LANDMARK JUDGMENTS ON

BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023

OR

INDIAN PENAL CODE 1860

GENERAL PRINCIPLES, MENS REA

CASE NAME

HELD

1.       Queen v. Tolson (1889)232 BD168

The Court that as a general rule there must be a guilty mind before there can be a crime but a statute may make an act criminal whether there has been any intention to break the law or not.

2.       State of Maharashtra v. M.H. George, AIR 1965 SC 722

The Supreme Court established the principle that for a statutory offence to be proven, a guilty mind (mens rea) is presumed to be necessary unless the statute clearly indicates otherwise, either through explicit wording or necessary implication.

3.       Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895) 1 QB 918

The default position in criminal law is that a person must have a guilty mind (intention or knowledge of wrongdoing) when committing an act to be held criminally liable.

PUNISHMENTS

4.       Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1980 SC

The Supreme Court held that the death sentence should not be passed except in ‘rarest of the rare case’.

5.       Gopal Vinayak Godse v. State, AIR 1961 SC 600

The Supreme Court observed that a sentence of imprisonment for life must prima facie be treated as imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicted person's natural life.

GENERAL EXCEPTIONS

6.       KM. Nanawati v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605

The Supreme Court held that the general burden of proving every element of the offense remains on the prosecution.

7.       McNaughten’s Case

The M'Naghten Rule is a legal standard used to determine whether a defendant can be excused from criminal liability by reason of insanity.

8.       Dayabhai Thakkar v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1964 SC 1563

The Supreme Court established that for an insanity defense, the accused must prove they were incapable of knowing the nature of their act or that it was wrong or illegal due to unsoundness of mind at the precise moment of the offense.

9.       Director of Public Prosecutions v. Beard, (1920) AC 479 -

The House of Lords established three rules regarding drunkenness as a defense to crime. These rules state

                I.     that insanity due to drunkenness is a valid defense,

              II.     that evidence of drunkenness rendering an accused incapable of forming the specific intent for a crime should be considered to determine intent, and

that mere mental impairment from drink, which only makes a person more prone to violent passion, does not negate the presumption of intending the natural consequences of their acts.

10.   Basudev v. State of Pepsu, AIR 1956 SC 488 -

The court distinguished between "imputed knowledge" and "inferred intent" in cases of voluntary intoxication. While a voluntarily intoxicated person is presumed to have the same knowledge as a sober person, criminal intent must be proven based on the specific circumstances and the degree of intoxication.

11.   Deo Narain v. State of U.P., AIR 1973 SC 473 -

The Supreme Court clarified that under Section 102 of the IPC (Sec 40 of BNS, 2023) the right of private defence of the body arises upon a reasonable apprehension of danger, even before an offence is committed, and lasts as long as that apprehension continues.

12.   Mahavir Chowdhary v. State of Bihar, (1996) 5 SCC107 -

Section 97 of IPC (or Sec 35 of BNS, 2023) recognizes the right of a person not only to defend his own or another’s body but to defend his own or another’s property. The Court found that the right of private defence allows individuals to use reasonable force to protect themselves and their property.

13.   Mohd. Anwar v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 7 SCC 391

The Supreme Court held that to establish the defense of unsoundness of mind under Section 84 of the IPC (sec 22 of BNS, 2023), the accused must prove by a "preponderance of probabilities" that they suffered from a serious mental illness that impaired their ability to distinguish right from wrong at the time of the crime, and that this impairment was the reason the crime was committed.

CONSPIRACY

14.   Bimbadhar Pradhan v. State of Orissa, AIR 1954 SC 469

The court ruled that an individual can be convicted of criminal conspiracy even if their co-conspirators are acquitted. The essential point is that the prosecution must prove an agreement between two or more people, regardless of whether all of them are ultimately convicted.

15.   State of Tamil Nadu v. Nalini 1999 Cri. LJ. 3124 (SC)

This case is also known as the Rajiv Gandhi assassination case, the Supreme Court held that mere association with the main accused or knowledge of a conspiracy is not enough to make someone a conspirator. The Court affirmed that an actual agreement—a "meeting of minds"—is the sine qua non (an essential condition) for establishing the offence of criminal conspiracy.

16.   State (NCT of Delhi) v. Shiv Charan Bansal, (2020) 2 SCC 290

The Supreme Court held that criminal conspiracy is typically established through the cumulative effect of circumstantial evidence, focusing on the overall circumstances pointing to guilt rather than isolating each accused's individual role.

OFFENCES AGAINST THE STATE

17.   State (N.C. T of Delhi) v. Navjot Sandhu 2005 Cri. L.J. 3950

The Supreme Court held that the intention and purpose of the operation are a sine qua non (an essential condition) for proving the offense of waging war under Section 121 of the Indian Penal Code (or Sec 147 of BNS, 2023). The case, related to the 2001 attack on the Indian Parliament, provided a modern interpretation of the law on "waging war".

18.   Kedar Nath v. State AIR 1962 SC 955

The Supreme Court held that Section 124-A does not violate Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution as it is a reasonable restriction.

Sedition, as it was defined under the repealed Section 124A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), has been removed from the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), but its "spirit" has been retained and expanded under Section 152 of the BNS.

COMMON INTENTION AND COMMON OBJECT

19.   Mahboob Shah v. Emperor, AIR 1945 PC 118

This is a landmark legal decision in India that clarifies the meaning of "common intention" under Section 34 of IPC (sec 3(5) of BNS, 2023). The Privy Council made a distinction between 'common intention' and 'similar intention. Essentially, the court held that for someone to be held liable under Section 34 IPC or sec 3(5) of BNS, 2023, there must be a pre-arranged plan and a shared intention to commit a crime, meaning all involved parties must be aware of and agree to the plan.

20.   Barendra Kumar Ghosh v. Emperor, 52 LA. 40 (P.C.) -

The court established the principle that even if a person does not directly participate in a crime, if they have a shared intention with the perpetrators, they can still be held liable for the offense. The phrase "they also serve who only stand and wait" highlights that mere presence and shared intent are sufficient to constitute criminal liability, meaning someone who actively participates and someone who passively observes with a common goal can be considered equally responsible.

21.   Rajesh Govind v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2000 SC 160

The Supreme Court held that common intention may develop spontaneously during an incident. However, to convict multiple accused persons with the aid of Section 34 of IPC OR SEC 3(5) OF BNS, 2023, the prosecution must provide cogent and reliable evidence proving that the accused shared this intention and participated in the act.

22.   Tukaram Ganpat v. State of Maharashtra, v AIR 1974 SC 514

Establishment of an independent overt act on the part of each accused is not the requirement of law to allow Section 34 of IPC OR SEC 3(5) OF BNS, 2023 to operate. The case is more widely known as the "Mathura Rape Case".

23.   Chellappa v. State, (2020) 5 SCC 160

The Supreme Court reiterated that Section 34 of IPC OR SEC 3(5) OF BNS, 2023 is not a substantive offense but a rule of evidence.

24.   State of M.P. v. Killu, (2020) 16 SCC 735

The Supreme Court of India affirmed that under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or SEC 190 OF BNS, 2023 the prosecution does not need to prove a specific overt act for every member of an unlawful assembly. Mere membership in the unlawful assembly is sufficient to establish liability.

OFFENCES AGAINST HUMAN BODY

25.   R. v. Swindall and Osborne (1846)2 C&K 230

The court held that both men were equally liable for the man's death, even though only one of them directly hit the victim, because they had actively encouraged each other to drive recklessly while intoxicated, thus contributing to the fatal accident.

26.   State of UP. v. Virendra Prasad, 2004 CriLJ. 1373 (SC)

The Supreme Court affirmed the legal principle regarding murder Under clause 3 of Section 300 IPC (SEC 101 CLAUSE 3 OF BNS, 2023) culpable homicide is murder if both of the following are satisfied:-

  I.     Intent to Cause Death or Serious Injury:

The act that caused the death must be done with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing bodily injury that is likely to result in death.

 II.     Sufficiency of the Intended Injury:

The bodily injury intended to be inflicted must be severe enough that, in the ordinary course of nature, it would be capable of causing death.

27.   Reg vs Govinda on 18 July, 1876

The Bombay High Court explained the difference between culpable homicide and murder under the Indian Penal Code.

28.   Mithu v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC

The Supreme Court declared Section 303 of IPC (SEC 104 OF BNS, 2023) unconstitutional and void, ruling that the mandatory death penalty for a prisoner serving a life sentence who committed murder was a violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 (Right to Equality) and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) of the Indian Constitution.

29.   Anbazhagan vs State (2023)

The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between the two parts of Section 304 IPC (SEC 105 BNS, 2023) by differentiating between "guilty intention" and "guilty knowledge". Part I applies when murder is established but falls under one of the exceptions to Section 300 of the IPC (SEC 101 BNS, 2023) requiring a "guilty intention". Part II applies when the elements of murder are never established, but the act was committed with "guilty knowledge" that death could result.

30.   Balu Sudam Khalde and Another v. The State of Maharashtra 2023

The Supreme Court held that Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC (SEC 101 Exception 4 of BNS, 2023)- applies when death results from a sudden fight without premeditation, heat of passion, and without the offender taking undue advantage or acting cruelly, to reduce a murder charge to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

31.   Jacob Mathew v. State of Punjab, 2005 CriLJ. 3710 (SC)

The Supreme Court established that for a medical professional to be held criminally liable under Section 304A of the IPC (SEC 106 BNS, 2023)-, the negligence must be "gross" or "reckless," meaning it must be of a significantly higher degree than simple or civil negligence.

32.   Arvind Kumar v State, NCT of Delhi (2023)

The Supreme Court set aside the appellant's conviction for murder (Section 302 IPC) OR (SEC 103 BNS, 2023) and found him guilty of causing death by negligence (Section 304A IPC) OR (SEC 106 BNS, 2023)-. The Court determined there was no intent or knowledge of likely death required for murder, and instead the incident was an accidental discharge caused by negligence.

33.   Mustafa Shahdal Shaikh v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2013 SC 851

The Supreme Court interpreted the phrase "soon before her death" in the context of dowry death cases to mean there must be a "proximate and live link" between the cruelty, often involving dowry demands, and the death of the woman. This principle is crucial for establishing a dowry death under Section 304-B of the IPC (SEC 80 BNS, 2023) and for applying the presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act or sec 118 OF BSA, 2023.

34.   Om Prakash v. State of Punjab, AIR 1961 SC 1782

The Supreme Court established that to convict someone for attempt to murder under Section 307 of IPC (SEC 109 BNS, 2023), it is not required that a bodily injury capable of causing death actually occurred; instead, an act done with the specific intention or knowledge to cause death, in furtherance of that intention, is sufficient.

35.   S K Khaja vs State of Maharashtra (2023)

The court stated, "What is important is an intention coupled with the overt act committed by the appellant/accused". The court held that a conviction under Section 307 of the IPC (SEC 109 BNS, 2023) (attempt to murder) can be sustained even if the victim's injuries were simple in nature.

36.   P. Rathinam v. Union of India, AIR 1994 S.C.

The Supreme Court declared Section 309 of IPC, which criminalized attempted suicide, to be unconstitutional and void. The Court held that the right to life under Article 21 includes the right to die, and therefore, punishing individuals for attempting suicide was a cruel and irrational act.

37.   Smt. Gyan Kaur v. State of Punjab, JT1996 (3) SC 339

The Supreme Court superseded the earlier decision in P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994). The court determined that the “right to life” under Article 21 of the Constitution does not include a "right to die" or the right to be killed.

38.   Varadarajan v. State of Madras, AIR 1962 SC 942

The Supreme Court held that the offence of kidnapping requires an act of "taking" or "enticing" a minor from lawful guardianship, which necessitates some form of inducement or active participation by the accused.

39.   T.D. Vadgama v. State of Gujarat, AIR 1973 SC 2313

The Supreme Court clarified the definition of "entice" under Section 361 of the IPC (SEC 137 BNS, 2023), which addresses kidnapping from lawful guardianship. The Court held that the word 'entice' involves the idea of inducement or allurement, which gives rise to hope or desire in another person, particularly a minor.

40.   Independent Thought v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 800

The Supreme Court of India read down Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code or (SEC 63 BNS, 2023), ruling that sexual intercourse by a husband with his wife, even if the wife is between 15 and 18 years of age, constitutes rape.

41.   Navtej Singh Johar& Ors. v. Union of India, (2018) 10 SCC1

The Supreme Court of India declared Section 377 of the IPC unconstitutional to the extent that it criminalized consensual same-sex acts between adults in private. The Court read down the section, upholding fundamental rights to dignity, equality, privacy, and freedom of expression for LGBTQ+ individuals.

42.   State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kalyan Singh & Ors. (2019) 4 SCC 268

The Supreme Court ruled that offenses under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (SEC 109 BNS, 2023), for Attempt to Murder, are serious, non-compoundable offenses against society, not just individuals. Therefore, these proceedings cannot be quashed or terminated even if a settlement is reached between the complainant and the accused.

43.   Rajesh v. State of Haryana, (2019) 6 SCC 368

the Supreme Court held that a conviction for abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) (SEC 108 BNS, 2023) cannot stand on allegations of harassment alone, unless there is evidence of a direct and active act of instigation or incitement by the accused that was in close proximity to the time of the suicide, compelling the victim to commit the act. The ruling clarified that mere words uttered in anger or an omission of action without intent do not constitute instigation.

OFFENCES AGAINST PROPERTY

44.   R. K. Dalmia v. Delhi Administration, AIR 1962 SC 1821

The Supreme Court clarified that partners can be held criminally liable for breach of trust under Section 405 IPC (SEC 316 BNS, 2023) if they dishonestly misappropriate partnership property, as the trust is placed in the individual, not just the partnership.

45.   Satish chandra Ratanlal Shah v. State of Gujarat, (2019) 9 SCC 148

The Supreme Court has held that failure to repay a loan is not a criminal offence unless there is a fraudulent intent under section 420 IPC (SEC 318(4) BNS, 2023. A mere inability to repay a debt, arising from financial hardship or a breach of contract, is a civil matter and does not give rise to criminal liability for cheating.

46.   Deepak Gaba vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2023)

The Supreme Court held that a simple disagreement over a monetary demand does not constitute the criminal offence of breach of trust under Section 405 IPC (SEC 316 BNS, 2023). For criminal breach of trust, the act must be done dishonestly, not just without agreement or due to a financial dispute.

47.   Deepak Gaba vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2023)

The Supreme Court of India held that fraudulent, dishonest, or intentional inducement is the core element (sine qua non) of the offence of cheating under Section 415 of the IPC (SEC 318(1) BNS, 2023). The court noted that in the absence of these key ingredients, an act does not constitute criminal cheating.

OFFENCES AGAINST MARRIAGE

48.   Joseph Shine v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 39

The Supreme Court struck down Section 497 of the IPC, 1860 decriminalizing adultery as unconstitutional and found the law discriminatory against women, violating their fundamental rights to equality (Article 14), non-discrimination (Article 15), and privacy and autonomy (Article 21).

49.   Nitika v. Yadwinder Singh, 2019 (3) RCR (Criminal) 973

The Supreme Court ruled that courts where a wife takes shelter after being driven from her matrimonial home due to cruelty have jurisdiction to hear cases under Section 498A IPC (SEC 85 BNS, 2023).

50.   Rashmi Chopra v. State of UP, (2019) SC

The Supreme Court held that a complaint for an offence under Section 498A IPC (SEC 85 BNS, 2023) does not have to be filed exclusively by the woman who has been subjected to cruelty rather a complaint filed by a relative, such as the victim's father, is also legally maintainable.

ATTEMPT

51.   Abhayanand Mishra v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC

The Supreme Court held that a person commits the offense of attempt when they have the intent to commit a crime, make preparations for it, and then take an act that moves beyond mere preparation into the commission of the offence.

52.   State of Maharashtra v. Mohd. Yakub AIR 1980 SC

The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between criminal "preparation" and "attempt". By broadening the legal test for "attempt," the Court established that the proximity of an accused's actions to the intended crime should be measured by their intent, not by their finality.