Unit I — General Principles, Punishments & Exceptions

“The act itself does not constitute guilt unless done with a guilty intention.” — Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea

Elements of Crime & Stages

A crime is an act or omission forbidden by law and made punishable by the State; its two essential elements are a guilty act (actus reus) and a guilty mind (mens rea), united in point of time. The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (in force 1 July 2024, replacing the IPC 1860) preserves these common-law foundations. The commission of a crime ordinarily passes through four stages — and the law intervenes well before the final act.

flowchart LR
    A["1. INTENTION<br/>(mens rea forms)"]:::s1 --> B["2. PREPARATION<br/>(generally not punishable)"]:::s2
    B --> C["3. ATTEMPT<br/>(punishable — proximate act)"]:::s3
    C --> D["4. COMMISSION<br/>(completed offence)"]:::s4

    classDef s1 fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#333,color:#000;
    classDef s2 fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    classDef s3 fill:#FFE9CC,stroke:#B5651D,color:#000;
    classDef s4 fill:#FFE6E6,stroke:#8A1E1E,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Mere preparation is generally not punishable (exceptions: e.g. preparation to wage war, or to commit dacoity); liability typically begins at the attempt stage. Constructive/joint liability under S.3(5) (the old S.34) fixes each participant with liability for an act done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention as if done by each alone.

Punishments & General Exceptions

Punishments (S.4) under the BNS are: death; imprisonment for life; imprisonment (rigorous or simple); forfeiture of property; fine; and — a notable innovation — community service for petty offences. The General Exceptions (Ss.14–44) are circumstances that negate liability even though the act would otherwise be an offence; the burden of proving an exception lies on the accused (S.108, BSA).

✏️ Sample Solved Problem (IRAC Method)

Problem: Three adults and a boy are cast away at sea with no food; after several days the adults kill the boy and eat him to survive, and are later rescued. Can they plead the defence of necessity?

I — Issue

Whether the defence of necessity excuses the killing of an innocent person for the survivors’ self-preservation.

R — Rule

Section 19 excuses an act done in good faith to avoid a greater harm — but the settled rule is that necessity is no defence to the murder of an innocent person (R v. Dudley & Stephens, 1884).

A — Analysis

The decoy is the extremity of the situation — genuine starvation and near-certain death make the killing feel forced and almost involuntary. But however real the survival pressure, the boy posed no threat and his life was not forfeited. S.19 permits choosing the lesser evil against things and dangers, not the deliberate sacrifice of one innocent life to save others — to allow it would let private individuals constitute themselves judges of who shall live and who shall die, licensing killing under the cover of hunger. The lesser-evil calculus simply does not extend to choosing whose innocent life to take; the proper course, however desperate, was to await rescue or death by misfortune.

C — Conclusion

The defence of necessity fails. The adults are guilty of murder; necessity under S.19 cannot excuse the intentional killing of an innocent who poses no threat.

📄 The full bundle (₹199) has the complete Unit I — crime & its elements, mens rea, the four stages, joint/constructive liability, all punishments and every general exception with its leading cases — plus the Question Bank’s model answers to 10 solved problems (mistake, accident, the tiger shot, the surgeon’s operation, insanity, superior orders). Get Notes + Question Bank — ₹199