PENAL CODE,1860

(1) (a) What do you mean by crime? State the essential elements of crime. How many types of
punishment are in the Penal Code,1860?
Definition of Crime:
Crime is an act or omission that is prohibited by law and punishable by the state. It involves a breach of a
legal duty, and its commission causes harm to society or individuals. Crimes are defined and penalized
under legal codes to maintain order, protect individuals, and enforce justice.
Essential Elements of Crime:
To constitute a crime, certain fundamental elements must be present:
1. Human Being: The offender must be a person recognized as capable of committing a crime.
2. Act or Omission: There must be an action (commission) or inaction (omission) that violates the law.
3. Mens Rea (Guilty Mind): The act must be accompanied by a wrongful intent or knowledge (except in
strict liability cases).
4. Actus Reus (Guilty Act): The act or omission must result in harm prohibited by law.
5. Causation: A direct link between the offender’s act and the harm caused.
6. Legality: The act must be defined as an offense by law at the time it is committed.
7. Punishment: The law must prescribe a penalty for the act.

Types of Punishments in the Penal Code, 1860 (Bangladesh):

The Penal Code, 1860, prescribes the following types of punishments under Section 53:
1. Death Penalty: The highest form of punishment for the gravest crimes, such as murder and treason.
2. Imprisonment for Life: Involves incarceration for the convict's lifetime.
3. Imprisonment:
Rigorous: Includes hard labor.
Simple: Without hard labor.
4. Forfeiture of Property: Confiscation of the convict’s property as a penalty.
5. Fine: Monetary penalty imposed by the court.
These punishments aim to deter criminal behavior, rehabilitate offenders, and ensure justice in society.

(b) What is solitary confinement? State the provisions of the Penal Code, 1860 regarding imprisonment
in default of payment of fine?
Solitary confinement refers to the isolation of a prisoner from all human contact, except for the minimal
interaction required by prison staff. This form of punishment is intended to discipline or further penalize
offenders for specific offenses. It is carried out under strict legal regulations to prevent abuse and ensure
that it is proportionate to the offense.
Provisions in the Penal Code, 1860 Regarding Solitary Confinement:
The Penal Code, 1860, prescribes solitary confinement in Section 73 and 74:
Section 73: Courts may order solitary confinement for certain offenses if the imprisonment is rigorous and
the term of imprisonment exceeds three months.
Section 74: Solitary confinement cannot exceed:
14 days at a time with intervals of not less than the same period.
In total:
# 1 month if the term of imprisonment is less than 6 months.
# 2 months if the term is between 6 months and 1 year.
# 3 months if the term exceeds 1 year.

Provisions Regarding Imprisonment in Default of Payment of Fine:

The Penal Code, 1860, provides guidelines for imprisonment when a convict fails to pay a fine under
Section 64 to 70:
1. Section 64:
A person may be sentenced to imprisonment if they default on the payment of a fine.
This imprisonment is in addition to the substantive punishment and must be explicitly mentioned in the
sentence.
2. Section 65:
The term of imprisonment for non-payment of a fine cannot exceed:
1/4th of the maximum imprisonment term fixed for the offense.
If the offense is punishable by a fine only, the imprisonment cannot exceed 6 months.
3. Section 66:
If the offender is under 16 years of age, they cannot be imprisoned in default of a fine unless the fine exceeds
100 taka.
4. Section 67:
If a fine is unpaid, the convict may work during imprisonment, and earnings may go toward paying the fine.
5. Section 68:
A convict may still be liable to pay the fine after release from imprisonment in default, as imprisonment
does not cancel the fine.
6. Section 69:
The imprisonment term must be proportionate to the unpaid portion of the fine. If a partial fine is paid, the
imprisonment is reduced accordingly.
These provisions ensure that the punishment for defaulting on fines remains just and equitable, while
balancing the severity of the original offense.

(c) What is object of punishment? What do you know about strict liability under Penal Code?

The primary objective of punishment is to maintain law and order by deterring criminal behavior and
ensuring justice in society. It serves various purposes, including:
1. Retribution: Punishment as a form of vengeance, ensuring the offender suffers consequences equivalent
to the harm caused.
2. Deterrence: Preventing both the offender and others from committing similar offenses in the future.
# Specific Deterrence: Targets the offender to discourage repeat offenses.
# General Deterrence: Discourages others by making an example of the offender.
3. Rehabilitation: Reforming the offender to reintegrate them into society as a law-abiding citizen.
4. Incapacitation: Preventing the offender from committing further offenses by removing them from society
(e.g., imprisonment).
5. Restoration: Compensating the victim or society for the harm caused by the offense.

Strict Liability Under the Penal Code, 1860 in Bangladesh:

Strict liability refers to offenses where the prosecution does not need to prove mens rea (guilty mind) or
intent. The offender can be held liable simply for committing the prohibited act (actus reus), regardless of
intention, motive, or negligence. Strict liability is typically applied to ensure public safety and compliance
with regulatory laws.
Characteristics of Strict Liability:
1. Absence of Mens Rea: Liability arises solely from the act, not the offender’s state of mind.
2. Public Welfare: Most strict liability offenses involve public welfare concerns, such as public health,
safety, and environmental protection.
3. Statutory Offenses: Strict liability offenses are often defined in statutes, not necessarily requiring criminal
intent.
Examples under the Penal Code, 1860:
While strict liability is more commonly found in regulatory laws, certain provisions of the Penal Code,
1860, imply strict liability. Examples include:
1. Section 268 (Public Nuisance): Holding a person accountable for causing public nuisance, even without
proving intent.
2. Section 278 (Fouling Water of Public Spring): Liability arises for polluting public water, regardless of
intention.
3. Section 290 (Punishment for Public Nuisance): Imposes penalties for nuisances affecting the community.
Strict liability balances the interests of society and individual rights, ensuring accountability for actions that
could harm the community.

(2.) (a)Distinguish between attempt and preparation to commit a crime.

The concepts of attempt and preparation are distinct stages in the commission of a crime. Under the Penal
Code, 1860, the distinction is significant as only an attempt to commit a crime is generally punishable,
while mere preparation is not, except in specific cases.

Key Differences: (chat gpt)

Legal Provisions Under the Penal Code, 1860:

1. Preparation:
Generally not punishable under the Penal Code, except for certain offenses such as:
Preparation for waging war against the state (Section 122).
Preparation for committing dacoity (Section 399).
2. Attempt:
Defined and punishable under Sections 511 and other specific sections.
Section 511: Punishment for attempting to commit offenses not specifically covered elsewhere.
Punishment for an attempt is often less severe than for the actual offense but demonstrates the law’s intent
to deter criminal actions.

(b) In what cases preparation to commit an offence is in itself an offence under the Penal Code?

Under the Penal Code, 1860 of Bangladesh, mere preparation to commit an offence is generally not
punishable unless it involves specific offences where preparation itself is criminalized. The cases where
preparation to commit an offence is considered an offence include:
1. Preparation to wage war against the government
Section 122: Collecting arms, ammunition, or materials with the intent of waging war against the
Government of Bangladesh is punishable, even if the act of war has not begun.
Punishment: Imprisonment for life or imprisonment of up to 10 years and a fine.
2. Preparation to commit dacoity
Section 399: Making preparations to commit dacoity (armed robbery by a group) is an offence.
Punishment: Imprisonment for up to 10 years and a fine.
3. Preparation for counterfeiting currency or government stamps
Section 233-235: Activities such as making or possessing instruments for counterfeiting currency notes or
stamps are offences.
Punishment varies based on the specific section and can include imprisonment for up to 10 years and a fine.
4. Preparation for offences relating to explosive substances
Explosive Substances Act, 1908 (incorporated under the Penal Code): Preparation to commit an offence
involving explosives with malicious intent is punishable.
Punishment depends on the nature of the offence.
These provisions demonstrate the seriousness of certain offences where preparation itself poses a significant
threat to public order, national security, or the legal framework.

(c) Is there any offence for which any attempt to commit is punishable but actual commission of it is
not punishable?
Yes, there is one specific offence under the Penal Code, 1860 of Bangladesh where attempting to commit
the offence is punishable, but the actual commission of the offence is not punishable. This is in the case of
attempted suicide under Section 309.
Section 309 - Attempt to Commit Suicide:
Attempt to commit suicide is a punishable offence under Section 309. It states that if a person attempts to
commit suicide but fails, they can be punished with simple imprisonment for a term that may extend to 1
year, or with a fine, or both.
However, if the person successfully commits suicide, there is no punishment, as the individual is deceased,
and therefore no legal proceedings can be carried out against them.
This is the only situation in the Penal Code, 1860 where the attempt is punishable, but the actual commission
(suicide) is not, due to the person being unable to be prosecuted posthumously.
This is a rare and specific exception in criminal law, primarily because suicide is considered a tragic event,
and the law aims to deter individuals from attempting it while acknowledging the inability to prosecute
someone after the fact.

(3)(a)What do you understand by 'culpable homicide'? What elements are necessary for that offence?

Under the Penal Code of Bangladesh, 1860, culpable homicide is defined in Section 299. It refers to the
unlawful killing of a person with the intention to cause death or with knowledge that the act is likely to
cause death.
The elements necessary for an offence of culpable homicide under Section 299 are:
1. Causing death: The act must result in the death of another person.
2. Intention or knowledge: The person committing the act must have either:
# Intention to cause death, or
# Knowledge that the act is likely to cause death, but without the intention to cause death.
These two mental states—intention and knowledge—distinguish culpable homicide from murder (which
typically involves a higher degree of intent).
Section 300 of the Penal Code further explains murder, which is a more aggravated form of culpable
homicide, particularly when there is an intention to kill or when certain conditions are met.
In summary, culpable homicide in Bangladesh involves the unlawful causing of death with either the
intention or knowledge of the likely consequence. However, the charge can vary in severity, depending on
the specific circumstances and the degree of intent or recklessness.

(b) Is culpable homicide always murder? If not, under which circumstances?/ When does the culpable
homicide amount to murder?
No, culpable homicide is not always considered murder under the Penal Code of Bangladesh, 1860. While
both involve the unlawful killing of a person, they differ in terms of the intention and circumstances
surrounding the act.
Section 300 of the Penal Code defines the circumstances under which culpable homicide becomes murder.
Specifically, culpable homicide is considered murder if it falls under any of the following categories:
1. Intentional Killing:
If the person intends to cause death, it is classified as murder (e.g., premeditated killings).
2. Knowledge that the act is likely to cause death:
If the person causes an act likely to cause death, knowing fully that the act is very likely to cause the death
of a person, it amounts to murder. This includes cases where the person acts with extreme recklessness or
disregard for human life.
3. Grave and Sudden Provocation:
If the act is committed after receiving a grave and sudden provocation, the punishment can be mitigated,
but it may still amount to murder if the provocation was extreme and led to a loss of self-control. This is
often considered under the circumstances that do not meet the requirements for culpable homicide.
4. Knowledge of Death Likelihood in Certain Situations:
Killing occurs during the commission of a heinous or dangerous crime (e.g., armed robbery, rape) where
death is likely to result from the crime.
5. Killing in the course of an unlawful act:
Any killing that occurs during the commission of an unlawful act (e.g., an attack with a weapon or an
assault) is presumed to be murder if the act directly leads to death.

Difference Between Culpable Homicide and Murder:

# Culpable Homicide can be a lesser offence if the person did not have the intention to kill, but still knew
that death could occur from the act.
# Murder is a more aggravated form of culpable homicide, involving intentional killing or actions with
extreme knowledge that death would result.
Example:
# If a person intentionally shoots someone with the aim to kill, it is murder.
# If a person hits someone recklessly but did not intend to kill them, but knew death was likely, it is still
culpable homicide but may not be classified as murder unless it involves extreme recklessness or
aggravating factors.
In conclusion, culpable homicide becomes murder when the killing is done with intent, extreme
recklessness, or occurs under aggravating conditions specified in Section 300 of the Penal Code.

(c) Distinguish between culpable homicide and murder, stating in brief the facts and the principles of
law laid down in Reg Vs. Govinda case.
Distinction Between Culpable Homicide and Murder:
1. Culpable Homicide:
Defined under Section 299 of the Penal Code, it involves the unlawful killing of a person with either:
Intention to cause death, or
Knowledge that the act is likely to cause death.
However, it is considered a lesser offence than murder. It may involve situations where there is no specific
intent to kill, but the death-causing act is still reckless or negligent.
2. Murder:
Defined under Section 300 of the Penal Code, it is a more aggravated form of culpable homicide.
Murder occurs when the intention to kill is clear, or when the act is committed with the knowledge that it
is likely to cause death, with no lawful justification.
Murder includes acts done with extreme malice, and the punishment for murder is typically more severe.
Facts and Legal Principles in the Case of Reg v. Govinda (1859):
Facts:
In the case of Reg v. Govinda, the defendant, Govinda, was accused of killing a man in a fit of passion.
Govinda had been provoked by the deceased's insults and, in a state of sudden and grave provocation, struck
the deceased, leading to his death.
Legal Principles:
The Court held that while Govinda's act was the result of sudden and grave provocation, his response was
disproportionate to the provocation.
The principle laid down was that provocation may reduce the severity of the offence from murder to
culpable homicide if the response is not excessive.
The Court held that the degree of provocation and the immediate reaction of the accused are critical in
determining whether the offence amounts to culpable homicide or murder.
If the provocation is grave and sudden but the response is too excessive (i.e., the defendant's act leads to
death in a manner disproportionate to the provocation), it would still be culpable homicide, not murder.
Principle of Law from Reg v. Govinda:
Grave and sudden provocation can reduce a charge from murder to culpable homicide if the response to the
provocation is disproportionate but not entirely unprovoked.
However, a violent or disproportionate reaction, even if prompted by provocation, can still lead to culpable
homicide rather than murder under certain circumstances.
Thus, in Reg v. Govinda, the court emphasized that while provocation can mitigate the offence, it cannot
excuse an excessive response leading to death, and the accused's mental state and reaction are critical in
determining whether the offence is murder or culpable homicide.

(d) Explain what offence is committed in the following illustration:

The mother of a newly born child, with a view to dispose of it left it in a dustbin. The child was found
wrapped.
In this illustration, the offence committed would likely be "culpable homicide" or "causing death by
negligence", depending on the outcome for the child. If the child died due to being abandoned in the dustbin,
the mother could be charged under Section 299 of the Penal Code of Bangladesh for culpable homicide.
The key elements of this offence—intent or knowledge of the likely consequence of death—would be
crucial in determining the severity.
Possible Offences:
1. Attempted Murder or Culpable Homicide (if the child dies):
If the child died due to neglect or abandonment, and if the mother intended to dispose of the child (knowing
the potential risk of harm or death), she could be charged with culpable homicide, or even murder under
certain circumstances. However, if there was no intent to kill but the mother was aware of the likelihood of
death due to the exposure (e.g., leaving the child in a dangerous situation), it could fall under culpable
homicide.
2. Negligent Act (if the child survives):
# If the child survived, the mother could still be charged with negligence or abandonment, specifically
under laws related to neglecting a child or causing harm by reckless behavior. In some jurisdictions, there
might be specific laws against child abandonment, and this could be classified as a form of child cruelty or
neglect.
# Under Section 317 of the Indian Penal Code (which is similar to Bangladesh's Penal Code), abandonment
of a child under 12 years by a parent or guardian could lead to charges of child abandonment.
# If the child dies, the charge would be more severe (potential culpable homicide or murder), depending on
whether the mother's act was intentional or reckless.
# If the child survives, the mother could be charged with abandonment or child cruelty under appropriate
sections of the Penal Code.
The critical issue in this case would be whether the mother's actions were deliberate, reckless, or due to
negligence and the ultimate outcome for the child.
 (4)(a) Define and distinguish between robbery and docoity.

Under the Penal Code of Bangladesh, 1860, both robbery and dacoity refer to crimes involving the use of
force or threats to steal, but they differ in terms of the number of offenders and the severity of the offence.
Robbery (Section 390):
Robbery is defined under Section 390 of the Penal Code. It involves taking property from someone with
the use of force or the threat of force against the victim. It can occur in any place and does not require a
specific number of people involved.
Key Elements of Robbery:
1. Theft: The act begins as theft (i.e., taking property from someone).
2. Use of Force or Threat of Force: In addition to the theft, the offender uses force or threatens to use force
to retain or take possession of the stolen property.
The force can be applied to the victim, or it can be a threat to make the victim give up the property willingly.
3. Result: The robbery causes harm, fear, or loss to the victim, and the stolen property is taken.

Dacoity (Section 391):

Dacoity is defined under Section 391 of the Penal Code. It involves robbery by a group of five or more
persons acting together.
Key Elements of Dacoity:
1. Group Involvement: The crime must be committed by at least five persons acting in concert. Unlike
robbery, dacoity requires a group of offenders.
2. Use of Force or Threat of Force: Like robbery, dacoity involves the use of force or threat of force to carry
out the crime. The force may be directed towards the victim, or to help in the escape or to overpower
resistance.
3. Severity: Dacoity is generally considered a more serious crime because of the involvement of multiple
offenders and the potential for greater violence or harm.

Distinction Between Robbery and Dacoity:

(Chat Gpt)

# Robbery can involve one or more persons, but the key feature is the use of force or the threat of force to
commit theft.
# Dacoity, on the other hand, requires a group of at least five persons committing robbery together, and it
is considered a more severe offence due to the potential for greater violence and the coordination involved.
Both crimes are serious, but dacoity is typically treated more harshly under the law due to the increased
risk and harm caused by the involvement of multiple offenders.

(b) What are the liabilities of persons committing robbery and docoity when one of them commits
murder during the commission of that offence?
Under the Penal Code of Bangladesh, 1860, the liabilities of persons committing robbery or dacoity during
which a murder is committed are clearly defined. The law holds all participants in the crime equally
responsible, especially if the murder occurs during the commission of robbery or dacoity.
Liability for Murder during Robbery or Dacoity:
1. Section 396: Dacoity with Murder
# Section 396 specifically addresses the situation where murder is committed during the course of a dacoity.
It states that if one or more persons commit murder while committing dacoity, all participants in the dacoity
can be held liable for murder.
# Liability: Each person involved in the dacoity can be punished with death or imprisonment for life. The
punishment is the same as if each participant had personally committed the murder.
# Example: If a group of five people (committing dacoity) is involved, and during the dacoity, one of them
kills the victim, all five individuals can be held liable for murder even if only one person physically
committed the act of murder.
2. Section 397: Robbery, or Dacoity, with Attempt to Murder
# Under Section 397, if during the robbery or dacoity, there is an attempt to murder, the person committing
the act can be liable for attempted murder and face a severe penalty. This applies whether the murder was
successful or just an attempt.
# If the murder happens as a consequence of the robbery or dacoity, then all persons involved in the
commission of the robbery or dacoity can be held liable for the murder, irrespective of who actually
committed the murder.
Principles of Law:
1. Doctrine of Common Intention (Section 34):
# Under Section 34 of the Penal Code, if a group of persons act together with a common intention, then
each participant is liable for the acts done by any member of the group, even if they did not directly commit
the act themselves.
# Application to Dacoity: In dacoity, if one person commits murder while others are involved in the robbery
or dacoity, all are equally liable for the murder because the murder was committed in the course of the
shared common intention of committing the dacoity.
2. Common Object (Section 149):
# Section 149 states that if the act is done by members of an unlawful assembly with a common object, all
members of the assembly can be held liable for the murder, even if it was committed by only one of the
members.
# This provision also applies in robbery and dacoity situations where the unlawful assembly has the
common object of committing a crime.
Thus, in both robbery and dacoity, when murder is committed, the law ensures that all participants in the
crime are liable for the murder, and they can face severe penalties, including the death penalty or life
imprisonment, depending on the circumstances.

(C)When does theft turn into robbery?-Explain.

Under the Penal Code of Bangladesh, 1860, theft turns into robbery when the use of force or the threat of
force is involved in the commission of the crime. The key difference between theft and robbery lies in the
element of force or fear, which is introduced in robbery but absent in theft.
Key Distinction between Theft and Robbery:
1. Theft (Section 378):
# Theft occurs when a person dishonestly takes property from another person without consent and without
using any force or threat of force.
# Key Element: The focus is on the act of taking property without consent, but no force or threat is used.
2. Robbery (Section 390):
# Robbery occurs when theft is accompanied by force or the threat of force used to obtain the property, or
to retain possession of it after it is taken.
# Key Element: In addition to theft, force is applied to the victim, or the victim is threatened with force in
order to ensure that the property is given up or retained.

When Does Theft Turn into Robbery?

A theft turns into robbery under the following circumstances:
1. Use of Force:
If a person takes property and uses physical force against the victim during or after the act of stealing. The
force can be used to overpower the victim, prevent resistance, or escape with the stolen property.
Example: A thief snatches a purse from a person and pushes them away to escape.
2. Threat of Force:
If the person committing the theft threatens the victim with force or violence in order to take or retain
possession of the stolen property.
Example: A thief points a knife at the victim and demands they hand over their wallet.
3. Force or Threat to Retain Property:
If force or threat is used not only to take the property but also to retain possession of the property once it is
taken.
Example: After stealing a watch, a thief threatens the victim to keep them from running after the thief.
Example:
Theft: A person quietly takes someone's mobile phone from their bag without them noticing, and the victim
is unaware.
Robbery: A person snatches the mobile phone from the victim’s hand and threatens to harm them if they
try to resist or scream.
Theft turns into robbery when the act of stealing is accompanied by either the use of force or the threat of
force to take or retain possession of the stolen property. The essential difference between theft and robbery
is the element of force or fear, which makes robbery a more serious offence under the Penal Code.

(5)(a) Distinguish between 'abduction' and 'kidnapping'.

Both abduction and kidnapping involve taking a person against their will, but the key distinction lies in the
circumstances and methods involved in each crime. Here’s how they are defined and distinguished under
the Penal Code of Bangladesh, 1860:
Kidnapping (Sections 359-361):
Kidnapping involves taking or enticing a person, usually a minor, from the lawful custody of a person or
institution. There are two forms of kidnapping under the Penal Code:
1. Kidnapping from India (Section 359):
This refers to taking a person away from the territory of Bangladesh without their consent.
2. Kidnapping from lawful guardianship (Section 361):
This refers to taking or enticing a person, especially a minor, away from the lawful guardianship (e.g., a
parent, guardian, or other legal custodian).
Key Elements:
# Force or deceit is typically not required, especially in the case of minors.
# Kidnapping can also apply to a person who is under the lawful guardianship of another.

Abduction (Section 362-364A):

Abduction involves forcing or enticing a person to go with the abductor by use of force, deceit, or any kind
of trickery. It can involve adults or minors.
Key Elements:
# It may involve force, threats, or enticing the victim to go with the abductor.
# Abduction is a more violent or coercive act than kidnapping because it usually involves force or fraud.
Distinction: (Chat Gpt)
# Kidnapping generally involves taking a minor or a person under guardianship without consent and can be
done by a person acting alone or using deceit. It primarily involves minors or people under guardianship.
# Abduction involves more coercive methods, such as using force or fraud to compel the victim to go with
the abductor.

(b) When is a person liable to kidnap another from lawful guardianship?

A person is liable for kidnapping from lawful guardianship under Section 361 of the Penal Code, 1860 in
Bangladesh when:
1. The Victim is a Minor:
The person kidnapped is under the age of 16 years if a male, or 18 years if a female.
2. The Victim is Under Lawful Guardianship:
The person being taken or enticed away is under the lawful guardianship or custody of someone else, such
as a parent, guardian, or institution.
The guardian has the legal responsibility over the person, especially if the victim is a minor.
3. The Act of Taking or Enticing:
The person takes or entices the minor or person under lawful guardianship without the consent of the
guardian. Enticement can include persuading, inducing, or convincing the person to go away willingly but
unlawfully.
The guardian's consent is a crucial factor, and taking or enticing without consent constitutes the crime.
Example:
A person who takes a minor child from a parent's custody without the parent's consent, even if the child
agrees to go with the person, can be liable for kidnapping under Section 361.
A person is liable for kidnapping from lawful guardianship if they take or entice a minor or a person under
legal guardianship away from their lawful custodian without the custodian's consent.

(c) Explain fully the offense of abduction as mentioned under the Penal Code.

The offense of abduction is defined under Section 362 to Section 364A of the Penal Code, 1860 in
Bangladesh. It is considered a serious crime because it involves forcibly taking or enticing a person to go
with the offender, often leading to various harmful outcomes, including kidnapping, illegal detention, or
even murder. Abduction is an offense distinct from kidnapping, as it involves a use of force or coercion,
while kidnapping may not always require force.
1. Definition of Abduction:
Under Section 362 of the Penal Code, abduction is defined as:
"Abduction" means forcibly or by deceitful means taking any person from any place. It includes enticing
or persuading a person to go with the offender."
2. Key Elements of Abduction:
1. Forcible Taking or Deception:
The offender either forcibly takes the victim or entices the victim through deceit, threats, or inducements.
This can include physical force or tricking the person into going with the abductor.
2. Presence of Force or Coercion:
The use of force or coercion is a defining feature of abduction. It may involve violence, threats, or
manipulation of the victim into submission.
3. Victim's Consent:
The key difference between abduction and kidnapping is that abduction often involves either force or deceit
to take the person, but in some cases, the victim may go with the abductor willingly, due to being misled or
coerced.
In contrast, in kidnapping, the victim's consent is not a factor, and force or deceit is not necessarily involved.
4. Location:
The victim may be taken from any place (home, public space, or even a secluded area) against their will,
and often with the aim of later exploiting them or holding them captive.
3. Specific Provisions under the Penal Code for Abduction:
1. Section 362 – Abduction:
"Whoever by force or deceitful means induces or takes away any person, without the consent of that person
or of some person legally entitled to give such consent, is said to abduct that person."
Key points:
# Force or deception must be used to take away the person.
# The victim's consent is absent or overridden.
# The abductor's action can be physical or by enticing the person.
2. Section 363 – Punishment for Kidnapping (related to abduction):
If the abduction involves a minor or a woman, it could be treated more seriously and under the laws
concerning kidnapping (Section 361 for kidnapping from lawful guardianship). Punishment under this
section can be imprisonment or even death in extreme cases (e.g., in case of a subsequent murder).
3. Section 364 – Abduction with intent to murder:
If a person is abducted with the intention to murder them, the offense is treated as abduction with intent to
murder, and the penalty becomes much more severe.
4. Section 364A – Abduction for Ransom or Extortion:
If the abduction is carried out with the intent of demanding ransom or for any extortion purposes (such as
coercion to do something), the penalties are very harsh, including life imprisonment or the death penalty.
4. Punishment for Abduction:
Section 363: Whoever abducts a person is liable to be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to a fine.
If the abducted person is a minor or a woman and the act involves sexual exploitation, the punishment may
be even more severe under other provisions of the law, especially in cases involving rape or human
trafficking.
Abduction for ransom (Section 364A): If the abduction is for the purpose of ransom, the punishment may
be death or life imprisonment.
5. Example of Abduction:
Scenario 1: A person forcibly drags another person into a car and takes them to an unknown location without
their consent. This is a clear case of abduction under Section 362.
Scenario 2: A person convinces a young woman to leave her home by pretending to be a friend or lover,
but once she agrees, they take her away with fraudulent intentions (e.g., to sell her). This is also an abduction
due to the deceitful means used.

The offense of abduction under the Penal Code of Bangladesh, 1860 involves taking or enticing a person
away by force or fraudulent means. It is considered a serious offense due to the violation of a person's
personal liberty and safety. The punishment can range from imprisonment to life imprisonment or even the
death penalty, depending on the circumstances, particularly if the abduction is done with the intent to
commit further crimes, such as murder or ransom.

(6)(a)What is unlawful assembly? When and under what circumstances an assembly would constitute
an unlawful assembly?
An unlawful assembly is defined under Section 141 of the Penal Code, 1860, and is considered a criminal
offense in Bangladesh. It refers to a group of individuals who gather with the intent to commit an illegal
act, or whose assembly results in public disturbance or violence. The assembly may not necessarily involve
violence at the outset, but the purpose or intention behind it may make it unlawful.
Definition of Unlawful Assembly:
Under Section 141 of the Penal Code, an assembly is considered unlawful if it is made up of five or more
persons and meets one of the following criteria:
1. The intent to use force or violence: If the assembly is formed with the purpose of committing force or
violence against any person or property.
2. Intent to cause fear or intimidation: If the assembly intends to cause terror, intimidate, or coerce the
government, any public authority, or any person in their private capacity.
3. The intent to disrupt peace: If the assembly's goal is to create a public nuisance or disturb public peace
or order.
Key Elements of an Unlawful Assembly:
1. Number of Persons:
The assembly must involve at least five or more persons.
If there are fewer than five people, the assembly would not be considered unlawful under this specific
provision.
2. Common Intent:
For the assembly to be unlawful, all members must have a common intention to engage in unlawful acts.
This common object is what makes the assembly unlawful.

Circumstances When an Assembly is Unlawful:

An assembly would be deemed unlawful in the following circumstances:
1. Use of Force or Violence:
If the assembly is formed to use force or violence against any person or property, such as a riot, or a group
coming together to physically attack someone or damage property, it constitutes an unlawful assembly.
Example: A group of people gathers to destroy government property or to physically assault individuals.
2. Disturbance of Public Peace:
If the assembly is meant to disturb public peace, such as by blocking roads, creating a traffic hazard, or
engaging in loud protests that disrupt daily life, it becomes unlawful.
Example: A group of people protests by blocking a busy road, causing chaos and distress to the public.
3. Intimidation or Threatening Behavior:
If the assembly is formed with the intent to intimidate, threaten, or coerce individuals or authorities, such
as using force to influence political decisions or pressuring others into compliance.
Example: A group gathers to threaten a business owner with harm unless they meet certain demands.
4. Commission of Illegal Acts:
If the assembly has the intent to commit an illegal act, such as trespassing, theft, vandalism, or any other
criminal activity, the assembly becomes unlawful.
Example: A group gathers to illegally enter a property and vandalize it.
5. Riot or Unlawful Gathering for Rebellion:
If the group has the intent to rebel against the authority or engage in an act of insurrection or sedition, it
would qualify as an unlawful assembly.
Example: A group assembles with the intent of overthrowing the government or attacking government
buildings.

Punishment for Unlawful Assembly:

Under Section 143 of the Penal Code, the punishment for participating in an unlawful assembly is:
Imprisonment for a term that may extend to six months, or
A fine, or
Both.
If the unlawful assembly leads to the commission of further offenses like rioting (Section 146), murder
(Section 302), or other violent acts, the participants may face more severe penalties, such as imprisonment
for life or even the death penalty.

Example of Unlawful Assembly:

1. Example 1: A group of five individuals gathers to protest and block traffic in front of a government
building to force the government to change a policy. While they may have the right to protest, their intent
to disrupt public peace and create chaos makes it an unlawful assembly under Section 141.
2. Example 2: A group of people gather to physically assault a person who is suspected of committing a
crime, intending to take justice into their own hands. This assembly is unlawful because of the violent intent
of the group.
An unlawful assembly is formed when five or more people gather with a common intention to commit
illegal acts such as violence, disruption of public order, intimidation, or any unlawful purpose. The law
provides penalties for participating in an unlawful assembly.

(b) When two opposite fractions commit a riot, can they be said to formed an unlawful assembly? If
so, can they be tried jointly ?
Under the Penal Code, 1860, a riot is defined under Section 146, and the concept of an unlawful assembly
is defined under Section 141. The distinction between the two is important, especially when it comes to
whether opposite factions or groups can be said to have formed an unlawful assembly and whether they can
be tried jointly.

Unlawful Assembly in the Case of Opposite Fractions:

An unlawful assembly (as defined under Section 141 of the Penal Code) requires five or more persons
gathered with a common intent to commit an unlawful act or to use force or violence. In the context of two
opposite factions committing a riot:
1. Formation of an Unlawful Assembly:
Even though the factions are opposite in their objectives, each faction may be considered an unlawful
assembly if they meet the criteria laid down in Section 141. Both groups would likely have a common intent
(whether for violence or intimidation) in their respective acts.
For instance, two opposite groups that gather to fight or to cause disturbance in a public place can each be
considered to have formed an unlawful assembly individually, as they both act with an intent to use violence
or force.
2. Common Purpose or Object:
If these opposite groups have a common objective—for example, both groups intend to engage in a violent
clash with the other, creating a public disturbance or threat to peace—they may be considered to have
formed an unlawful assembly together, even if their motivations are different. This could be viewed as an
instance where both groups, in essence, serve to support or oppose one another in the unlawful act.
Riot (Section 146):
If the unlawful assembly escalates into a riot (which occurs when violence is used by the assembly
members), it would be punished under Section 146. A riot involves violent conduct by members of an
unlawful assembly, and the intent to commit violence.
Thus, even if the factions are opposed to each other, if they engage in a violent clash and cause disorder,
they could both be charged with rioting under Section 146. However, each faction’s intent to commit
violence would still be considered unlawful, regardless of their opposition to each other.
Can They Be Tried Jointly?
Yes, the two opposite factions can be tried jointly if they both engage in a riot or an unlawful assembly
together, as the law considers the intent of the assembly and the violence that occurs. Here’s why:
1. Common Intent in an Unlawful Assembly:
If two opposite factions come together with the common intention to engage in violence or public
disturbance, they could be treated as forming a joint unlawful assembly, and they may be tried together.
2. Nature of Riot:
In the case of a riot, even if two factions are opposites, if they participate in the same riotous act, they can
be considered as engaging in the same unlawful behavior. The Penal Code does not make a distinction
between different groups if they are involved in the same riot or unlawful assembly.
3. Joint Trial in a Riot:
A joint trial can occur when both factions are involved in the same criminal act (i.e., a riot), regardless of
their motivations. Since both factions are acting with an intent to disrupt peace and engage in violence, they
can face joint charges for rioting under Section 146.
4. Separate Trials in Case of Different Acts:
If the factions engage in separate unlawful assemblies and then clash violently (i.e., separate riots occur), it
is possible for the groups to be tried separately for their individual actions. However, if their actions are
closely connected, they could still be tried jointly.
Example: If one faction engages in violence but the other does not actively participate, both factions could
still be tried under Section 146 due to their involvement in the unlawful assembly.

Opposite factions can indeed be said to have formed an unlawful assembly if they gather with the common
intent of committing an unlawful act, such as violence or public disturbance.
If the unlawful assembly escalates into a riot, the groups can be tried jointly as they both participate in the
same riotous behavior, even if they have opposite objectives.
The law treats all participants in an unlawful assembly or riot as equally culpable, regardless of the factional
differences, provided they were part of the same unlawful act.
 (7)( a)Wha is meant by joint liability? Dininguish between 'common intention' and 'common object'.

Joint liability, as defined in the Penal Code, 1860, refers to the legal principle where all individuals involved
in a criminal act share liability for the act's consequences. This concept is embodied in Sections 34 and 149
of the Penal Code.
1. Section 34: Relates to acts done by several persons with a common intention. It establishes that when
two or more persons intentionally cooperate to commit a criminal act, each of them is held liable as if they
had committed the act individually.
Example: If two individuals plan and jointly assault someone, both are equally responsible for the harm
caused.
2. Section 149: Relates to unlawful assembly. It states that if an offense is committed by any member of an
unlawful assembly in furtherance of a common object, every member of that assembly is liable for the
offense committed.

Distinction between Common Intention and Common Object: (Chat Gpt)

In summary, common intention requires a shared, deliberate mental state among participants, while
common object arises out of the collective aim of an unlawful group, which may not always be pre-planned.

(b) A, B and C went to commit assault on Y.A and B beat Y but C did not hit. All three of them
accused of causing grievous hurt. C pleaded that he did not hit Y. Do you think that C's defense is
sustainable in law?
Under the Penal Code, 1860, in Bangladesh, C's defense is not likely to be sustainable if the facts and
evidence show that C was part of a common intention to commit the assault.
Relevant Legal Provisions:
1. Section 34 (Common Intention): If a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of a common
intention, each of them is liable as if the act were done by him alone.
Even if C did not physically hit Y, he can be held responsible if he was present, sharing the common
intention to cause grievous hurt.
2. Section 322 (Voluntarily Causing Grievous Hurt): This section deals with causing grievous hurt. If A, B,
and C planned or acted together with the intention to cause grievous hurt, all three can be held liable.
3. Section 109 (Abetment): If C encouraged, facilitated, or supported A and B in committing the assault,
he can be charged with abetment, even if he did not physically hit Y.
Application of Law:
If C was present at the scene and did not take steps to prevent the assault or played a role (e.g., by instigating,
aiding, or agreeing to the act), his presence alone may infer common intention under Section 34.
C cannot simply escape liability by arguing that he did not strike the victim because participation in the
common plan or knowledge of the act is sufficient to implicate him.
Exceptions:
C’s defense may be sustainable if:
1. He can prove that he was not aware of the intention to assault Y.
2. He was merely present without any common intention or involvement in planning the act.
3. He took active steps to disassociate himself from the assault.
Case Law Support:
Courts in Bangladesh have often ruled that the presence and participation in a common plan are critical in
determining liability under Section 34. For example:
# Abdul Latif v. The State: Mere presence without common intention does not attract liability.
# Shri Kishan v. State of Uttar Pradesh: Active participation or intention is necessary to implicate under
common intention.
If evidence shows that C shared the common intention or facilitated the assault in any way, his defense is
not sustainable. However, if C can demonstrate lack of involvement or intention, he may be acquitted.

(8) What is 'Mens Rea'? State briefly the acts exempted from criminal liability. To what extent any
ignorance or mistake of an essential fact can be pleaded as a defence to a criminal charge?
Mens Rea is a Latin term meaning "guilty mind." It refers to the mental state or intention of a person at the
time of committing a criminal act. Under criminal law, most offenses require both actus reus (the physical
act) and mens rea (the mental element) for a person to be held liable. In the Penal Code, 1860, Bangladesh
recognizes the principle that criminal liability typically arises only when a person acts with a guilty mind,
except in cases of strict liability where intent is not required.

Acts Exempted from Criminal Liability:

Under the Penal Code, 1860, certain acts are exempted from criminal liability, mainly due to the absence
of mens rea. These include:
1. Acts of Children (Sections 82 and 83):
Section 82: A child under 9 years of age is exempted from criminal liability.
Section 83: A child above 9 but below 12 years is exempted if they lack sufficient maturity to understand
the nature of their act.
2. Acts of Persons of Unsound Mind (Section 84):
A person incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of their act due to unsoundness of mind
is not criminally liable.
3. Acts under Mistake of Fact (Section 76):
A person believing in good faith that they are bound by law to act in a certain way is exempted (e.g., a
soldier following orders).
4. Acts under Compulsion or Necessity (Sections 94 and 81):
Section 94: An act done under threat of death or grievous harm is exempt (except murder or offenses against
the state).
Section 81: An act done in good faith to prevent greater harm is not an offense.
5. Accidents (Section 80):
An accident occurring without criminal intention or knowledge in the course of a lawful act is not an
offense.
6. Acts in Good Faith (Section 88):
Acts done in good faith for the benefit of others, without consent in certain cases, are exempt (e.g., medical
procedures).
7. Consent (Section 87):
Acts causing harm, but done with the consent of the person harmed, are exempt under certain conditions.
8. Judicial Acts (Section 77):
Judges acting in good faith within their jurisdiction are exempt.

Ignorance or Mistake of Fact as a Defense:

Section 76 and 79 of the Penal Code provide defenses based on ignorance or mistake of fact:
Section 76: If a person acts under a mistaken belief, in good faith, that they are legally bound to act, they
are exempt from liability.
Example: A police officer arrests the wrong person, believing them to be the accused.
Section 79: If a person acts under a mistaken belief, in good faith, that their act is lawful, they are not liable.
Example: Entering another’s property believing it is their own.
Ignorance of Law is Not a Defense:
Section 79 explicitly excludes ignorance of the law as a defense (ignorantia juris non excusat). A person
cannot claim exemption simply because they were unaware that an act was illegal.

Mistake or ignorance of fact can be a valid defense under the Penal Code, provided the act was done in
good faith and without criminal intent. However, ignorance of the law is not a defense, emphasizing the
importance of distinguishing between mistakes of fact (which may absolve liability) and mistakes of law
(which generally do not).

(9) What do you mean by the 'Right of Private Defence'? To what extent this right can be exercised
according to the provisions of the Penal Code? Illustrate with example.
The Right of Private Defence is a legal provision that allows individuals to protect themselves, others, or
their property against unlawful aggression when the immediate protection of the law is unavailable. This
right is enshrined in the Penal Code, 1860, in Bangladesh, under Sections 96 to 106. It is a fundamental
principle of natural justice that no one should suffer harm or loss if they can reasonably prevent it.
Extent of the Right of Private Defence:
1. Against Bodily Harm (Sections 96–102):
The right is available when there is an imminent threat of harm to the body.
The right extends to causing harm, even to the extent of death, under specific circumstances, such as:
# An assault causing apprehension of death or grievous hurt.
# An assault intending to commit rape, kidnapping, abduction, or unnatural offense.
# An assault intending to wrongfully confine a person, putting them at risk of death or grievous hurt.
This right lasts as long as the threat exists.
2. Against Property (Sections 103–104):
The right includes protection of property (movable or immovable) from theft, robbery, mischief, or criminal
trespass.
Deadly force can be used to protect property in cases like robbery or arson, but only under circumstances
where immediate harm or destruction is unavoidable.
3. Limitations on the Right:
The right cannot be exercised when there is a reasonable opportunity to seek protection from public
authorities.
It must not exceed the necessity of the situation.
The harm caused in self-defense must not be disproportionate to the harm threatened.
4. When Deadly Force is Justified:
Deadly force is only permitted in specific situations, as outlined in Sections 100 and 103, and must be
proportionate to the danger posed.

Illustration with Examples:

1. Protection of Life (Section 100):
If a person is attacked by an armed robber who threatens their life, they have the right to defend themselves,
even if it results in the death of the robber.
2. Protection of Property (Section 103):
If an individual finds someone committing arson on their house and there is an immediate danger to life or
significant loss of property, they can use force, including deadly force, to stop the arsonist.
3. Unreasonable Use of the Right (Section 99):
If someone steals a pen from your desk and you stab them, this would exceed the right of private defense
and would not be justified.

Judicial Interpretation in Bangladesh:

Courts in Bangladesh have clarified that the Right of Private Defence must be exercised in good faith and
judged based on the circumstances of each case. It is not a license for retaliation but a protective measure
when legal recourse is unavailable.
This ensures the balance between individual safety and misuse of the provision.

(10) (a) Explain how house trespass become house breaking.

House trespass becomes house breaking under the Penal Code, 1860, when the trespasser enters or exits a
property using certain aggravating methods specified in Section 445. While house trespass (Section 442)
involves unlawfully entering or remaining in a place used for human dwelling or property custody with
intent to commit an offense, house breaking involves the same unlawful entry or exit but with the use of
force, deception, or other specified actions.
How House Trespass Becomes House Breaking:
According to Section 445, house trespass becomes house breaking if the offender enters or exits the property
in any of the following ways:
1. Breaking or Opening
The offender forcibly breaks or opens any part of the property, such as:
A door, window, or wall.
A lock or any other barrier.
Example: Breaking a window to enter a house constitutes house breaking.
2. Using an Unauthorized Opening/Using false entry
The offender enters or exits through an opening that is not intended for entry or exit.
Example: Climbing through a ventilation duct or chimney.
3. Removing Barriers
The offender removes or overcomes barriers that protect the property.
Example: Cutting through a fence or breaking a latch on a gate.
4. Deception or Impersonation
The offender gains entry by deceiving someone or pretending to be another person.
Example: Pretending to be a delivery person to gain access to a house.
5. Using Violence or Threats
The offender uses violence or criminal force to enter or exit the property.
Example: Pushing a homeowner aside to force entry into the house.
6. Concealment
The offender hides inside the property to commit an offense.
Example: Hiding in a closet until the house is unoccupied.
Key Distinctions:
# House Trespass: Simply entering or remaining in a property unlawfully.
# House Breaking leads (e.g., breaking, violence, or deceit) to facilitate unlawful entry or exit.
Illustration:
House Trespass Example: A person quietly enters someone’s unlocked house with the intent to steal.
House Breaking Example: The same person breaks a lock or window to enter the house.
By incorporating these aggravating actions, house trespass escalates into house breaking, which carries
harsher penalties under the law.

(b) What constitute stolen property? When does a stolen property cease its "stolen" character?

In the context of Bangladesh's Penal Code, 1860, stolen property refers to any property that has been
unlawfully taken from the rightful owner without their consent, with the intention of depriving them of it
permanently or temporarily.
Definition of Stolen Property:
Section 410 of the Penal Code, 1860, defines stolen property as:
> "Property, the possession of which has been transferred by theft, extortion, robbery, or criminal
misappropriation or breach of trust."
Cessation of "Stolen" Character:
Under Section 411 of the Penal Code, 1860, property ceases to retain its "stolen" character in the following
circumstances:
1. Recovery by the Owner:
If the rightful owner regains possession of the property, it no longer remains stolen property.
2. Possession by a Person Entitled to It:
If the property comes into the possession of a person who is legally entitled to hold it, the stolen character
ceases.
3. Restoration of Ownership:
If the property is restored to its lawful condition or ownership through legal or rightful means.
4. Loss of Identity:
If the property has been altered, processed, or consumed to such an extent that it is no longer identifiable
in its original form, it ceases to be "stolen."
In summary, stolen property under the Penal Code, 1860 is defined by the unlawful transfer of possession
through theft, extortion, or related crimes. It loses its stolen character when it is restored to the rightful
owner or significantly altered.

(c) What is 'cheating by personating?

Under the Penal Code, 1860 of Bangladesh, cheating by personation is addressed in Section 416. This
provision defines personation as pretending to be another person, either real or fictitious, to deceive
someone. When this deceit leads to harm or the likelihood of harm, it constitutes cheating by personation.
Key Elements of Cheating by Personation:
1. Impersonation: The offender must assume the identity of another person, whether that person exists or is
fictitious.
2. Intent to Deceive: The impersonation must be done with the intention to deceive someone.
3. Resulting in Cheating: The deception leads to the victim being cheated.
Punishment for Cheating by Personation:
The punishment for cheating by personation falls under Section 419 of the Penal Code. The offender may
face:
Imprisonment of either description (rigorous or simple) for up to three years, or
A fine, or
Both.
Example:
If someone pretends to be a government official to gain money or other benefits from a person, they commit
the offense of cheating by personation.
This law aims to prevent fraudulent activities and ensure that individuals do not misuse identities for
wrongful gains.

(11) a). What do you mean by forgery? Explain with illustration. What is meant by making a false
document ?
Under the Penal Code, 1860 of Bangladesh, forgery is defined in Section 463. It refers to the act of making
a false document or altering a document with the intention of causing damage or injury to the public or any
person, or to support a claim or title, or to commit fraud, or for any dishonest or fraudulent purpose.
Definition of Forgery (Section 463):
A person commits forgery if they make a false document or part of a document with:
1. The intent to cause damage or injury to the public or any individual.
2. The intent to support any claim or title.
3. The intent to commit fraud or deceive.
Illustration of Forgery:
Illustration 1: A signs a document in the name of B without B's authority, intending to use it to claim money
from B's bank account. A has committed forgery.
Illustration 2: X alters the terms of a contract between Y and Z by changing the amount payable without
the consent of Y and Z. X has made a false document and committed forgery.
Essential Ingredients of Forgery:
1. Making a false document.
2. The intent to cause damage, injury, or fraud.
Forgery is a criminal offense and is punishable under Section 465 of the Penal Code, 1860, with
imprisonment, a fine, or both.

Making a False Document (Section 464):

A person is said to make a false document in the following cases:
1. Without Authority: If someone dishonestly or fraudulently makes or alters a document without the lawful
authority of the person who has the right to make or alter it.
2. Alteration Without Consent: If someone dishonestly or fraudulently alters a document in a way that
changes its meaning without the consent of the person authorized to do so.
3. Forging Signatures: If someone fraudulently signs or seals a document intending it to be believed that it
was made, signed, or sealed by another person.

( b) X, a doctor, knowingly signs and issues a false medical certificate. Has "X" committed any offence?
Under what circumstances may a person be guilty of forgery by signing his own name?
Under the Penal Code, 1860 of Bangladesh, X may have committed an offence depending on the
circumstances:
Issuing a False Medical Certificate:
Section 197: If a person, in their capacity as a public servant or professional, knowingly issues or signs a
false certificate intending it to be used as evidence of a fact, they commit an offence.
In this case, if X, as a doctor, knowingly issues a false medical certificate, they can be held liable under this
section.
Punishment: Imprisonment of up to 7 years, a fine, or both.

Forgery by Signing One’s Own Name:

A person may be guilty of forgery under Section 463 if they sign their own name with the intention of
causing harm, defrauding, or deceiving another person.
Circumstances where this may occur include:
# Signing one's name to a document containing false information with the intent to deceive.
# Intentionally creating a document that misrepresents facts to fraudulently obtain benefits or cause loss to
someone else.
For example, if X signs a certificate under their name that falsely attests to a person's medical condition to
facilitate fraud, X could be guilty of forgery.

Under Section 463, forgery is the making of a false document or part of a document with the intention to:
# Cause damage or injury.
# Commit fraud.
# Cause someone to act on the document believing it to be true.
If X's actions align with the above definitions and circumstances, they may be guilty of forgery, even when
signing their own name, as the intent and resulting harm are crucial factors.

(12)(a) What is meant by "Hurt? When does it amount to "Grievous Hurt"? Discuss the punishment for
hurt and grievous hurt as prescribed in the Penal Code.
Hurt:
Under Section 319 of the Penal Code, 1860, "Hurt" is defined as causing bodily pain, disease, or infirmity
to any person. It involves minor physical injuries that do not lead to severe consequences or long-term
harm.
Examples:
# Slapping someone.
# Scratching or causing a bruise.
# Inflicting minor burns.
Grievous Hurt:
According to Section 320 of the Penal Code, "Grievous Hurt" refers to specific severe injuries that cause
long-term harm, disfigurement, or danger to life. It includes the following:
1. Permanent loss of sight in either eye.
2. Permanent loss of hearing in either ear.
3. Loss of any limb or joint.
4. Permanent disfiguration of the head or face.
5. Fracture or dislocation of bone or tooth.
6. Any injury that endangers life or causes severe bodily pain for 20 days or more.
Examples:
# Breaking someone's bone.
# Causing permanent blindness.
# Inflicting severe burns that disfigure the face.
Difference Between Hurt and Grievous Hurt:
1. Severity: Hurt involves minor injuries, whereas grievous hurt involves serious injuries that may be
permanent or life-threatening.
2. Consequences: Grievous hurt affects the victim's long-term health or physical abilities.
3. Intent: Grievous hurt often involves a higher degree of intent or knowledge by the perpetrator.

1. Punishment for Hurt:

Section 323:
Punishment: Up to 1 year of imprisonment, or a fine up to 1,000 Taka, or both.
Applicable when the hurt is caused voluntarily but does not amount to grievous hurt.

2. Punishment for Grievous Hurt:

# Section 325:
Punishment: Up to 7 years of imprisonment and a fine.
Applicable when grievous hurt is caused voluntarily.
# Section 326:
Punishment: Life imprisonment or up to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
Applicable when grievous hurt is caused using dangerous weapons or means, such as fire, poison, or
corrosive substances.

The Penal Code of 1860 categorizes injuries into hurt and grievous hurt to differentiate the severity and
ensure proportionate punishment. This legal distinction aims to protect individuals from harm and deter
acts of violence by prescribing appropriate penalties based on the nature and consequences of the injury
caused.

(b) Explain the following offence:

(1) Causing hurt/ grievous hurt to extort confession etc.

(ii) Causing hurt/ grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty
(iii) Causing hurt/ grievous by dangerous weapons or means and
(iv) Voluntarily causing hurt/ grievous hurt to extort property.
Under the Penal Code, 1860 in Bangladesh, the following offences are covered under specific sections
related to causing hurt or grievous hurt. Here’s an explanation of each:
(i) Causing hurt/ grievous hurt to extort confession etc.
Relevant Section: Section 330
Definition: If a person voluntarily causes hurt or grievous hurt to another to extract a confession,
information regarding an offence, or any matter related to it, they are guilty under this section.
Example: A person tortures another to confess to a crime they may or may not have committed.
Punishment:
Imprisonment up to 7 years, along with a fine if grievous hurt is caused.
Lesser punishment if simple hurt is caused.
(ii) Causing hurt/ grievous hurt to deter public servant from his duty
Relevant Section: Section 332
Definition: Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to a public servant while they are performing their
official duties or intending to deter them from performing their duty.
Example: Assaulting a police officer to stop them from arresting someone.
Punishment:
Imprisonment up to 3 years, a fine, or both.
(iii) Causing hurt/ grievous hurt by dangerous weapons or means
Relevant Section: Section 324 (for hurt) and Section 326 (for grievous hurt)
Definition: Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt using dangerous weapons or means, such as a knife,
firearm, poison, acid, or explosives.
Example: Attacking someone with a knife or throwing acid at them.
Punishment:
For hurt (Section 324): Imprisonment up to 3 years, a fine, or both.
For grievous hurt (Section 326): Imprisonment up to 10 years or life imprisonment, along with a fine.
(iv) Voluntarily causing hurt/ grievous hurt to extort property
Relevant Section: Section 327
Definition: Voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt to extort property, valuable security, or to compel a
person to perform or omit an act that benefits the offender.
Example: Beating someone to force them to hand over money or property.
Punishment:
Imprisonment up to 10 years, a fine, and if grievous hurt is caused, a harsher penalty.
These provisions aim to address various forms of violence and ensure appropriate punishment for those
who commit such offences.

(13) (a) What do you understand by criminal misappropriation of property? Distinguish between
criminal misappropriation of property and criminal breach of trust.
Criminal misappropriation of property refers to dishonestly taking or converting another person’s movable
property for personal use without their consent. The act may begin with the lawful acquisition of the
property but involves a dishonest intent to misappropriate it at some point. It is governed by Section 403 of
the Penal Code, 1860 in Bangladesh.
Key Elements:
1. Movable Property: The property must be capable of being moved.
2. Dishonest Intention: The act must involve dishonesty.
3. Without Consent: The property must be converted or misappropriated without the owner’s permission.
4. Initial Innocent Possession: The property may initially come into possession lawfully or innocently.
Example: If a person finds lost property and dishonestly keeps it without attempting to return it to its rightful
owner, it amounts to criminal misappropriation.

Distinction Between Criminal Misappropriation and Criminal Breach of Trust: (Chat Gpt)
Key Difference:
# The main difference lies in possession and trust.
# In criminal misappropriation, the property comes into possession innocently and is later misused.
# In criminal breach of trust, the property is entrusted to the offender, who dishonestly violates the trust by
misusing or misappropriating it.

(b) 'A' mistakenly takes away 'B's book of his possession, believing it to be his own but 'A' did not
return the book after discovering his mistake. Here, what kind of offence has been committed by 'A'?
Under the Penal Code, 1860, in Bangladesh, the actions of 'A' can be analyzed as follows:
1. Initial Mistake:
When 'A' mistakenly takes away 'B's book, believing it to be his own, this act does not constitute an offence
because there is no dishonest intention at the time of taking the book (Section 23 and 24 of the Penal Code).
2. Subsequent Discovery:
After discovering the mistake, if 'A' fails to return the book to 'B, it indicates dishonest intention. This falls
under criminal misappropriation of property as defined in Section 403 of the Penal Code, 1860, which
states:
> "Whoever dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use any movable property, shall be
punished..."
Offence Committed:
Criminal Misappropriation of Property under Section 403, because 'A' dishonestly retains 'B's book after
realizing it does not belong to him.
Punishment:
Under Section 403, the punishment is:
Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or
Fine, or
Both.

(14) What offences have been Committed in the following cases? Give reasons in support for your
answer.
(a) A, B, C and D are charged for dacoity.
(b) A took away a book beyond the knowledge of his friend 'B'.
(c) 'A' restraints 'B' from passing through his(A) land having no right.
(d) 'A' instigates 'B' to murder 'C'.But the offence of murder has not been committed.
Here are the possible offences committed under the Penal Code, 1860 (Bangladesh) in the given cases,
along with reasons:
(a) A, B, C, and D are charged for dacoity.
Offence: Dacoity under Section 395 of the Penal Code, 1860.
Reason: When five or more persons conjointly commit or attempt to commit robbery, it constitutes dacoity.
Here, A, B, C, and D (four persons) are not enough to meet the requirement for dacoity unless there is
evidence that a fifth person was involved in planning or executing the act. If it's proven that five or more
were involved, then the offence is dacoity.
(b) A took away a book beyond the knowledge of his friend 'B'.
Offence: Theft under Section 378 of the Penal Code, 1860.
Reason: Theft involves dishonestly taking any movable property out of the possession of another person
without their consent. By taking the book beyond B's knowledge (and if dishonesty is proven), A committed
theft. The key element here is dishonest intent, which needs to be proven.
(c) 'A' restrains 'B' from passing through his (A's) land having no right.
Offence: Wrongful restraint under Section 339 of the Penal Code, 1860.
Reason: Wrongful restraint occurs when someone voluntarily obstructs another person from proceeding in
any direction they have a right to proceed. If A has no legal right to stop B and prevents him from passing
through the land, A is guilty of wrongful restraint.
(d) 'A' instigates 'B' to murder 'C', but the offence of murder has not been committed.
Offence: Abetment under Section 115 and Section 107 of the Penal Code, 1860.
Reason: Instigating someone to commit a crime constitutes abetment under Section 107. If the instigation
is for a grave crime like murder but the crime is not committed, Section 115 applies, which penalizes
abetment where the offence is not committed. The punishment under Section 115 is less severe than when
the crime is executed.

(15) What do you mean by rioting? What are the liabilities of an owner of land which a riot takes place?
How does it differ from affray?
Under the Penal Code, 1860 of Bangladesh, rioting and affray are distinct offenses with specific definitions,
liabilities, and legal implications. Here's an explanation of each term and their differences:
Rioting:
1. Definition:
According to Section 146 of the Penal Code, rioting occurs when five or more persons use force or violence
in furtherance of a common object as described in Section 141 (unlawful assembly).
The intent must align with one of the objects outlined in Section 141, such as resisting lawful authority,
committing mischief, or depriving others of their legal rights.
Liabilities of Landowners Where a Riot Takes Place:
# If a riot occurs on a person's land, the owner may not be directly criminally liable unless they actively
participated in or facilitated the riot.
# However, under Section 154 of the Penal Code, if the riot involves mischief by fire or destruction of
property, the inhabitants of the area may be held jointly liable to compensate for the damage caused during
the riot.
# Additionally, under certain circumstances, the owner may face civil liabilities if they failed to prevent or
report the unlawful assembly or encouraged the riot.
3. Punishment:
Section 147 prescribes a punishment of up to two years of imprisonment, a fine, or both for rioting.
If armed with a deadly weapon, the punishment increases under Section 148.
Affray:
1. Definition:
Under Section 159, affray occurs when two or more persons fight in a public place, disturbing public peace.
Unlike rioting, affray does not require a common object or unlawful assembly.
2. Key Features:
# It is a smaller-scale offense compared to rioting.
# The disturbance must occur in a public place, and the act must cause alarm to the public.
3. Punishment:
Section 160 provides for a punishment of up to one month's imprisonment, a fine of up to 100 taka, or both.
Differences Between Rioting and Affray: (Chat Gpt)
In Bangladesh, rioting is a graver offense than affray due to the involvement of a larger group, common
intent, and the potential for widespread harm. Landowners are generally not held criminally liable for riots
unless they are complicit. However, they may face civil liabilities under specific circumstances, particularly
if property damage results from the riot.

16.a) What do you mean by abetment? Under what circumstances can a person be convicted for an
effence different from that he abetted?
Abetment refers to the act of encouraging, instigating, aiding, or facilitating the commission of an offense
by another person. Under the Penal Code, 1860 of Bangladesh, abetment is defined under Sections 107–
120. A person who abets an offense does not need to commit the offense themselves; their role lies in
supporting or instigating the act.
What constitutes abetment?
Under Section 107 of the Penal Code, abetment occurs in three ways:
Instigating someone to commit an offense.
Engaging in a conspiracy to commit an offense and acting in furtherance of that conspiracy.
Intentionally aiding by an act or omission in the commission of the offense.
Conviction for a different offense than the one abetted
Under certain circumstances, a person can be convicted for an offense different from the one they abetted.
This is covered under Section 111 of the Penal Code, which provides that:
"When an act is abetted and a different act is done, the abettor is liable for the act done, in the same manner,
and to the same extent as if they had directly abetted the act."
However, this applies only if:
The act done was a probable consequence of the abetment.
The abettor can be held responsible for the consequences of their encouragement or assistance, even if the
precise offense committed was not intended or foreseen.
The act done arises out of the same abetment:
If the abettor instigates or aids one act but the principal offender, due to unforeseen circumstances, ends up
committing another offense, the abettor can still be held liable if the resulting act was a likely consequence
of their actions.
Example
If person A instigates person B to assault C, but B, in the course of the assault, unintentionally causes C’s
death, A may be held liable for abetment of culpable homicide even though they only abetted an assault.
This is because causing death was a probable consequence of the act abetted.
Key Principles
The abettor's liability depends on the connection between the abetment and the act done.
Knowledge of the probable consequences of the abetment is critical.
The degree of the offense committed must be analyzed to determine whether the act falls under the probable
consequences of the abetment.
Conclusion
A person can be convicted for a different offense than the one abetted if the resulting act was a natural or
probable consequence of the abetment. The Penal Code ensures that abettors are not absolved of liability
due to technical differences in the offenses committed.

b) Who is an abettor? How is abetment constituted under the Penal Code? What do you mean by
abetment by aiding? Describe it with illustration.
Who is an Abettor?
An abettor is a person who abets the commission of an offense as defined under Section 108 of the Penal
Code, 1860. A person becomes an abettor if they instigate, engage in a conspiracy, or intentionally aid in
committing an offense. Importantly, the abettor's liability exists even if the principal offense is not
completed, provided the abetment itself is established.
How is Abetment Constituted under the Penal Code, 1860?
Under Section 107 of the Penal Code, abetment is constituted in any of the following three ways:
By Instigation:
A person actively provokes, incites, or urges another person to commit an offense.
Mere words, gestures, or actions that encourage someone to commit an act may amount to instigation.
By Conspiracy:
A person engages with others in a plan to commit an offense and does an act in pursuance of that plan.
Both the agreement and some action toward its execution are necessary.
By Aiding:
A person intentionally facilitates or helps another person commit an offense through acts or omissions.
The aid must be active, intentional, and connected to the commission of the offense.
What is Abetment by Aiding?
Abetment by aiding occurs when a person intentionally provides assistance, support, or encouragement to
someone committing an offense. This can include physical assistance, supplying resources, or creating
circumstances conducive to the offense.
Key Elements of Abetment by Aiding:
Intentional Aid:
The abettor must have the intention to facilitate the commission of the offense.
Mere knowledge of the offense is not enough unless the person deliberately provides help.
Active Participation:
There must be active involvement, whether through acts (e.g., providing tools) or omissions (e.g.,
withholding information when under a duty to report).
Proximity to the Offense:
The aid must be connected to the commission of the offense and must substantially assist or facilitate it.
Illustration of Abetment by Aiding:
Example 1:
A provides B with a knife, knowing that B intends to use it to commit a murder. A’s act of supplying the
knife constitutes abetment by aiding.
Example 2:
D, a security guard, deliberately leaves a gate unlocked, allowing thieves to enter a building and commit
theft. D has abetted the offense of theft by aiding.
Legal Consequences of Abetment by Aiding
Under the Penal Code, the abettor is treated as if they committed the offense themselves:
If the principal offense is committed, the abettor is punishable to the same extent as the principal offender.
If the offense is not committed, the abettor may still face punishment under Section 109, provided the
abetment itself is proven.
In summary, abetment by aiding emphasizes intentional support that directly facilitates the offense, holding
the abettor accountable for their contribution to the criminal act.

c) 'A' babets 'B' to burn C's home. 'B' sets fire to the house and at the same time commits theft of some
property from there. State who commits what offence?
In this scenario, we analyze the acts and liabilities of A and B under the Penal Code, 1860, as applicable in
Bangladesh:
1. Acts Committed by A and B
A’s Role: A abets B to burn C's house. This constitutes abetment of the offense of arson (mischief by fire).
B’s Role:
B sets fire to C's house (committing arson under Section 436, Penal Code).
B also commits theft by taking property from the house (offense under Section 378, Penal Code).
2. Offenses and Liabilities under the Penal Code, 1860
A's Liability:
Abetment of Arson:
Under Section 107 (abetment) and Section 109 (punishment for abetment), A is liable as an abettor for the
offense of arson because A intentionally instigated B to burn the house.
A will be punished as if they committed the offense themselves, under Section 436.
No Liability for Theft:
A is not liable for theft because A did not instigate, conspire, or aid B to commit theft. The theft was an
independent act by B.
B's Liability:
Arson (Mischief by Fire):
B is guilty of arson under Section 436, which deals with mischief by fire or explosive substance intending
to destroy a house. The act was intentional and fulfills the elements of the offense.
Theft:
B is also guilty of theft under Section 378, as B dishonestly took property from C’s house without consent
and with the intention to permanently deprive C of it.
3. Relevant Legal Provisions
Section 436 (Mischief by Fire): If any person commits mischief by fire or explosive substance intending to
destroy any building, they shall be punished with imprisonment for life or a term extending up to 10 years
and a fine.
Section 378 (Theft): Theft involves dishonestly moving movable property out of the possession of the
owner without consent, punishable under Section 379 with imprisonment up to 3 years or fine, or both.
Section 109 (Punishment for Abetment): If an offense is committed as a result of abetment, the abettor is
punished as if they committed the offense themselves.
4. Conclusion
A’s Offense: Abetment of arson (punishable under Sections 107 and 436).
B’s Offenses:
Arson (punishable under Section 436).
Theft (punishable under Section 378).
Both will be punished separately based on the offenses committed.