Criminal Law – I (Indian Penal Code, 1860)

Explain the concept of 'mens rea' in criminal law. Is mens rea an essential ingredient of every offence under the IPC? Discuss with reference to the decision in State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George (AIR 1965 SC 722) and Nathulal v. State of MP (AIR 1966 SC 43). Also examine the doctrine of strict liability in criminal law.[10 Marks]

Discuss the law relating to 'abetment' under Sections 107–120 IPC. When is an abettor liable even if the principal offender is acquitted? Explain the concept of abetment by conspiracy, instigation, and intentional aiding. Refer to Sanju v. State of MP (2002) and Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001).[10 Marks]

Critically examine the five exceptions to Section 300 IPC which reduce murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. Discuss each exception with relevant illustrations and decided case law, including Amarnath v. State of Haryana (AIR 1977 SC 2185) and K.M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1962 SC 605).[10 Marks]

Discuss the provisions relating to 'criminal conspiracy' under Sections 120A and 120B IPC. What is the distinction between conspiracy as a substantive offence and conspiracy as a form of abetment? When can an accused be convicted of conspiracy in the absence of direct evidence? Refer to State (NCT of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu (2005) 11 SCC 600.[10 Marks]

Examine the general defence of 'insanity' under Section 84 IPC. Discuss the M'Naghten Rules and their application in Indian criminal law. How has the Supreme Court interpreted the test of legal insanity vs. medical insanity? Refer to Hari Singh Gond v. State of MP (AIR 2008 SC 3118) and Surendra Mishra v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 11 SCC 495.[10 Marks]

'P', 'Q', and 'R' decide to rob 'S's house at night. They formulate a detailed plan and assign specific roles: 'P' will keep watch outside, 'Q' will break open the lock, and 'R' will collect the valuables. While executing the plan, 'R' enters the house and encounters 'S' who wakes up and confronts them. In the ensuing scuffle, 'R' stabs 'S' with a knife he was carrying, causing 'S's death. 'P' and 'Q' claim they had no knowledge that 'R' was carrying a knife and that the plan was only to commit robbery, not murder. (a) Discuss the criminal liability of 'P', 'Q', and 'R' under Sections 34, 120A–120B, and 302 read with 149 IPC. (6 marks) (b) Can 'P' and 'Q' argue that the murder was beyond the scope of the common intention? Discuss with reference to Section 34 IPC and the principle laid down in Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. King Emperor (AIR 1925 PC 1). (5 marks) (c) Is there a case for 'robbery' or 'dacoity' on these facts? Discuss. (4 marks)[15 Marks]

'M', a cashier at a nationalised bank, is entrusted with the daily collection of cash amounting to approximately Rs. 10 lakhs. Over a period of six months, 'M' systematically siphons off small amounts totalling Rs. 3 lakhs and deposits them in his wife 'W's bank account. When the audit reveals the shortfall, 'M' produces false entries in the ledger to cover the deficiency. 'W' claims she had no knowledge of the source of the deposits and believed it was 'M's savings from his salary. (a) Discuss the liability of 'M' for criminal breach of trust under Section 405/409 IPC. Is the entrustment of cash to 'M' in his capacity as a public servant relevant to the offence and punishment? (5 marks) (b) Has 'M' committed the offence of forgery (Section 463 IPC) by making false entries? Discuss. (4 marks) (c) Analyse the liability of 'W' for the offence of receiving stolen property or dishonest receipt of property (Section 411 IPC). Does her defence of lack of knowledge hold in law? Discuss with reference to the concept of 'reason to believe' under Section 26 IPC. (6 marks)[15 Marks]

Read the following excerpt and answer the questions below: In R v. Govinda (1876), the accused had a quarrel with his wife. In a fit of anger, he knocked her down, put one knee on her chest, and struck her two or three violent blows with his closed fist on her face. This caused her nose to bleed and she became insensible. He then placed her near a wall and left. She died shortly afterward. The medical evidence showed that the blows caused extravasation of blood on the brain, which was the cause of death. The skull of the deceased was found to be unusually thin (about one-sixth the normal thickness). (a) Was the accused guilty of murder (Section 300 IPC) or culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 299 IPC)? Discuss the reasoning of the Court. (4 marks) (b) How did the Court apply the test of 'sufficiency of bodily injury to cause death in the ordinary course of nature' (clause 3 of Section 300)? Was the abnormal thinness of the skull relevant? (3 marks) (c) Discuss the significance of this case in developing the jurisprudence around 'intention to cause bodily injury sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death'. How does this case differ from Virsa Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1958 SC 465)? (3 marks)[10 Marks]

Distinguish between 'robbery' (Section 390 IPC) and 'dacoity' (Section 391 IPC).[3 Marks]

Distinguish between 'defamation' (Section 499 IPC) and 'criminal intimidation' (Section 503 IPC).[3 Marks]

Distinguish between 'extortion' (Section 383 IPC) and 'robbery' (Section 390 IPC).[3 Marks]

Distinguish between 'common intention' (Section 34 IPC) and 'common object' (Section 149 IPC).[3 Marks]

Distinguish between 'abetment' (Section 107 IPC) and 'criminal conspiracy' (Section 120A IPC).[3 Marks]