionary)   Another Definition from New Webster Dictionary says: (it is) ‘A department of government responsible for the preservation of public order, detection of crime and enforcement of civil law.’     

Police are part of the executive system. The Indian Police Act, 1861 says: the word ‘Police’ shall include all persons who shall be enrolled under the Police Act. (S.1)         Apart from Central – Police Act, some States have their own Police Act e.g. Bombay Police Act (Maharashtra), Gujarat Police Act, Kerala Police Act etc. As the maintenance of law and order is the primary duty of each State Government, Police is governed by State Law. Police is the first machinery, which can be moved and used in case of cognizable offences, as it has power to arrest without warrant and power to investigate in such cases without any orders/s from the magistrate.

OVERVIEW:

Criminal Law is basically divided in two parts: Substantive and Procedural. For example, Indian Penal Code, 1860 and other Penal Acts are substantive laws, which define the offences and prescribed various kind of punishment including the quantum of punishment. Under these penal enactments, we also understand the essential ingredients of each offence, which is crystalized by legal provision i.e. section of the Act. On the other hand, the procedural law lays down a course for operation of such substantive law. It specifies the nature and scope of the proceedings as well as how the legal process is to be initiated and be linked with the provision of the substantive law e.g. when, where and how.          

It is a well-known feature of the Criminal Law that anyone can put motion in criminal law, so a stranger can move it too, subject to few statutory exception e.g. u/s.376-B of the IPC: Sexual intercourse by husband upon his wife during separation, but it is cognizable offence only on a condition that: if it is upon a complaint of the victim (as per the First Schedule under the CrPC). Hence, the principle of locus standi is applicable for this offence.

Thus, as per the two categories of offences, the criminal cases can also be divided into two groups:

•  Cases, wherein Police can arrest person/s without warrant and it has power to investigate without any order/s of the Magistrate;
• Cases, wherein Police cannot make any arrest without warrant and does not have power to investigate without specific order/s of the Magistrate.

Origination of Criminal Proceedings:       

• Commission of cognizable offence/s affects the society at large. As soon as it is committed, information about the same is required to be reached at the Police, whose duty is to protect law and order. Here, the meaning of information is also necessary to understand and comprehend.   
• Information regarding the crime is: ‘facts provided’ or ‘learned about something or someone’ [Oxford Dictionary]. Information could be anything: data, knowledge, an incident, a happening, an occurrence or everything – which the mind can perceive by its senses. 
• Chapter-XII of the CrPC deals with ‘Information to the Police and their Powers to Investigate’. Here the set of Sections-154 to 176 are designed for the process of investigation and intricacies of such investigation under the procedural law. 
• However, Chapter-V of the CrPC, which prescribes the legal provisions of ‘Arrest of Persons’. Here, the group of Sections: 41 to 60 deal with the conditions and requirements of ‘Arrest’, which is again not defined anywhere under the CrPC. 
• However, normally arrest would come only after the commission of an offence and so, it is not a condition precedent of an investigation of a crime by a police, if it is cognizable in nature. 
• Nonetheless, beginning of criminal proceedings is generally with the information regarding the cognizable offence and so, we start with the same by understanding the concept of FIR (First Information Report), which is also not defined anywhere in CrPC.
• Section-154 of the CrPC denotes ‘Information in cognizable cases’, but for the purpose of general understanding – ‘cognizable offence’ and ‘cognizable case’, both are synonymous. Section-2(c) of the Code spells out the cognizable offence is cognizable case, in which a police officer may arrest (person/s) without warrant. In such cases, police can also investigate the same without any orders of the Magistrate.

Section-155: Information as to non-cognizable cases and investigation of such cases: 

• Normally, in practice – police never entertain any information regarding the non-cognizable cases/offences. However, this section-155(1) says even in case of non-cognizable offence, police have to ‘enter such information in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf, and refer the information to the Magistrate.’         
• Sub-section (2) of 155 puts the bar on investigation by the police in case of non-cognizable offence, unless Magistrate so orders. It says: “No police officer shall investigate a non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having power to try such case or commit the case for trial.”   
• However, sub-section (3) says: if the Magistrate orders for investigation of such non-cognizable case to the police, then, ‘police may exercise the same powers in respect of the investigation (except the power to arrest without warrant) as an officer in charge of a police station may exercise in a cognizable case.’           
• Sub-section-(4) further clarifies that: “Where a case relates to two or more offences of which at least one is cognizable, the case shall be deemed to be a cognizable case, notwithstanding that the other offences are non-cognizable.” 

Section-156: Police officer’s power to investigate cognizable case:

• This section is simple and gives powers to police to investigate the cognizable cases ‘without the order of a Magistrate’ and sub-section-(2) further says: ‘No proceeding of a police officer in any such case shall at any stage be called in question on the ground that the case was one which such officer was not empowered under this section to investigate.’ 
• However, under certain Special Penal Statute/s the qualification of the Investigation Officer is prescribed and such Special Penal Act would override the General Act/Code i.e. CrPC e.g. under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Rules thereunder of 1995: Rule-7 says: An offence committed under the Act shall be investigated by a police officer not below the rank of a Deputy Superintendent of Police.
• And lastly, sub-section (3) of 156 says: “Any Magistrate empowered under Section 190 may order such an investigation as above-mentioned.”
• The scope of the aforesaid sub-section goes like this: When, information is given to police about the cognizable offence and if police fails to register the same, then, the remedy available to an aggrieved person is as per section-154(3) of the Code (send it to superior).
• However, if that is not yielded any result, then, an aggrieved person can approach the Magistrate with a complaint (S.2[d]) and when he approaches the Magistrate with the complaint, Magistrate may exercise the power under section 190 of the Code and may order such an investigation (for such offence/s) and then, the police do not have any option but to register the FIR and start the investigation.

The post Powers of Police Officer to Investigate appeared first on LexForti .

KISHORE KUMAR GYANCHANDANI v. G.D. MEHROTRA AND ORS. (2011) 15 SCC 513

RELEVANT FACTS

One person G.D. Mehrotra (Respondent) is charged under section 279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for rash and negligent driving on the public road. A charge sheet/final form was filed in the court by the police after investigation. After submitting the final form, the complainant/ appellant filed a protest petition as a complaint under court. On this complaint, Respondent filed a petition under Hon’ble High Court to dissolve this complaint which was filed after the submitting final form. High Court by the impugned order, having set aside the order taking cognizance and issuance of the process in the complaint proceedings. Now, the complainant appeals to the Hon’ble Supreme Court to assail the order of the High Court under Section 202 of Cr. P.C.

ISSUES

Whether the court can allow the complaint filed by the complainant after submission of the final file under section 202 of Cr.P.C.?

RULE OF LAW

• Section 156, 173, 190, 201, and 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Section 279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING

• In the concerned case, the main point of contention is related to the complaint which was filed by the complainant after submitting the final form of investigation by police.
• Learned counsel of the Appellant/ complainant referred the case of Gopal Vijay Verma v. Bhuneshwar Prasad Sinha and Others, in this case, it was held that Acceptance of final form does not debar the Magistrate from taking cognizance based on the materials produced in a complaint proceeding.
• There is police filed a final form after an investigation under section 173 of the Cr.P.C. and Where the Magistrate accepts the final form submitted by the police, the right of the complainant to file a regular complaint is not taken away and in fact, on such a complaint being filed the Magistrate follows the procedure under Section 201 of the Cr.P.C. and takes cognizance of the materials produced by the complainant make out an offense.
• And the learned counsel of the Respondent referred to the case law Abhinandan Jha and others v. the State of Bihar and another, in this case, the court stated that the after acceptance of final form Magistrate cannot direct the investigation agency to file a charge-sheet. But Magistrate has separate power to direct the investigation agency to further investigation into the matter or even to take cognizance on the basis of the materials produced even though the police might have filed the final form.
• Based on all of these arguments, the Hon’ble Supreme Court finally allowed the appeal filed by the complainant under section 202 of Cr. P.C.

The post Acceptance of a charge sheet does not debar Magistrate from taking cognizance appeared first on LexForti .

SHIVNATH PRASAD v. THE STATE OF BIHAR (2008) 15 SCC 735

RELEVANT FACTS

A man Shivnath Prasad (Appellant) was arrested for rash and negligent driving under section 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The Appellant was convicted for simple imprisonment for six months and one year by the lower court. He filed an appeal before Additional District and Sessions Judge but the court also convicted and sentenced the appellant. Now, the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the order of the Single Judge Bench of the Patna High Court.

ISSUES

• Whether appellant convicted and sentenced under section 279 and 304A of IPC was justified?
• Whether the lower and High Court convict person with proper evidence of matter?

RULE OF LAW

• Section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• Section 279 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING

Learned counsel of Appellant said in the Hon’ble Supreme Court that there are many disabilities which the High Court did not notice:

• The post-mortem report of the deceased person is not available.
• The investigating officer, Doctor, and the informant were not examined.
• There are also prosecution witness-3 who stated that he is the son of the deceased person and not the informant.
• The prosecution witness-4 claimed to be an eye witness of the crime but he was not examined during the trial.
• It is crucial to note that the prosecution lawyer has mentioned there being five eyewitnesses while three of their statements were not in support of the prosecution.
• Learned counsel of the appellant also said that the Hon’ble High Court arrived at its decision without performing all of the necessary scrutinies. It is not valid according to section 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
• According to section 397 of Cr. P.C. “The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situated within its local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself; to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding, sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court.”
• And according to section 401 of Cr. P.C. the High Court has ‘power of revision’. And it is necessary for the interests of Justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.
• By all the argument of the learned counsel of the Appellant, finally, the Hon’ble Supreme Court dismissed the order of the High Court and remit the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with the law.

The post A court shall not convict a person without proper scrutiny of the matter appeared first on LexForti .

Kuldip Singh and Anr vs the State of Punjab

Facts:

Paramjit Kaur, wife of the appellant was found hanging at her in-law’s place. Kuldip Singh, who is the husband of the deceased along with his parents, was charged for the offense of dowry death and put under rigorous imprisonment for 10 years. The medical reports revealed that the death of the deceased was caused by the intake of aluminum phosphide. The complainant, Naranjan Das, father of the deceased, had filed an appeal for a criminal revision, aggrieved by the decision of which the respondents’ moved to the High Court seeking relief.

Issues:

Whether the accused are guilty of dowry death and if the criminal revision appeal of the respondent should be considered?

Legal provisions:

● Section 304B, IPC – Dowry Death
● Section 498A, IPC -Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty
● Section 313, CrPc -Causing miscarriage without woman’s consent
● Section 113B, The Indian Evidence Act,1872 -Presumption as to dowry death

Appellant’s Contention:

It was contented by the appellant that his wife was going through depression and submitted that he had earlier demanded Rs.1,000/- and Rs.5,000/- when he was leaving for abroad, but he had returned all at once. After returning from abroad he never approached his father-in-law for money. The deceased was never subjected to any cruelty or maltreatment by him or his parents; he claimed to have cordial relations with the family of the deceased. The Trial court had overlooked the circumstances and provisions arising in dowry death.

Respondent’s Contention:

The complainant stated that his daughter had complained of the mistreatment by her in-laws on account of getting an insufficient dowry, which is enough to prove that her in-laws and her husband are responsible for the incident.

Observations of the court:

It was observed by the court that a case that had been filed around 2 years before the marriage seems to be coinciding with the present case and therefore, this case is being treated under dowry death. However, there was no harassment or cruelty soon before the passing of the deceased. It is the duty of the investigator to draw observations impartially; he should have carefully examined the statement proposed by Naranjan Das. There is also no evidence to prove that the accused had instigated her to take such steps. All the ingredients do not lie in this case.

Judgment:

The court was of the view that a suicide case was simply illustrated as dowry death. It is important to know that the death of a wife within 7 years of marriage doesn’t always amount to dowry death, it can occur due to other reasons as well. Hence, the accused are acquitted.

The post Suicide falsely implicated as Dowry Death appeared first on LexForti .

Parivartan Kendra and Anr. Vs union of India

Facts:

Two girls, belonging to the Dalit community, in Bihar were subjected to an acid attack by four assailants, who at midnight threw acid on the face of the victims while they were sleeping on their rooftop. It was reported that the girls were continuously harassed in public places often and terrorized that if the victim did not heed to their sexual favors, then she and her family would have to face the consequences. While the offenders got hold of the victim and poured acid on the face of the victim, it also fell upon the sister of the victim. After a lot of hue and cry, the parents got up to the rooftop whilst the offenders absconded from the premises. The victims were taken to the hospital immediately, but on account of improper treatment and unsupportive ailment to the victims, they had to be rushed to another hospital in Delhi.

Issues:

Whether the victim should be allowed compensation and reimbursement of the medical expenses incurred in the treatment?

Legal Provisions:

• Section 164, The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Recording of confessions and statements
• The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of the Atrocities) Act, 1989

Appellants’ Contention:

The petitioner submitted that the victims were not given appropriate treatment as the situation demanded. The underlying reason for the aforesaid statement is that the victims belong to the Dalit community, due to which they had to be transferred to other hospitals for better access to healthcare services. The petitioner submitted that the offenders were arrested as a result of pressure from various organizations and the media. It was prayed to restore and reimburse the medical expenses involved in the process of treatment. Suggestions were made to add provisions and other schemes which prevent acid attacks and support the acid-attack survivors by aiding them for any medical assistance that arises in the future.
After hearing both the counsels, the court made the following observations.

Observations of the court:

The court was of the view of awarding more compensation that had been set in the case of Laxmi v. Union of India & Ors., in which an order was passed of paying at least Rs. 3 Lakhs to the victim. The court observed that the compensation fixed for acid-attack survivors by the state of Bihar is Rs. 25,000/-. However, the parents of the victim incurred more than 5 lakh rupees for the treatment. Schemes should be added that entails guidelines with respect to the sale of acid in the market. Given the plight of victims, it is true and a possibility that these victims are exposed to denial involving jobs that require more physical exertion of energy. The humiliation and reactions they’d be encountered with throughout life cannot be compensated. It cannot be ignored that the sister of the victim too had to undergo treatment. Thus, compensation should be awarded to her as well. The State would reimburse not only the prime charges but other compensation too.

Judgment:

The family had already spent more than Rs. 5 lakh, therefore, Rs. 10 Lakh should be given for the victim and Rs. 3 lakh should be awarded to the sister of the victim. The court directed all the states to take appropriate steps to prevent the recurrence of such cases.

The post Health aid for Acid attack survivors appeared first on LexForti .

Amrutbhai vs Unknown

Facts:

The prosecutrix was reported to be raped, while she was collecting firewood in the forest, by the appellant who gagged her mouth and committed rape. The prosecutrix was intimidated by the appellant and informed her parents about the mishap when she started experiencing abdominal pain. After she was taken to the hospital for a check-up, it was disclosed in the reports that the prosecutrix was pregnant and had to get the fetus aborted. The case was filed in the Sessions court after 4 months, aggrieved by the decision of which the appellant moved to the High Court.

Issues:

Whether the decision rendered by Sessions court should be upheld and the appellant should be charged with the offense of rape?

Legal Provisions:

• Section 376, IPC – Punishment for rape
• Section 506 (2), IPC- Punishment for criminal intimidation
• Section 13, CrPc– Special Judicial Magistrate

Appellant’s Contention:

The learned counsel on behalf of the appellant submitted that the prosecutrix had not come out with true facts of the case and had been trying to falsely implicate the situation. No clear explanation had been given for filing an FIR after 4 months of the commitment of the crime. The stain of semen found on the clothes of the prosecutrix after washing remains unexplainable. The match of the semen found after the conduct of the vaginal swab of the prosecutrix and semen found on the clothes of the prosecutrix, proves the unfairness and unreliability of the investigation performed.

Respondent’s Contention:

It was contended that the prosecutrix was forced to take an oath of Harsiddhi Mata for not disclosing the unfortunate incident that happened with her. The prosecutrix was intimidated by the appellant and told that she would be murdered. When the medical reports indicated positive signs of pregnancy, the prosecutrix was slapped by her mother. It was also submitted that the prosecutrix had washed her clothes before they were seized by the police. The samples found on her clothes and sample found after the vaginal swab test was of the same group which proved that the victim had undergone a misfortunate incident.

Observations of the court:

The court was of the view that the reasons put forth by the prosecutrix remain vague and unclear as to why there was late reporting of the FIR. Also, the vaginal swab test was taken only after the FIR was lodged which is post 4 months of the incident, and still, the same semen was found. It is difficult to interpret and rely on the medical reports knowing that the prosecutrix was unmarried then and did not have any physical relationship with any other man. This implies that either the reports are false or the prosecutrix and her mother are lying.

Judgment:

The appellant was acquitted of the charges for which he was convicted.

The post Necessity of speedy filing of FIR appeared first on LexForti .

SHANKAR V STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

INTRODUCTION:

The above case in the Hon’ble Supreme Court is an appeal from the Bombay High Court. In this case, the appellants i.e. Shankar, his wife Parvatibai, and Vivek were convicted under Section 436 of IPC r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 (acts are done by several persons having a common intention) as well as Section 323 of IPC r/w Section 34 of IPC, i.e., for the offense of mischief by fire or any explosive substance and for voluntarily causing hurt. The case was decided in the favour of the respondents or the complainants of the original case at both the trial court as well as the High Court and therefore the appellants have preferred this appeal.

ISSUES:

Since Vivek i.e. the 2nd appellant has no evidence against him for the evident act of setting fire to the house of Namdeo, is it right to convict him under Section 436 r/w Section 34 of IPC?
Can an offense that is originally not compoundable under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) can be treated as a compoundable offense?

JUDGEMENT:

Pertaining to the first issue, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that since the second appellant i.e. Vivek has no evidence against him setting fire to the house of the complainants neither does he have a common intention to that of the first and the third appellant i.e. Shankar and Parvatibai respectively, he should not be held liable for the offense of causing mischief by fire i.e. Section 436 r/w Section 34 of IPC and hence his conviction is set aside by the Court.
As far as the second issue is concerned, it is not considered appropriate to compound an offense which is non-compoundable under the CrPC but the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the following case stated that by considering the circumstances of the case and the relationship of parties at hand, the Court found it suitable to compound an offense, in reality, which is non-compoundable.
The Supreme Court took into consideration the precedent of various cases like Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2008) 15 SCC 667], Murugesan v Ganapathy velar [(2001) 10 SCC 504], Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan [(2006) 9 SCC 255], Ishwarlal v. State of M.P. [(2008) 15 SCC 671] as well as Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan [1990 Supp SCC 681] and thereby came to the conclusion that if the parties of the case come to a compromise, such compromise should be given due consideration and if the facts and situations are viable and justified the Court can convert a non-compoundable offense into a compoundable one.
Hence, in the following case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the compromise taken place between the parties is a relevant one, and also the relationship between the parties should also be given due consideration. As a result of the compromise between the parties the conviction of all the three appellants under Section 323 IPC i.e. voluntarily causing hurt is set aside for the remaining period and whatever they have completed till now will be considered completed and they are acquitted of the charges. The second appellant, Vivek is acquitted of the charges of causing mischief of fire under Section 436 of IPC as well.

CONCLUSION:

The following case of Shankar v. the State of Maharashtra reinstated the fact that even a non-compoundable offense i.e. an offense for which no compromise is available under the CrPC can also be converted into a compoundable offense i.e. an offense for which the parties can settle the case after compromising if the Court is satisfied with such compromise keeping in mind all the facts, issues and relationships in due consideration.

The post Can the court treat a non-compoundable offence as a compoundable one? appeared first on LexForti .

INTRODUCTION

The Constitution of India provides for a federal system in which powers are divided between the Central, State, and Local Governments. Article 246 of the Constitution deals with the division of powers between the Union and the States. These powers are classified into three lists of which one is the Concurrent List. Both the Parliament and State Legislatures have the power to make laws concerning matters enumerated in the list. It also takes into account numerous criminal offenses and its procedures under various laws like the Indian Penal Code(IPC) and Code of Criminal Procedure(CrPC).

CRIMINAL LAW

A crime is an unlawful act punished by the state or any lawful authority empowered by the state. It impacts society as a whole. Hence it is regarded as offenses in rem. Such an act is strictly forbidden and is punished by law. A criminal or offender commits a crime due to various reasons like jealousy, anger, revenge, or greed. Oxford Dictionary defines crime as “An act punishable by law as forbidden by statute or injurious to the public welfare.”
There are various codified laws in each country describing various crimes and their punishments. In India, we see that IPC and CrPC form the basis of criminal law.

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)

The Indian Penal Code is one of the vital documents that govern all criminal acts. The offenses and its punishments are stated here. It is considered to be an exhaustive penal code for crime in India. Hence, we can understand that IPC covers all substantive aspect s of criminal law. This code was drafted in 1860 but came into force in early 1862. Even though the code came to its force and has been amended several times. The important thing to be noted here is that the punishments stated under this code can be extended to both the offenses committed within India and abroad, and the offenders by law may be tried within India.
Jammu and Kashmir had a separate criminal code known as Ranbir Penal Code (RPC). It came into force in 1932. The main reason for such a separate code was that the IPC was not applicable under Article 370 of the Constitution which provides this state a separate identity by giving a separate constitution and a state flag. Recently, the Parliament of India passed a bill to scrap provisions of Article 370 which in turn dissolved the Ranbir Penal Code. Henceforth the IPC came into this region.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974 (CrPC)

The CrPC deals with the procedural aspect of criminal law. This means that the various steps or procedures carried out by the police machinery regarding the investigation will be detailed here. Even the procedures followed by courts during investigation and trial is stated here. This categorizes criminal offenses as bailable, non- bailable, cognizable, and non-cognizable offenses. The various steps at the time of filing a complaint such as filing a First Information Report (FIR), gathering evidence, and initiating an inquiry are all governed by the CrPC. The classification of criminal courts into Magistrates, Sessions Court, High Courts, and Supreme Court and its powers are looked onto in this code.

FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS OF A CRIME

There arises a confusion in one’s mind regarding ‘elements of a crime’ and ‘stages of a crime.’ Let’s focus on the essential ingredients or elements of a crime which is required by the prosecution to prove criminal liability.
a. Human Being- The first and foremost element requires that a wrongful act should be committed by a human being. According to Section 11 of the IPC, a ‘person’ is defined. The word “person” includes any Company or Association or body of person whether incorporated or not. It can be a natural or legal entitlement. A murder is committed by a murderer, theft is committed by a thief, and so on. Hence, we see that it is a legal title having a specific identity and legal rights and obligation under the law.
The basic principle of criminal liability is laid down in the maxim “actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea” which means an act does not make one guilty unless there is a guilty mind. Actus reus and mens rea play a very important role in a criminal offense.
b. Mens Rea- Then comes the next important element of a crime which is mens rea. It is a legal word used for criminal intention or a guilty mind. Such an element displays the specific intent for the commission of a crime and having full knowledge of the actions. A criminal can be punished only if it is proven to the court that he or she had a criminal intention. This is one of the fundamental principles of criminal liability. The words used to denote this mental element are ‘intentionally’ (Section 37 IPC), ‘voluntarily’ (Section 39 IPC), ‘knowingly’ (Section 35 IPC), and ‘reason to believe’(Section 16 IPC).
Here is a simple example to understand this concept. A uses B’s pencil by mistake because it looks like the one A had. So he did not ask for consent. In this case, A cannot be charged for stealing because there is no guilty mind or intention to steal. Hence no mens rea. Crimes involving mens rea are of two types.
(1) Basic intent crimes- These general intent crimes only require an offender to have an intention to perform the act. There is no need for additional motive or objective. Taking the case of an assault. It is generally easier to prove because there does not need to be a particular purpose. Other offenses that come under this category are Battery, Manslaughter, and Rape.
(2) Specific intent crimes- This is when someone commits a crime with the intent of doing an unlawful act along with an additional motive or objective. Let’s consider a simple example in this regard. When a person commits theft his main intention is to get money or property from another person without his consent. But there are also additional motives like to permanently deprive the owner of their property. It can happen with other offenses like Conspiracy, Child Molestation, Robbery, and Murder.
Motive and Intentions are words that are often mistaken for each other. They both are very important in the field of law and justice.

The intention is not defined in IPC. It is the conscious exercise of the mental faculties of a person to do an act, for the purpose of accomplishing or satisfying a purpose. Prof. Austin a renowned criminologist, defines motive as the ‘spring of action’ and intention ‘aim of the act, of which motive is the spring’. We all know that motive is the reason for an action. In criminal law, we can say that a person does a crime as he had jealousy, anger, or ambition. These can all be considered as motives. But the interesting fact here is that it does not affect criminal liability. Hence, in criminal law, the motive may be defined as that which leads or tempts the mind to indulge in a criminal act, it lies in the heart of a person. In brief, we can state that motive deals with an individual’s underlying reasons for committing a crime, whereas intent is concerned with their willingness to carry out specific actions related to the offense.
Going through the sections of IPC, we see that in Chapter XVI dealing with offenses affecting the human body, there is a section which deals with Culpable homicide. Both Sections 299 and 300 specifies the intention of causing death or bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
There are two elements of mens rea. The first one being the intention to do the act and then the knowledge of the circumstances. Mens rea consists of different types of mental aptitude. Having Knowledge is being aware of the surroundings. It can be considered in two different ways. If a person does a crime, he will be aware of the act and will have knowledge about the bad consequences that will result from this unlawful act. Both can be understood as a part of Mens rea and are punishable. We can see this as part of mens rea in Section 307 (attempt to murder). Negligence is the lack of attention or due care that a common man may have while performing any task. But if the degree is high, then it shall have criminal liability. this can be regarded as one of the aspects of mens rea.
There are few offenses like Rape, Sale of alcohol, and such substances to minors which does not take into consideration mens rea to impose criminal liability. If he committed such an offense, then he will be guilty of such a crime. Then comes another category of offenses like theft which require a deeper level of mens rea.
c. Actus Reus- It is another fundamental principle of criminal liability. Actus Reus connotes an overt act, the physical result of human conduct. This Latin term is connected with mens rea. It can be a guilty act or illegal omission which must take place in pursuance of the guilty intention. If there is a guilty mind, but no offense committed then he or she will not be liable. This term was first used by Prof. Kenny. According to him, Actus reus is defined as “such a result of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent.” There are mainly two types of Actus Reus:
(1) Commission- It is a criminal activity which was the result of voluntary body movement. This describes an unlawful act is committed which in turn harms a person or property. For instance, act against the human body can include assault, hurt, murder and that against property can include theft, extortion, and dacoity.
(2) Omission- This is an act of criminal negligence. There are cases where omission can become the actus reus of an offense. A simple example is the nurturing of small children. This is a form of duty out of a special relationship. It is an offense if a parent or the guardian of a child under the age of 16 years willfully neglect the child.

Act Should Be Voluntary

Crime is said to be the product of conscious choice and independent will. A voluntary Act is an act done by a person out of his own will. If a person is highly intoxicated, then he will not have control of his own actions. If he drives a car in that state and hits someone which in turn kills him, is not liable as it is an involuntary act. According to Austin, it is only a voluntary act that can amount to an offense. For instance, A shoots at B which in turn results in his death. If this shooting was done by mistake or accident, then it is said to be an involuntary act.
d. Injury- The last important requirement for a crime is that there should be an injury that is inflicted on a person or society at large. Whenever the crimes are committed, the loss to a person(injury) is stated as a public wrong. The term ‘injury’ in criminal law is defined in Section 44 of IPC as “any harm illegally caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or property by another person.” It should be brought by the unlawful act done by the offender.

CONCLUSION

We see that there is a huge increase in the rate of crimes in India. Even though there have been efforts to legislate, punish, or otherwise correct criminal behavior, criminal cases are increasing day by day. The quantum of punishment needs to be looked into and also the speed in which justice is meted out. As for any other country maintaining law and order is important for India also. One of the major strategies practiced for deterring criminals is empowering our police force. If we can analyze the root cause and correct the problems faced by our country and also effectively remove the source of crime, there can be a peaceful environment for people to live in and also to develop satisfying, harmonious relationships with each other.

The post Elements of a Crime under Indian legal system appeared first on LexForti .