IPC 217: Section 217 of the Indian Penal Code

December 15, 2014

Public servant disobeying direction of law with intent to save person from punishment or property from forfeiture

Whoever, being a public servant, knowingly disobeys any direction of the law as to the way in which he is to conduct himself as such public servant, intending thereby to save, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby save, any person from legal punishment, or subject him to a less punishment than that to which he is liable, or with intent to save, or knowing that he is likely thereby to save, any property from forfeiture or any charge to which it is liable by law, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.

IPC 38: Section 38 of the Indian Penal Code

December 15, 2014

Persons concerned in criminal Act may be guilty of different offences

Where several persons are engaged or concerned in the commission of a criminal act, they may be guilty of different offences by means of that act.

Illustrations

  1. A attacks Z under such circumstances of grave provocation that his killing of Z would be only culpable homicide not amounting to murder. B, having ill-will towards Z and intending to kill him, and not having been subject to the provocation, assists A in killing Z. Here, though A and B are both engaged in causing Z&‘s death, B is guilty of murder, and A is guilty only of culpable homicide.

IPC 37: Section 37 of the Indian Penal Code

December 15, 2014

Co-operation by doing one of several acts constituting an offence

When an offence is committed by means of several acts, whoever intentionally co-operates in the commission of that offence by doing any one of those acts, either singly or jointly with any other person, commits that offence.

Illustrations

  1. A and B agree to murder Z by severally and at different times giving him small doses of poison. A and B administer the poison according to the agreement with intent to murder Z. Z dies from the effects the several doses of poison so administered to him. Here A and B intentionally co operate in the commission of murder and as each of them does an act by which the death is caused, they are both guilty of the offence though their acts are separate.
  2. A and B are joint jailors, and as such have the charge of Z, a prisoner, alternatively for six hours at a time. A and B, intending to cause Z&‘s death, knowingly co-operate in causing that effect by illegally omitting, each during the time of his attendance, to furnish Z with food supplied to them for that purpose. Z dues of hunger. Both A and B are guilty of the murder of Z.
  3. A, a jailor, has the charge of Z, a prisoner. A, intending to cause Z&‘s death, illegally omits to supply Z with food; in consequence of which Z is much reduced in strength, but the starvation is not sufficient to cause his death. A is dismissed from his office, and B succeeds him. B, without collusion or co-operation with A, illegally omits to supply Z with food, knowing that he is likely thereby to cause Z&‘s death. Z dies of hunger. B is guilty of murder, but, as A did not co-operate with B. A is guilty only of an attempt to commit murder.

IPC 36: Section 36 of the Indian Penal Code

December 15, 2014

Effect caused partly by act and partly by omission

Wherever the causing of a certain effect, or an attempt to cause that effect, by an act or by an omission, is an offence, it is to be understood that the causing of that effect partly by an act and partly by an omission is the same offence.

Illustrations

  1. A intentionally causes Z&‘s death, partly by illegally omitting to give Z food, and party by beating Z. A has committed murder.

IPC 216A : Section 216A of the Indian Penal Code

December 15, 2014

Penalty for harbouring robbers or dacoits

Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that any persons are about to commit or have recently committed robbery or dacoity, harbours them or any of them, with the intention of facilitating the commission of such robbery or dacoity or of screening them or any of them from punishment, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanations

  1. For the purposes of this section it is immaterial whether the robbery or dacoity is intended to be committed, or has been committed, within or without India.

Exceptions

  1. This provision does not extend to the case in which the harbour is by the husband or wife of the offender.

IPC 35: Section 35 of the Indian Penal Code

December 15, 2014

When such an act is criminal by reason of its being done with a criminal knowledge or intention

Whenever an act, which is criminal only by reason of its being done with a criminal knowledge or intention, is done by several persons, each of such persons who joins in the act with such knowledge or intention is liable for the act in the same manner as if the act were done by him alone with that knowledge or intention.

IPC 216: Section 216 of the Indian Penal Code

December 15, 2014

Harbouring offender who has escaped from custody or whose apprehension has been ordered

Whenever any person convicted of or charged with an offence, being in lawful custody for that offence, escapes from such custody, or whenever a public servant, in the exercise of the lawful powers of such public servant, orders a certain person to be apprehended for an offence, whoever, knowing of such escape or order for apprehension, harbours or conceals that person with the intention of preventing him from being apprehended, shall be punished in the manner following, that is to say,

if a capital offence – if the offence for which the person was in custody or is ordered to be apprehended is punishable with death, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;

if punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment – for ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, with or without fine;

and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment which may extend to one year and not to ten years, he shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for such offence or with fine, or with both.

“Offence” in this section includes also any act or omission of which a person is alleged to have been guilty out of India, which, if he had been guilty of it in India, would have been punishable as an offence, and for which he is, under any law relating to extradition, or otherwise liable to be apprehended or detained in custody in India, and every such act or omission shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be punishable as if the accused person had been guilty of it in India.

Exceptions

  1. The provision does not extend to the case in which the harbour or concealment is by the husband or wife of the person to be apprehended.

IPC 34: Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code

December 15, 2014

Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention -

When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.

IPC 33: Section 33 of the Indian Penal Code

December 15, 2014

“Act”. “Omission”

The word “act” denotes as well as series of acts as a single act: the word “omission” denotes as well a series of omissions as a single omission.

1 … 99 100 101 102 103 … 119