Criminal Law

Crime may be defined as the commission of the acts prohibited by penal law, and criminals as
persons who commits such acts. According to Terence Morris, Crime is what society says is
crime by establishing that an act is a violation of the criminal law. Without law there can be
no crime at all, although there may be moral indignation which results in law being enacted. It
is an Act punishable by law as forbidden by statute or injurious to the public welfare.

Elements of Crime
The chief elements necessary to constitute a crime are:
1. A human being under legal obligation to act in a certain way and a fit subject for the
infliction of appropriate punishment;
2. An evil intent on the part of such a human being;
3. An act committed or omitted in furtherance of such an intent;
4. An injury to another human being or to the society at large by such.

There is a well known maxim in criminal law, Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, which
means that the act itself does not make a man guilty unless his intention were so. An act in
order to be punishable at law must be willed act or voluntary act or a voluntary act and at the
same time must have been done with a criminal intent. The intent and the act both must concur
to constitute the crime. The act done or omitted must be act forbidden or commanded by some
law.
According to Russel, actus reus is the physical result of human conduct. An act
includes illegal omission also. A man is held liable if some duty is cast upon him by law and
he omits to discharge that duty. That means an omission must be in breach of a legal duty.
Section 43 of the Indian Penal Code lays down that the word illegal is applicable to everything
which is an offence or which is prohibited by law, or which furnishes ground for a civil action;
and a person is said to be legally bound to do whatever it is illegal in him to omit. If A
allows his wife and children to die of starvation he commits a crime because he owes a legal
duty to maintain his wife and children.
The liability of the conviction of an individual depends not only on his having done
some outward acts which the law forbids, but on his having done them in a certain frame of
mind or with a certain will. These are known s mental elements of criminal responsibility.
Therefore, an act must be committed with a guilty mind (mens rea). Mens rea, generally taken
to mean blameworthy mental condition, whether constituted by intention or knowledge or
otherwise, the absence of which on any particular occasion negatives the intention of a crime.
The guilty intent is not necessarily that of the intending the very act or thing done and
prohibited by common and statute law, but it must at least be the intention to do something
wrong. The state of mind required in any particular offence have been added in the sections
itself by using such words as intentionally, knowingly, voluntarily, fraudulently, dishonestly,
etc. depending upon the gravity of the offence concerned.
 However intention must be distinguished from motive. Motive is the reason or the
ground of an action, whereas intention is the volition or active desire to do an act. In other
words, intention is the operation of the will directing an overt act; motive is the feeling which
prompts the operation of the will- the ulterior object of the person willing. Motive is not the
basis of criminal liability. Criminal Law takes into account only a mans intention and not his
motive. A good motive will not render lawful what is in fact a crime. If a man steals food in
order to feed his starving child, the act amounts to theft, inspite of the fact that the motive for
the act was to save the life. Likewise, a bad motive will not make unlawful that which is lawful,
An executioner may enjoy putting a convict to death because of spite against him, but this
would not render his lawful act a crime.
Therefore, to constitute an offence, both Actus reus and Mens Rea should be present.

States of Crime1
If a person commits a crime voluntarily or after preparation the doing of it involves four
different stages. In every crime, there is first intention to commit it, secondly, preparation to
commit it, thirdly, attempt to commit it and fourthly the accomplishment. The stages can be
explained as under-

1. Intention- Intention is the first stage in the commission of an offence and known as mental
stage. Intention is the direction of conduct towards the object chosen upon considering the
motives which suggest the choice. But the law does not take notice of an intention, mere
intention to commit an offence not followed by any act, cannot constitute an offence. The
obvious reason for not prosecuting the accused at this stage is that it is very difficult for the
prosecution to prove the guilty mind of a person.

2. Preparation- Preparation is the second stage in the commission of a crime. It means to

arrange the necessary measures for the commission of the intended criminal act. Intention alone
or the intention followed by a preparation is not enough to constitute the crime. Preparation has
not been made punishable because in most of the cases the prosecution has failed to prove that
the preparations in the question were made for the commission of the particular crime.

If A purchases a pistol and keeps the same in his pocket duly loaded in order to kill his bitter
enemy B, but does nothing more. A has not committed any offence as still he is at the stage of
preparation and it will be impossible for the prosecution to prove that A was carrying the loaded
pistol only for the purpose of killing B.
In the Indian Law, Mere Preparation to commit an offense is punishable in the following
offenses.
1. Waging War

1
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/the-elements-and-stages-of-a-crime-1228-1.html
 2. Preparation to commit a dacoity
3. Preparation for counterfeiting coins and Government stamps
4. Possessing counterfeit coins, false weight or measurement and forged documents.

3. Attempt- Attempt is the direct movement towards the commission of a crime after the
preparation is made. According to English law, a person may be guilty of an attempt to commit
an offence if he does an act which is more than merely preparatory to the commission of the
offence; and a person will be guilty of attempting to commit an offence even though the facts
are such that the commission of the offence is impossible. There are three essentials of an
attempt:-
Guilty intention to commit an offence;
Some act done towards the commission of the offence;
The act must fall short of the completed offence.

4. Accomplishment or Completion- The last stage in the commission of an offence is its

accomplishment or completion. If the accused succeeds in his attempt to commit the crime,
he will be guilty of the complete offence and if his attempt is unsuccessful he will be guilty of
an attempt only. For example, A fires at B with the intention to kill him, if B dies, A will be
guilty for committing the offence of murder and if B is only injured, it will be a case of
attempt to murder.

Classification of offences
1. Cognizable and Non Cognizable Offences

Section 2 (c) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 defines Cognizable offences.

Cognizable offence/case means a case in which, a police officer may arrest without warrant,
as per the First Schedule of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 or under any other law for the
time being in force.

Cognizable offenses are usually offenses which are serious in nature. Like for example:

1. Waging or attempting to wage war, or abetting the waging of war against the
government of India,
2. Murder,
3. Rape,
4. Dowry Death,
5. Kidnapping,
6. Theft,
7. Criminal Breach of Trust,
8. Unnatural Offenses.
 A non-cognizable offence has been defined in Section 2(l) of Criminal Procedure Code
1973.

Non-cognizable offence means an offence for which, and `non-cognizable case means a case
in which, a police officer without any warrant has no authority to arrest.

Non-Cognizable offenses are not much serious in nature. Example-

Bribery
Assault,
Cheating,
Forgery.

The punishment for non-cognizable offences is imprisonment for less than three years or
sometimes fine only, whereas cognizable offences attract punishment with imprisonment for
three years or more
2. Bailable and Non Bailable offences
Bailable offences:

A bailable offence is the one which is shown as bailable in the First Schedule or under any
law for the time being in force, arrest without warrant. (Section 2(a), Cr.P.C.) These offences
are generally regarded as less serious and grave. In this bail is a matter of right and bail can be
granted by the police station. Example of offence of voluntary causing hurt.
Non Bailable Offence
Non bailable offence means any offence which is not bailable as per section 2(a) of Cr.P.C.
these offences are grave and serious. In this bail is a matter of discretion of court. Example of
offence- murder, rape, theft etc.

Extent of Indian Penal Code

The Code was intended, as the Preamble indicates, to provide general Penal Code of India.
According to Section 1, the Code shall extend to the whole of India except Jammu and
Kashmir. (vide Article 370 of the Constitution)
Application of the Code depends upon the place where the offence is committed. A person
physically present outside India can commit an offence within India, and such an offence is
punishable under the Code. Thus, the Code applies extra-territorially in certain in certain
circumstances. The combined effect of Sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Code is that the Code applies
to:
1. Offences committed within India by any person, whether he is a citizen of India or a
non-citizen;
2. Offences committed outside India by an Indian citizen; and
 3. Offences committed on ship or aircraft registered in India, wherever it may be, by any
person, citizen of India or non-citizen.

General Exception
Chapter IV of the Indian Penal Code with heading General Exceptions deals with general
conditions of non-imputability or general grounds of exemption from criminal liability. An
analysis of sections 76 to 106 of Indian Penal Code shows that they deal with circumstances
which negative the existence of mens rea.

Accident (Sec. 80)

Nothing is an offence if it is committed:
1. By accident: Stephen in his digest of criminal law explains that an effect is said to be
accidental if the act that caused it was not done with an intention to cause it and if the
occurrence of this effect due to that act is not so probable that a person of average
prudence could take precautions against it. The effect comes as a surprise to the doer
of average prudence. Since he does not expect it to happen, he is unable to take any
precaution against it.
For example, a firecraker worker working with Gun powder knows that it can cause
explosion and must take precaution against it. If it causes an explosion and kills a third
person, he cannot claim defence of this section because the outcome was expected even
though not intended.
2. Without criminal intention or knowledge: To claim defence under this section, the act
causing the accident must not be done with a bad intention or bad motive. For example,
A prepares a dish for B and puts poison in it so as to kill B. However, C comes and eats
the dish and dies. The death of C was indeed an accident because it was not expected
by A, but the act that caused the accident was done with a criminal intention.
In Tunda vs Rex, two friends, who were fond of wrestling, were wresting and one got
thrown away on a stone and died. This was held to be an accident and since it was not
done without any criminal intention, the defendant was acquitted.
3. While doing a lawful act, in a lawful manner by lawful means: An accident that happens
while doing an unlawful act is no defence. Not only that, but the act must also be done
in a lawful manner and by lawful means. For example, requesting rent payment from a
renter is a lawful act but threatening him with a gun to pay rent is not lawful manner
 and if there is an accident due to the gun and if the renter gets hurt or killed, defence
under this section cannot be claimed.
4. Where due care and caution is exercised: The act that causes the harm must have been
done with proper care and precautions. An accident caused due to negligence is not
excusable. A person must take precautions for any effects that any person with average
intelligence would anticipate. For example, a owner of a borewell must fence the hole
to prevent children falling into it because any person with average prudence can
anticipate that a child could fall into an open borewell.

Accident means an unintentional act or an unexpected act. It is something that happens out of
the ordinary course of things.
It is necessary to prove that the act was done
1. without any criminal intention, with no mens rea. An act that was intended by or
known to the doer cannot be an accident.
2. The act must be a lawful act, in a lawful manner by lawful means.
3. Proper care and caution must be exercised.

Illustration
A is at work with a hatchet; the head flies off and kills a man who is standing by. Here,
if there was no want of proper caution on the part of A, his act is excusable and not an
offence.
If A , while shooting at a tiger hurts B, who was behind a bush and concealed, from
his view, he is not liable for injuring B, because he could not forsee his bullet hitting
B, the act was purely an accident.

Necessity (Sec. 81)

Sec 81 embodies the doctrine of necessity. An act is not an offence if done with the knowledge
that it is likely to cause harm but without any criminal intention to cause harm and it should be
done in good faith to any harm to another person or property.
There are three situations according to Bentham in which the defence of necessity could be
made available in case of criminal act, viz.,
i) The harm was done to avert a greater evil,
ii) Other means were less effective, and
iii) That the means employed were more efficient.
Landmark case R v. Dudley and Stephens- 3 principles:
a) Self preservation is not absolute necessity
b) No person has right to take anothers life to preserve his own unless its self defence.
c) There is no necessity that justifies private homicide, i.e., to conserve ones life, as
distinguished from public necessity or even necessity when it is a justification.

Illustrations:
(a) A, the captain of a steam vessel, suddenly and without an fault or negligence, on his part,
he finds himself in such a position that, before he can stop his vessel, he must inevitably run
down a boat B, with twenty or thirty passengers on board, unless he changes the course o0f his
vessel, and that, by changing his course, he must incur risk of running down boat C with only
two passengers on board, which he may possibly clear. Here if A alters his course without any
intention to run down boat C and in good faith for the p[purpose of Avoiding the danger to the4
passengers in the b oat B, he is not guilty of an offence, though he may run down the boat C
by doing an act which he knew was likely to cause that effect, if it be found as a matter of fact
that the danger which he intended to avoid was such as to excuse him in incurring the risk of
running down the boat C.
(b) A, in a great fire, pulls down houses in order to prevent the conflagration from spreading.
He does this with the intention in good faith of saving human life and property. Here, if it be
found that the harm to be prevented was of such a nature and so imminent as to excused As
act. A is not guilty of the offence

Act of child

It is assumed that a child does not have an evil mind and he does not do things with evil
intention. He cannot even fully understand the implications of the act that he is doing. Thus, he
completely lacks mens rea and should not be punished. IPC contains for following exemptions
for a child.

Section 82 - Nothing is an offence which is done by a child under seven years of age.

Section 83 - Nothing is an offence which is done by a child above seven years of age and below
twelve years of age who has not attained the sufficient maturity of understanding to judge the
nature and consequences of this conduct on that occasion.
Through these sections, IPC acknowledges the fact that children under seven years of age
cannot have sufficient maturity to commit a crime and is completely excused. In Indian law, a
child below seven years of age is called doli incapax. In Queen v. Lukhini Agradanini it was
held that merely the proof of age of the child would be a conclusive proof of innocence and
would ipso facto be an answer to the charge against him.
However, a child above seven but below twelve may or may not have sufficient maturity to
commit a crime and whether he is sufficiently mature to understand the nature and
consequences of the act needs to be determined from the facts of the case. To claim a defence
under section 83, a child must:
1. be above seven and below twelve years of age.
2. not have attained sufficient maturity to understand the nature and consequences of his
act.
3. be immature at the time of commission of the act.
Section 83 provides qualified immunity because presumes that a child above seven and below
twelve has sufficient maturity to commit a crime. Thus, in Hiralal v. State of Bihar, the boy
who participated in a concerted action and used a sharp weapon for a murderous attack, was
held guilty in the absence of any evidence leading to boy's feeble understanding of his actions.
In Emperor v Paras Ram Dubey, a boy of 12 years of age was convicted of raping a girl.

Act of person of Unsound person (Section 84)

Thus, a person claiming immunity under this section must prove the existence of the following
conditions -
1. He was of unsound mind - Unsound Mind is not defined in IPC. As per Stephen, it is
equivalent to insanity, which is a state of mind where the functions of feeling, knowing,
emotion, and willing are performed in abnormal manner. The term Unsoundness of
mind is quite wide and includes all varieties of want of capacity whether temporary or
permanent, or because of illness or birth defect. However, mere unsoundness of mind
is not a sufficient ground. It must be accompanied with the rest of the conditions.
2. Such incapacity must exist at the time of the act - A person may become temporarily
out of mind or insane for example due to a bout of epilepsy or some other disease.
However, such condition must exist at the time of the act. In S K Nair vs State of Punjab,
the accused was charged for murder of one and grievous assault on other two. He
pleaded insanity. However, it was held that the words spoken by the accused at the time
of the act clearly show that he understood what he was doing and that it was
wrong. Thus, he was held guilty.
3. Due to incapacity, he was incapable of knowing -
1. either the nature of the act.
2. or that the act is wrong.
3. or that the act is contrary to law.
Private defence
IPC Section 96 to 106 of the penal code states the law relating to the right of private defence
of person and property.

The provisions contained in these sections give authority to a man to use necessary force
against an assailant or wrong-doer for the purpose of protecting ones own body and property
as also anothers body and property when immediate aid from the state machinery is not readily
available and in so doing he is not answerable in law for his deeds. Section 97 says that the
right of private defence is of 2 types:
(i) Right of private defence of body,
(ii) Right of private defence of property.
Body may be ones own body or the body of another person and likewise property may be
movable or immovable and may be of oneself or of any other person.

IPC Section 96. Things done in private defence:

Nothing is an offence, which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

Right of private defence cannot be said to be an offence in return. However, the right in no case
extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary for the purpose of defence.

Section 98. Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind, etc:
When an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the
youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of
the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every
person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act
were that offence.

Illustrations:-
Z, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill A; Z is guilty of no offence. But A has the
same right of private defence which he would have if Z were sane.
A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled to enter Z, in good faith, taking A for a
house breaker, attacks A. Here Z, by attacking A under this misconception, commits no
offence. But A has the same right of private defence against Z, which he would have if Z were
not acting under that misconception.

This Section lay down that for the purpose of exercising the right of private defence, physical
or mental capacity of the person against whom it is exercised is no bar. In other words, the right
of private defence of body exists against all attackers, whether with or without mens rea. The
above mentioned illustration are pointing a fact that even if an attacker is protected by some
exception of law, that does not diminish the danger and risk created from his acts. That is why
the right of private defence in such cases also can be exercised, or else it would have been futile
and meaningless.
Section 99 lays down that the conditions and limits within which the right of private defence
can be exercised. The section gives a defensive right to a man and not an offensive right. That
is to say, it does not arm a man with fire and ammunition, but encourage him to help himself
and others, if there is a reasonable apprehension of danger to life and property. The first two
clauses provide that the right of private defence cannot be invoked against a public servant or
a person acting in good faith in the exercise of his legal duty provided that the act is not illegal.
Similarly , clause three restricts the right of private defence, if there is time to seek help of
public authorities. And the right must be exercised in proportion to harm to be inflicted. In
other words, there is no right of private defence:
Against the acts of a public servant; and
Against the acts of those acting under their authority or direction;
Where there is sufficient time for recourse to public authorities; and
The quantum of harm that may be caused shall in no case be in excess of harm that may
be necessary for the purpose of defence.
IPC Section 100. When the right of private defence of the body extends to causing death:

The right of private defence of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last
preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the
offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter
enumerated, namely:--
First-Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be
the consequence of such assault;
Secondly-Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will
otherwise be the consequence of such assault;
Thirdly-An assault with the intention of committing rape;
Fourthly-An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust;
Fifthly-An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting;
Sixthly-An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances
which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the
public authorities for his release.

IPC Section101. When such right extends to causing any harm other than death:
If the offence be not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section, the
right of private defence of the body does not extend to the voluntary causing of death to the
assailant, but does extend, under the restrictions mentioned in Section 99, to the voluntary
causing to the assailant of any harm other than death.
IPC Section103. When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death:
The right of private defence of property extends, under the restrictions mentioned in Section
99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the wrong-doer, if the offence, the
committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right,
be an offence of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely;
First-Robbery;
Secondly-House-breaking by night;

Thirdly-Mischief by fire committed on any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent of
vessel is used as a human dwelling, or as a place for the custody of property;

Fourthly-Theft, mischief, or house-trespass, under such circumstances as may reasonably cause

apprehension exercised. That death or grievous hurt will be the consequence, if such right of
private defence is not.

Offences against women

There are a variety of psychological, economical, sociological forms of victimization of

women. In our society we have been seen that women are economically discriminated at
working places. At the same time women are also exploited physically, emotionally and
sexually by their husbands. It is shocking to hear that women had no right to decide whether
they could continue their pregnancy or terminated it. The following are categories of crimes
against women in India:

Sexual offences, Offences for gain, Molestation and rape, Harassment at home leading to
suicide and murder of young brides, Immoral trafficking, exploitation of women. Physical
torture, Mental Cruelties. A few of them are listed under :

1. Rape(Section 375) : This section consists of the following:

i. Sexual intercourse by a man with a woman.

ii. Against her will and consent: Sexual intercourse with a woman with or without her
consent when she is below 18 years of age amounts to rape. A woman under 18 is
considered incapable of giving consent for sexual intercourse. The age of consent
was raised from 16 to 18 by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013.
 iii. The sexual intercourse must be under the circumstances falling under any of the
seven clauses of section 375.

2. Marital Rape (Exception 2 to section 375)

Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under
fifteen years of age, is not rape.
Since child marriage in India is not yet void and is only voidable, such a check was
necessary to restrain men from taking advantage of their marital rights prematurely. No
man can be guilty of rape on his own wife when she is over 15 years of age on account
of the matrimonial consent that she has given.
In Bishnudayal v. State of Bihar, where the prosecutrix, a girl of 13 or 14, who was sent
by her father to accompany the relatives of his elder daughters husband to look after
her elder sister for some time, was forcibly married to the appellant and had sexual
intercourse with her, the accused was held liable for rape under section 376.

3. Cruelty (Section 498A)

Matrimonial Cruelty in India is a cognizable, non bailable and non-compoundable offence. It

is defined in Chapter XXA of I.P.C. under Section 498A as 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 her to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which
may extend to three years and shall also be liable to a fine.

Explanation for the purpose of this section, cruelty means:

(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman
to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to

coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demands for
any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any
person related to her to meet such demand.
 4. Dowry Death (Section 304B)

The Indian Penal Code under defines it as-

Essential ingredients:

1. Death of a woman should be caused by burns or bodily injury or otherwise than under
normal circumstances.
2. Death should have occurred within seven years of her marriage
3. The woman must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any
relative of her husband.
4. Cruelty or harassment should be for or in connection with the demand for dowry.
5. Cruelty or harassment should have been meted out to the woman before her death.

PunishmentImprisonment of not less than 7 years but which may extend to imprisonment
for lifeCognizable, Non-bailable

In Prema S. Rao v. Yadla Srinivasa Rao, it was held that to attract the provisions of section
304B, one of the main ingredients which is required to be established is that soon before her
death she was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with the demand of dowry.

5. Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman (Section 509):

INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 : Section 509 - Word, gesture or act intended to insult the
modesty of a woman

Intention to insult the modesty of a woman.

The insult must be caused-
o By uttering some words, or making some sound, or gesture or exhibiting any
object so as to be heard or seen by such woman, or
o By intruding upon the privacy of such woman.

6. Section 354A-Sexual Harassment

(1) The following acts or behaviour shall constitute the offence of sexual harassment
 (i) Physical contact and advances involving unwelcome and explicit sexual
overtures; or

(ii) A demand or request for sexual favours; or

(iii) Making sexually coloured remarks; or

(iv) Forcibly showing pornography; or

(v) Any other unwelcome physical, verbal or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature.

(2) Any person who commits the offence specified in clause (i) or clause (ii) of sub-section (1)
shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment which may extend to five years, or with fine, or
with both.

(3) Any person who commits the offence specified in clause (iii) or clause (iv) or clause (v) of
sub-section (1) shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description that may extend to
one year, or with fine, or with both. Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to
disrobe.

7. Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe (Section 354B)

Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman or abets such act with the intention of
disrobing or compelling her to be naked in any public place.

Punishment: Imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less than three
years but which may extend to seven years and with fine.

8. Voyeurism (Section 354C)

Whoever:

i. watches, or captures the image of, a woman engaging in a private act

ii. in circumstances where she would usually have the expectation of not being observed
either by the perpetrator or by any other person at the behest of the perpetrator

For the purposes of this section, private act includes an act of watching carried out in a place
which, in the circumstances, would reasonably be expected to provide privacy, and where the
victims genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only in underwear; or the victim
is using a lavatory; or the person is doing a sexual act that is not of a kind ordinarily done in
public.

Punishment:

First conviction: Imprisonment of either description for a term which shall not be less
than one year, but which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine
Second or subsequent conviction: Imprisonment of either description for a term which
shall not be less than three years, but which may extend to seven years, and shall also
be liable to fine.

9. Stalking (Section 354D)

Any man who--

(i) follows a woman and contacts, or attempts to contact such woman to foster personal
interaction repeatedly despite a clear indication of disinterest by such woman; or

(ii) monitors the use by a woman of the internet, email or any other form of electronic
communication, commits the offence of stalking:
Provided that such conduct shall not amount to stalking if the man who pursued it proves that-

(i) it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime by the State; or

(ii) it was pursued under any law or to comply with any condition or requirement
imposed by any person under any law;

Punishment:

On first conviction: Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
three years, and shall also be liable to fine;
Second or subsequent conviction, with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to five years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Other Offences

Theft (Section 378)

To constitute theft, the following ingredients are required:
1. The accused must have a dishonest intention to take the property;
2. The property must be movable;
 3. The property must be taken out of the possession of another person, resulting in
wrongful gain by one and wrongful loss to another;
4. The property must be moved in order to such taking, i.e., obtaining property by
deception; and
5. Taking must be without that perons consent (Express or implied).

Illustrations
(a) A cuts down a tree on Z's ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree out of Z's
possession without Z's consent. Here, as soon as A has severed the tree in order to such taking,
he has committed theft.
(b) A puts a bait for dogs in his pocket, and thus induces Z's dog to follow it. Here, if A's
intention be dishonestly to take the dog out of Z's possession without Z's consent. A has
committed theft as soon as Z's dog has begun to follow A.

(c) A meets a bullock carrying a box of treasure. He drives the bullock in a certain direction,
in order that he may dishonestly take the treasure. As soon as the bullock begins to move, A
has committed theft of the treasure.
(d) A, being Z's servant, and entrusted by Z with the care of Z's plate, dishonestly runs away
with the plate, without Z's consent. A has committed theft.

(e) Z, going on a journey, entrusts his plate to A, the keeper of the warehouse, till Z shall return.
A carries the plate to a goldsmith and sells it. Here the plate was not in Z's possession. It could
not therefore be taken out of Z's possession, and A has not committed theft, though he may
have committed criminal breach of trust.

(f) A finds a ring belonging to Z on a table in the house which Z occupies. Here the ring is in
Z's possession, and if A dishonestly removes it, A commits theft.

(g) A finds a ring lying on the highroad, not in the possession of any person. A by taking it,
commits no theft, though he may commit criminal misappropriation of property.

(h) A sees a ring belonging to Z lying on a table in Z's house. Not venturing to misappropriate
the ring immediately for fear of search and detection, A hides the ring in a place where it is
highly improbable that it will ever be found by Z, with the intention of taking the ring from me
hiding place and selling it when the loss is forgotten. Here A, at the time of first moving the
ring, commits theft.

(i) A delivers his watch to Z, a jeweller, to be regulated. Z carries it to his shop. A, not owing
to the jeweller any debt fur which the jeweller might lawfully detain the watch as a security,
enters the shop openly, lakes his watch by force out of Z's hand, and carries it away. Here A,
though he may have committed criminal trespass and assault, has not committed theft, in as
much as what he did was not done dishonestly.

(j) If A owes money to Z for repairing the watch, and if Z retains the watch lawfully as a
security for the debt, and A takes the watch out of Z's possession, with the intention of depriving
Z of the property as a security for his debt, he commits theft, in as much as he takes it
dishonestly.
(k) Again, if A, having pawned his watch to Z, takes it out of Z's possession without Z's consent,
not having paid what he borrowed on the watch, he commits theft, though the watch is his own
property in as much as he takes it dishonestly.

(l) A takes an article belonging to Z out of Z's possession, without Z's consent, with the
intention of keeping it until he obtains money from Z as a reward for its restoration. Here A
takes dishonestly; A has therefore committed theft.

(m) A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z's library in Z's absence, and takes away a
book without Z's express consent for the purpose merely of reading it, and with the intention
of returning it. Here, it is probable that A may have conceived that he had Z's implied consent
to use Z's book. If this was A's impression, A has not committed theft.

(n) A asks charity from Z's wife. She gives A money, food and clothes, which A knows to
belong to Z her husband. Here it is probable that A may conceive that Z's wife is authorised to
give away aims. If this was A's impression, A has not committed theft.

(o) A is the paramour of Z's wife. She gives a valuable property, which A knows to belong to
her husband Z, and to be such property as she has no authority from Z to give. If A takes the
property dishonestly, he commits theft.

(p) A. in good faith, believing property belonging to Z to be A's own properly, takes that
property out of Z's possession. Here, as A does not take dishonestly, he does not commit theft.

Forgery (Section 463 read with Section 464)

Ingredients of the offence are:
1. The document or the false electronic record or part of the document or electronic record
must be false;
2. It must have been made dishonestly or fraudently; and
3. It must have been made with intent to cause damage or injury to the public or to any
person.
The offence of forgery may be committed by a person who fabricates a false document or false
electronic record purporting it to be a copy of another document or electronic record for the
purpose of the same being used in evidence.
Making a false document or electronic document means:

1. Making, signing, sealing or executing a document, or

2. By alteration of a document or electronic document,
3. By causing a person, who is innocent, of the contents or nature of the alteration of a
document or an electronic record, to sign it, or
4. By affixing any electronic signature on any electronic record
Illustrations
(a) A has a letter of credit upon B for rupees 10,000 written by Z. A, in order to defraud B,
adds a cipher to the 10,000, and makes the sum 1,00,000 intending that it may be delivered by
B that Z so wrote the letter. A has committed forgery.

(b) A, without Z's authority, affixes Z's seal to a document purporting to be a conveyance of an
estate from Z to A, with the intention to selling the estate to B. and thereby of obtaining from
B the purchase-money. A has committed forgery.

(c) A, picks up a cheque on a banker-signed by 6, payable to bearer, but without any sum having
been inserted in the cheque. A fraudulently fills up the cheque by inserting the sum often
thousand rupees. A commits forgery.

(d) A leaves with B, his agent, a cheque on a banker, signed by A, without inserting the sum
payable and authorizes B to fill up the cheque by inserting a sum not exceeding ten thousand
rupees for the purpose of making certain payment. B fraudulently fills up the cheque by
inserting the sum of twenty thousand rupees, B commits forgery.

(e) A draws a bill of exchange on himself in the name of B without B's authority, intending to
discount it as a genuine bill with a banker and intending to take up the bill on its maturity. Here,
as A draws the bill with intent to deceive the banker by leading him to suppose that he had the
security of B, and thereby to discount the bill, A is guilty of forgery.

(f) Z's will contains these words--"I direct that all my remaining property be equally divided
between A, B and C." A dishonestly scratches out B's name, intending that it may be believed
that the whole was left to himself and C. A has committed forgery.

(g) A endorses a Government promissory note and makes it payable to Z or his order by writing
on the bill the words "Pay to Z or his order" and signing the endorsement. B dishonestly erases
the words "Pay to Z or his order", and thereby converts the special endorsement into a blank
endorsement; 6 commits forgery.

(h) A sells and conveys an estate to Z. A afterwards, in order to defraud Z of his estate, executes
a conveyance of the same estate to 6, dated six months earlier man the date of the conveyance
to Z, intending it to be believed that he had conveyed the estate to B before he conveyed it to
Z. A has committed forgery.

(i) Z dictates his will to A. A intentionally writes down a different legatee from the legatee
named by Z, and by representing to Z that he has prepared the will according to his instructions,
induces Z to sign the will. A has committed forgery.

(j) A writes a letter and signs it with B's name without B's authority, certifying that A is a man
of good character and in distressed circumstances from unforeseen misfortune, intending by
means of such letter to obtain alms from Z and other persons. Here, as A made a false document
in order to induce Z to part with property. A has committed forgery.

(k) A without B's authority writes a letter and signs it in B's name certifying to A's character,
intending thereby to obtain employment under Z. A has committed forgery in as much as he
intended to deceive Z by the forged certificate, and thereby to induce Z to enter into an express
or implied contract for service.