LLM Notes: Important Notes on Juvenile Delinquency {Part 4}

 1) LLM Notes: Legal Provisions Relating to Juvenile Delinquency in India: A Comprehensive Analysis

https://www.lawweb.in/2025/05/llm-notes-legal-provisions-relating-to.html

2) LLM Notes: Sexual Abuse and Juvenile Justice in India: A Comprehensive Analysis of Legal Frameworks and Current Challenges

https://www.lawweb.in/2025/05/llm-notes-sexual-abuse-and-juvenile.html

3) LLM Notes: Can Compulsory Education Prevent Juvenile Delinquency in Indian Society?

https://www.lawweb.in/2025/05/llm-notes-can-compulsory-education.html

Print Page

LLM Notes: Important Notes on Juvenile Delinquency {Part 1}

 1) LLM Notes: Socio-Economic Background of Delinquent Juveniles in India

https://www.lawweb.in/2025/10/llm-notes-socio-economic-background-of.html

2) LLM Notes: Role of juvenile justice board as per indian law

https://www.lawweb.in/2025/10/llm-notes-role-of-juvenile-justice.html

3) LLM Notes: Role of compulsory education as a preventive strategy for juvenile delinquency

https://www.lawweb.in/2025/10/llm-notes-role-of-compulsory-education.html

Print Page

Supreme Court: When Conviction Is Under Both POCSO Act & IPC, Offender Liable To Be Sentenced Under Provision Prescribing Higher Punishment

Shri R. Balasubramanian, learned Senior Counsel, tried to draw a distinction by urging that Section 42A of the POCSO Act, provides that where there is an inconsistency between the provisions of the POCSO Act and any other law, the provisions of the special law would have an overriding effect to the extent of the inconsistency. He submitted that since the offence Under Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act does not carry punishment of imprisonment for life, which means imprisonment for remainder of person's natural life, the Accused could only have been punished under the said provision and not Under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of Indian Penal Code, looking to the inconsistency in the sentence provided. {Para 20}

21. We feel that the said submission lacks merit. On the face of it, the fields of operation of Section 42 and Section 42A are in completely different spheres. Section 42 specifically deals with the quantum of punishment mandating that when a particular act or omission constitutes an offence, both under the POCSO Act and also under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code or the Information Technology Act, 2000 then, the offender found guilty of the offence would be liable to punishment under the POCSO Act or under the provisions of the Indian Penal Code whichever provides a punishment of a greater degree.

22. Section 42A of POSCO Act, on the other hand, deals with the procedural aspects and gives an overriding effect to the provisions of the POCSO Act over any other law for the time being in force where, the two acts are inconsistent with each other. Hence, the provisions of Section 42A of POSCO Act, by no stretch of imagination, can be interpreted so as to override the scope and ambit of enabling provision, i.e., Section 42 of POCSO Act.

23. Consequently, we are of the view that conviction of the Appellant for the offences punishable Under Sections 376(2)(f) and 376(2)(i) of Indian Penal Code and Sections 3/4 of POCSO Act is wholly justified.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1257 of 2025.

Decided On: 07.03.2025

Gyanendra Singh Vs. State of U.P.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.

Author: Sandeep Mehta, J.

Citation: 2025 INSC 335, MANU/SC/0338/2025.

Print Page

LLM Notes: Sentencing Policies and Approaches Under the Indian Penal Code(Part 1)

 The Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860 outlines the punishments criminal courts can administer to individuals found liable under the code. Section 53 of the IPC details these punishments, which include death, life imprisonment, imprisonment (rigorous or simple), forfeiture of property, and fines. India's sentencing policy incorporates various theories of punishment, including reformative approaches aimed at modifying a person's behavior and mindset.

Print Page

Bombay HC: IPC Can Simultaneously Be Invoked If Sections Under IT Act(Cyber crime) Don't Address All Ingredients Of Offence

The common thread deducible from various judgments of the Supreme Court covering similar issues, where an act is an offence under a special statute having an overriding effect over the offence covered by the general law like Indian Penal Code, is that in order to exclude the general law or the offence therein, ingredients of the offence defined under the special statute and the Indian Penal Code will have to be the same. If even one ingredient of an offence under the Indian Penal Code is missing in the act which has been made punishable under the special statute, the Indian Penal Code section will not be excluded and still can be resorted to albeit, the provisions of section 71 of the Indian Penal Code and section 26 of the General Clauses Act will have to be borne in mind by the Courts while imposing the sentences.{Para 37}

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 2562 OF 2019

(AWADHESH KUMAR PARASNATH PATHAK V. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER)

CORAM : MANGESH S. PATIL, R.G. AVACHAT & SHAILESH P. BRAHME, JJJ.

PRONOUNCED ON : 15 APRIL 2024

JUDGMENT (MANGESH S. PATIL, J.) :

Print Page

Important highlights of new IPC new CRPC and new Evidence act as enacted in 2023

 The Indian Parliament passed three significant bills in 2023 to replace the existing criminal laws, namely the Indian Penal Code (IPC) of 1860, the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) of 1898, and the Indian Evidence Act of 1872. The new laws are the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha  Sanhita, and the Bharatiya Sakshya  Sanhita, which will replace the old criminal laws. Some of the key highlights and changes introduced by these new laws are as follows:

Bharatiya Nyaya (Second) Sanhita (New IPC)

• The new law eliminates the sedition law and introduces a new form of sedition as subversive activities.
• It prescribes penalties for disseminating false information through various means.

Print Page

Whether on the same facts, the accused can be prosecuted twice, once under IPC and subsequently under the food safety Act?

In Hat Singh's3 case this Court discussed the doctrine of double jeopardy and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act to observe that prosecution under two different Acts is permissible if the ingredients of the provisions are satisfied on the same facts. While considering a dispute about the prosecution of the Respondent therein for offences under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and Indian Penal Code, this Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. Sanjay MANU/SC/0761/2014 : (2014) 9 SCC 772 held that there is no bar in prosecuting persons under the Penal Code where the offences committed by persons are penal and cognizable offences. A perusal of the provisions of the FSS Act would make it clear that there is no bar for prosecution under the Indian Penal Code merely because the provisions in the FSS Act prescribe penalties. We, therefore, set aside the finding of the High Court on the first point.

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Criminal Appeal No. 1195 of 2018 

Decided On: 20.09.2018

 The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Vs.  Sayyed Hassan Sayyed Subhan and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ.

Citation: MANU/SC/1021/2018,(2019) 18 SCC 145,

Print Page

Notes on offence of Mischief and Criminal Trespass

Mischief(S 425 of IPC)

Under S 425,a person commits mischief if he-

1) with intent to cause or knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to public or any person-

2) Causes destruction of any property or any such change in any property( or in the situation therof),as destroys or diminishes its value or utility,or affects it injuriously.

Criminal Trespass(S 441 of IPC)

Ingredients;

1)Entry into or upon the property in the possession of another.

2) If such entry is lawful,then unlawfully remaining upon such property,

3) Such entry or unlawful remaining must be with intent-

Print Page

Notes on offence of receiving of stolen property

Receiving stolen property (S 410- 414)

Ordinarily a culprit who obtains property by theft of other criminal means would be anxious to dispose it of,mainly with a view to destroy evidence,and also to convert it into money.If the receiver were to go unpunished,robbers and thieves would prosper.S 411 to 414 are enacted to punish receivers of stolen property.Thus receiving or obtaining stolen property,knowing it to be such,is punishable with imprisonment for 3 years or fine or both.(S 411 of IPC)

Print Page

Notes on criminal misappropriation of property,criminal breach of trust and cheating

Criminal misappropriation of property( S 403 of IPC) 

A person commits criminal misappropriation if he

1) dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use,

2) any movable property.

  The offence of criminal misappropriation takes place where the initial possession is innocent,but the retention thereof becomes wrongful and fraudulent by a subsequent change of intention or from knowledge of some new fact not previously known to the party.

Criminal breach of trust( S 405 of IPC)

Print Page

Notes on offence of theft,extortion,robbery,and dacoity

Theft (S.378 of IPC)
Five ingredients of offence of theft are as under:
1) Dishonest intention to take property,
2) Property must be movable,
3) It should be taken out of possession of another person,
4) Property should be taken without consent of owner,
5)There should be some removal of property in order to accomplish the taking of it.

Print Page

Notes on Sexual offences against woman as per Amendment Act 2013

Criminal law amendment Act 2013 has expanded protection to woman against sexual offences and several new offences are brought on statute book.

Earlier provisions dealing with offence of Rape namely

S 375,376,376A,376B,376C and 376D have been substituted by new sections which are as under:

Definition of Rape(S 375)

A man is said to commit rape if he-

a) penetrates his penis,to any extent,into the vagina,mouth,urethra,or anus of a woman or make her to do so with him or any other person;or

b)insert,to any extent,any object or a part of the body,not being the penis,into the vagina,the urethra or anus of woman or make her to do so with him or any other person;or

c)manipulates any part of the body of a woman so as to cause penetration in to the vagina,the urethra or anus of woman or make her to do so with him or any other person;or

d)applies his mouth to vagina,anus, urethra of a woman or makes her to do so with him or any other person,-

Print Page

Short notes on Dowry Death And S 498A of IPC

In 1986, a new section,S 304B was inserted into IPC to provide for stringent punishment in respect of dowry death.

Ingredients of S 304B

It is clear that before this offence is said to have been committed, the following conditions must be satisfied:

1) The wife should have died because of burns or any bodily injury;

2) Her death should have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances.

3)Such death should have taken place within seven years from the date of her marriage.

4)Soon before her death, she should have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any of his relatives.

5) Such cruelty or harassment should be for, or in connection with any demand for dowry.

Read important judgments on Dowry death:

Click here

What is dowry?

For the purpose of S 304B, the word dowry has the same meaning as S 2 of Dowry prohibition Act,which defines the word as follows:

Dowry means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-

a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage,or

b) by parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person,to either party to the marriage or to any other person-

at, before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of said parties.

Print Page

SHORT NOTES ON MURDER,CULPABLE HOMICIDE AND SUICIDE

The first offence against human life is culpable homicide. The word 'Homicide' comes from latin word 'homa' means man and 'cide' means cut. Killing of a human being by another human being is homicide.

Kinds if homicide- Homicide is either lawful or unlawful. Lawful homicide includes cases falling under the general exceptions that is S 76 to S 106.

Read important judgments on Murder.
Click here

S 299 of IPC defines culpable homicide as,Whoever causes death,

1. with intention of causing death,
2. with intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death.
3. With knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death.
   Explanation to S 299 of IPC.
   

Print Page

Whether Indian penal code provides for vicarious liability for any offence alleged to have committed by company?

Learned counsel for the respondents have not

rebutted this issue in any of his arguments. With the

meticulous understanding of the orders of the Courts

below in the instant case, we can see that general and

bald allegations are made in the context of appellant

No.1 who is a juristic person and not a natural

person. The Indian Penal Code, 1860, does not

provide for vicarious liability for any offence alleged to

be committed by a company. If and when a statue

contemplates creation of such a legal fiction, it

provides specifically therefor, e.g. Negotiable

Instruments Act, 1881. Further, reliance was made

on S.K. Alagh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,

reported in (2008) 5 SCC 662, where at paragraph 16,

this Court observed that “Indian Penal Code, save and

except some provisions specifically providing therefor,

does not contemplate any vicarious liability on the part

of a party who is not charged directly for commission of

an offence.” Further in Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of

Gujrat & Ors., reported in (2008) 5 SCC 668, at

paragraph 13, this Court observed that where a

jurisdiction is exercised on a complaint petition filed

in terms of Section 156(3) or Section 200 of the Code

of Criminal Procedure, the Magistrate is required to

apply his mind. Indian Penal Code does not contain

any provision for attaching vicarious liability on the

part of the Managing Director or the Directors of the

Company when the accused is the Company. The

Learned Magistrate failed to pose unto himself the

correct question viz. as to whether the complaint

petition, even if given face value and taken to be

correct in its entirety, would lead to the conclusion

that the respondents herein were personally liable for

any offence. The Bank is a body corporate. Vicarious

liability of the Managing Director and Director would

arise provided any provision exists in that behalf in

the statute. Statutes indisputably must contain

provision fixing such vicarious liability. Even for the

said purpose, it is obligatory on the part of the

complainant to make requisite allegations which

would attract the provisions constituting vicarious

liability. 

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1213 OF 2016

(Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.1913 of 2012)

HDFC Securities Ltd. & Ors 

V

State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Dated:December 9, 2016. 

Citation:(2017)1SCC640

Print Page

Distinction between Civil Liability and Criminal Liability for Defamation

The view consistently taken by this Court has been that there is a distinction between criminal and civil liability for defamation. Civil liability is to be determined by the principles of English Law, but criminal liability is governed by the provisions of the Indian Penal Code and by those provisions alone. This view was taken by Mr. Justice Aikman in Isuri Prasad Singh v. Umrao Singh 22 A. 234 : A.W.N. (1900) 46 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 1187, and was re-affirmed by a Full Bench in Emperor v. Ganga Prasad 29 A. 685 : 4 A.L.J. 605 : 6 Cr. L.J. 197 : A.W.N. (1907) 235. The view taken by this Court has quite recently been unanimously approved by a Full Bench of five Judges of the Calcutta High Court in Satis Chandra Chakrabarti v. Ram Dayal De 59 Ind. Cas. 143 : 48 C. 388 : 32 C.L.J. 94 : 24 C.W.N. 982 : 22 Cr. L.J. 31.

Allahabad High Court

Musammat Champa Devi And Anr. vs Pirbhu Lal And Ors. on 14 December, 1925

Equivalent citations: 92 Ind Cas 429

Print Page

Right of wife to prosecute case U/S 498A of IPC v Territorial jurisdiction of court in offence U/S 498A of IPC

There is no dispute at the Bar that Section 498A is a continuing offence. Being unable to bear the alleged cruelty or 'torture, the wife has to go back to her parents place for shelter and in case, she is asked to prosecute her case under Section 498A, IPC, at her matrimonial place, in our opinion, it will amount to deprivation of right to prosecute the case as a deserted lady will not be able to prosecute the same properly. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred to the case of Satvinder Kaur v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and Anr., reported in (1999) 8 SCC 728. Although the facts of the above case are identical, the matter relates to investigation only and the Apex Court refused to interfere with investigation.

Gauhati High Court

Bina Dey And Ors. vs Pratibha Dey (Baidya) on 10 April, 2003

Equivalent citations: 2003 CriLJ 3618, I (2004) DMC 725, (2003) 3 GLR 16

Bench: P Agarwal
This Ratio is reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in this case.Please this link: 

https://www.lawweb.in/2019/04/todays-supreme-court-judgment-on.html

Print Page

Whether woman can outrage Modesty of woman?

 The argument of Mr. Gupta is that as the Penal Code does not make the act of assault or use of criminal force to any man with intent "to outrage his modesty" an offence, Section 354, Penal Code contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution and that in enacting Section 354, Penal Code, the legislature has discriminated in favour of women only on the ground of sex and that therefore, Section 354 offends against Article 15(1). In my view this argument is unsound and must be rejected. The offence under Section 354 is committed only when a person assaults or uses a criminal force to a woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty. It is not the act of outraging the modesty that is made an offence under this section. In order to constitute an offence under Section 354, Penal Code there must be an assault or use a criminal force to any woman with the intention or knowledge that the woman's modesty will be outraged. The offence under Section 354, Penal Code can be committed by any man or a woman with the necessary intent or knowledge. For, a woman can assault or use criminal force to any other woman as equally and effectively as any man; and the intention or knowledge that the modesty of the woman assaulted or against whom criminal force has been used will be outraged, is not of a kind which a woman on account of inherent differences from man is incapable of having. The pronoun "he" used in the expression "that he will thereby outrage her modesty" must therefore be taken under Section 8, Penal Code as importing a male or a female. It is thus clear that : under Section 354, Penal Code a man as well as a woman can be held guilty of the offence of assaulting or using criminal force to any woman with the intention or knowledge that the woman's modesty will be outraged, and be punished for the offence. Section 354, therefore, operates equally upon all persons whether males or females and it cannot be maintained that as women are exempt from any punishment under this section, it offends against the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution.

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Girdhar Gopal vs State on 18 December, 1952

Equivalent citations: 1953 CriLJ 964

Dixit, J.

Print Page

Good legal article on Mental Element Of Crime (Mensrea)

One of the main characteristic of our legal system is that the individual's liability to punishment for crimes depends, among other things, on certain mental conditions. The liability of 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.

Mens rea means a mental state, in which a person deliberately violates a law. Thus mens rea means intention to do the prohibited act

These are known as mental elements in criminal liability. Therefore an act in order to be a crime must be committed with a guilty mind,

Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, is a well know principle of natural justice meaning no person could be punished in a proceeding of criminal nature unless it can be shown that he had a guilty mind.

Print Page