IPC ANR CRPC QUESTIONS
BY NISHIL KAUSHAL
Q2) ) What offences have been committed in the following cases and by whom?
- A, with a guilty intention, abets a child or a lunatic to commit an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of committing an offence, and having the same intention as A. The act is not committed.
- A knows Z, to be behind a bush. B does not know it. A intending to cause or knowing it to be likely to cause Z’s death induces B to fire a at the bush. B fires and kills Z.
- A instigates B to set fire to a dwelling house. B, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is wrong, or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of A’s instigation.
- A, intending to cause a theft to be committed, instigates B to take property belonging to Z out of Z’s possession. A induces B to believe that the property belongs to A. B takes the property out of Z’· takes the property out of Z’s possession in good faith, believing it to be A’s property.
- A offers a bribe to B, public servant, as a reward for showing A some favour in the exercise of B’s official functions. B accepts the bribe.
- 108 section of IPC talks about abettor- a person abets an offence, who abets either the commission of an act which would be an offence, if committed by a person capable of law of committed an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of a abettor.
So in this case since A with the guilty intention abets a child or a lunatic which would be an offence , if committed by a person capable of law of committing the offence, and having the same intention of A, HERE A , WHETHER THE ACT IS COMMITTED OR NOT, IS GUILTY OF ABETTING AN OFFENCE.
- Sec 299 of the IPC states culpable homicide- whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable So in this case A knows Z to be behind the bush and B does not know it and A intending to cause death of Z induces B to fire at the bush and it kills Z , HERE A HAS COMMITTED THE OFFENCE OF CULPABLE HOMICIDE.
- Sec 107 of the IPC talks about abetment of a thing- a person abets the doing of a thing who
. Instigates any person to do that thing.
. Engages with one or more person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing , if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy a, and in order to the doing of that thing.
. Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission , the doing of that thing.
So here in the case A instigates B to set fire to a dwelling house B, in consequence of the unsoundness of his mind, being incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that he is doing what is wrong or contrary to law, sets fire to the house in consequence of A’s instigation so B HAS NOT COMMITTED ANY OFFENCE BUT A IS GUILTY OF ABETTING THE OFFENCE OF SETTING FIRE TO A DWELLING HOUSE AND IS LIABLE TO THE PUNISHMENT PROVIDED FOR THAT OFFENCE.
- It also talks about section 107 of IPC , so here A, intending to cause a theft to be committed, instigates B to take property belongs to A , B takes the property out of Z’s possession in good faith , believing it to be A’s property.B, acting under the misconception, does not take dishonesty, and therefore does not commit theft . BUT A IS GUILTY OF ABETTING THEFT, AND IS LIABLE TO THE SAME PUNISHMENT AS IF B HAD COMMITTED THEFT.
- Section 116 takes about abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment. If abettor or person abetted be a public servant whose duty it is to prevent offence- and that if the abettor or the person abetted is a public servant, whose duty it is to prevent to commission of such offence, the abettor shall be punished with imprisonment of any description provided for that offence, so here A offers a bride to B , a public servant, as a reward A shows some favour in the exercise of B’s official functions. B accepts the bribe so here A is PUNISHABLE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER THIS SECTION AND B IS ALSO PUNISHABLE FOR ACCEPTING THE BRIBE.
Q2) A lodged First Information Report alleging that in the morning, he has hacked his aunt to death with an axe and the dead body was lying at his house. The dead body and blood stained axe were recovered therefrom by the police. A is prosecuted for murder. There is no eyewitness or any other evidence against him. Prosecution seeks A’s conviction for murder on the basis of his version contained in the First Information Report. Examining the validity of this contention and the admissibility of the First Information Report as a substantive piece of evidence. Decide.
. The above question is related to the evidentiary value of FIR. It is a settled law that FIR is not substantive evidence; however it can be used to corroborate the informant under section 157 , Evidence Act, 1872 or to contradict him under section 145 of the Act , if the informant is called as a witness at the time of trial. Section 157 of Indian Evidence Act says that:
” In order to corroborate the testimony of a witness , any former statement made by such witness relating to the same fact, at or about the time when the fact took place , or before any authority legally competent to investigate the fact , may be proved. ”
The FIR in this case has been lodged by A, the accused himself where he admits to have hacked his aunt to death with an axe. Such FIR is called as the FIR of a confessional nature.It is only when the FIR is of non-confessional nature that it can be used as a evidence against the accused. Hence this FIR by A , the accused himself will not be considered as a substantive piece of evidence.
The FIR can also be used for the cross-examination of the informant and for contradicting him. This is possible by relying on section 145, Evidence Act which reads as follows:
” A witness may be cross examined as to previous statements made by him in writing or reduce to writing , and relevant to matters in question , without such writing being shown to him, or being proved; but if it is intended to contradict him by the writing attention must, before the writing can be proved, be called to those parts of it, which are to be used for the purpose of contradicting him ”
Considering section 157 and 145 of Evidence Act , 1872 it is quite obvious that the FIR cannot be used for the purpose of corroborating or contradicting any witness other than the one lodging the FIR.
If the FIR is given to the police by the accused himself, as in the question above, it cannot possibly be used either for corroboration or contradiction. The accused A , in the given case cannot be the prosecution witness, and he would very rarely offer himself to be a defence witness under section 315 of the code. Also, when the FIR is of a confessional nature, it cannot be proved against the accused informant as the evidence act says that “ no confession made to the police officer shall be proved as against a person accused of any offence.