#section 427 ipc

[newsblogs1-blog]

Growing Concerns Over Safety and Justice for Women in India

The safety of women, especially those belonging to vulnerable communities, has long been a pressing issue in India. Cases of harassment, assault, and other crimes against women often highlight systemic shortcomings in addressing such violations. The following case sheds light on the ongoing struggle for justice and security faced by women, particularly those from the Northeast working in metropolitan areas.

Businessman Sahil Zaroo Accused of Rape and Threats

New Delhi-based Kashmiri businessman Sahil Zaroo, who was arrested last month for raping and threatening a young professional from Northeast India, was slated for a bail hearing on Thursday. The hearing was later postponed to September 29.

The incident allegedly happened on August 16, after which Zaroo reportedly fled to Srinagar. He was, however, arrested by the Delhi Police in record 24 hours after the survivor lodged an FIR on August 18.

"The accused Sahil Zaroo was arrested by Delhi Police from Jammu and Kashmir within 24 hours of the complaint. He is in judicial custody and his bail hearing was fixed on September 22, which got postponed to September 23," Additional Commissioner of Delhi Police Hibu Tamang said.

The accused reportedly drugged the girl after a party in South Delhi, when she lost consciousness and fell prey to the heinous crime.

The survivor allegedly told Zaroo that she worked as cabin crew with an airline, after which Zaroo allegedly offered her a job in his private charter flight service. Despite having refused, Zaroo allegedly insisted that the girl take the job offer, with accommodation at his private penthouse. He forced her to stay back after the party to show her his penthouse, according to an FIR filed by the survivor.

The survivor was then drugged, after which she fell unconscious and woke up to find herself in different clothes with her undergarments missing. She was reportedly sick all day and it was not until she fully regained consciousness that she found out that something terrible had happened with her, the survivor reported to the police.

The survivor registered an FIR against Sahil Zaroo vide FIR No. 252/21 under section 376 and 328 IPC, on August 18, 2021. Zaroo then contacted her through WhatsApp and threatened to send the cops for narcotic tests and put her behind bars. Sources close to the case alleged he was confident that her blood test results would show a presence of drugs, since Zaroo had drugged the victim.

Zaroo also reportedly offered the survivor money and kept trying to persuade her to settle the matter and to take the case back. The survivor's flat mates and common friends with Zaroo have reportedly been giving him information about the survivor's whereabouts, said a statement to the cops submitted by a friend who was also at the Greater Kailash party.

The survivor is being given protection by the Special Unit For Northeast Region (SPUNER) Delhi Police whenever they step out.

Meanwhile, Sahil Zaroo's wife Saima Majid filed a counter-complaint against the girl after Zaroo’s arrest, accusing the survivor of blackmailing, extortion, and honey trapping. Majid lodged a complaint with the SHO, Greater Kailash on August 30, alleging that the survivor lied to her husband and cheated him for money.

Zaroo: Chequered Past, Dubious Claims

This is not the first time Zaroo has come under the scrutiny of the police. As early as 2006, Sahil Zaroo was involved in the famous NDPS case of Rahul Mahajan which was registered at the Tughlak Road Police Station.

He was also questioned in the NIA case related to "Hawala Money" in connection with DSP Davinder Singh, J&K Police. Another case vide FIR 32/2008 under sections 232, 354, 427, 506, 509, 541, 389 of the IPC was registered against Zaroo for slapping Bollywood actress Sonal Chauhan of Jannat movie fame in 2008.

"This person is well connected and is a habitual offender. He should not get bail. Exemplary action should be taken against such persons. They should be in jail," said Dr. Alana Golmei, a New Delhi-based advocate representing the survivor.

"For us in the Northeast and our young girls, this is not the first time they are going through this. I have been fighting for more than 10 years for justice for our young girls who have come here and worked and who have been sexually assaulted. Whether it is rape or any other offence, they don't get justice," said the activist-lawyer on the difficulties faced by women from the Northeast to fight against violation of their rights.

"It is high time that despite the person (accused) being well connected and influential, rape is seen as rape. Whether rich or not, the same treatment must be given to all perpetrators of the crime. Such examples will reduce these kinds of crimes against women from the northeast and other parts of the country," Dr. Golmei added.

A Call for Action

This case underscores the pressing need for systemic reforms in ensuring women’s safety and access to justice. It also highlights the plight of individuals from marginalized communities who often find themselves battling against powerful adversaries.

The incident serves as a grim reminder of the persistent challenges women face and the necessity for society and authorities to stand united against such crimes. Addressing these issues with urgency and fairness is paramount to fostering a safer and more inclusive environment for all.

[seemabhatnagar]

The Dark Trail: Sonia Keshwani’s Extortion Chronicles

Sonia Keshwani v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Mohit Dudeja Crl. Misc. Case No. 11714/2024 Before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur Heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Maninder S Bhatti J Order: The case was dismissed by the court because directallegations against the applicant Sonia Keshwani. Background This is the Regular first bail application filed U/s 439 Cr P C by the Applicant Sonia Keshwani for the offence registered against her U/s 384, 389, 452, 506, 427 IPC. Submission of the Counsel of the Applicant 1.     The allegation of the prosecution that the applicant came to the house of the complainant and attempted to ransack it is false. Neither any amount nor any kind of property or valuable security was delivered to the applicant. Hence, no case of extortion is made out in terms of section 383 and no case could have been registered U/s 384 IPC. 2.     The Trial Court rejected the bail application on the ground that there are other cases of similar nature registered in the past against the applicant. 3.     The Trial Court was required to appreciate that previously as many as four cases were lodged by the present applicant against her husband Vikas Ramrakhyani. 4.     Previous cases could not have been made the basis to reject the bail application of the applicant. 5.     The applicant is innocent and has been in custody since 19.2.2024. 6.     The applicant herself is a victim & has been falsely implicated. Submission of the Counsel of the State 1.     Applicant is in the hashtag#habit of hashtag#lodgingfalse and frivolous hashtag#cases. 2.     The Trial Court has rightly rejected the bail application of the applicant. 3.     The Trial Court has considered details of all previous cases. 4.     The present applicant, is in the habit of hashtag#blackmailing and hashtag#manypersons have been made hashtag#scapegoats at the instance of the present applicant. 5.     The applicant even lodged the false First Information Report against the persons and, therefore, the applicant is not entitled to a grant of bail. 6.     In the present case there are direct allegations against the applicant. 7.     It is alleged that the applicant while threatening the complainant extorted money and even ransacked the shop of the complainant and the hashtag#conduct of the applicant was also hashtag#captured in hashtag#CCTV of the hashtag#shop. 8.     The application for bail deserves to be dismissed. Observation of the Court 1.     A perusal of the case diary reflects that there are hashtag#directallegations of hashtag#extortion against the applicant. 2.     The statement of Mohit Dudeja, the complainant, also reflects that upon being threatened he gave a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- to the present applicant. 3.     It is also not in dispute that the present applicant has also lodged 5 cases under Section 376 I.P.C against different persons including two cases against one Vikas Ramrakhyani who, according to the applicant, is her husband. Seema Bhatnagar

[762175]

'Godman' Dhriendra Shastri's brother booked for allegedly pointing gun at a wedding function in Madhya Pradesh

Self-styled ‘Godman’ Dhriendra Shastri’s brother Shaligram Garg has been booked for allegedly using abusive language, pointing a gun, and threatening the father of a Dalit girl during a wedding function in Madhya Pradesh’s Chhatarpur.  Bamitha Police has filed an FIR against Shaligram Garg under sections 294, 323, 506, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) as well as the SC/ST Act.  The matter…

[thegulfindians]

Thiruvanathapuram court frames charges against minister V Sivankutty, 4 others in Assembly ruckus case

Thiruvanathapuram court frames charges against minister V Sivankutty, 4 others in Assembly ruckus case

All the six accused are facing charges under sections 447 (criminal trespass), 427 (mischief causing damage), read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sec 3(1) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property (PDPP) Act. Thiruvananthapuram: A court in Kerala on Wednesday framed charges against General Education Minister V Sivankutty and some other prominent LDF leaders in the 2015…

[alwaysfirst]

Kerala HC rejects bail plea of SFI leader in attempt to murder case

Jul 12, 2022 15:20 IST Kochi (Kerala) , July 12 (AF): The Kerala High Court has dismissed the bail petition of the state secretary of the Students' Federation of India, the student wing of CPIM, PM Arsho in connection with many cases including an attempt to murder. On June 12, Kerala Police arrested him in this matter and also for violating the bail conditions following which he was remanded to 14-day judicial custody. SFI workers felicitated PM Arsho by raising slogans and putting garlands just before entering the sub-jail in Kakkanad district. He was felicitated when the police brought him to the sub-jail. The Kerala High Court had cancelled the bail of Arsho in connection with an attempt to murder case observing that he was involved in the 12 cases during the bail period. The case against the leader was registered in 2018. The case against the SFI leader was registered in 2018. He was arrested for a case registered under sections 308, 355, 323, 324, 506, and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for allegedly attacking a student. Arsho was involved in 12 cases after obtaining bail in the murder attempt case. Observing this, a Single Bench of Justice Sunil Thomas issued an order cancelling his bail in February this year. The court also asked the police to arrest him immediately. But police submitted in the High Court that he was absconding. (AF) Read the full article

[kupwaratimes-fan]

9 held in Delhi's Jahangirpuri violence; 9 persons injured

9 held in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri violence; 9 persons injured

9 held in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri violence; 9 persons injured Noida (Uttar Pradesh): A day after violence broke out between two groups in Delhi’s Jahangirpuri, nine people have been held so far, said police on Sunday. Police have lodged a case under sections 147, 148, 149, 186, 353, 332, 323, 427, 436, 307, 120B IPC read with 27 Arms Act. During the violence nine people, including eight policemen…

[advocateshashankshekhardwivedi]

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday said that mere incorporation of Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) in the FIR and the charge-sheet, would not be a bar to the compromise entered into between the parties to put an end to the disputes between them.

Observing thus, the Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi allowed a 482 CrPC application filed by the applicants seeking quashing of the summoning order, in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 307 IPC.

It was informed to the Court that with the intervention of respected persons and relatives, the parties have entered into a compromise and there is no dispute remaining between them and the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 do not want any action against the applicants.

The opposite parties no. 2 and 3 (victims) appeared before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki along with their Advocates and they accepted the compromise. Now, in their 482 plea, they sought quashing of the Chargesheet.

Court's order

Before proceeding to decide the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in terms of the compromise, the Court examined the question as to whether the charge-sheet and the proceedings of a case can be quashed on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties.

For this purpose, the Court referred to Apex Court's ruling in the case of Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another; (2014) 6 SCC 466, later on, followed by the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688.

Essentially, in Laxmi Narayan case, the Supreme Court had observed that though offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences such offences can't be quashed by HCs in the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, only on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves.

However, the Court had further observed that the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision.

"It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc"

Against this backdrop, the Court noted that although the FIR and the charge-sheet in the case made a mention of Section 307 IPC, the medical examination report of the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 mentioned simple injuries of contusions and abrasions only and there was no report of any serious injury having been suffered by the opposite parties no. 2 and 3.

Further, the Court observed that none of the injuries is reported to have been inflicted on any vital part of the body of any of the injured persons. The injuries are reported to have been caused by a hard and blunt object.

https://linktr.ee/advocateshashankshekhardwivedi

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Court opined that continuance of the proceedings of the case even after the parties have entered into a compromise would only result in persecution of the applicants, which would give rise to a failure of justice.

Therefore, the Court allowed the 482 application and quashed the summoning order including the entire proceedings initiated thereafter.

Case title - Dr. Mohd. Ibrahim And Ors. v. State Of U.P. And Ors.

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 34

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday said that mere incorporation of Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) in the FIR and the charge-sheet, would not be a bar to the compromise entered into between the parties to put an end to the disputes between them.

Observing thus, the Bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi allowed a 482 CrPC application filed by the applicants seeking quashing of the summoning order, in a case registered under Sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 504, 506, 427, 307 IPC.

It was informed to the Court that with the intervention of respected persons and relatives, the parties have entered into a compromise and there is no dispute remaining between them and the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 do not want any action against the applicants.

The opposite parties no. 2 and 3 (victims) appeared before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barabanki along with their Advocates and they accepted the compromise. Now, in their 482 plea, they sought quashing of the Chargesheet.

Court's order

Before proceeding to decide the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in terms of the compromise, the Court examined the question as to whether the charge-sheet and the proceedings of a case can be quashed on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties.

For this purpose, the Court referred to Apex Court's ruling in the case of Narinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Another; (2014) 6 SCC 466, later on, followed by the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688.

Essentially, in Laxmi Narayan case, the Supreme Court had observed that though offences under Section 307 IPC and the Arms Act etc. would fall in the category of heinous and serious offences such offences can't be quashed by HCs in the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code, only on the ground that the parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst themselves.

However, the Court had further observed that the High Court would not rest its decision merely because there is a mention of Section 307 IPC in the FIR or the charge is framed under this provision.

"It would be open to the High Court to examine as to whether incorporation of Section 307 IPC is there for the sake of it or the prosecution has collected sufficient evidence, which if proved, would lead to framing the charge under Section 307 IPC. For this purpose, it would be open to the High Court to go by the nature of injury sustained, whether such injury is inflicted on the vital/delegate parts of the body, nature of weapons used etc" 

Against this backdrop, the Court noted that although the FIR and the charge-sheet in the case made a mention of Section 307 IPC, the medical examination report of the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 mentioned simple injuries of contusions and abrasions only and there was no report of any serious injury having been suffered by the opposite parties no. 2 and 3.

Further, the Court observed that none of the injuries is reported to have been inflicted on any vital part of the body of any of the injured persons. The injuries are reported to have been caused by a hard and blunt object.

In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the Court opined that continuance of the proceedings of the case even after the parties have entered into a compromise would only result in persecution of the applicants, which would give rise to a failure of justice. 

https://linktr.ee/advocateshashankshekhardwivedi

Therefore, the Court allowed the 482 application and quashed the summoning order including the entire proceedings initiated thereafter.

Case title - Dr. Mohd. Ibrahim And Ors. v. State Of U.P. And Ors.

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (AB) 34

[jknewsinfo]

*Niab Sarpanch among Two Arrested for Mischief and Attack on Police Party; Reasi Police* Team of Reasi Police arrested two notorious criminals involved in mischief and attack on Police party and creating law and order problem in Chassana area. Case FIR no 35/2021 U/S 341, 353, 382, 147, 149, 336, 504, 506, 225, 224, 120-B IPC and section 3 of Prevention of Damage to Public property Act has been registered in police station Chassana on 31st of August 2021 when some notorious criminals of the area attacked police party when notorious criminals wanted in rape case Prem Singh & his accomplices of Thalkote-Chassana were arrested on 31st of August. Prem Singh is a notorious history Sheeter involved in Seven cases including rape & attempt to murder. Teams of Reasi Police arrested two wanted accused persons-Naib Sarpanch Maqsood Hussain Shah S/O Ghulam Hussain Shah R/O Shergarhi Chassana wanted in case FIR no 35/2021 U/S 341, 353, 382, 147, 149, 336, 504, 506, 224, 225, 120B IPC & 3 of Prevention of damage to Public Property Act-1984 Police Station Chasana. In another case 15/2021, allegations under sections 452, 382, 427, 504, 506 IPC have also been proved & the accused was continuously evading his presence to presentation the charge sheet before Hon’ble Court of law. Accused Maqsood Hussain Shah is also accused in the rape case FIR Number 47/2020 U/S 376 D, 452, 109, 147 IPC. Victim has lodged FIR with signed application & the investigation is in progress. He has also been reported involved in religious sacrilege. A history sheet has been opened in Police Station Chasana to keep him under constant surveillance & contain his unlawful activities. Bharat Singh S/O Janak Singh R/O Thalkot an accused in FIR no 35/2021 U/S 341, 353, 382, 147, 149, 336, 504, 506, 224, 225, 120B IPC & 3 of Prevention of damage to Public Property Act-1984 Police Station Chasana is also arrested from Chassana area. Accused Bharat Singh has a criminal past conduct with case FIR No 87/2005 U/S 352, 341, 506, 147, 149 IPC Police Station East Shimla, Himachal Pradesh . Maqsood Hussain Shah, Naib Sarpanch has past criminal conduct of rape, Snatching. He was threatening SDPO Mahore through https://www.instagram.com/p/CTxA00Ch5wt/?utm_medium=tumblr

[prernaji89]

*Subject* : Regarding Welfare of Stray & Street Animals and prevention of Cruelty against animals. Meeting with *Shri Parshottam Khodabhai Rupala* Union Cabinet Minister of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying Govt. of India & Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) And *Prerna Jain, Animal Activist, Model Town, Delhi* and team - Nayan, Neera, Ritu, Yasmeen, Raja , Lalita (thanks to Anuradha ji and Ravi Ji) On 21 july 2021 At 26, Tughlaq Cres, Tuglak Crescent Area, Tughlak Road Area, New Delhi, Delhi 110011 *As per Article 48, 51 A(g) 51, a(h),19, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28* - we can feed animals. we can take care of animals, nature, plants, birds, trees. Its our Indian constitutional right & duty. We should be kind & compassionate & coexist. .... Under Wildlife Protection Act 1972 & Act 1986, we should protect trees, animals, water, trees, nature. we requested *Shri Rupala Ji* for Ambulance service for animals in Delhi (in fact Pan India) the same way there is ambulance service for animals when we dial 1962 helpline in Gujarat & 8277100200 in Karnataka. 1 lakh vans will b alloted soon. its in process *Prevention of cruelty to animals (PCA) Act 1960*, under *Indian penal code (IPC) 1860*, *Section 11*,धारा 120 B or 34 on people for coming in as mob , 294, 341, 427 428, 429, 323, 379,503,504, 506 for attacking & threatening the feeder . And Delhi police (DP) act 1978. Also additional sections under IPC 141 to 149 as per the crime history as applicable for MOB attack on feeder #animalcruelty #animalabuse #animalwelfare https://www.instagram.com/p/CRt-R-3MYHv/?utm_medium=tumblr

[kimskashmir]

Srinagar gunfight: Police registers case against unknown persons for stone-throwing

SRINAGAR — Police have registered a case against unknown persons for resorting to stone-throwing in Narbal area of Central Kashmir’s Budgam district. Narbal area witnessed stone-throwing after the killing of a LeT commander Abrar Nabi in Maloora HMT area of Srinagar outskirts. Police sources told KNT that an FIR vide number 145/2021 under sections 147, 148, 149, 307, 332, 427 IPC has been…

[newsmatters]

Village head, brother booked for threatening female health worker in Uttar Pradesh- The New Indian Express

Village head, brother booked for threatening female health worker in Uttar Pradesh- The New Indian Express

By PTI MUZAFFARNAGAR: Uttar Pradesh’s Sikri village head Rajender and his brother Ranu have been booked for allegedly threatening and disrupting the official work of a woman health worker here, police said on Monday. On the basis of a complaint filed by health worker Rachna Sharma, a case was registered against the accused on Sunday under IPC sections 189, 353, 427 and 506, Station House Officer…

[yourlawrightsblog]

धारा 427 आईपीसी (IPC Section 427 in Hindi), Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, IPC 427 in hindi or english

[hulnews]

Two Arrested Under Atrocity Act in Pune for Allegedly Assaulting Dalit Couple

Two Arrested Under Atrocity Act in Pune for Allegedly Assaulting Dalit Couple

[ad_1]

Two people were arrested in the district on Thursday under the Prevention of Atrocities Act for allegedly assaulting a Dalit couple and outraging the woman’s modesty. The alleged incident took place at Vadhu village in Bhima Koregaon area of Shirur tehsil on Wednesday.

Two people have been arrested under IPC sections 354(molestation ), 427 (mischief), 323 (punishment for

voluntarily…

[vasaicity]

Traffic cop assaulted for clicking pictures of an illegally parked car at Virar

A 48-year-old traffic constable was allegedly assaulted in Parnaka, Arnala, by a Virar resident late on Wednesday evening because he clicked pictures of the accused’s car which was parked illegally on the road. The accused, 41-year-old Dashrath Patil, was arrested, and later granted bail by a Vasai court on Thursday. Patil, a resident of Chandansar, was out shopping with his wife. “His car was parked on the road, obstructing traffic. Constable Dinesh Mhatre, on seeing the car illegally parked, took a photograph of the vehicle. While he was making a challan, Patil, who was at a nearby shop, reached the spot and began abusing Mhatre. The accused also punched and kicked Mhatre and threatened to get him suspended from the police force, said Vijay Bhalerao, an officer from Arnala police station. Patil was later arrested under sections 353 (obstructing government servant on duty), 427 (mischief) and 332 (causing hurt to a public servant) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Read the full article

[loyallogic]

Mischief under IPC – All you need to know about it

This article is written by Yatin Gaur, a student, pursuing B.A.LL.B. from Hidayatullah National Law University. In this blog post, the author discusses the offence of Mischief as mentioned under IPC. To substantiate the concept, reference is made to all the Sections covered by the topic, with relevant illustrations and case laws. 

Introduction

Let’s imagine a situation when one fine afternoon, a person named Soham was taking a small nap after a long day of labour. But he gets interrupted by his neighbour’s calf who breaks in his home and starts creating chaos. Infuriated with this sudden disruption, Soham starts abusing his neighbour. This starts up an altercation between the two. In a fit of anger, Soham throws a brick towards his neighbour but by accident, it hits his neighbour’s calf tethering its nasal region & the calf subsequently dies. Soham now approaches his lawyer for legal advice.

This incident gives rise to a lot of legal questions that what will be the nature of this offence? Will it amount to mischief against animals? Or are all the essentials of mischief satisfied ? or the fact that it was an accident and not a deliberate intention to harm the calf will play an important role in deciding the fate of the case? To answer all these questions we have to understand the Law of Mischief and how it can land someone in trouble as per IPC.

What is Mischief 

The definition of mischief is mentioned under Section 425 of IPC & the punishment is prescribed under Section 426 of IPC. Further Section 427 to 440 lays down the specific punishment prescribed for aggravated forms of mischief depending upon the nature & the value of the property damage.

As per the Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (hereinafter referred to as IPC) that whenever anyone performs an act either having an intention to cause or is aware that his act is likely to bring, some destruction or damage to any property, destroying or diminishing its value and utility, hence, resulting in an undue loss or damage to the public or any person is said to commit mischief. 

In simpler terms, it can be understood as when an individual intends to perform an act or has the knowledge that his/her act will create hindrance in allowing another person to enjoy the benefit of their property by one means or other, it is called a mischief. However, this act can be even against the public or against a specific person as well.

Objective

The Law of Mischief under IPC is specifically drafted with an objective to provide protection against the destruction of the property causing any wrongful loss or damage to the public or an individual. It is an extension to the legal maxim sic utretuoleadas which means “use your own property, but not in a way that can injure your neighbour’s or other’s property.”

Illustrations

“A” intentionally sets X’s home on fire causing him wrongful loss or injury.

“A” a doctor deliberately prescribed wrong medicine to “B’s” cattle with an intent to cause wrongful loss or injury.

“C” diverts the flow of canal in such a way to prevent “B” from irrigating his field causing him loss by damage of crops.

“B” tears off some important business-related documents of A to cause him financial loss.

“A” deliberately burns off the standing crop that was jointly cultivated by “A” and “B”.

“B” intentionally damages a “signboard“ installed by the order of municipality causing wrongful losses & injury.

Scope of Mischief 

Mischief under Section 425 of IPC covers all those acts that cause any damage or destruction to the property resulting in any wrongful loss or damage. The scope of this section is wide and it applies in the case of both public as well as private damages.

However, the most important point is that it will not have any application in the cases where the element of intention is absent which is further elaborated in this article under the heading of Ingredients of mischief. It is also not essential that the person accused had some valid motive behind or must have been benefited from the act of “mischief”. 

But some other significant questions of consideration are whether this act can be applied in the cases when the accused has damaged his/her own property? Or will it cover situations when the damage caused to the property is a consequence of an illegal act or default in payment?

When accused is the owner of the damaged property 

In the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd. and Ors., the Court held that ownership or possession of the property is not a deciding factor in the matter of the application of section 425 of IPC. Thus, mischief is said to be committed even in cases when the accused is the owner of the property provided all the other essential ingredients mentioned are satisfied.

This is further evident from the illustrations (d) and (e) to Section 425. According to the facts of the above case, the petitioner alleged that the respondent removed the engines of the aircraft diminishing their value and utility. Since the appellants had the right to possess the aircraft it resulted in wrongful loss or injury Hence the Supreme held that the allegations amounted to the offence of mischief as all the essential ingredients of mischief had been satisfied.

Default of Payment or Illegal Act 

In case of disconnection of water supply, sewerage supply, electricity supply, telephone connection, etc., by the concerned departments resulting from the default in payment or an illegal act after following a due process will not come under the ambit of “Mischief”.

Ingredients of Mischief

Essentially there are three key elements to establish Mischief as per the definition laid down in section 425 of IPC which are as follows:

Intention or the knowledge of the act (mens rea);

The act resulting in destruction, damage or change in the property or situation thereof; and (actus rea)

The change must lead to diminishing the value or utility.

Intention or the knowledge of the act may result in wrongful loss or damage (mens rea)

One of the most essential elements of all offences under IPC is that any crime is composed of two parts- Mens Rea & Actus rea. Similarly, “Mens rea” is required to be present in order to establish the offence of Mischief.

The definition of the law of mischief makes it very clear that the only way to prove the act of mischief does not essentially mean that it has to be proved that the accused essentially had any deliberate intention to cause unjustified damage to the property. But rather what can also serve as sufficient proof is the fact that the individual had the knowledge that such action of his/her can result in damage or degradation of the property, causing wrongful loss or damage. 

This can also be understood with a real-life example that if some children while playing street cricket break-up a glass window, it will not amount to mischief but will rather constitute negligence. But if those children deliberately throw the ball to aim at the window resulting in breaking up the glass and causing loss to the owner, then it will amount to mischief.

Similar was the judgement pronounced in the case of Nagendranath Roy v. Dr. Bijoy Kumar Dasburma where the court observed that mere negligence does not constitute mischief. However in certain situations when facts indicate that intention to cause wrongful loss was present along with the negligence causing damage will amount to mischief. 

In the case of Krishna Gopal Singh And Ors. v. the State Of U.P., it was stipulated that if the accused has committed an act without any intent or knowledge that the act in question is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to any person or the public at large, it will not fall under the ambit of mischief as the element of “Mens rea” is absent. Similarly, if an act is committed without free consent i.e.under some pressure or duress it will also not amount to mischief.

In Arjun Singh v. The State (AIR 1958 Raj 347) it has been observed by this Court:”In order to establish the offence of mischief, it is essential for the prosecution to establish that the accused must have an intention or knowledge of likelihood to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person.”

               Click Above

Wrongful loss or damage (actus rea) by diminishing the value and utility

The second important requirement is that the act must have resulted in some wrongful loss or damage to the owner of the property depriving him of enjoying the same. The act must have caused some damage, injury or destruction to the property to the effect of diminishing its value or utility. This will constitute the “actus reus” of the offence.

Similarly, even a change in the property can also amount to property. For example, altering someone’s research notes. It is also very important that the damage must be the direct consequence of the alleged act and must not be based on some hypothetical or imaginary relation.

In Arjuna vs. State (AIR 1969 Ori 200) case, the court found the accused guilty for damaging the standing crops grown by the complainant on the land belonging to the Government as it caused wrongful loss to the government by diminishing its value.

In the case of Gopi Naik vs. Somnath (1977 CrLJ 1665 Goa), the respondent alleged that the accused had cut their water pipe connection causing them wrongful loss & damage. Upon investigation, the Court found the accused guilty of the offence of Mischief as this act has resulted in diminishing the value of the property, i.e., water supply.

One very important case in this regard is the case of Sippattar Singh vs. Krishna (AIR 1957 All 405) case, where the court separated the offence of theft from mischief. In this specific case, the respondent was guilty of cutting the sugar cane from the field of the petitioner and taking it away. 

The Court found the respondent not to be guilty of the offence of mischief, but he was held guilty of theft, because of two important reasons: first that the respondent had not caused any damage to the remaining field of the sugar cane, & second because the respondent had physically moved certain quantity of sugarcane coupled with dishonest intention to misappropriate it.

In another case of E. In Shriram vs. Thakurdas case, the complainant alleged that the accused, an officer of Municipal Corporation, demolished his house thus was guilty of the offence of mischief causing him wrongful loss and damage. But upon investigation, it was found that it was an unauthorised construction and the accused took the action only after serving due notices.

The Bombay High Court held that the officer acted in the due course of his duties by demolishing the unauthorized construction as per law, thus this act of his attracts no offence under section 425 of IPC.

In the case of Punjaji Chandrabhan v. Maroti, the Court ruled that no mischief was committed under Section 425 of IPC when in a particular case ‘easement right’ to carry water to the field of the complainant through the drain running through the land of the accused. The court observed that the field being a tangible property was not capable of being destroyed thus no wrongful loss or harm was incurred. Hence the accused, the landowner.

Punishment for Mischief

The punishment for Mischief is prescribed under Section 426 which states that it attracts imprisonment of a term which may extend up to three months, or with fine, or with both, as the court may deem fit.

Nature of offence: The offence under this Section is non-cognizable, bailable, compoundable, and triable by any Magistrate.

Aggravated forms of Mischief

Though the punishment for the offence of mischief has been laid down as imprisonment until 3 months, or fine, or both in Section 426 of the Indian Penal Code. However, the IPC recognizes and lists down certain aggravated forms of mischief which have been described under Sections 427 to Section 440, IPC. It prescribes a different level of punishment for each category which is described as under:

Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees

Explanation: When a Mischief committed results in some pecuniary damage i.e. the damage is quantifiable the magnitude of the punishment will depend upon the amount of damage incurred. 

Punishment: According to section 427 whoever commits any mischief causing loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, will be subject to the imprisonment of either description of a term with a maximum of two years, or with fine, or with both. 

Proof requirement: It is important to establish the element of “Mens rea” in section 427 as well. 

Nature of offence: The nature of the offence under this section is bailable, compoundable, non-cognizable, and triable by the Magistrate.

Mischief by killing or maiming of animals of the value of ten rupees

Explanation: Section 428 provides the punishment in case of mischief committed upon any animal or animals of the value of ten rupees or upwards which includes killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering that animal useless. 

Definition: The word ‘animal’ used in the statute refers to ‘all living creature except human being (see here). By ‘Maiming’ the legislature does not intend causing wounds or temporary injuries (see here) but rather It has to be an injury permanently affecting the use of a limb or other parts of the body.

Object: The object of the legislature to prevent cruelty against animals.

Punishment: It attracts the imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both. 

Nature of the offence: The offence under this Section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution of such offence is pending, and triable by any Magistrate.

Mischief by killing or maiming cattle, etc., of any value or any animal of the value of fifty rupees

Explanation: Section 429 also lays down the punishment of similar nature of the crime but characterises the offence as more grave considering their utility for commercial purposes. punishes those who commits mischief by killing, poisoning, maiming or rendering useless, any elephant, camel, horse, mule, buffalo, bull, cow, or ox, whatever may be the value thereof or any other animal of the value of fifty rupees or upwards.

Object: Apart from preventing cruelty against the animals with commercial viability it looks that another reason behind this statue is to punish the person who tries to cause wrongful loss or damage to the person by inflicting cruelty on animals.

Punishment: The punishment prescribed under this Section is the imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. 

Nature of offence: The offence under this Section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution of such offence is pending, and triable by any Magistrate.

Mischief by injury to works to irrigation or by wrongfully diverting water

Explanation: Section 430 of IPC specifically aims at those cases where the act of mischief results in some injury to the work of irrigation or by unduly diverting the flow of water resulting in wrongful losses & damage. This section applies in the cases where weakening or obstructing the supply of water causes wrongful disturbances & losses in commercial activities such as agriculture, manufacturing or interfering with the drinking and food requirement of human beings or animals.

Object: The object behind the statue is to prevent diminution in the supply of water for agriculture, commercial purposes or to punish any alteration in the water supply resulting in some sort of interference with the drinking and food requirements of humans and animals.

Proof requirement: Mens rea or intention to cause wrongful injury is important to be established for proving the offence.

Punishment: The punishment prescribed in IPC for this offence will be either a description of a term which may extend up to 5 years, fine or both as the court may deem fit.

Nature of offence: The offence under this Section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution of such offence is pending, and triable by any Magistrate.

Mischief by injury to the public road, bridge, river or channel

Explanation: Section 431 deals with the punishment when an individual does an act which has the consequence of or which he knows has the consequence of causing inconvenience to the public. It covers those acts which result in damage to public roads, bridge, navigable river or navigable channels (natural or artificial) by making them impassable or rendering them less safe for travelling or conveying property.

Definition: A public road refers to a road used by the public generally (see here). Hence the term public’ under this section mentions the use and not the ownership.

Object: The object is to prevent any damage to the public property causing disruption, trouble and losses to the public at large.

Proof Requirement: Proving Mens rea is essential here, i.e. the intention to wrongful loss or injury to the person.

Punishment: The punishment prescribed under IPC is imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.

Nature of offence: The offence under this Section is cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable, and triable by Magistrate of the first class.

Mischief by causing inundation or obstruction to public drainage attended with damage

Explanation: Section 432 is specifically drafted to prevent any damage, obstruction or injury causing inundation, overflow or diminution to public drainage.

Object: The object behind this is to punish those mischiefs which aim at causing disturbance and interference to public life depriving them of basic requirements of cleanliness and sanitation.

Punishment: The punishment prescribed under this section is either description of a term or extending up to 5 years, or fine, or both i.e. same as the previous section since it is also a public nature offence.

Nature of offence: The offence under this Section is cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable, and triable by Magistrate of the first class.

Mischief by destroying, moving or rendering less useful a light-house or sea-mark.

Explanation: According to Section 433 anyone commits mischief that results in destroying, moving or rendering less useful anything placed as a guide for navigators. This may include any lighthouse, sea-mark, buoy or any other thing fulfilling such purpose.

Punishment: The punishment prescribed under this act is more severe that is imprisonment of either description for a term with a maximum period of seven years, or with fine, or both.

Object: The intention behind this is to punish the offender who incurred huge commercial and pecuniary loss caused by this mischief.

Nature of offence: The offence under this Section is cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable, and triable by Magistrate of the first class.

Mischief by destroying or moving, etc., a land-mark fixed by public authority

Explanation: Section 434 lays down the punishment for the mischief when any particular act results in destroying, moving or rendering any land-mark less useful which has been fixed by the authority of a public servant.

Object: It assumes the intention of the accused is to cause wrongful loss to the public authorities as the performance of such an act leads to the wastage of the time and money of the public authorities. Further, the authorities must have put that landmark to convey some important message to the public, thus causing general inconvenience. But since the gravity of the offence.

Punishment: The punishment prescribed under this offence is smaller i.e. imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.

Nature of offence: The offence under this section is non-cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable, and triable by any Magistrate.

Offences of Arson 

Section 435 to 438 of IPC characterises mischief by the method adopted to cause wrongful loss or damage. It deals with the remedies provided by IPC in case of damage being caused by fire. These sections are together called offences of Arson.

Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to cause damage 

Explanation: Sec. 435 covers those cases where the mischief is committed by fire or any explosive substance with an intent to cause, or the knowledge that the act is likely to cause damage to any property. This section applies when the amount of damage incurred is one hundred rupees or upwards or ten rupees or upwards when the “property” damaged is an agricultural produce.

Punishment: The section prescribes imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.

Nature of offence: The offence under this Section is cognizable, bailable, compoundable, and triable by Magistrate of the first class.

Mischief by fire or explosive substance with intent to destroy the house

Explanation: Section 436 also deals with the mischief committed by fire or any explosive substance, but specifically applies when the damage is caused to any building which can be a house, place of worship or as a human dwelling or as a place for the custody of property.

Punishment: Considering the seriousness of the offence the punishment prescribed under this section is more grave which may include life imprisonment, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and fine as the court may deem fit.

Scope: It has been pronounced by courts in various judgments that the word “property” used in this statute not only includes a well-furnished property with bricks and cement but is wide enough to cover structures made up of any material such as grass or matt hut and partially constructed structures as well. (see here)

Proof Requirement: One of the most essential requirements to establish an offence under Section 436 of IPC is that there must be some irrefutable evidence that the accused who actively set fire to the dwelling place or building or instigated someone to do it for him (see here). For example- a testimony of direct eye witness against the accused that he/she set the property on fire. 

Nature of offence: The offence under this Section is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable, and triable by the Court of Session.

Mischief with intent to destroy or make unsafe a decked vessel or one of twenty tons burden

Explanation: Section 437 deals with the mischief resulting in destroying or rendering unsafe any decked vessel or any vessel of burden twenty tons and above.

Punishment: The punishment for the offence includes imprisonment for a term which may extend up to ten years and fine.

Nature of offence: The offence under this Section is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable, and triable by the Court of Session.

Explanation: Section 438 is a special case of mischief specified in Section 437,i.e.when the similar mischief is committed with fire explosives destroying or rendering unsafe decked vessels of burden more than twenty tons.

Punishment: Though this offence attracts a more serious punishment i.e. life imprisonment or description of term extending up to 10 years & fine.

Nature of offence: The offence under this Section is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable, and triable by the Court of Session.

Intentionally Running Vessel Aground or Ashore to commit theft

Explanation: Section 439 specifically prescribes punishment for the mischief committed by running the vessel aground or ashore with the motive to commit theft or misappropriation of property.

Punishment: It attracts imprisonment for a term as the court may deem fit or maximum extending up to ten years, and fine.

Nature of offence: The offence under this Section is cognizable, non-bailable, non-compoundable, and triable by the Court of Session.

Mischief committed after preparation made for causing death or hurt

Explanation: Section 440 describes the punishment for committing mischief by making preparations with an intent to cause or create fear of death, hurt or wrongful restraint. 

Punishment: It lays down the punishment of imprisonment for a description of a term which may extend up to five years and a fine.

Nature of offence: The offence under this Section is cognizable, bailable, non-compoundable, and triable by Magistrate of the first class.

Conclusion

As society advances, new situations also emerge, and new issues are encountered. Similarly, though the offence of Mischief appears to be very exhaustive and inclusive taking up the whole fifteen sections of IPC. It tries to cover all the possible forms of mischief laying down different punishments for each depending on the gravity of the offence.

But despite this, it still fails to lay down proper punishment for many other kinds of mischief that are very common. Further, it does not lay down various situations that may also fall under the ambit of mischief hence leaving this solely to the discretion of Judges to identify and classify it as an act of mischief and to declare the punishment for the same. Due to this, there have been cases, where different levels of punishment can be witnessed in offences having similar nature & gravity.

Thus it is imperative to identify and implement appropriate punishment for the offence of mischief so that the offender can get due punishment and further, more deterrence can be ensured.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

Follow us on Instagram and subscribe to our YouTube channel for more amazing legal content.

The post Mischief under IPC – All you need to know about it appeared first on iPleaders.

Mischief under IPC – All you need to know about it published first on https://namechangers.tumblr.com/