Expected questions on Indian Penal Code for Judicial Services mains exam!
Q.1. Distinguish between theft and extortion.
[Assam Judicial Service (Grade-III) Main Examination, 2011]
Distinguish extortion from robbery.
[Assam Judicial Service (Grade-III) Written Examination, 2008J
What is extortion? How it differs from theft? Describe with illustration.
[M.P. Judicial Service (Civil Judge) Main Examination, 2015]
Ans. In general, theft is committed when a person’s property is taken without his consent by someone. For example, A enters the house of B and takes B’s watch without B seeing and puts it in his pocket with an intention to take it for himself.
A commits theft. However, besides the ordinary meaning conveyed by the word theft, the scope of theft is quite wide. Section 378 of IPC defines theft as follows-
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.
In extortion, a person takes the property of another by threat without any legal justification. Section 383 defines extortion as follows-
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.
Extortion is committed by wrongful obtaining of consent and inducing the person to deliver the property by putting any person in fear of injury.
The essential ingredients for punishment of extortion are as follows-
(i) Intentionally putting a person in feat of injury to himself or another;
(ii) Dishonestly inducing the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property or valuable security.
For example- A threatens to publish a defamatory libel about B unless B gives him money. A has committed extortion. A threatens B that he will keep B’s child in wrongful confinement, unless B will sign and deliver to A a promissory note binding B to pay certain moneys to A. B signs and delivers such noted. A has committed extortion.
In National Insurance Co. v. Manvendra Singh, on 12 February, 2009 extortion is distinguished from theft in the following manner-
(1) Extortion is committed by the wrongful obtaining of consent. In theft, the offender takes without the owner’s consent.
(2) The property obtained by extortion is not limited as in theft to movable property only. Immovable property may be the subject of extortion.
(3) In extortion, the property is obtained by intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to that person or to any other, and thereby dishonestly inducing him to part with his property. In theft the element of force does not arise.
Gujarat High Court in Gordhanbhai Dhulabhai Damor v. State of Gujarat, (1996) 2 GLR 251 said that robbery is a special and aggravated form of either theft or extortion. The chief distinguishing element in robbery is the presence of imminent fear of violence.
Q.2. A, by putting Z in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces Z to sign or affix his seal to a lank paper and deliver it to A. Z signs and delivers the paper to A. Here, paper so signed may be converted into a valuable security. What offence, if any, has been committed by A? Support your answer with the help of law and reasons.
[Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service (Grade-III) Main Examination, 2014]
Ans. A has committed the offence of extortion defined in section 383 IPC as under:
383. Extortion:
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”.
As mentioned in the question, the paper signed may be converted into a valuable security A has committed the offence of extortion.
In R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay & another, 1986 SCR (2) 621the Supreme Court observed that the main ingredients of the offence of extortion in s. 383 IPC are:
(i) The accused must put any person in fear of injury to that person or any other person;
(ii) The putting of a person in such fear must be intentional;
(iii) The accused must thereby induce the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any property, valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable security; and
(iv) Such inducement must be done dishonestly. Before a person can be said to put any person to fear of any injury to that person, it must appear that he has held out some threat to do or omit to do what he is legally bound to do in future.
If all that a man does is to promise to do a thing which he is not legally bound to do and says that if money is not paid to him he would not do that thing, such act would not amount to an offence of extortion.
Delhi High Court in Tasim & others v. State NCT of Delhi, on 24 March, 2014 held that to constitute extortion, it is not enough that the wrongdoer had done his part; it must produce the result also. If it fails to produce the requisite effect, the act would remain only at the stage of attempt.
Bombay High Court in M/S, GIC Housing Finance Ltd, v, State of Maharashtra, on 12 August, 2015 held that a bare reading of this section would indicate that the offence is committed when somebody intentionally puts any person under 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. Such an act is stated to be extortion.
Q.3. Write short note on Robbery and Dacoity.
[Goa Judicial Service (Junior Division) Examination, 2010]
Under what circumstances theft and extortion become robbery? Explain with illustrations.
[Uttar Pradesh APO Main Examination, 2002]
Ans. Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take something of value by force or threat of force or by putting the victim in fear. At common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear. Robbery is defined in section 390 IPC as under-
390. Robbery:
In all robbery there is either theft or extortion.
When Theft is Robbery:
Theft is “robbery” if, in order to the committing of the theft, or in committing the theft, or in carrying away or attempting to carry away property obtained by the 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.
When Extortion is Robbery:
Extortion is “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, 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 extorted.
Explanation- The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put the other person in fear of instant death, of instant hurt, or of instant wrongful restraint.
In State of Haryana v. Balvinder Singh and another 2003 (4) RCR (Criminal) 645 (P & H) robbery of Rs.3-4 lacs was committed. The description of the accused was not given in the FIR nor did the police collect their description during investigation. The police arrested three accused persons and recovered part of the robbed money. The police could not link the accused with the robbery and they were acquitted.
In State v. Mohd. Asif on 29 October, 2009 the Court said that robbery means a felonious taking from the person of another or in his presence against his will, by violence or putting him in fear. The chief distinguishing element in robbery is the presence of imminent fear of violence.
Sec. 293 IPC mentions that whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine; and, if the robbery be committed on the highway between sunset and sunrise, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen years.
Dacoity involves ‘robbery’ which, in its turn, includes ‘theft’ and ‘extortion’. Sec. 391 IPC runs thus-
391. Dacoity:
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 “dacoity”.
Essential ingredients of Section 391 are:
1. Five or more persons must act in association.
2. Such act must be robbery or attempt to commit robbery.
3. The five persons must consist of those who themselves commit or attempt to commit robbery or those who are present and aid the principal actors in the commission or attempt of such robbery.
In simple terms, dacoity is the aggravated form of Robbery. All the persons should share the common intention of committing robbery. The accused must be shown to have committed robbery or aided in the commission of it and that they must be among the body of persons who extorted money or aided them in extorting money.
In Dhanpat v. State AIR 1960 Pat 582, it was observed that dacoity is perhaps the only offence which the Code has made punishable at four stages. When five or more persons assemble for the purpose of committing a dacoity, each of them is punishable under Section 402 merely on the ground of joining the assembly.
The main difference between robbery and dacoity is number of participants in committing wrong. In an offence of dacoity, there must be five or more persons. Dacoity is most serious and heinous offence than robbery. In dacoity, every member of the gang of dacoity is punished, whether he takes active part or not. If one of members of dacoity commits wrong defined under this section, all the members are held liable for punishment.
Every member of dacoity group need not present at the victim. In a circumstance, where one is watching at the centre, another at door of the house, remain commit terror in the minds of the owner, all the members are liable, including those who do not present at the very spot of offence.
Q.4. What is dacoity? Distinguish between ‘robbery’ and dacoity.
[Tripura Judicial Service (Grade-III) Written Examination, 2010]
Ans. Section 391 of the Indian Penal Code defines Dacoity. It provides that where 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 amounts to five or more, then every such person so committing, attempting or aiding is said commit dacoity.
Dacoity is nothing but robbery committed by five or more persons. The total number of persons involved at whatever level, either as the main persons or the aiders, should be five. They should be involved in either committing, attempting to commit or in aiding the commission of robbery.
The punishment for dacoity has been provided in the section 395 which provides imprisonment for life, or a rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and fine, as punishment for dacoity.
It comes into play only when the prosecution makes out an offence under Section 390 i.e. robbery and the number of assailants reached to the statutory minimum i.e. 5. Dacoity is considered as a very grave and serious crime and hence the Courts have held that in cases of dacoity, deterrent sentence is called for.
So, far as the difference between robbery and dacoity is concerned, it is to emphasize that the offence of dacoity to be completed requires first of all robbery to committed. All cases of dacoity will invariably consist of commission of a robbery.
The differences between the two have enumerated as follows:
1. The number of person required to commit an offence of robbery is one whereas in case of dacoity the requisite number is 5 or more.
2. Robbery is less serious in nature as compared to dacoity, whereas dacoity due to the presence of greater number of offenders is more serious and creates more terror.
3. In case of robbery the abettors are held liable independently, whereas in case of dacoity even the abettors are treated at par with the main perpetrators of the offence and are liable to same punishment.
4. The punishment for the offence of robbery is rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years and fine, whereas the punishment for the dacoity is life imprisonment or rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years and fine.
Thus aforesaid is the difference between the robbery and dacoity. It can be said that dacoity is more aggravated form of robbery.
Q.5. A commits house trespass by making a hole through the wall of Z’s house and putting his hand through the aperture. What is the offence committed by ‘A’?
[West Bengal Judicial (Mains) Examination, 2015]
Ans. A has committed the offence of house-breaking defined in section 445 IPC as: A person is said to commit “house-breaking” who commits house-trespass if he effects his entrance into the house or any part of it in any of the six ways hereinafter de-scribed; or if, being in the house or any part of it for the purpose of committing an offence, or, having committed an offence therein, he quits the house or any part of it in any of such six ways, that is to say—
(First):
If he enters or quits through a passage by himself, or by any abettor of the house-trespass, in order to the committing of the house-trespass.
(Secondly):
If he enters or quits through any passage not intended by any person, other than himself or an abettor of the offence, for human entrance; or through any passage to which he has obtained access by scaling or climbing over any wall or building.
(Thirdly):
If he enters or quits through any passage which he or any abettor of the house-trespass has opened, in order to the committing of the house-trespass by any means by which that passage was not intended by the occupier of the house to be opened.
(Fourthly):
If he enters or quits by opening any lock in order to the committing of the house-trespass, or in order to the quitting of the house after a house-trespass.
(Fifthly):
If he effects his entrance or departure by using criminal force or committing an assault or by threatening any person with assault.
(Sixthly):
If he enters or quits by any passage which he knows to have been fastened against such entrance or departure, and to have been unfastened by himself or by an abettor of the house-trespass.
Explanation- Any out-house or building occupied with a house, and between which and such house there is an immediate internal communication, is part of the house within the meaning of this section.
The question is based on illustration (a) of section 445 IPC.
Q.6. A finds the key of Z’s house door, which Z has lost and commits house trespass by entering Z’s house, having opened the door with that key. What offence, if any, has been committed by A? Give your answer with the help of legal provisions and reasons.
[Himachal Pradesh Judicial Service (Grade-III) Main Examination, 2014]
Ans. A has committed the offence of house-breaking defined in section 445 IPC. Section 445 IPC mentions the methods of seeking entry into a house are-
(1) Through the passage made by the accused himself or his accomplice of the house trespass;
(2) Through any passage not meant for human entrance other than himself or an abettor of the offence;
(3) Through any passage opened by himself or by any of the abettors of the house-trespass; (4) by opening any lock to seek entry into, or exit from, the house;
(5) By using criminal force to seek entry into, or depart from, the house; and
(6) By entering or quitting through any passage fastened against such entrance or exit.
As house-breaking involves house-trespass and house-trespass in its turn involves criminal trespass, the definition of house-breaking will be complete only if the definition of house- trespass and criminal trespass are also set out. The house-trespass and criminal trespass are defined in section 441 and 442 IPC respectively.
In Bijender v. State, on 13 February, 2014 a lady along with her sister went market after locking her house. When she came back her lock on the door was found missing and the door was open. Delhi High Court held that a person is said to commit “house- breaking” if he commits house- trespass by effecting his entrance into the house or any part of it by opening any lock in order to commit house trespass or in order to quit the house after house trespass. The Court justified the decision of lower court regarding house breaking punishable under Section 454 of the Act.
Q.7. Are section 498-A and Section 304-B mutually exclusive? Whether a person charged under section 304-B can be convicted under section 498-A without charge being there?
[Assam Judicial Service (Grade-III) Written Examination, 2006]
For the purpose of section 498A of the Indian Penal Code what does cruelty mean?
[Rajasthan Civil Judge Main Examination, 2013]
Ans. No, both sections are not mutually exclusive. Section 498A IPC deals with husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty and Section 304B IPC deals with dowry death.
Section 498A is as under:
498A. Husband or Relative of Husband of a Woman Subjecting Her to Cruelty:
Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
304B. Dowry Death:
(1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death.
Explanation- For the purposes of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
(2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
Honorable Apex Court in Shanti v. State of Haryana, (1991) 1 SCC371 held that Sections 304-B and 498-A cannot be held to be mutually exclusive. These provisions deal with two distinct offences. It is true that “cruelty” is a common essential to both the Sections and that has to be proved.
The Explanation to Section 498-A gives the meaning of “cruelty”. In Section 304-B there is no such explanation about the meaning of “cruelty” but having regard to the common background to these offences, the meaning of “cruelty or harassment” will be the same as found in the explanation to Section 498-A under which “cruelty” by itself mounts to an offence and is punishable.
Under Section 304-B, it is the “dowry death” that is punishable and such death should have occurred within seven years of the marriage. No such period is mentioned in Section 498-A and the husband or his relative would be liable for subjecting the woman to “cruelty” any time after the marriage.
Further a person charged and acquitted under section 304-B can be convicted under Section 498-A without charge being there, if such a case, is made out. But from the point of view of practice and procedure and to avoid technical defects it is necessary in such cases to frame charges under both the Section and if the case is established they can be convicted under both the Sections but no separate sentence need be awarded under Section 498-A in view of the substantive sentence being awarded for the major offence under Section 304-B.
In Raju Ghosh and others v. State of Assam, Crl. A. No. 320 of 2013 Gauhati High Court ruled that sections 304B and 498A are not mutually exclusive. This provision deals with two distinct offences. Cruelty is a common essential to both the sections and that has to be proved.
[Rajasthan Higher Judicial Service Main Examination, 2015]
Write short note on criminal intimidation.
[Assam Judicial Service (Grade-III) Main Examination, 2012]
Write short note on criminal intimidation.
[Assam Judicial Service (Grade-lII) Main Examination, 2011]
Ans. “Criminal intimidation” is defined in Section 503 IPC. Section 503 contemplates threatening another with any injury to his person, reputation or property or to the person or reputation of any one in whom the person is interested, with an intention to cause alarm to that person or to cause that person to do an act which he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as a means of avoiding the execution of such a threat. Intimidation involves threat with intention to create fear.
The offence involving intimidation can be proved by proving the intention of the accused and it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove that the result was actually attained. Section 503 is as under-
503. Criminal Intimidation:
Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
Explanation- A threat to injure the reputation of any deceased person in whom the person threatened is interested, is within this section. Illustration A, for the purpose of inducing B to desist from prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B’s house. A is guilty of criminal intimidation.
A reading of the definition of “Criminal intimidation” would indicate that there must be an act of threatening to another person, of causing an injury to the person, reputation, or property of the person threatened, or to the person in whom the threatened person is interested and the threat must be with the intent to cause alarm to the person threatened or it must be to do any act which he is not legally bound to do or omit to do an act which he is legally entitled to do.
Punishment for criminal intimidation is provided in section 506 IPC.
Orissa High Court in Ramaji Bisi v. State of Orissa, on 4 May, 2017 said that the offence of “criminal intimidation” requires that there must be an intent to cause alarm by a threat to him of injury to himself. The intent itself might be complete, though it could not be effected.
But, the existence of the intent seems essential to the offence, as also and equally to the attempt to commit the offence.
This section has the following essentials:
1. Threatening a person with any injury-
(i) To his person, reputation or property; or
(ii) To the person, or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested.
2. The threat must be with intent-
(i) To cause alarm to that person, or
(ii) To cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat; or
(iii) To cause that person to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat.
The gist of the offence is the effect which the threat is intended to have upon the mind of the person threatened. Before an offence of “criminal intimidation” can be made out, it must be established that the accused had any intention to cause an alarm to the complainant. Mere threat given by the accused not with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant does not come within the meaning of “criminal intimidation”.
[Kerala Judicial Service (Main) Examination, 2016]
Ans. Section 451 IPC prescribes punishment for offence of House-trespass in order to commit offence punishable with imprisonment. The essential ingredient of the offence of house-trespass under Section 451 is the dominant intention of the accused to be considered on the facts of each case. If the dominant intention was to make the entry peacefully no offence of criminal trespass would be made out.
If any offence is actually committed after entry is made or during its course, though it was not part of the intent, the person committing that offence would be guilty of it. In each case facts will have to be ascertained first and on the basis of those facts the court will have to adjudicate whether the dominant intent was merely to make entry peacefully or to commit some offence. Section 451 is as under-
451. House-Trespass in Order to Commit Offence Punishable with Imprisonment:
Whoever commits house-trespass in order to the committing of any offence punishable with imprisonment, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine; and if the offence intended to be committed is theft, the term of the imprisonment may be extended to seven years.
Section 452 is for house-trespass which has been committed after having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting any person in bear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint. Section 452 is as under-
452. House-Trespass after Preparation for Hurt, Assault or Wrongful Restraint:
Whoever commits house-trespass, having made preparation for causing hurt to any person or for assaulting any person, or for wrongfully restraining any person, or for putting and person in fear of hurt, or of assault, or of wrongful restraint, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
In Pasupuleti Siva Ramakrishna Rao v. State of A.R, on 20 February, 2014 Supreme Court held that there is nothing in Section 452 IPC to suggest that the use to which the house is put makes any difference. It is not the requirement of Section 452 IPC that for a trespass to be an offence the house must be a private place and not an office.
The law protects any house from trespass, vide Section 448 IPC and further protects persons within the house from being assaulted or even put in fear of hurt or wrongful restraint within their own house.
Delhi High Court in State v. Sonu Sharma, on 28 May, 2015 held that to sustain the conviction Under Section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, the following essential ingredients are to be established-
1. The accused should have committed house-trespass;
2. He should have committed it having made preparation for-
(a) Causing hurt to any person or
(b) Assaulting any person or
(c) For wrongfully restraining any person or
(d) For putting any such person in fear of hurt, assault or wrongful restraint.
It is well settled law that before a person could be convicted under Section 452 of Indian Penal Code, it is necessary that the person should have entered into a building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling.
Q.10. A kidnaps B, a minor living with her uncle at Mumbai, while she was away for work on the streets at Mumbai. A then locks her up, threatens her and brings her to Pune, where she had studied. A, then manages to procure false certificate of B’s age showing her a major girl. On the strength of the said certificate A goes through a ceremony of marriage and calls B his wife. Afterwards, it is discovered that A, who is a Hindu, was already married. What offence/s, if any, is/are committed by A?
[Maharashtra ADJ Examination, 2011]
Ans. In this question A is responsible for kidnapping under section 363, causing criminal intimidation under section 506, wrongful confinement under section 340, forgery under section 463 , bigamy under section 494 of IPC.
The relevant sections are as under:
363-Punishment for kidnapping- Whoever kidnaps any person from India or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
When A removed B from lawful guardianship of B’s uncle, committed kidnapping.
When A locked her up, committed wrongful confinement defined in section 340 as:
Whoever wrongfully restrains any person in such a manner as to prevent that person from proceeding beyond certain circumscribing limits, is said “wrongfully to confine” that person.
When A threatens B to bring her Pune, committed criminal intimidation defined in section 503 and punished in section 506 as-
503 – Criminal intimidation- Whoever threatens another with any injury to his person, reputation or property, or to the person or reputation of any one in whom that person is interested, with intent to cause alarm to that person, or to cause that person to do any act which he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do any act which that person is legally entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the execution of such threat, commits criminal intimidation.
506- Punishment for criminal intimidation- Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
In procuring false certificates, A committed forgery defined under section 463 as-
Whoever makes any false document or part of a document with intent to cause damage or injury, to the public or to any person, or to support any claim or title, or to cause any person to part with property, or to enter into any express or implied contract, or with intent to commit fraud or that fraud may be committed, commits forgery.
Next when A goes through a ceremony of marriage and calls B his wife, committed offences provided in sections 493 and 494 as under-
494- Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife- Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Q.11. Discuss the difference between the offence under section 332 and the offence under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code.
[Kerala Judicial Service (Main) Examination, 2016]
Ans. Section 332 IPC deals with the offence which is related with where the accused voluntarily caused hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty. It is not necessary to establish that hurt was voluntarily caused to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as a public servant.
On the other hand, if hurt was voluntarily caused to a public servant, while not discharging his duty as a public servant, it is necessary to prove that hurt was caused with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty.
On the other hand, if hurt was voluntarily caused to a public servant, while he was discharging his official duty as such public servant, it is not necessary to establish further that it was so caused with the intention to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant.
On the other hand, even if hurt was caused voluntarily to a public servant, if he was not discharging his duty as a public servant at that time, it is necessary to prove additionally that hurt was caused to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as a public servant.
Section 332 is as under:
332. Voluntarily Causing Hurt to Deter Public Servant from his Duty:
Whoever voluntarily causes hurt to any person being a public servant in the discharge of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person or any other public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by that person in the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.
Kerala High Court in Rajan v. State of Kerala, on 9 July, 2010 said that the ingredients of an offence under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code are-
(1) Hurt must have been caused to a public servant and
(2) It must have been caused –
(a) While such public servant was acting in the discharge of his duty as such, or
(b) In order to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty as a public servant or
(c) In consequence of his having done or attempted to do anything in the lawful discharge of his duty as such a public servant.
Evidence necessary to establish an offence under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code are:
(a) The accused voluntarily caused bodily pain, disease or infirmity to the victim (as provided under Section 321 of Indian Penal Code),
(b) The victim of the hurt is a public servant and
(c) At the time of causing of hurt, the public servant concerned was discharging his duties qua public servant.
An analysis of Section 332 of Indian Penal Code would establish that if prosecution case is that accused voluntarily caused hurt to a public servant while he was discharging his official duty as a public servant, ingredients of an offence under Section 332 of Indian Penal Code are satisfied.
Assaulting the public servant or using criminal force with the intention to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant is offence in section 353 IPC which is as under-
353. Assault or Criminal Force to Deter Public Servant from Discharge of his Duty:
Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any person being a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant, or with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharging his duty as such public servant, or in consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by such person to the lawful discharge of his duty as such public servant, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.
From its bare perusal, it is clear that one commits offence under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, if he does assault or uses a criminal force to any public servant in the execution of his duty with intent to prevent or deter that person from discharge his duty.
In Akhilesh Kumar & others v. State of Bihar, on 23 August, 2017 Patna High Court said that from plain reading of section 353, the following ingredients are found necessary to constitute the offence-
(a) There should be assault or use of criminal force.
(b) Such force could have been applied on public servant.
(c) The aforesaid exercise must be while the public servant was acting in execution of his duty or with intent to prevent or deter him from discharging his duty,
(d) In consequence of anything done or attempted to be done by the public servant in due discharge of the duty.
In Durgacharan v. State of Orissa, AIR 1966 SC 1775 it has been laid down that under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code, the ingredients of assault or use of criminal force while the public servant is doing his duty as such is necessary. In Chandrika Sao v. State of Bihar, 1967 Cri. L.J. 261 the Supreme Court has laid down that, mere use of force, however is not enough to bring an Act within the terms of Section 353 IPC.
It has further to be shown that force was used intentionally to any person without that person’s consent in order to commit an offence or with the intention or with the knowledge that the use of force will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person against whom the force is used.
Gauhati High Court in Suresh Narayan Roy v. State of Arunachal Pradesh, 1978 Cri. L.J. 1514 held that the assault committed on a public servant due to personal grudge would not be covered by the provisions of Section 353 IPC.
Madras High Court in Jayaseeli v. State, on 2 February, 2010 said that the main ingredients of the offence under Section 353 IPC are that the person accused of the said charge should have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force with intent to prevent or deter the public servant from discharging his duty as such public servant. Therefore, the main ingredients of the offence are that the accused should be shown to have assaulted the public servant or used criminal force.
Q.12. Explain acid attack.
[Uttarakhand Civil Judge (J.D.) Mains Examination, 2016]
Ans. Acid attack has its steep rise in past few years and as usual the most of the victim are women. The horrific act of attacking people with acid has been taking place across different parts of country. “Acid attack” means any act of throwing acid or using acid in any form on the victim with the intention of or with knowledge that such person is likely to cause to the other person Permanent or partial damage or deformity or disfiguration to any part of the body of such person. In simple terms, acid attacks can be termed as an act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering to women.
Before the Criminal Law (amendment) Act, 2013 there was no any specific law dealing with this menace but now sections 326A and 326B have been inserted in IPC as under-
326A- Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt by Use of Acid, etc:
Whoever causes permanent or partial damage or deformity to, or bums or maims or disfigures or disables, any part or parts of the body of a person or causes grievous hurt by throwing acid on or by administering acid to that person, or by using any other means with the intention of causing or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause such injury or hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than ten years but which may extend to imprisonment for life, and with fine;
Provided that such fine shall be just and reasonable to meet the medical expenses of the treatment of the victim;
Provided further that any fine imposed under this section shall be paid to the victim.
326B- Voluntarily Throwing or Attempting to Throw Acid:
Whoever throws or attempts to throw acid on any person or attempts to administer acid to any person, or attempts to use any other means, with the intention of causing permanent or partial damage or deformity or bums or maiming or disfigurement or disability or grievous hurt to that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than five years but which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1:
For the purposes of section 326A and this section, “acid” includes any substance which has acidic or corrosive character or burning nature, that is capable of causing bodily injury leading to scars or disfigurement or temporary or permanent disability.
Explanation 2:
For the purposes of section 326A and this section, permanent or partial damage or deformity shall not be required to be irreversible.
Provision of section 154 CrPC provides that if the information is given by the woman against whom an offence under section 326A, section 326B etc. of the Indian Penal Code is alleged to have been committed or attempted, then such information shall be recorded, by a woman police officer or any woman officer.
The offences under sections 326A and 326B IPC are cognizable, non-bailable and triable by the Court of Session.
As per National Crime Records Bureau publication ‘Crime in India 2016’, the number of incidents of acid attack and attempt to acid attack was 283 in 2016. The highest number (76) of these offences took place in West Bengal.