Strict liability is the general rule that mensrea apply to all public offcences that

apply to public subjects.

Independently altogether of any wrongful state of mind of culpable homicide.
Such offences are termed under strict liability or culpable liability.
Three categories
1-those acts that are not criminal in any real sense, but are of a quasi criminal
nature and are prohibited in public interest under a penaulty. This category includes
cases of public welfare offences for instance social and economic offences, offences
relating to food and drugs, weights and measures, licensing, traffic violation,
violations of motor vehicle laws.
Joint liability
THE essence of joint liability under sec 34 ipc lie in the existence of common
intension ,an overt act indicative of common intention to do a criminal act in
furtherance of common intention of all of them the word common intention implies
a prior concert , ie. A prior meeting of the minds and participation of all the
members of the group in the execution of that plan. All participants are jointly liable
for the offence commited by any one or all the members of the ,this is based on the
contention that the presence of the accomplish gives encouragement protection
and supportto the person actually engage to the commission of the act. The
doctrine of group liability is justified on the common sense principle that a two or
more person do an act co jointly ,it is just the same as if each of them had done it
individually. Since the purpose is common the responsibility is joint the man who
actually strikes is no more liable than a man ready to place a knife in the hand of
assailant for the purpose.
The provision related to joint liability also called constructive liability have been
dealt with in the ipc in various sections. These provisions can be classified into 3
categories:
1. whether offence is committed with the common intention of the group(sec 34 to
38)
2. whether accused is the member of the conspiracy to commit an offence (120A,
120B)
3. whether the offence is committed with an common object of a unlawful assembly.
Ipc- 34-38, 120A, 149, 460, 396

23-02-15

Which participants may be liable for punishment. Section 34 imposes liability on the
basis of participation of the members in the execution of common intention of the
group.
Section 149 is stressed on the membership of an unlawful assembly
In section 34 the element of participation is the leading feature and in sec 149
membership of the assembly at the time of commission of the offence.
Scope is limited to those acts only which are committed in furtherance of common
intention of the group.
Sec 149 renders every member of an unlawful assembly liable for not only those
acts for which there had been but also for those. There is a difference between
scope and object of the intention used in the action, the former requires much more
delebration than later, a common intention pre supposes prior concert and meeting
of mind whereas a common object may form without that, lastly sec 34 can be
invoked even if two persons are involve in the crime whereas sec 149 postulates an
existence of an unlawful assembly which can be formed only if the members of the
group are 5 or more in no.
24-02-15
Offence are committed either by premeditation or by spur of the moment. It is in
connection with the form of that it is necessary to consider the difference stages of
actual commission of the offence. The first stage is the stage of contemplation or
intention of the commission of the offence.
Law does not take notice of a mere thought of a person, but law does take notice of
an intention followed by some overt act of expression.
25-02-15
Section 107 ipc abetment
26-02-15
INVOLVED IN SUCH PREPATORY ACT inorder to prevent crimes from being
committed.
This is based on the contention that prevention is better than cure. For example if A
instigates B to murder C, A is held guilty of abetting B to commit murder and is
punished accordingly, even if B refuses to act on As instigation.
03.03.15
SECTION 108M DEFINES ABETTOR AS a person who abets:1. the commission of an offence

2.if committed by person capable of committing and offence in law.

The abettor would either be a instigator or a person
The crucial aspect is that the abetment must be of an offence or an act ehich
amounts to an offence, hence if the act abetted is not an offence then the person
abetting will not be considered as abettor falling within the meaning of section 108
and cannot be held liable for punishment as provided in law.
Abetment of illegal omission is an offence, eg a private person instigates a police
officer to leave the scene of a cognizable offence which is the duty of the police
officer to prevent here the police man is guilty of an illegal omission and a priori
person is guilty of abrtting the police officer in this illegal omission although the
private person was not himself liable to do the act.
Explanation 2Abetted acts need not be committed; effects of abetment is immaterial. In this
category abetment depends upon instigation and not upon the effects it has upon
another. The offence of abetment is complete with the instigation, even though the
act abetted is not committed or a person abetted refuses to do the act or in doing
the act , the expected result did not fall out.egIf A instigates B to defame C. but B refuses to defame C. A is liable a a abettor by
instigating B to defame C. similarly A instigates B to murder D. B in pursuance of
the instigation stabs D. D recovers from the wound. A is guilty of instigating B to
murder D inspite of the fact that the act of B did not produce the desired effect i.e.
the death of D.
Explanation 3
Person abetted need not be capable of committing an offence.
A instigates B, a person of unsound mind to set fire to a dwelling house. B incapable
of knowing the nature of the act or that what he was doing was wrong or contrary to
law, sets fire to the house in consequence of As instigation B has committed no
offence but A is guilty for abetting the offence of setting fire to a dwelling house,
and is liable for punishment.
A with the intention of murdering Z instigates B a child under 7 years of age to do
an act which causes Zs death. B in consequence of the abetment does the act in
absence of a and thereby causes Zs death.
THOUGH B was not capable by law on committing an offence yet A is liable to
punish in the same manner as if B had been capable by law of committing an
offence and had committed murder and therefore it will be subject to punishment of
death.

Explanation 4
Abetment of an abetment is an offence when the principal abetment is an offence.
A instigates B to ask C to murder Z. B accordingly instigates C to murder Z.
B is liable to be punished for the act of abetting C to murder Z with the same
punishment provided for murder and as A instigated B to instigate C to murder Z, A
is also liable to the same punishment.
Explanation 5
Abettor need not concert in abetment by conspiracy.
In a conspiracy it is not necessary that all the conspirators should have to be aware
of all the information related to the offence. Very often conspiracies are hatched in
secrecy and all the persons involved may not be equally trusted with the plans and
under this clause all will be equally liable with the main criminal even though they
are not directly connected to it.
Section 108A- abetment in India of offences committed outside India. This section is
another explanation of broad.
05.03.15
Ingredients of the offence under section 120A-120B
1. there should be an agreement between themselves.
With inclusion of section 120A and 120B in the ipc it now encompasses to cover the
following:1. conspiracy as a substantive ofence (chapter 5A;section 120A&120B)
2. conspiracy as a form of abetment (section107 secondary)
3.conspiracy to wage ,attempt to or abet war against the govt. of india. (chapter vi
section 121A)
4.involvement in specific offences.(chapter xvi: section 310 & 311; chapter xvii
:section 401 & 402)
07.03.15
Inchoate crimes or preliminary crime
Criminal attempt:-

A crime is committed either after premeditation or at the spur of the moment, the
commission of a crime by a person travels through four distinct and successive
stages.
1. the formation of an intention to commit it.
2. the preparation for the commission of the contemplated crime.
3.the attempt to commit it.
4. if the 3rd stage is successful the commission of the intended crime.

Example
1- A killed B with a gun, the act of A in firing at B can be split into 4 stages:i) stage of contemplation and emergence of an evil intention in the mind of the
accused.so the very formation of an evil intent in mind of A to kill B is the first step
in the direction of the commission of the offence of murder.
ii) preparation consists in a ranging or devising means or measures necessary for
the commission of offence. So the act of procuring a gun or pistol or some other
deadly weapon for the purpose of killing would amount to preparation.
iii) the 3rd step is the attempt to commit offence. The word attempt has been
described by Cockburn C.J.
as conveys with it the idea that if the attempt had succeeded the offence charged
would have been committed. A after procuring the loaded gun, aims at B and fires
in order to kill him if B is not killed either because the injuries sustained do not proof
fatal or because A misses the mark or because any other reason beyond his control
A is said to have attempted murder(377). If A succeeds in killing B then he has
committed murder and liable for the same.
09.03.15
Criminal attempt and preparation distinguished:Courts have repeatedly held whether a particular act amounts only to preparation or
whether it actually amounts to an attempt to commit an offence is based on the fact
and circumstances of a each case, various test have been developed and employed
by the courts in india for distinguishing an attempt to commit an offence from
preparation. Tests:1. proximity test
2. doctrine of locus poenitentiae

3.equivocality test
4. impossibility test
5. social danger test
Proximity test- an act of attempt must be sufficiently proximate to the crime
intended it should not be remotely leading towards the commission of an offence.
The act of the accused is proximate if, though it is not the last act that he intended
to do, it is the last act that was legally necessary for him to do, if the contemplated
result is afterwards brought about without further conduct on his part.
Ex- A intended to murder Z, buys a gun and loads it with the intention to kill Z. A
here is not yet guilty to attempt to murder. A fires at Z but misses the mark for want
of skill or due to some defect in the gun. Since the act of A could not bring the
desired affect i.e. death of Z, A could not be held liable for murder.
However A would be liable to attempt to murder because A has done what was
legally necessary for him to do under circumstances. If A did not succeed in killing Z
it was not because of him desisting from the act of killing, but because of something
beyond his control.
Case- state of Maharashtra v Mohammad yakub
2. locus of potenitentiae- means time for repentance.
An act would amount to preparation and not an attempt, if a person voluntarily
gives up the idea of committing a crime before the criminal act is carried out. So
long as the steps taken by the accused leave room for a reasonable on that he
might either on his own or because out of fear of consequences that might befall
him as a result, this is from the act to be attempted, he would be treated on the
stage of preparation.
Ex- A intended to murder Z by poisoning, buys poison and mixes the poison with
food which remains in his keeping. A is not yet guilty of an attempt to murder
because there is still time when better reason might prevail at any moment and A
might change his mind and desist and not give food to Z.
In all establishment and it could include maternity the directive principle contained
under article 42 may be extended to living condition in jail. The maternity benefit
act 1961 which is intended to achieve the object of doing social justice to women
workers false within article 42.
Malkiat singh v state of Punjab air 1970 sc 713

q. what is mensrea and actusrea?

a. definition and additional 3 points.

q. abetment, who is abettor ,how he abets the crime?
a. give reasons and section to support answer.
q. what is conspiracy?
a. definition , sections, illustration
q. what do you mean by construent liability?
q. what are organized crime or cyber crime ?
q. common object and common intention(v.imp)

3. impossibility testAn act which is impossible to commit cannot be attempted and so is not culpable.
Accordingly to shoot at a shadow or to administer sugar mistaking it for arsenic or
to kill a man by witchcraft or shooting at a coat of a man is not attempt in law. In
such cases there is no probability of realizing the accused goal. Moreover the acts in
such cases do not cause alarm or a sense of insecurity in the society. The
impossibility must, however the absolute and not relative so, that this doctrine
would not apply in the case of inadequate dose of arsenic whether victim is saved.
4. social danger testThe seriousness of the crime attempted and the apprehension of the social danger
involved is taken into account to distinguish an act of attempt from that of
preparation.
ex- A gives pills to a pregnant woman to procure abortion but it had no effect
because the drug turned out to be innocuous. A would be guilty of attempt to cause
miscarriage since the act would cause an alarm to society and have social
repercussions. Rigina v shivapuri
5. equivocality test:To constitute an attempt the act must be such as to clearly an unequivocally
indicate the intention to commit the offence. If what is done in the case beyond
reasonable doubt that the end is towards which it is directed it is an offence,
otherwise it is a mere preparation. The act must and it must be evident and clear
on examination, the acts must speak for itself.

IPC has dealt with criminal attempt in 4 different ways:1. the attempt to commit offence in general
2. attempt to commit murder, culpable homicide, robbery, suicide.
3. attempt to commit offence against the state, head of the state, sedition, etc.
121 124A 125 130 131 152 161 162 163 165 196 198 200 203 239 240 241 251
285 387 389
391 397 398 460.(punishable at the attempt stage also although it is not
mentioned).
In such cases in view of the gravity of the nature of the offence, attempt to commit
it as well as the commission of the offence carries the punishment.
Abhyanand mishra v. State of bihar. Malkyat singh v. state of Punjab.

Substantive law prescribes the punishment if the person is being convicted and it
also defines the types of crime and punishment.
17.03.2015
General exception in ipc.
When a person has committed an offence for which he should be punished by law
but if he is exempted from such a punishment under special conditions specified
under that very law is known as general exception.section 76-106 ipc. Burden of
proving the exception is on the accused.
Two broad heads.
1. Excusable exception- insanity and child.
2. Justifiable exception