UNIT I : IPC semester Exam

Q.1. Discuss Criminal Conspiracy. Can one person be punished for the offense of criminal conspiracy?

Introduction:

Criminal conspiracy is addressed under Section 120A and Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). It refers to an agreement between two or more persons to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means.

---

Definition (Section 120A):

According to Section 120A IPC, a criminal conspiracy is when two or more persons agree to commit:

1. An illegal act, or
2. A legal act by illegal means.

The act of agreement itself constitutes the offense, even if no subsequent illegal act occurs. This distinguishes criminal conspiracy from other offenses where an act or omission is essential for completion.

---

Punishment (Section 120B):

Under Section 120B IPC, the punishment depends on the severity of the offense that is the object of the conspiracy:

1. When the conspired offense is punishable with death, life imprisonment, or rigorous imprisonment for 2 years or more: The conspirators are subject to the same punishment as the main offense.
2. Other cases: The punishment is imprisonment for up to 6 months, or a fine, or both.

---

Essentials of Criminal Conspiracy:

1. Agreement: The existence of a mutual agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act.
2. Intent: The intention must be to achieve an illegal objective or use illegal means.
3. No overt act necessary: The mere agreement suffices to constitute the offense.

---

Can one person be punished for the offense of criminal conspiracy?

• Legal Perspective: No, a single person cannot commit the offense of criminal conspiracy because it inherently requires at least two individuals agreeing to commit an unlawful act.
• Judicial Precedents: The Supreme Court in Yash Pal Mittal v. State of Punjab (1977) held that criminal conspiracy is not possible in isolation. However, once the involvement of co-conspirators is proven, an individual can be convicted based on circumstantial evidence.

---

Conclusion:

Criminal conspiracy under IPC underscores the significance of agreements in unlawful acts, emphasizing prevention over commission. While one person alone cannot be punished for criminal conspiracy, their role in a group’s agreement can lead to punishment under Section 120B IPC.

---

Q.2. Explain Insanity as an exception. How is forced intoxication treated as an exception?

Introduction:

Insanity and intoxication are exceptions under Chapter IV of IPC (Sections 76-106), which deals with "General Exceptions." Both exceptions recognize circumstances where the accused lacks the mental capacity to form the requisite intent (mens rea) for a criminal act.

---

Insanity as an Exception (Section 84 IPC):

Under Section 84 IPC, an act committed by a person of unsound mind is not an offense if:

1. The accused was incapable of understanding the nature of the act, or
2. The accused did not know that the act was either wrong or contrary to the law.

Key Conditions for Pleading Insanity:

1. Medical evidence: There must be proof of mental illness at the time of the offense.
2. Timing: Insanity must exist at the time of the act, not before or after.
3. Nature of illness: The mental disorder must impair the accused's ability to understand the consequences of their actions.

Case Law:

• Ratan Lal v. State of M.P. (1970): The court held that chronic schizophrenia prevented the accused from understanding the nature of the act, granting the defense of insanity.

---

Forced Intoxication as an Exception (Section 85 IPC):

Under Section 85 IPC, an act committed under involuntary intoxication is not an offense if:

1. The accused was intoxicated without their knowledge or against their will.
2. The intoxication rendered the accused incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was wrong/contrary to law.

---

Voluntary Intoxication (Section 86 IPC):

• Voluntary intoxication does not provide complete immunity. Under Section 86 IPC, if a specific intent crime is committed, voluntary intoxication is no defense unless the accused was incapable of forming intent due to intoxication.

Example: A person who voluntarily drinks alcohol and commits murder cannot claim immunity.

Case Law:

• Basdev v. State of Pepsu (1956): The court held that voluntary intoxication does not absolve liability but could reduce the severity of the charge if intent is unclear.

---

Distinction between Insanity and Intoxication:

Aspect	Insanity	Intoxication
Cause	Mental illness	Alcohol or drug use
Duration	Chronic (long-term)	Temporary
Voluntariness	Involuntary	Can be voluntary or involuntary
Legal Relief	Always a defense (if proven)	Only forced intoxication is a defense

---

Conclusion:

Insanity and forced intoxication act as exceptions under the IPC, recognizing situations where intent is absent due to mental incapacity. Courts, however, examine evidence meticulously to prevent misuse of these defenses. Both exceptions highlight the IPC's balanced approach between justice and humanity.