LAW OF CRIMES

Part-C

Aug/Sept 2021

1. A accused was in the habit of setting fire to his own cloths and house, one day
he set fire to his wife and 2 children. State whether he will be punishable or not?

Ans:

Facts of the case

A accused was in the habit of setting fire to his own cloths and house. One day he set fire to
his wife and 2 children

Issues of the case

The accused was in the habit of setting fire to his own cloths and house.

Does the act of the accused setting fire to his own wife and 2 children comes under act
habitual?

Does the accused liable for punishment for his acts and deeds?

Solution

May be the accused is having habitual of firing his own cloths and house, such acts of accused
clearly denotes the mental ability of the accused that firing his cloths and own house results
to harm not only to him and to the other inhabitants of the house for gravies hurts, which is
an offence under Sections 320, 321, 325, 326, 326A, 326 B, 329, 333 and 338. The accused
might have rescued with such acts by the inhabitants and neighbours at earlier occasions,
hence the accused knows the consequences of setting fire.

Therefore, it is established that the accused with mental stability and knowing consequences
set fire to his own wife and 2 children, hence he is having intention of killing his wife and
children. Hence the accused liable for culpable homicide of murdering his own wife and
children under section 300 and 302 of the IPC for capital punishment.

2. Without performing ceremonies, A got married with B. B believing that A is her

husband submitted herself and cohabited with him. A knowingly deceit her and
made her to believe that she is his legally wedded wife. After few months he
disclosed the true fact. What offence did A committed and what will be the
punishment?

Ans:

Facts of the case:

Without performing ceremonies, A got married with B. B believing that A is her husband
submitted herself and cohabited with him. A knowingly deceit her and made her to believe
that she is his legally wedded wife. After few months he disclosed the true fact.
1
Solution

Section 493 of Indian Penal Code provides that every man who by deceit causes any woman
who is not lawfully married to him to believe that she is lawfully married to him and to cohabit
or have sexual intercourse with him in that belief. The punishment under Section 493 for the
said offence is imprisonment for a term which may extend up to 10 years and shall also be
liable to a fine.

Hence, A is liable for deceit induces a belief of lawful marriage to B with imprisonment for a
term which may extend up to 10 years and shall also be liable to a fine as decided by the court.

3. A thief entered a house and made an attempt to steal, broken the jewel box but
after opening the box there nothing was found in it. State whether the thief is
punishable or not. If so, what offence he committed and what is the punishment?

Ans:

Facts of the Case

A thief entered a house and made an attempt to steal, broken the jewel box but after opening
the box there nothing was found in it. State whether the thief is punishable or not.

Solution

The thief unlawfully entered a house and made an attempt to steal, broken the jewel box but
after opening the box, but nothing has found in the box. The thief unlawfully entered a house
with an intention to theft some valuable things. Though he has not found nothing he has
committed theft by criminal trespass and broke the jewel box, which clearly denotes the
criminal intention of theft, hence he is liable for punishment for Criminal trespass and for
making an attempt of theft under Section 447, 448 read with section 379 and 511 of the
Indian Penal Code.

4. A intentionally set fire a godown belonging to Y causing wrongful loss to Y. Sate

whether A is liable. If so, what offence did he committed and what is the
punishment?

Ans:

Facts of the Case:

A intentionally set fire a godown belonging to Y causing wrongful loss to Y.

Solution:

A criminal intention set fire a godown belonging to Y causing wrongful loss to Y. Such act dealt
under the sections 435 and 436 of Indian Penal Code for the offence of arson. The godown is
used for stocking the movable property and hence A is committed an offence under section
436 of the IPC. Therefore, A is liable for punishment under section 436 of the IPC for shall
be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
2
 December 2020

5. Mr. X with an intention to kill Y stabs him on his abdomen. Y who is patient
already, dies immediately because the stab on the abdomen accelerates the death.
X is charged of murder. Discuss.

Ans:

Facts of the Case

Mr. X with an intention to kill Y stabs him on his abdomen. Y who is patient already, dies
immediately because the stab on the abdomen accelerates the death.

Solution:

Mr. X with a criminal intention stabbed to kill Y on his abdomen, who is patient already, dies
immediately because the stab on the abdomen accelerates the death.

Therefore Mr. X with culpable homicide stabbed Y with Mens ria of killing, hence X is liable
for punishment under Section 300 and 302 of the IPC.

6. Three persons forms into group and plans to rob the bank. While they were trying
to rob the bank, the bank authorities inform the police and police arrives and
takes one person into custody, while two others escape. Discuss the liability of
each person.

Ans:

Facts of the case:

Three persons forms into group and plans to rob the bank. While they were trying to rob the
bank, the bank authorities inform the police and police arrives and takes one person into
custody, while two others escape.

Solution:

Three persons by forming a group planned to rob the bank. While they were attempted to rob
the bank, the bank authorities inform the police and police arrives and takes one person into
custody, while two others escaped. The attempt of robbery is an offence under section 393
of the Indian Penal code.

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code talks about the joint liability of persons involved in a
criminal act. It says that if more than one person is involved in a criminal act done to satisfy
a common intention, then each of such persons will be liable in the same way as if it was done
by him alone.

Therefore, the accused including escaped personal are equally liable under section 34 of the
IPC, hence liable for punishment of rigorous imprisonment of term extending Seven years
including fine under section 393 read with section 34 of the IPC.

3
 7. X confines Y and threatens him that he will kill Y if he does not sign on transfer
papers of Y’s property in his name. discuss the nature of the offence committed
by X.

Ans:

Facts of the Case

X confines Y and threatens him that he will kill Y if he does not sign on transfer papers of Y’s
property in his name.

Solution:

As per the Section 383 of the IPC, whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury
to that person, or to any other, and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to
deliver to any person any property or valuable security, or anything signed or sealed which
may be converted into a valuable security, commits “extortion”. And liable for punishment
under Section 384 of the IPC for imprisonment either descriptive for a term extending three
years or fine or with both.

In this instant case X confines Y and threatens him that he will kill Y if he does not sign on
transfer papers of Y’s property in his name and hence committed an offence under Section
383 of the IPC and liable for punishment under Section 384 of the IPC for imprisonment
either descriptive for a term extending three years or fine or with both.

8. X with an intention to steal the pocket of Y puts his hands in Y’s pocket and finds
nothing. Is he liable for any offence?

Ans:

Facts of the case:

X with an intention to steal the pocket of Y puts his hands in Y’s pocket and finds nothing.
Pickpocketing is nothing but theft under section 378 of the IPC.

Solution:

X with an intention to steal the pocket of Y puts his hands in Y’s pocket and finds nothing. X
unlawfully puts his hands in Y’s pocket with a criminal intention to steal the pocket of Y, but
he has not found nothing. X has attempted to steal the pocket of Y, which clearly denotes
the criminal intention of theft, hence he is liable for punishment for making an attempt of
theft under Section 511 read with section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.

Aug/Sept/2019

9. X was raped by four persons in a running bus and tried to kill her. Subsequently
X died in the hospital. Discuss the liability & Punishment.

Ans:

4
Facts of the Case

In this case gang rape was committed by four persons in a running bus and tried to kill her.
Subsequently X died in the hospital

Issues involved in this case:

Section 376D which deals with the crime of Gang rape. Section 376A which deals with the
Rape resulting in death or vegetative state.

Case Law: Mukesh & Others V/s State of Delhi (NCT) & Ors. (2017) 6 SCC 1

On 16th December, 2012, a woman named Nirbaya was gangraped by Mukesh & Others in a
moving bus in Delhi and subsequently she died in the hospital. On 13th March, 2013, the Trial
Court convicted the accusers. On 13th September, 2013, the High Court gave death penalty
to the accusers. Also, the Supreme Court gave the same verdict on 5th May, 2017.

Present Case

In this case on similar grounds of Mukesh & Others V/s State of Delhi (NCT) & Ors. (2017)
6 SCC 1, the accusers are liable for punishment for punishment under the provisions of
Section 376 read with Sections 376 A & 376 D nothing but death penalty.

10. ‘A’ gave false evidence, by which Mr. ‘D’ an innocent person was convicted
with death sentence. Discuss the liability and offence committed by ‘A’. (May/June
2014)
Ans:

Facts of the Case

A gave false evidence, by which Mr. D an innocent person was convicted with death sentence.

Statutory provisions

Section 194 of the Indian Penal Code states that any person who gives or fabricates false
evidence to make any other person to be convicted for an offence that is punishable with
capital punishment is liable to be punished and the punishment for such an offence is
imprisonment for life or rigorous imprisonment for not more than ten years and a fine.
Further, this section also states the punishment if any innocent person is convicted and
executed due to such giving or fabricating of offence, and the punishment for the same is
either death punishment or the punishment as stated above.
In this case ‘A’ liable for punishment as laydown in Section 194 of the Indian Penal Code.

11. ‘A’ and ‘B’ are friends. ‘A’ due to sudden quarrel gave a blow to ‘B’. ‘B’
sustained injuries. B filed a case for attempt to murder. Discuss.
Ans:

Facts of the Case

‘A’ and ‘B’ are friends. ‘A’ due to sudden quarrel gave a blow to ‘B’. ‘B’ sustained injuries.

5
Issues of the case

B filed a case for attempt to murder case against A. ‘A’ due to sudden quarrel gave a blow to
‘B’, which action is nothing but using Criminal force hence, “A” has committed an offence using
Criminal force under Section 350 of IPC.

Statutory provisions

As per Section 350 of the IPC, whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that
person’s consent, in order to the committing of any offence, or intending by the use of such
force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury,
fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to
that other.
Section 352 of IPC states that whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person
otherwise than on grave and sudden provocation given by that person, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months,
or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both

Hence, in this case A is liable for punishment under Section 352 of IPC with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to three months, or with fine which may
extend to five hundred rupees, or with both

12. Four members armed with deadly weapons entered a bank and robbed the
Bank. Discuss the offence.

Ans:

Facts of the Case

Four members armed with deadly weapons entered a bank and robbed the Bank.

Issues of the case

Robbery is an offence under section 392 of the IPC, and punishment is life imprisonment or
rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also liable for fine

In Harinder Singh Vs State of Punjab AIR 1993 SC91 the supreme court held that the
accused liable for the offence of Robbery.

Under the provisions of section 390, IPC the punishment for Robbery is life imprisonment or
rigorous imprisonment for ten years and also liable for fine. Accordingly, the Four member
who robbed the bank is liable for punishment.

Aug/Sept 2018

13. Eight persons armed with deadly weapons robbed a bank by threatening the
bank employees. Discuss the offence committed.

6
Ans:
Facts of the Case
Eight members armed with deadly weapons entered a bank and robbed the Bank by
threatening the bank employees.

Issues of the case

Robbery or dacoity is an offence under Section 390 of the IPC where in at the time of
committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt
to any person, so attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment
with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.

In Shyam Behari vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 320, death sentence was
passed by the Trial Court was confirmed by the Supreme Court in its appeal Petition.

Accordingly, in this case the Eight member who robbed the bank is liable for punishment under
Section 397 of the IPC.

14. ‘A’ a surgeon, in good faith communicates to a patient his opinion that the
patent cannot live. the patient dies in consequence of a shock. Did A committed
an offence. (Aug/Sept 2014)

Ans: A, a surgeon, in good faith, communicates to a patient his opinion that he cannot live. The
patient dies in consequence of the shock. A has committed no offence, though he knew it to
be likely that the communication might cause the patient's death.

15. ‘A’. knowing that B murdered Z, assists B to hide the body with the intention
of saving ‘B’ from punishment. Is ‘A’ liable for any offence?

Ans:

Facts of the Case

‘A’. knowing that B murdered Z, assists B to hide the body with the intention of saving ‘B’ from
punishment.

Issue of the case

Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information, to screen offender

and the same is an offence under Section 201 of Indian Penal Code 1860.

Case law: Kodali Purnachandra Rao v. Public Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh (1975)

In this case the first accused (A1) was an arrack contractor, while the second accused (A2)
was a police sub-inspector. The defendants, in this case, kidnapped, raped, and killed two young
college girls before throwing their corpses into the sea. One of the bodies washed up on the
beach within a few hours. When word of the corpse washing up on the coast reached the
second accused, the sub-inspector, he decided to visit the scene and inquire. A2 did not
conduct any inquests or keep any records. He told the residents in the area to bury the
deceased. The second body was discovered drifting approximately three kilometres from the
7
coast by some fisherman. The victim’s wristwatch, ring, and earring were removed, but the
body was allowed to float away. The articles were given over to the cops, who were able to
identify the second female owing to them. A2, as a public servant is responsible for preparing
an official record pertaining to the inquiry of the causes of death of both girls, had
constructed the record in such a way that the true criminals were spared punishment. With
the fraudulent and dishonest intent of fooling his superiors, he created phoney and
counterfeit records. A1 had helped and assisted A2 in the fabrication of the fake and
falsified record on purpose. As the evidence for kidnapping, raping and murder was not
established the defendants were cleared of the charges of kidnapping, rape, and murder, but
were found guilty of crimes under Sections 201, 318, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

Accordingly, in this instant case A is liable for punishment under Sections 201, 318,
and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

16. ‘A’ appears as witness before ‘Z’, a Magistrate. ‘Z’ says that he does not
believe a word of ‘A’’s deposition, and that ‘A’ has perjured himself. ‘A’ by hearing
this is moved into a sudden passion and kills ‘Z’. discuss the offence committed by
‘A’.

Ans:
Facts of the Case
A’ appears as witness before ‘Z’, a Magistrate. ‘Z’ says that he does not believe a word of ‘A’’s
deposition, and that ‘A’ has perjured himself. ‘A’ by hearing this is moved into a sudden passion
and kills ‘Z’

Issue of the case

 A is appearing as witness before the Magistrate “Z”

 During recording the deposition of witness the Magistrate
 says that he does not believe a word of ‘A’’s deposition, and that ‘A’ has perjured
himself and by hearing same moved into a sudden passion and kills ‘Z’.
 “A” has killed the Magistrate “Z”, who is on duty of public service and is nothing
but preventing a public servant from performing legitimate duties and kills him/her.

In view of the above though ‘A’ is not having culpable homicide, preventing public servant from
performing legitimate duties and killing a magistrate is an offence of Murder under section
300 & 332 of the IPC.

Sept/Oct 2017

17. Due to some differences between wife and husband the live separately since
3 months. One day husband forged the signature of the wife and withdraws Rs.10
lakhs from his wife’s account. State whether husband committed any offence. If
so, what will be the punishment?

8
Ans:
Facts of the Case
Due to some differences between wife and husband the live separately since 3 months. One
day husband forged the signature of the wife and withdraws Rs.10 lakhs from his wife’s
account.

Solution
Husband has committed an offence of “forgery” as defined under section 463 & 464 of the
IPC and liable for punishment under Section 465 of the IPC which may be imprisonment up to
Two years or with fine or with both.

18. There was a heated arguments between two friends while the argument was
going on one of the friends hit with his fist on the left side of the chest of
another. The result was sudden death. State what offence did the friend commit?
What will be the punishment?
Ans:
Facts of the Case
There was a heated arguments between two friends while the argument was going on one of
the friends hit with his fist on the left side of the chest of another. The result was sudden
death.

Issues of the case

During heated arguments between two friends on one of the friends hit with his fist on the
left side of the chest of another rashly and negligently leading to sudden death of injured.

Solution
Section 304A deals with ‘death’ caused by a ‘rash’ or ‘negligent act. In this instant case on
one of the friends hit with his fist on the left side of the chest of another rashly and
negligently leading to sudden death of injured. Hence the accused is liable for punishment
under Section 304A of the IPC.

19. Two blind persons entered a bank and robbed the bank, while going out one
of them fired and a person died. Advice the bank on what it should do?
Ans:
Facts of the Case
Two blind persons entered a bank and robbed the bank, while going out one of them fired
and a person died

Issues of the case

Robbery or dacoity is an offence under Section 397 of the IPC where in at the time of
committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt
to any person, so attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment
with which such offender shall be punished shall not be less than seven years.

9
In Shyam Behari vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1957 SC 320, death sentence was
passed by the Trial Court was confirmed by the Supreme Court in its appeal Petition.

Accordingly, in this case the two blind persons who robbed the bank killed one person are
liable for punishment under Section 397 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

20. An experienced driver was driving a bus consisting of 200 people going to
marriage. During the night all the passengers in the bus were sleeping and all of
a sudden, the bus hit a big tree on the road side. 20 people died among whom 4
were children and two aged people. Whether driver is liable? Discuss.

Ans:

Facts of the Case

During the night a bus consisting of 200 people going to marriage, all the passengers were
sleeping and all of a sudden, the bus hit a big tree on the road side. 20 people died among
whom 4 were children and two aged people.

Issues of the case

Whether driver is liable?

Solution

Section 304A deals with ‘death’ caused by a ‘rash’ or ‘negligent act. In this instant case the
Driver drove the Bus negligently with result the bus hit a big tree on the road side leading to
an accident and 20 people died among whom 4 were children and two aged people. Hence the
Bus Driver is liable for punishment under Section 304A of the IPC for his negligent driving.

Aug/Sept 2016

21. A judicial officer, based upon evidence awarded death sentence to an

innocent person. Whether the judicial officer is punishable or not?

Ans: No, the judicial officer, based upon evidence awarded death sentence. He acted
judicially. The judicial officer is protected under Section 77 of the IPC read with provisions
of the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850.

22. A set fire to a house at night to commit Robbery. Unfortunately, one person
died due to the fire. Now decide whether A is liable for the death of the person
or Robbery.

Ans:

Facts of the Case

A set fire to a house at night to commit Robbery. Unfortunately, one person died due to the
fire.

Issues of the case

Voluntarily causing hurt in committing Robbery is an offence under Section 394 of the IPC,
and states that if any person, in committing or in attempting to commit robbery, voluntarily

10
causes hurt, such person, and any other person jointly concerned in committing or attempting
to commit such robbery, shall be punished with imprisonment for life or with rigorous
imprisonment for a term extend to Ten years and shall also liable for fine.
Accordingly, the accused is liable for punishment under Section 394 of the IPC for setting
fire leading to one person death including Robbery.

23. A instigated to commit murder of C, but B ignores. A committed the murder

of C through some X. Now decide whether B punishable or not.

Ans:

Facts of the Case

A instigated to commit murder of C, but B ignores. A committed the murder of C through

some X.

Solution:

No, B has not committed any offence though A instigated to commit murder of C and no way
he is responsible for murder of C.

24. A Police Officer fires at a mob by the order of his superior as a result a
person died. Whether the Police Officer is punishable for murder?

Ans:

Facts of the Case

A Police Officer fires at a mob by the order of his superior as a result a person died.

Solution:

Section 76 of IPC provides for an act done by a person bound or by mistake of fact believing
himself bound by law. The provision states that nothing is an offence which is done by a person
who is, or who by reason of a mistake of fact and not by the reason of a mistake of law in
good faith, believed himself to be, bound of law to do it.

Further, section 79 of the code states that nothing is an offence which is done by any person
who is justified by law, or 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 the law in doing it.

Applying the provisions in the present case, it is clear that the Police Officer has acted on
the order of his superior authority under the commands of the law, Hence, his actions are
justified by law and bound by law under sections 76 and 79 of IPC. Hence, he has committed
no offence.

In R v. Smith, (1900) 17 SCR 561, where a soldier in obedience to order by his superior
shot dead a Boer civilian. He was acquitted of murder, although his command was unlawful.
The court observed that the soldier honestly believed he is doing his duty by obeying the
commands of his superior, and if the orders are not so manifestly illegal that he must or ought

11
to have known they are unlawful, the private soldier would be protected by the orders of his
superior officer.

It must be noted that only obedience to the legal orders of a superior is justifiable
under section 76 and not the illegal ones. The law does not recognize the duty of blind
obedience to the commands of a superior unless he believed in good faith that he was bound
to obey that order. Here, the law requires that the soldier should exercise his own judgment.

Aug/Sept 2015

25. Four members with criminal intention entered a house during night time and
looted the house. While going out they injured one person. State what offence it
amounts to?

Ans:

Facts of the case:

Four members with criminal intention entered a house during night time and looted the house.
While going out they injured one person.

Solution:

As per Section 390 of the IPC, a robbery when in order to commit theft, the offender
voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death, subject him to wrongful
restraint, cause hurt or induce fear of instant death, instant wrongful restraint or cause
instant hurt. Hence, in this instant case the Four members have committed the offence of
Robbery as contemplated in Section 390 of the IPC and liable for punishment under Section
392 read with section 325 of the IPC for rigorous imprisonment of term extending Ten years
including fine.

26. Aruna was a student of B.A. Final year. She was found dead in her room
in the hostel. There were neither blood stains nor any thing relating to the crime.
Her father wants to file criminal case. Advice.

Ans:

Facts of the case

Aruna was a student of B.A. Final year. She was found dead in her room in the hostel. There
were neither blood stains nor any thing relating to the crime. Her father wants to file criminal
case.

Solution:

There were no signs on the dead body of Aruna either blood stains nor any thing relating to
the crime. Hence, as a suspicious death her father can file a case for post-mortem for
registering FIR under Section 154 of the CR PC. If any clues reveal with post-mortem report,
then only the State will initiate a Criminal case.

12
 27. Sumitra got married 10 years back. She was found dead by hanging from
to a fan when police conducted investigation, they found that bodily injuries were
present upon the dead body. What offence it amounts to? Under which section
the case has to be registered and what is the punishment?

Ans:

Facts of the case

Sumitra got married 10 years back. She was found dead by hanging from to a fan when police
conducted investigation, they found that bodily injuries were present upon the dead body.

Solution

In this case Sumitra was found dead by hanging to a fan and during investigation it was
revealed that the dead body is having several injuries and hence, the death may be caused
subject to cruelty and may be hanged safter her death or she might have committed suicide
due to cruelty of the family members. The said offence is dealt under Section 498A of the
IPC. As such there is no suicidal note, it may be presumed that the suicide note might have
been destroyed, if it was a suicidal death. Therefore, the family members may be prosecuted
under sections 498A and 204 of the IPC.

28. Anitha was pregnant, when the husband and in laws came to know that a
girl child is growing in the womb. They forcibly killed the child against the will of
the mother. What offence it amounts to and what will be the punishment and who
are the culprits?

Ans:

Facts of the Case:

Anitha was pregnant, when the husband and in laws came to know that a girl child is growing
in the womb. They forcibly killed the child against the will of the mother.

Solution:

Loss of pregnancy (miscarriage) can be physically and emotionally draining experience for a
woman, especially when it happened because of certain individual/s. In such situations, the
affected woman may want to file a case against those individual/s who were responsible for
her miscarriage. Causing miscarriage of a pregnant woman is a crime under the Indian Penal
Code (IPC). Sections 312 to 314 of the IPC deal with this crime.

If the miscarriage was caused without the consent of the pregnant woman, then only the
person causing the miscarriage is punishable under section 313 of the IPC and punishment
shall be Imprisonment for life OR Imprisonment which may extend to ten years and fine.

Hence, Anitha’s husband and in-laws are liable for punishment under Section 313 of the IPC
with a punishment of Imprisonment for life OR Imprisonment which may extend to ten years
and fine.

13
 May/June 2014

29. There were twenty one injuries on the body of Mr. Sham, the deceased.
Under which category offence is committed and what is punishment for the accused
and which court is having the power to punish such offender.

Ans:

Facts of the case:

There were twenty one injuries on the body of Mr. Sham, the deceased.

Solution:

twenty one injuries on the body of the deceased, hence the accused has committed grievous
hurt which may endanger the life of victim. With the result of Twenty four injuries of grievous
the victim died. It clearly established the criminal intention of the accused for eliminating
the victim. Hence, the accused is liable for punishment under section 300,302 read with 326
of the IPC.

30. X was raped by four unknown persons in a train. What is the punishment
for such offence, whether it falls under rarest of the rare case? Discuss.

Ans:

Facts of the case:

X was raped by four unknown persons in a train.

Issues involved in this case:

Section 376D of IPC deals with gang rape. It states that “When a woman is raped by one or
more persons which constituting a group or acting in furtherance of a common intention, each
of those persons shall be deemed to have committed the rape and shall be sentenced with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which must not be less than 20 years, but which may extend
to life which shall mean imprisonment for the remainder of the natural life of the person, and
with fine.

Mohan Lal & Anr Vs. State of Punjab (2013)12SCC519: A group of teachers including the
Director of Education of Punjab State had forcibly raped a student. The trial court sentenced
the imprisonment of ten years on the accused and a fine was also imposed, default of such
fine will make them go under further rigorous imprisonment for a duration of one year and six
months respectively.

The Supreme Court had responded to the accused’s appeal by stating that, this was a case of
gang rape by the teachers of their student girl and the trial court’s punishment of ten years
of rigorous imprisonment can easily be converted to a punishment of life imprisonment for all
the accused individuals.

14
Present Case
In this case on similar grounds of Mohan Lal & Anr Vs. State of Punjab, the accusers are
liable for punishment for punishment under the provisions of Section 376 read with
Section376 D as upheld by the Supreme Court.

31. Mr. Singh committed suicide by shooting himself with a gun. The dead body
was cremated the next day without informing to the police. What offence is
committed by the family members and what is the punishment.

Ans:

Facts of the case:

Mr. Singh committed suicide by shooting himself with a gun. The dead body was cremated the
next day without informing to the police.

Solution:

As Mr. Singh committed suicide by shooting himself with a gun, as per law the matter has to
be informed to the Police for registering FIR and for conducting investigation and post-
mortem. Without following the legal obligations cremation of dead body is a crime under
Section 188 of the IPC and such punishment may be with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to one thousand
rupees, or with both.

Aug/Sept 2014

32. A buys milk knowing it to be mixed with water in order to prosecute the
seller. What offence is committed by the seller?

Ans:

Facts of the Case:

A buys milk knowing it to be mixed with water in order to prosecute the seller.

Solution:

According to section 272 of Indian penal code, whoever adulterates any article of food or
drink, so as to make such article noxious as food or drink, intending to sell such article as food
or drink, or knowing it to be likely that the same will be sold as food or drink, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with
fine which may extend to one thousand rupees, or with both.

In this instant case Milk seller is liable for punishment under Section 272 of the IPC.

33. A beat B, who become unconscious. A thinking B to be dead, put the dead
body in a bag and threw it in the river in a bid to destroy the evidence. The dead
body was discovered and the medical examination revealed that B had died on
drowning. Explain the liability of A.

15
Ans:

Facts of the Case:

A beat B, who become unconscious. A thinking B to be dead, put the dead body in a bag and
threw it in the river in a bid to destroy the evidence. The dead body was discovered and the
medical examination revealed that B had died on drowning.

Solution:
A has committed the offence of causing grievous hurt punishable under Section 325 of
IPC and for tampering of evidence he put the dead body in a bag and threw it in the river in
a bid to destroy the evidence. The dead body was discovered and the medical examination
revealed that B had died on drowning. The accused, if left the B, he might of come out from
the unconscious or some one might help him for recovering, instead the accused put him in a
bag and threw in the River, resulting death of B by drowning, hence A is liable for punishment
under Section 300, 302 read with Section 325 of the IPC.

34. A had sexual intercourse with B’s wife. Explain what action can B take
against A?

Ans:

Facts of the case:

A had sexual intercourse with B’s wife.

Solution:

Section 497 IPC criminalised adultery by imposing culpability on a man who engages in sexual
intercourse with another person’s wife. Adultery was punishable with a maximum imprisonment
of five years. Women, including consenting parties, were exempted from prosecution.

Hence A is liable for punishment under Section 497 of the IPC.

Aug/Sept 2013

35. Two boys, under the age of 12 years, broke open the lock of a shop and
stolen articles. Discuss the liability of the boys.

Ans:

Facts of the case:

Two boys, under the age of 12 years, broke open the lock of a shop and stolen articles.

Solution:

Section 82 and section 83 of the Indian Penal Code provides immunity from criminal liability
to children up to 12 years of age. It is divided into two further classes on the basis of the
age factor. That is one group of children below 7 years. This group gets a complete defence
from criminal liability. Whereas, the second age group of 7-12 years of age. The immunity
provided to these age groups of society depends on mental capacity. The maturity of

16
understanding during the commission of the crime as an important aspect. Because Mens rea
can’t be completed without actual knowledge by the person committing it.

Section 82: It defined it as Act of a child under seven years of age: Nothing is an offence
which is done by a child under seven years of age.

Section 83: Act of a child above seven and under twelve of immature understanding: Nothing
is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and under twelve, who has not
attained sufficient maturity of understanding to judge of the nature and consequences of his
conduct on that occasion.

When a child is above 7 and below 12, the liability is totally dependent on the maturity of the
child. It does not depend on age, but rather the mental capacity. For example; the crime by a
minor of 11 years of age with no understanding of the nature of his actions can be free from
the liability. But a child of 8 years who has enough maturity and understanding of the after-
effects, can be held liable. The maturity or understanding of the child can be concluded from
the circumstances and it varies from crime to crime. As every crime is different and has
different methodologies.

In this instant case the Boys broke open the lock of a shop and stolen articles and hence
clearly establishes their maturity and understanding of the crime. Hence the boys are liable
for their offence.

36. A, a lunatic committed murder of B during lucid intervals as already there

was rivalry between them. Decide the liability of A.

Ans:

Facts of the Case:

A, a lunatic committed murder of B during lucid intervals as already there was rivalry between
them.

Solution:

A, a lunatic intentionally murdered B during lucid intervals having personal rivalry with B.
Therefore, it is established that A had a Criminal intention of murdering B, hence A is liable
for murdering B

37. X, a surgeon knowing that particular operation is likely to cause the death
of Z, who suffers with disease. With good faith X attempted operation to Z with
the consent of Z. Z dies, whether X has committed any offence?

Ans:

Facts of the Case:

X, a surgeon knowing that particular operation is likely to cause the death of Z, who suffers
with disease. With good faith X attempted operation to Z with the consent of Z. Z dies.

17
Solution:

X, a surgeon, knowing that a particular operation is likely to cause the death of Z, who suffers
with a disease, but not intending to cause Z’s death and intending in good faith, Z’s benefit
performs that operation on Z, with Z’s consent. A has committed no offence.

38. X and Y wife and husband. X, by bad influence of Z, committed adultery

and forced Z to kill Y in order to avoid from their way. What is the liability of
X?

Ans:

Facts of the case:

X and Y wife and husband. X, by bad influence of Z, committed adultery and forced Z to kill
Y in order to avoid from their way.

Solution:

The wife X had adultery relationship with Z and forced Z to kill her husband Y in order to
avoid from their way.

In this instant case the X has committed Adultery and instigated Z to Kill Y. Hence, X is
liable under Section 497, 300 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code for Adultery, instigating
murder and charge of murder.

18