The term Crime is derived from Latin word crimen meaning offence and also wrong-doer.

In ordinary language, the term crime denotes an unlawful act punishable by a State. The term crime does not, in modern Criminal Law, have any simple and universally accepted definition, though statutory definitions have been provided for certain purposes.

A Public wrong is a 'Crime'. It is an injury to the State even though the victim of the crime is an individual. Acts of crime are considered anti-social. Hence the States takes the responsibility of punishing the criminal in the interest of state.

Sir William Blackstone in his 'Commentaries on Law of England', Sir William Blackstone defined Crime as "an act committed or omitted in violation of Public Law forbidding or commanding it".

Sir James Stephen"Crime is an act forbidden by law and revolting to the moral sentiments of the society".

Kenny"Crimes are wrongs whose sanction is punitive and in no way remissible by an private person, but is remissble by the Crown alone, if remissible at all"

The following elements are to be satisfied to constitute an act as a crime.

Human Being Mens rea Actus reus Injury Human Being

The first essential element of a Crime is that it must be committed by a human being. In case, the crime is committed by an animal, its owner is subject to Civil/Tortious liability.

2. mens reaA crime is done with a criminal intent.

3. actus reusThere should be an external act. The Act and the mens rea should be concurrent and related.

4. InjuryThere should be some injury or the act should be prohibited under the existing law. The act should carry some kind of punishment.

To be classified as a crime, the act of doing something bad Actus Reus must be usually accompanied by the intention to do something bad Mens rea with certain exceptions Strict Liability

"Culpable homicide" is an offence under §299 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC), defined as "Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide."

"Culpable homicide not amounting to murder" is an offence under §304 of the Indian Penal Code. It applies to an event where the death is intentional but does not come within the IPC definition of "murder". Accused charged with culpable homicide will not get bail. It is non-bailable.

I. Culpable homicide amounting to murder.

II.Culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Culpable homicide is the Genus, and murder is the Species

It is to be noted here that culpable homicide not amounting to murder is not defined separately in IPC, it is defined as part of Murder in the section 300 of IPC.

Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder, if the act by which the death is caused

is done with the intention of causing death, or- -If it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury

as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused.

If it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death,

If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

Exception 1 to 5 of s300 of IPC defines conditions when culpable Homicide is not amounting to murder:

I. Provocation. II. Right of private defense. III. Public servant exceeding his power. IV. Sudden fight. V. Consent.

The provocation is not sought or voluntarily provoked by the offender as an excuse for killing or doing harm to any person.

The provocation is not given by anything done in obedience to the law, or by a public servant in the lawful exercise of the powers of such public servant.

3. The provocation is not given by anything done in the lawful exercise of the right of private defense.

Culpable homicide is not amounting to murder if the offender, in the exercise in good faith of the right of private defense of person or property, exceeds the power given to him by law and causes the death of the person against whom he is exercising such right of defense without premeditation, and without any intention of doing more harm than is necessary for the purpose of such defense.

Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, being a public servant, or aiding a public servant acting for the advancement of public justice exceeds the powers given to him by law, and caused death by doing an act which he , in good faith, believes to be lawful and necessary for the due discharge of this duty as such public servant and without ill will towards the person whose deaths is caused.

 Culpable homicide is not amounting to murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

Explanation- it is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault.

 culpable homicide is not amounting to murder when the murder whose death is caused, being above the age of 18 years, suffers death or take the risk of death with his own consent.

There are Four stages in commission of a Crime.

Intention Preparation Attempt/Implementation Commission/Accomplishment

1. Intention to Commit a CrimeThis is the first stage in commission of a crime. Intention to commit a crime is not punishable unless it is made known to others either by words or conduct.Eg: Waging a War against the Government is punishable. In this case, mere intention to commit is punishable. Similarly, mere assembly of persons to commit a dacoity is punishable even though there is no preparation to it.

2. PreparationIt is difficult for the prosecution to prove that necessary preparation has been made for the commission of the offence. Eg: In case a person purchases a pistol and loads it with bullets, it is not possible to prove that the person is carrying the pistol to kill some other person.

In the Indian Law, Mere Preparation to commit an offense is punishable in the following offenses.

Waging War Preparation to commit a dacoity Preparation for counterfeiting coins and

Government stamps Possessing counterfeit coins, false weight

or measurement and forged documents

3. AttemptIt is also known as the 'Preliminary Crime'.Section XXIII of the IPC, 1860 deals with 'of Attempt to Commit Offences' and provides the punishment for attempt.

Essentials of Attempt Guilty intention to commit an offence Some act done towards committing the

offence The act must fall short of the

completed offence

Completed offences and attempts have been dealt in the same Section and same punishment is prescribed. Eg: Waging War and Attempting to Wage War (Sec. 121)

In certain cases, punishments for attempt to offences and completed offences are dealt separately. Eg: Punishment for murder is dealt in Section 302, while attempt to murder is dealt in Sec. 307.

In other cases, of attempt, are covered under Section 511 which prescribes the longest term of imprisonment or with fine or both.

4. AccompolishmentThis is the last stage in the commission of a crime. The accused is guilty of the offence only if he succeeds in his act. Otherwise, he is guilty of attempt only.

There are Five theories of punishments. Deterrent Theory Retributive Theory Preventive Theory Reformative Theory Expiatory Theory

1. Deterrent Theory'Deter' means to abstain from doing at act. The main objective of this theory is to deter (prevent) crimes. It serves a warning to the offender not to repeat the crime in the future and also to other evil-minded persons in the society. This theory is a workable one even though it has a few defects.

2.Retributive TheoryRetribute means to give in return. The objective of the theory is to make the offender realise the suffering or the pain. In the Mohammedan Criminal Law, this type of punishment is called 'QISAS' or 'KISA'. Majority or Jurists, Criminologists, Penologists and Sociologists do not support this theory as they feel it is brutal and barbaric.

3. Preventive TheoryThe idea behind this theory is to keep the offender away from the society. The offenders are punished with death, imprisonment of life, transportation of life etc. Some Jurists criticize this theory as it may be done by reforming the behavior of criminals.

4. Reformative TheoryThe objective is to reform the behavior of the criminals. The idea behind this theory is that no one is born as a Criminal. The criminal is a product of the social, economic and environmental conditions. It is believed that if the criminals are educated and trained, they can be made competant to behave well in the society. The Reformative theory is proved to be successful in cases of young offenders.

5. Expiatory TheoryJurists who support this theory believes that if the offender expiates or repents, he must be forgiven.

The Indian Penal Code is a combination or compromise between the underlying principles of all these theories.

There are Five theories of punishments. Deterrent Theory Retributive Theory Preventive Theory Reformative Theory Expiatory Theory

1. Deterrent Theory'Deter' means to abstain from doing at act. The main objective of this theory is to deter (prevent) crimes. It serves a warning to the offender not to repeat the crime in the future and also to other evil-minded persons in the society. This theory is a workable one even though it has a few defects.

2.Retributive TheoryRetribute means to give in return. The objective of the theory is to make the offender realise the suffering or the pain. In the Mohammedan Criminal Law, this type of punishment is called 'QISAS' or 'KISA'. Majority or Jurists, Criminologists, Penologists and Sociologists do not support this theory as they feel it is brutal and barbaric.

3. Preventive TheoryThe idea behind this theory is to keep the offender away from the society. The offenders are punished with death, imprisonment of life, transportation of life etc. Some Jurists criticize this theory as it may be done by reforming the behavior of criminals.

4. Reformative TheoryThe objective is to reform the behavior of the criminals. The idea behind this theory is that no one is born as a Criminal. The criminal is a product of the social, economic and environmental conditions. It is believed that if the criminals are educated and trained, they can be made competant to behave well in the society. The Reformative theory is proved to be successful in cases of young offenders.

5. Expiatory TheoryJurists who support this theory believes that if the offender expiates or repents, he must be forgiven.

The Indian Penal Code is a combination or compromise between the underlying principles of all these theories.

Bentham has said that fear of law can never restrain bad men as much as the fear of individual resistance and if you take away this right then you become accomplice of all bad men.It is said that the law of self defence is not written but is born with us.

IPC incorporates this principle in section 96, which says,

Section 96 - Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

It makes the acts, which are otherwise criminal, justifiable if they are done while exercising the right of private defence. Normally, it is the accused who takes the plea of self defence but the court is also bound take cognizance of the fact that the accused aced in self defence if such evidence exists.

Section 97 - Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend –

first - his own body or body of any other person against any offence affecting the human body.

second -  the property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the definition of theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.

Under English law, the right to defend the person and property against unlawful aggression was limited to the person himself or kindred relations or to those having community of interest e.g. parent and child, husband and wife, landlord and tenant, etc.

However, this section allows this right to defend an unrelated person's body or property as well.

Thus, it is apt to call it as right to private defence instead of right to self defence.

It is important to note that the right exists only against an act that is an offence. There is no right to defend against something that is not an offence.

For example, a policeman has the right to handcuff a person on his belief that the person is a thief and so his act of handcuffing is not an offence and thus the person does not have any right under this section.

As with any right, the right to private defence is not an absolute right and is neither unlimited. It is limited by the following restrictions imposed by section 99 -

Section 99 - There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law.

There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law.   

There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to the protection of the public authorities.

Extent to which the right may be exercised - The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm that it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.

Explanation 1 - A person is not deprived of his right of private defence against an act done or attempted to be done by a public servant, as such, unless he knows or has reason to believe that the person doing the act is such public servant.  

  Explanation 2 - A person is not deprived of his right of private defence against an act done or attempted to be done by the direction of a public servant, unless he knows or has reason to believe that the person doing the act is acting by such direction, or unless such person states the authority under which he acts or if he has authority in writing, unless he produces such authority if demanded.

There are two types of Kidnapping: Kidnapping from India Kidnapping from lawful guardianship

Kidnapping from India - Kidnapping from India means taking anybody, without his consent, out of the borders of India. Section 360 defines it as follows -

Section 360 - Whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of India without the consent of that person or of some person legally authorized to consent on behalf of that person, is said to kidnanap that person from India.

For example, if A takes B without his consent or without B's lawful guardians consent to Pakistan, A would be committing this offence. The essential ingredient of Kidnapping are -

The person should be conveyed out of the borders of India.

The person should be conveyed without his consent or without the consent of the person who is legally authorized to consent on his behalf.  

Thus, if a person is not capable of giving valid consent as in the case of a minor or a person with unsound mind, the consent of his lawful guardian is required to take him outside India.

Kidnapping from Lawful guardianship - Kidnapping from lawful guardianship means taking a child away from his lawful guardian without the guardian's consent.  Section 361 defines it as follows -

Section 361 - Whoever takes or entices any minor under 16 yrs of age if male or 18 yrs of age if female, or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian, is said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.

Explanation - The words lawful guardian in this section include any person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person.

Exception - This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself to be the father of an illegitimate child or who in good faith believes himself to be entitled to the lawful custody of such child, unless such act is committed for an immoral or unlawful purpose.

Based on this section the essential ingredients are -

The person should either be a minor or a person of unsound mind - This implies that the person is not capable of giving consent.

In case of male child the age is 16 yrs while in case of a female child the age is 18 yrs. For a person on unsound mind, age is immaterial.

.

Such person be taken or enticed away - This means that either force is used or any enticement that causes the person to leave domain of the lawful guardian is used. For example, if A shows toffee to a child C thereby causing the child to come out of the house and follow A, it fall under this category

Such person must be taken or enticed away from the lawful guardian -  Only when the child is under the lawful guardian, can he be kidnapped. This means that the child should be under the domain of the lawful guardian. For example, an orphan wandering on the streets cannot be kidnapped because he doesn't have a lawful guardian. However, this does not mean that a child must be with the lawful guardian.

However, this does not mean that a child must be with the lawful guardian.

a child siting in a school is also under the dominion of his father and if A takes such a child away, it would be kidnapping

A legal guardian may entrust the custody of his child to someone else. Taking a child away from such custody will also fall under this section.

For example, A entrusts his child to B, his servant, to take the child to school. If, C takes the child away from the servant, this would be kidnapping because the servant has the lawful guardianship of the child.

Section 362 of IPC defines Abduction as follows –

Section 362 -  Whoever by force compels, or by any deceitful means induces, any person to go from any place is said to abduct that person.

It means compelling a person, or to induce him to go from where he is to another place.  The essential ingredients are -

A person goes from one place to another -   Either by forcible compulsion or by

inducement - Here, the age of the abducted person is immaterial.

Thus, even a major can be abducted if he is forced to go from one location. But if a minor is abducted, it may amount to Kidnapping as well. Further, it is a continuing offence. As long as a person is forced to go from place to place, abduction continues.

A person goes from one place to another -  A person cannot be abducted at the same place where he is. For abduction to take place, the person should physically move from one place to another.

Either by forcible compulsion or by inducement - The movement of the person must be because of some compulsion or because of some inducement. For example, A threatens B on gun point to go from his house to another city. Here, A has compelled B to go from his house and is thus guilty under this section.

Kidnapping from lawful guardian (Section 361) and Abduction (Section 362)

A person is taken away from the lawful guardian in Kidnapping While in Abduction, a person is compelled by force or induced by deception to go from any place.

The person must be less than 16 yrs of age if male, less than 18 if  female, or of unsound mind in Kidnapping While in Abduction, Age of the person is immaterial.

Kidnapping is not a continuing offence While Abduction is a continuing offence.

Consent of the person kidnapped is immaterial in Kidnapping While in Abduction, Person moves without his consent or the consent is obtained by decietful means.

Kidnapping can be done without use of force or deception, while in Abduction, is always done by the use of force or deception.

Definition of Theft :-

 The offence of Theft has been defined by Section 378 of IPC . According to this Section , whoever , intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent , moves that property in order to such taking , is said to commit theft.

a) Subject matter should be a movable property,i.e., corporal property except land and things attached to the earth ;

b) The subject matter should be moved out of the possession of any person. So the person in possession need not be owner of the property ;

c) This moving out of the subject matter should be without the consent of the person in possession of it. And so the moving out may be permanent or temporary in nature and

d) Such taking out of the property should be with dishonest intention and not in good faith.

The offence of extortion is defined by Section 383 of IPC .

According to Section 383 , whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to the 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.

a) The offender must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person .

The term Injury according to Section 44 is any harm whatever illegally caused to any person in body , reputation , or  property. It is not necessary that the injury should be only in body

b) The putting of a person in such fear must be intentional ;

c) The offender must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person

i) any property , ii) valuable security or iii) anything signed or sealed which may be

converted into valuable security . So fear must precede the delivery of property; and

d) Such inducement must be done dishonestly ,i.e., to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss.

a) The element of dishonest intention to obtain property exists in both the two offences.

b) In Theft the offender takes out the property without consent of the possessor. On the other hand , in extortion the offender obtains the consent by putting the person in possession of the property or to any other in fear of injury.

c)  In Theft , the subject matter is always movable property . But in extortion the subject matter may be movable or immovable property,

d) The element of delivery of property does not exist in Theft . But in Extortion it exists.

e) In Theft the element of applying force or fear is absent . Whereas , in Extortion , the offence is committed by overpowering the will of the possessor to induce him to deliver the property.

Definition of Robbery?

Section 390 of the Indian Penal Code defines robbery . According to this section robbery is the aggravated form of either theft or extortion because in all robbery there is either theft or extortion.

The offence of theft becomes robbery  if , in order to the committing of the theft , or while committing the theft , or in carrying away or attempting to carry away the property obtained by  theft , the offender , for that end ,voluntarily causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint , or fear of instant death or of instant hurt , or of instant wrongful restraint .

The offence of extortion becomes robbery  if , the offender , at the time of committing the extortion , is in the presence of the person put in fear , and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death or of instant hurt , or of instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person , and , by so putting in fear, induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing so extorted

i) Offender committed theft as defined in section 378 in the process ;

ii) Offender caused or attempted to cause to some persons --

a) fear of death , or hurt or wrongful restraint ,

b) fear of instant death , or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful restraint ,

iii) Offender did such act either ---- a)in order to the committing of the

theft , or b) while committing the theft , or c) in carrying away or attempting

to carry away the property.

DEFINITION Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code

provides that when five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery , or where the whole number of persons conjointly committing or attempting to commit a robbery , and persons present and aiding such commission  or attempt , amount to five or more , every person so committing , attempting or aiding , is said to commit the offence of dacoity.

In what circumstances robbery amounts to dacoity?

The offence of robbery takes the character of dacoity when it is committed conjointly by five or more persons . The words conjointly refers to united or concerted action of the persons participating in the transaction .

1) The offenders were five or more in number who committed or attemped or aided to commit robbery ;

  2) All such persons were acting

conjointly .

i) Accused persons were five or more in number who committed the dacoity ;

ii) They were acting conjointly ; iii) Any one or more of them

committed murder iv) And such murder was

committed in course of dacoity .

Section 396 speaks about joint liability of the offenders conjointly committing a dacoity and for the act of murder committed by any one or more of them. To come within the purview of this section , the murder must be committed in course of dacoity or while committing dacoity .

Where murder is committed in attempting to escape without carrying away the stolen property , it does not come within the scope of this section but if the murder is committed while carrying away the stolen property , it falls within the purview of this section . So carrying away the stolen property is must for this section to prove that the murder was committed in course of dacoity .