BNS Case Summaries

Q. v. Collins: If a pickpocket reaches into an empty pocket with the intent to steal, he can still be guilty of an attempt to steal, even though there was nothing to take.

Example: If someone tries to poison another person by giving them a drink with poison, but the glass accidentally spills, they are still guilty of an attempted murder because they took steps with the intent to harm.

Key Point: These cases confirm that even if the crime isn’t possible (like trying to steal from an empty pocket), the attempt is still a crime if there was intent and an action was taken.

Key Point: This case explains the difference between attempts that can realistically cause harm and those that cannot.

What Happened: The accused tried to cause a miscarriage by giving a defective substance that could not produce the intended effect.

Main Issue: Should the accused be held liable for attempting a miscarriage even though the substance was ineffective?

Important Law: Section 511 IPC covers attempts, and Section 312 IPC relates to causing miscarriage but requires the use of something capable of working.

Outcome: The court ruled that the accused was not guilty of an “attempt” because the substance used was too weak to cause harm, meaning there was no real chance of achieving the intended result.

Key Point: This case clarifies when an act moves from preparation to attempt in the context of cheating.

What Happened: Abhayanand Mishra falsely claimed to have a B.A. degree and submitted forged documents to Patna University to take the M.A. exam. The University issued him an admission card, later discovering the forgery.

Main Issue: Did Mishra’s actions constitute an attempt to cheat under Sections 420 and 511 of IPC?

Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, ruling that submitting forged documents went beyond preparation and constituted an attempt to cheat by inducing the University to issue the admission card, considered “property” under Section 420.

Key Point: This case clarifies that mere intention is insufficient for conviction; there must be an attempt or action with the knowledge that it could lead to death.

What Happened: Bimla, the appellant’s wife, suffered maltreatment and attempted to escape. She later gave a dying declaration blaming her husband’s actions, which made her health much worse.

Main Issue: Did the husband’s actions qualify as an attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC?

Outcome: The Supreme Court held that the appellant’s actions, knowing they could result in death, constituted an attempt. The court ruled that “the beginning of an attempt is itself an attempt,” affirming his conviction under Section 307 read with Section 511 IPC. The appeal was dismissed, establishing that actions with knowledge of potentially fatal outcomes meet the threshold for attempt to murder.

What Happened: Malkiat Singh was caught driving a truck loaded with paddy about 40 km from Delhi. Under the Punjab Paddy Order, transporting paddy out of Punjab was banned. Malkiat Singh argued that since the truck was intercepted far from the destination, their actions only amounted to preparation and not an attempt to export the paddy illegally.

Main Issue: Whether the act of transporting paddy in a truck, which was intercepted en route, amounted to mere preparation or an attempt to commit an offense under the law?

Outcome: The court held that Malkiat Singh’s actions amounted to preparation, not attempt. Since the truck was stopped far from its destination, they still had the chance to stop and avoid committing the offense.

Key Point: This case clarifies the difference between preparation and attempt under Section 511 IPC, emphasizing that a conviction requires concrete steps beyond mere intent.

What Happened: Authorities tracked a truck and jeep suspected of transporting silver illegally. They stopped the vehicles, finding silver ingots and arresting Respondent No. 1, who was armed and in possession of cash and silver.

Main Issue: Did the respondents’ actions go beyond preparation and qualify as an attempt to smuggle?

Outcome: The Supreme Court held that the accused was guilty, saying their actions were an attempt.

Section 309 IPC: Criminalizes the attempt to commit suicide, punishable by imprisonment for up to one year, a fine, or both.

Key Cases and Judicial Interpretations:

• P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994): Struck down Section 309 as unconstitutional, stating that it violated Article 21 (Right to Life) of the Constitution, as the right to life also implied the right to die.
• Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab (1996):
• Reversal: A larger bench overruled P. Rathinam, upholding Section 309’s validity.
• Reasoning: The Supreme Court clarified that Article 21 does not include the right to die and held that the sanctity of life is paramount.
• Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: The Court differentiated between euthanasia and suicide, stating that actively ending life (euthanasia) is illegal, while the withdrawal of life support may be permissible in cases where a patient is in a persistent vegetative state, as this does not actively cause death.

Key Point: This case established that necessity cannot be used as a defense for murder.

What Happened: Dudley and Stephens, stuck at sea without food, killed a cabin boy to survive by eating his flesh. They were rescued but later faced a murder trial.

Main Issue: Can necessity justify killing another person to save oneself?

Outcome: The court convicted Dudley and Stephens, ruling that necessity is not a defense for murder because it goes against the idea that human life is precious. The case set an example that surviving does not justify taking someone else’s life.

Key Point: This case established that a reasonable belief in specific circumstances, even if incorrect, can be a defense in criminal law.

What Happened: Mrs. Tolson remarried after her husband had been missing for six years, believing him to be dead. When he returned, she was charged with bigamy.

Main Issue: Is remarriage based on a genuine belief of a spouse’s death considered bigamy if the spouse is later found alive?

Outcome: The court acquitted Tolson, ruling that her honest and reasonable belief in her husband’s death was a valid defense, even though bigamy statutes didn’t explicitly require intent. This case highlighted that reasonable belief can sometimes absolve criminal responsibility.

Key Point: This case established that a mistake of fact is not a valid defense when a statute does not require knowledge of the fact in question.

What Happened: The defendant took a 14-year-old girl without her parents’ consent, believing she was 18.

Outcome: The court upheld the conviction, ruling that Prince was liable regardless of his reasonable belief about the girl's age.

What Happened: Upset by repeated academic failures, Dasrath Paswan decided to end his life and asked his wife for her suggestion. She said they should both die and suggested he kill her first before taking his own life. He then attacked her fatally with a spear and a sharp weapon. A witness saw him wearing blood-stained clothes, which led to his arrest and confession.

Main Issue: Was Dasrath guilty of murder based on his confession and the evidence?

Outcome: The judge convicted Dasrath of murder, sentencing him to life imprisonment. The court relied on his confessions and physical evidence to confirm intent.

Key Point: This case clarifies that voluntary intoxication is not a defense for actions showing intent or awareness.

What Happened: Basdev, intoxicated at a wedding, shot a young boy after being ignored. Witnesses noted he was highly drunk but still chose to use his pistol.

Main Issue: Did Basdev’s intoxicated state reduce his charge from murder to culpable homicide?

Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the murder charge, ruling that voluntary intoxication doesn’t excuse responsibility if the person demonstrates awareness or intent, as Basdev did by using a weapon.

What Happened: During a nationwide strike, activists stormed James Martin’s flour mill, threatened him, and set the mill on fire. Martin, in response, fired shots, killing two attackers.

Main Issue: Did Martin’s actions exceed the right of private defense?

Outcome: The Supreme Court ruled Martin’s actions were justified under Section 103 IPC, as he faced an immediate and severe threat to his life and property. This case clarified that lethal force in self-defense is permissible in grave situations involving property threats.

Key Point: The case emphasizes that private defense is a protective right and cannot be used as a tool for revenge.

What Happened: Ram Swarup, with his father, confronted a trade rival over a prior dispute. During the altercation, Ram Swarup shot Sahib at close range, leading to his death.

Main Issue: Was Ram Swarup’s act of shooting justified as private defense, or was it an act of aggression?

Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the self-defense claim, ruling that private defense is only valid against immediate threats and not for planned confrontations. Ram Swarup’s sentence was reduced to life imprisonment, and Ganga Ram was acquitted under the Arms Act.

What Happened: In a land dispute clash, Deo Narain used a spear in response to an attack with a lathi, causing a fatal injury.

Main Issue: Did Deo Narain exceed his right of private defense by using a spear against a lathi attack?

Outcome: The Supreme Court acquitted Deo Narain, ruling that he acted within his right to private defense since the use of a spear was justified to counter an imminent threat, making his actions lawful under Section 100 IPC.

Key Point: This case clarifies the limits of self-defense, emphasizing that excessive force beyond immediate protection can be classified as murder.

What Happened: Kishan, after a dispute, attacked Bucha with a Khutai (tool) in retaliation, delivering fatal blows to Bucha’s head, after Bucha had initially used it in self-defense.

Main Issue: Was Kishan’s act of striking back with the Khutai justified as self-defense, or did it constitute murder?

Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the murder conviction under Section 302 IPC, ruling that Kishan’s excessive use of force after disarming Bucha went beyond self-defense, making it an unlawful act of murder.

Key Point: This case clarifies that an intended injury, if severe enough to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, can be treated as murder under Section 300, thirdly.

What Happened: Virsa Singh inflicted a single, deep injury on Khem Singh, which exposed internal organs and led to death, though there was no intent specifically to kill.

Main Issue: Did the injury meet Section 300, thirdly’s requirements for murder, despite no explicit intent to kill?

Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction for murder, ruling that the intended injury was severe enough to cause death naturally, meeting the criteria under Section 300, thirdly. This case set a key precedent for judging murder based on the nature and sufficiency of a single fatal injury.

Key Point: This case distinguishes between murder and culpable homicide, focusing on the intent and likely outcome of an assault.

What Happened: Govinda, in a fit of anger, assaulted his young wife, causing her to fall and hitting her head. The blows led to internal brain bleeding, resulting in her death.

Main Issue: Were Govinda's actions murder (Section 300 IPC) or culpable homicide (Section 299 IPC)?

Outcome: The court held that Govinda’s actions were culpable homicide, not murder, as he didn’t intend to kill, nor was the injury typically fatal. He was sentenced to seven years, clarifying that without clear intent to kill or a normally fatal injury, the offense is culpable homicide rather than murder.

Key Point: This case emphasized that long-term abuse can impact mental health, allowing diminished responsibility in murder cases.

What Happened: Kiranjit Ahluwalia endured ten years of severe abuse from her husband. In a state of mental distress, she set fire to his bed intending to cause pain, not kill. He died, and she was charged with murder.

Main Issue: Could prolonged abuse and trauma justify her actions as manslaughter under Section 304 IPC instead of murder?

Outcome: The appeal court reduced her conviction to manslaughter, recognizing the impact of prolonged abuse on her mental state. This case led to legal changes, acknowledging “Battered Woman Syndrome” and the need for sensitivity in abuse-related defenses.

Key Point: This case clarified that premeditated acts don’t qualify for the defense of sudden provocation under Exception 1 of Section 300 IPC.

What Happened: Naval officer Nanavati discovered his wife's affair, confronted her lover Ahuja, and then shot him after a brief time to cool off.

Main Issue: Was Nanavati’s act a sudden response to provocation, or was it premeditated murder?

Outcome: The Supreme Court convicted Nanavati of murder, ruling it was a planned act and did not qualify for sudden provocation. This case also led to the end of jury trials in India due to concerns over emotional influence on jurors.

Key Point: A minor’s consent is irrelevant in kidnapping if taken from lawful guardianship for illicit purposes.

What Happened: Raja Ram persuaded a 14-year-old girl, Santosh, to leave her home to meet a man with bad intentions.

Main Issue: Was Raja Ram guilty of kidnapping under Section 366 IPC by aiding her abduction?

Outcome: The Supreme Court convicted Raja Ram, as his role led to her unlawful removal, emphasizing that a minor’s willingness does not override guardian rights.

Key Point: This case exposed the flaws in interpreting consent and the impact of power dynamics in rape cases, leading to legal reforms.

What Happened: Mathura, a young girl, was taken to a police station where two officers, Ganpat and Tukaram, assaulted her. Ganpat raped her, and Tukaram attempted to but failed. A delayed medical exam showed no injuries or semen traces.

Main Issue: Was Mathura’s passive submission due to fear or genuine consent, given the police authority over her?

Important Law: Section 376 IPC defines and penalizes rape, requiring examination of consent in the context of power and coercion.

Outcome: The Supreme Court reinstated the acquittal, stating there was no clear proof of imminent threat, leading to public outrage. This case sparked reforms to redefine consent, considering authority figures' influence and psychological coercion.

Key Point: This case reinforces legal protections for a woman’s modesty and clarifies that delays in filing complaints don’t invalidate serious claims.

What Happened: At a dinner party, Kanwar Pal Singh Gill, then Punjab’s DGP, allegedly behaved inappropriately toward a female officer by moving her chair and slapping her on the posterior, leading to a delayed complaint.

Main Issue: Did his actions amount to outraging the woman’s modesty under Sections 354 and 509 IPC, despite the delay in filing?

Important Law: Section 354 IPC deals with acts meant to outrage a woman’s modesty, and Section 509 IPC addresses words or gestures intended to insult modesty.

Outcome: The Supreme Court reversed the High Court’s dismissal of the complaint, reinstating charges under Sections 354 and 509, holding that Gill’s actions, as a senior official, constituted an offense regardless of complaint delay.

Key Point: This case clarifies the requirements for claiming an insanity defense under Section 84 IPC.

What Happened: Dahyabhai was found holding a bloody knife after his wife was discovered dead. He claimed he was insane and unable to understand his actions.

Main Issues:

• Was Dahyabhai insane at the time of the crime, making him eligible for the insanity defense?

Outcome: The Supreme Court rejected the insanity defense, citing no strong evidence of mental illness at the time of the crime. The court held that proving legal insanity requires clear proof that the accused was unable to understand the nature or wrongfulness of the act.

Key Point: This case clarified that even temporary removal of property, if unauthorized and causing harm, can be considered theft.

What Happened: Pyare Lal Bhargava, a government official, took important documents without permission, altered them, and returned them later, delaying a license approval process.

Main Issue: Was Bhargava’s temporary removal of documents considered theft under Section 378 IPC?

Important Law: Section 378 IPC defines theft as taking property dishonestly, and Section 24 of the Evidence Act determines the admissibility of confessions.

Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld his conviction for theft, deciding that the unauthorized act caused a loss and met the definition of theft.

Key Point: This case clarifies that mens rea, or guilty intent, is essential for proving the offense of cheating under Section 420 IPC.

What Happened: Mahadeo Prasad accepted delivery of tin ingots but did not pay as agreed. The complainant alleged that Prasad deceived him by promising payment on delivery, intending not to pay.

Main Issue: Did Mahadeo Prasad have fraudulent intent at the time of accepting delivery, constituting cheating under Section 420 IPC?

Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, ruling that Prasad accepted the goods with no intention to pay, meeting the criteria for cheating. The court emphasized that fraudulent intent at the time of the transaction is necessary to establish criminal liability, affirming the conviction and one-year imprisonment.

Key Point: This case distinguishes between extortion and physical compulsion, noting that extortion requires inducing fear of injury to obtain consent.

Facts: Narain Dusadh and Sheonadan Singh were assaulted by Jadunandan Singh and others, who forcibly took their thumb impressions on blank papers.

Main Issue: Did the forcible taking of thumb impressions amount to extortion?

Outcome: The court held that physical compulsion without inducing fear of injury does not meet the criteria for extortion under Section 383 IPC. Instead, it ruled that the act constituted criminal force, punishable under Section 352 IPC, not extortion.

Key Point: Falsely claiming divine powers to induce payment is cheating under Section 420 IPC.

Facts: The appellant claimed to have healing powers, took ₹6,000 from the complainant for treatment, but provided no results. The complainant filed an FIR after learning of similar deceptions.

Outcome: The Court upheld the conviction under Section 420 IPC, ruling that the appellant’s false claims and monetary demands constituted cheating. The appeal was dismissed.

Key Point: The Supreme Court set these guidelines to make workplaces safe for women:

• Employer’s Responsibility: Every employer must ensure a safe working environment free from harassment for women employees.
• Definition of Sexual Harassment: Sexual harassment includes unwelcome acts like:
• Physical contact
• Demand or request for sexual favors
• Showing pornography
• Making sexually colored remarks
• Any other unwelcome physical, verbal, or non-verbal conduct of sexual nature
• Complaints Committee: Every organization must set up a Complaints Committee:
• Led by a woman
• At least half the members should be women
• Involve an external member from an NGO or women’s organization to prevent bias
• Confidentiality: The Committee must maintain the privacy and confidentiality of the complaint and the parties involved.
• Preventive Measures: Employers should:
• Take proactive steps to prevent sexual harassment
• Raise awareness among employees about what constitutes harassment
• Display information about the Complaint Committee and how to approach it
• Complaint Redressal: A clear procedure for filing and addressing complaints should be established, ensuring a fair hearing for all involved parties.
• Immediate Action: Once a complaint is received, swift and effective action should be taken, including disciplinary measures if the accused is found guilty.
• Protect Complainants: No retaliation or victimization against the complainant should be allowed. The complainant should not face any disadvantage for reporting the harassment.
• Awareness Programs: Organizations should conduct workshops and training sessions to educate employees on preventing harassment and understanding workplace behavior.
• Periodic Reporting: The Complaints Committee should keep records and periodically report on actions taken to prevent sexual harassment within the organization.

Outcome: These guidelines served as the foundation for India's workplace harassment laws, ensuring the safety and dignity of women at work.