CRIMINAL LAW Notes AND Hadood Law Full PPC PDF

LLB PART 1 Paper 6
Criminal law
Notes by Professor
Balochistan Book Center

Shirani Market archar road quetta
Phone # 0315-2673363
1 PAPER 6 (Principle Of Criminal Law , PPC & Hadood Laws)
PART A: PAKISTAN PENAL CODE.
Unlawful Assembly
Q1. Define unlawful assembly. When it becomes riot? Explain fully.
Q. What is unlawful assembly? Under what circumstances a member of a unlawful
assembly commits an offence in prosecution of common object of the assembly.
1. INTRODUCTION:
Chapter VIII of P.P.C deals with the offences against public peace. If many persons
assemble together to disturb peace and order, the trouble becomes magnified and
deserves special treatment. Section 141 to 160 deals with these special offences, and
provides punishments as such.
2. RELEVANT PROVISIONS:
Following are the relevant provisions of P.P.C
Section 141 to 149 P.P.C.
3. UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY
1. GENERAL DEFINITION
A group of five or more people with the mutual intent of deliberate disturbance of the
peace.
II. UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY U/SEC 141:
An assembly of five or more person is designated an unlawful assembly, if the common
object of the person composing that assembly is.
First To overawe by criminal force or show criminal force, the federal or any provincial
Govt. or Legislature or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public
servant, or
Second To resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process or
Third To commit any mischief or criminal trespass other offence, or
Fourth By means of criminal force or show of criminal force to any person to take or obtain
possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of right of way or the
use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or, enjoyment or to
enforce any right or supposed right. Or
Fifth By means of criminal force or show of criminal force to comply any person to do what
he is not legally bound to do or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
III INGREDIENTS OF SEC 141:
Following are the ingredients of unlawful assembly.
(i) Assembly of five or More Persons:
To constitute unlawful assembly, it must consist of five or more persons. If the number of
person is less than five, it would not constitute unlawful assembly even if the members
have one of the five specified objects as their common object.
(ii)Common Object:
The essence of the offence is the common object of the persons forming the assembly.
Whether the object is in their minds when they come together or whether it occurs to them
afterwards in not material what in necessary is that they should all be aware of it and
concur in it.
(iii)Object Must be Specified in Sec. 141:
The common object must be one of the five objects specified in section 141. A member of
an unlawful assembly is guilty of an offence u/sec 141, when the common object of that
assembly is of following types.
a. To Overawe Federal, „Provincial Govt. Legislature or public:
A person kept by superior influence is awe, so that he fears to do what the law empowers
him to do is overawed. When the common object of an assembly is to overawe federal,
provincial Govt. or Legislature or public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such
public servant, all person of the that assembly are guilt of an offence.
b. To Resist:
When the common object of an assembly is to resist the execution of any law or of any
legal process e.g. warrant , attachment etc., the members of that assembly are regarded as
member of unlawful assembly.
c. To commit Offences:
Although third clause specifies only two offences, viz mischief and criminal trespass but the
words others offences seem to denote that all offences are included.
d. To Interfere Rights Attached With Property:
When the common object the assembly is to take-possession of any property or deprived
any person of the enjoyment of a right way or use of water or other incorporeal right or to
enforce any right, by the use of criminal force or by show of criminal force, that assembly
will be designated as unlawful assembly and members will be punished as such.
e. Compulsion to Any person:
When the common object is to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do
or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do e.g. to restrict police officer to arrest.
IV. TURNING OF LAWFUL ASSEMBLY INTO UNLAWFUL ONE:
According to explanation to sec. 141, an assembly which was not unlawful when it
assembled may subsequently become an unlawful assembly.
4. BEING MEMBERSHIP OF AN UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY U/SEC 142:
Whoever intentionally joins unlawful assembly or continues in it, being aware of the facts
which renders an assembly an unlawful assemble is said to be a member of unlawful
assembly.
5. PUNISHMENT U/SEC 143:
Whoever is a member of an unlawful assembly shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to six months or with fine or with both.
Case Law 1994 Sc MR 588
It was held that in order to punish, the prosecution must prove and presence of each
accused.
Where member of an unlawful assembly is armed with a deadly weapon or with anything
which is liked to cause death, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to two years or with fine or with doth.
7. RIOTING:
(I)DEFINITION U/SEC 146:
Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly or by any member thereof, in
prosecution of the common object of assembly, every member of such assembly is guilt of
the offence of rioting.
(II)INGREDIENTS:
Following are the ingredients of an offence of rioting.
(i) Use of Force or Violence:
There must be use of force or violence by an unlawful or any member thereof to constitute
an offence of rioting, it is not necessary that the force violence should be directed against
any particular person or object.
(ii)By Unlawful Assembly or Any Member:
The force or violence must be used by an unlawful assembly or any member of it. So to
constitute an offence of rioting all the ingredients of section 141 need to be fulfilled.
(iii)In Prosecution of Common Object:
Such force or violence should have been used in prosecution of the common object of such
assembly.
(III)PUNISHMENT U/SEC 147:
Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years , or with fine or with both.
(IV) PUNISHMENT U/SEC 148:
Whoever is guilty of rioting, being Rioting armed with a deadly weapon or with another
which, used as a weapon of offence, is likely to cause death, shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine
or with both.
A person cannot be found guilty under this section unless he actually has a dangerous
weapon in his hands. (PLD1981 SC286)
8. Conclusion:
To conclude, I can say, that the law discourages tumultuous assemblage of men to
preserve the public peace. It defines what an unlawful assembly is and provides
punishments for such an assembly.
Common Intention And Common Object

Q2. Define and explain common intention and common object. Is there any difference
between the two? If so, explain.
1. INTRODUCTION:
Section 34 and section 149 0f P.P.C embodies the rule of constructive liability which means
that a person is liable for the consequences of an act of another person. But sec. 34 and
sec. 149 should not be mixed up together. The rule of common intention in sec. 34 and
common object in sec. 149 are not synonymous in any way and they have got their
distinguishable features.
Following are the relevant provisions of P.P.C.
Section 34 for common intention
Section 149 for common object.
3. COMMON INTENTION:
(I) MEANING:
“ common intention within the meaning of section 34 implies a pre-arranged plan. (NLR
1980 criminal 517)”
(II) COMMON INTENTION U/ SEC 34:
When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of
all, each of such person is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him
alone.
(III) INGREDIENTS OF SEC. 34:
Following are the ingredients of sec. 34.
(i) Criminal Act:
There must be some criminal act to invoke sec. 34 criminal act is one which is prohibited by
law and is carried out in violation of the limits prescribed by law. The act contemplated by
sec. 34 is some physical act and merely a mental act.
(ii) By Several Persons:
The criminal act must be done by several persons. It means that sec. 34 will apply only is
cases where the accused is more than one.
(iii) In Furtherance Of Common Intention:
It is necessary that the act done by several persons should be in furtherance of common
intention of all the persons involved. It may be develop even at the spur of the moment or
during the commission of an offence. If it is prove that what the several accused did are
clearly individual acts done of their own accord rather than acts done in furtherance of a
prearranged plan or arrangement, the liability of each and not under section 34 P.P.C.
(IV) SCOPE OF SEC.34:
Section 34 of the P.P.C is intended to meet a case in which it may be difficult to distinguish
between the acts of individual members of a party who act in furtherance of the common
intention of all. It does not create a distinct offence but merely enunciates a principal of joint
liability for act dene in furtherance of common intention of the offenders.(PLD 1983S. C35)
(V) PROOF OF COMMON INTENTION:
Strict proof of common intention of concerned persons is normally not possible but the
same can be conveniently gathered from set of circumstances brought forth in every
case(1998SCMR2146)
4. COMMON OBJECT
(I) COMMON OBJECT U/SEC 149:
If an offence is committed by any member of an unlawful assembly in prosecution of the
common object of that assembly, or such as the members of that assembly knew to be
likely to be committed in prosecution of that object, every person who, at the time of the
committing of that offence is a member of the same assembly is guilty of that offence.
(II) Ingredients Of Sec149:
(i) Offence is committed:
“The word offence is defined in sect 40 of P.P.C as a thing made punishable by P.P.C.” To
invoke Sec 149, an offence has to be committed.
(ii) Unlawful Assembly:
According to section 141 P.P.C an assembly of five or more persons is designated an
unlawful assembly, if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is
unlawful.
(iii) Membership of Unlawful Assembly:
To invoke the provision of sec. 149 membership of unlawful assembly is necessary. Proof
of specifics overt act on the part of every member is not necessary. It is sufficient to prove
that the accused persons shared the common object of the unlawful assembly.
(iv) In Prosecution Of Common Object:
Some offence must be Committed by any member of unlawful assembly in prosecution of
common object of that assembly. The common object of the unlawful assembly has to be
inferred from the membership, the weapons used and the nature of injuries as well as other
surrounding circumstances.
(v) Knowledge of likelihood of offence being committed:
The member of unlawful assembly are also liable where the offence was such as the
members of the assembly knew to be likely to be committed in prosecution of that object.
(III) Scope Of Section 149:
Section 149 P.P.C deals with the constructive liability of members of an unlawful assembly
for the offence have been committed by one of the members of the assembly. Sec. 149 is
merely an enabling provision and not provides a substantive offence.
(IV) Proof of Section 149:
Prosecution must prove presence and participation of each of the accused in unlawful
assembly for conviction u/sec 149 P.P.C (1994 SCMR 588)
5. DISTINCTION BETWEEN COMMON INTENTION AND COMMON OBJECT:
Following are the differences between section 34 and sec. 149.
(I) Number Of Persons:
Sec.34 may apply to a case where the culprits are more than one.
Sec.149 can apply only to cases in which culprits are five or more.
(II) Meeting Of Mind:
Sec. 34 requires a pre-concert or meeting of mind.
Sec.149 will apply even if there was no prior meeting of mind.
(III) Participation:
Element of participation in action in necessary to constitute common intention.
In Sec. 149 only membership of unlawful assembly at the time of occurrence of offence is
sufficient.
(Iv) As To Offence:
Section 34 expounds a doctrine of criminal liability and every criminal act in furtherance of
common intention is made liable.
Section 149 applies to an offence committed by any member of an unlawful assembly
whose common object is one mentioned in Sec 141, P.P.C.
(vi) Presence Of Accused:
In Sec 34, all the accused must be present on the spot. In sec 149, it is not necessary that
all the accused must be present at the time of the commission of the offence.
(VI) Development:
Common intention can be developed even at the spur of the moment. Common object
cannot develop at the spur of the moment.
(VII) As To Act Done:
Sec. 34 will apply where the common intention is to do an act which was done.
Sec. 149 will apply even if there was no common intention to do the act but it was done in
furtherance of the common object of the unlawful assembly.
6. Conclusion:
To conclude, I can say that both section 34 and 149 P.P.C . making a person vicariously
liable for the acts of his companions. Both section 34 and 149 cannot always be proved by
direct evidence facts and circumstances of the case.
kinds of punishments
Q3. What are different kinds of punishments provided under P.P.C.
Q. What punishment in default of payment of fine can be awarded?
1. INTRODUCTION:
Punishment is the suffering in person or property inflicted by society on the offender who
has been adjudged guilty of crime under the law. The main object of awarding punishments
for offense is to create such an atmosphere which restrains people doing such offences.
Section 53 of P.P.C defines several types of punishments for different offences.
2. RELEVNT PROVISIONS:
Section 53 of P.P.C.
3. DEFINITION OF PUNISHMENT:
Black‟ s Law dictionary
“Any fine, penalty or confinement inflicted upon a person by the authority of the law and the
Judgment and sentence of a court, some crime or offence committed by him or his
omission of a duty enjoined by law”
4. PURPOSE OF PUNISHMENT
The purpose of punishment is the prevention of P.P.C offences.
5. KINDS OF PUNISHMENT U/SEC 53:
The punishments to which offenders are liable under the provisions of P.P.C are as under.
1- Qisas
2- Diyat
3- Arsh
4- Daman
5- Tazir
6- Death
7- Imprisonment for life
8- Imprisonment which namely
(i) Rigorous i-e with hard labour
(ii)Simple
9- Forfeiture of property
10- Fine
(I)QISAS:
Qisas means “To copy the other” or to follow the part followed by the other. The basic
principle of Qisas is similarity. If similarity of injury is not possible- qisas may not be
enforced.
(i) Definition u/SEC 299 (K):
“Qisas means punishment by causing similar hurt at the same part of the body of the
convict as he has caused to the victim or by causing his death, if he has committed qatl-i-
amd in exercise the right of the victim or a wali
(ii) Execution of Qisas
There are four cases in which qisas is not applicable on the offender.
a. Death of offender:
Where the offender dies before the enforcement of Qisas.
b. Waiver by wali:
Where right of qisas is waived by any wali.
c. Right of Qisas devolves on offender:
When the right of Qisas devolves on the offender as result of the death of the Wali of the
victim.
b. Wali has no right of Qisas:
Where right of Qisas devolves on the person who has no right of qisas against the offender
e.g the son cannot enforce qisas against his father.
(II) DIYAT:
Diyat means the compensation payable only in cases Qatl and not in cases of hurt. It is
payable only in cases where cases an offender guilty of qatle –I – amd is not lible to qisas
or where is not enforceable.
(i) Definition u/sec 299 (e):
Diyat means the compensation specified in section 323 payable to the heirs of the victim.”
(ii) Value of Diyat u/sec 323:
The court shall subject to the injunctions of Islam as laid down in the Holy Quran and
sunnah, and keeping in view the financial position of the convict and the heirs of the victim,
fix the value of diyat which shall not be less than the value of thirty thousand six hundred
and thirty grams silver.
(III)ARSH:
Arsh is the kind of compensation payable at the causing of hurt.
(i) Definition u/sec299 (b):
Arsh means the compensation specified in P.P.C to be paid to the victim or the heirs.:
(ii) Value of Arsh:
The value of Arch will be assessed at certain percentage indicated various provisions of the
value of diyat u/sec 323 P.P.C.
(iii) mode of payment:
The Arsh will be payable in lumpsun or in instalments spreading over three years from the
date of final judgement
(iii) Failure to pay Arsh;
In case of default, the offender may be kept in jail to serve the simple imprisonment until
Arsh is paid in full. It may be awarded in the following section.
Section 334 P.P.C.
Section 337 P.P.C.
(IV) DAMAN:
The word Daman is actually Dhman. It means compensation which is determined by the
court.
(i) Definition u/sec 299 (d):
“Daman names the compensation determined by causing hurt not liable to arsh.”
(ii) Value of Daman:
The value of daman will be determined by the court, Keeping in view:
1. The expenses incurred on the treatment of the victim.
2. Loss or disability caused in the functioning or power of any organ.
3. The anguish suffered by the victim.
(V) TAZIR:
(I) Definition u/sec 299 (1):
“Tair means punishment other than Qisas, Diyat, arsh or Daman.”
(iii) Punishment of Tazir:
Tazir may be inflicted by imposition of fine, imprisonment etc. it is the punishment which is
left to the discretion of the judge or court.
(IV) DEATH:
Death is the capital punishment that may be awarded for certain offences under P.P.C.
Such as:
(i) Waging war against Pakistan u/sea 121 P.P.C.
(ii) Murder u/sec 302, P.P.C.
(iii) Hijacking u/sec 403- B, P.P.C. etc.
(VII) IMPRISONMENT FOR LIFE:
Sentence of imprisonment for life means, for remaining as span of natural life of convict,
which is accepted as being of 25 years duration. (PLD 1968 LAH. 1)
Following are some of the offense, where it may be inflicted, as punishment.
(i) Sedition u/sec 124-A P.P.C.
(ii) Counterfeiting Pakistan coin u/sea 232 P.P.C.
(iii) Punishment for murder u/sec 302P/P/C
(VIII) IMPRISONMENT:
Imprisonment means confinement of convict within certain prescribed limits. The maximum
period of imprisonment that can be awarded for an offence is fourteen years u/sec 55
P.P.C and the shortest term provided for an offence twenty four hours u/sec 510 P.P.C.
(I) Kind of imprisonment:
i. Rigorous
ii. Simple
i. Rigorous: In the case of rigorous imprisonment, the offender is put to labor such as
digging earth, drawing water etc.
ii. Simple: In the case of simply imprisonment the offender is confined to jail and is not put
to any kind of work.
(IX) FORFEITURE OF PROPERTY:
Forfeiture of specific property may be awarded as punishment in the following section, (i)
section 126 P.P.C (II) Section 127. P.P.C (iii) section 169, .P.P.C
(X) FINE:
Fine is the punishment which may be awarded in some offences along with the
imprisonment. Fine is the only punishment provided for in section.
137, 154, 155, 156, 171-G, 171-H, 171- 1.278, 283, and 290, P.P.C
6. SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF FINE U/SEC 64:
In every case where sentence of fine is awarded whether it is along with imprisonment or
without imprisonment, the court may direct that in default of payment of the fine, the
offender shall suffer imprisonment for a certain term, which shall be in excess of any other
imprisonment to which he may have been sentenced or to which he may be liable under a
commutation of a sentence.
(I) Sentence of imprisonment not to run concurrently:
A sentences of imprisonment in default of fine has to be served out separately. That
sentence cannot run COCURRENTL with any other sentence.
7. LIMIT OF IMPRISONMENT FOR NON-PAYMENT OF FINE U/SEC 65:
If the offence is punishable with imprisonment as well as fine the term shall not exceed one
fourth of the imprisonment which is the maximum finds for the offence.
8. LINIT OF IMPRISONMENT FOR NON- PAYMENT OF FINE U/SEC 67:
If the offence is punishable with fine only, the imprisonment which the court imposes in
default of payment of fine shall be simple and term shall not exceed the following scale.
Amount of fine Term of imprisonment in default of payment of fine.
(i). Not exceeding Not exceeding 2 months and Rs. 50/.
(ii)Not exceedingRs.100/. Not exceeding 4 months
(iii)in any other case Not exceeding 6 months
9. CONCLUSION
To conclude, I can say, that it is basic of criminal justice that wrong dose should be
punished. To fulfill this aim section 53 of P.P.C provided different kinds of punishment
based on different theories via deterrent, Retributive, reformative compensatory, preventive
etc apart these punishments the punishment of whipping. Added by whipping act may also
be awarded and juvenile offenders, sentenced to imprisonment may be sentenced to and
detained in a reformatory school for a period of 3 to 7 years.
Criminal Conspiracy
Q4. Define criminal conspiracy discuss its kinds and distinguish it from abetment.
Q. Define criminal conspiracy what are its different kinds discuss fully.
1. INTRODUCTION:
Conspiracy is one of the forms of abetment and it differs from other offences in this respect
that unlike other offences, the intention to do a criminal act is itself sufficient no matter
whether it is done or not section 120-A and 120-B of P.P.C have brought the law of
conspiracy in the country in line with the English law by making the overt act unessential
when the conspiracy is to commit any offence.
Section 120-A, 120-B, P.P.C and Section 121-A, P.P.C
(I) DEFINITION U/SEC 120-A:
When two or more, persons agree to do or cause to be done:
(i)an illegal act. Or
(ii) an act which is not illegal by illegal means
Such an agreement is designated a criminal conspiracy.”
(II) INGREDIENTS:
Following are the essential ingredients of offence of criminal conspiracy.
(i) Two or More Persons:
According to sec.120-A, at least two persons are required to constitute the conspiracy. One
person cannot be held guilty of conspiracy as he cannot conspire with himself.
Criminal conspiracy as envisaged in section 120-A, P.P.C. must be product of two
consenting minds uninfluenced by any consideration of threat, intimidation, coercion or
undue influence.
(PLD 1979S.C53)
(ii) Agreement Between Such Persons:
Agreement is not mere intention, but announcement and acceptance of intentions. To
constitute a criminal conspiracy, there must be an agreement of two or more persons to do
an act which is illegal or which is to be done by illegal means.
Case Law (1998 PSC 533)
It was held that the most important ingredient of the offence is the agreement between two
or more persons to do an illegal act
(a) Mode Of Agreement:
Agreement may be express or implied or parity expressed and partly implied.
(iii)To do Illegal Act:
The word illegal is defined u/sec 43 P.P.C as
“everything which is an offence or which is prohibited by law or which furnishes ground for
a civil action.”
Offence of conspiracy completed as soon as agreement to do an illegal act is the ultimate
object of such agreement or is merely incidental to the object.
Illustration: „A‟ and „B‟ agrees to murder „C. This is an offence and they are guilty u/sec
120-A.
(iv)Legal Act by Illegal Means:
When two or more persons agree to do an act, which is not illegal itself, may be guilty of
criminal conspiracy u/sec 120-A when they agree to do or cause to be done that act by
illegal means.
Illustration: „A‟, „B‟ and „C‟ agree to sell clothes without paying custom duty on it. They are
guilty u/sec 120-A.
Agreement To Commit An Offence And Agreement Which Is Illegal But Not Constitute An
Offence:
The proviso to section 120-A draws a distinction between an agreement to commit an
offence and an agreement of which either the object or the methods employed are illegal
but do not constitute an offence. In the case of former, the criminal conspiracy is completed
by the act of agreement; in the case of the latter, there must be some act done by one or
more of the parties to the agreement to effect thereof i.e. There must be an overt act.
(IV)PROOF OF CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY:
Conspiracy may be established by direct or indirect evidence such as circumstantial
evidence. Evidence need to be considered together and its cumulative effect to be weighed
and given effect. According to article 23 of Q.S.O, 1984, The act done by one is admissible
against the co-conspirators.
3. PUNISHMENT U/SEC 120-B:
(i) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy to commit an offence punishable with death,
imprisonment for a term of two years or upwards, shall where no express provision is made
in the code for the punishment of such conspiracy, be punished in the same manner as if
he had abetted offence.
(ii) Whoever is a party to a criminal conspiracy other than a criminal conspiracy to commit
an offence punishable as aforesaid shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term not exceeding six months or with fine or with both.
4. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT OFFENCES PUNISHABLE BY SECTION 121-A:
Whoever within or without Pakistan conspires to:
(i) Commit any of the offence punishable by sec 121 i.e. Waging or attempting to wage war
or abetting waging of war against Pakistan, or
(ii) Deprive Pakistan of the Sovereignty of her territories or any part thereof, or
(iii) Overawe (something more than mere apprehension. It is a situation where one feels to
choose between yielding to force or exposing to serious danger) the federal Govt. or any
Provincial Govt. by means of criminal force or show of it.
He shall be punished with Imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description
which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine.
5. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY AND ABETMENT:
Following are the difference between criminal conspiracy and abetment.
(i) Gist of offence:
The gist of the offence of criminal conspiracy is a bare agreement to commit an offence.
The offence of abetment requires that an act or illegal omission must take place in
pursuance of the conspiracy.
(ii) Form:
Abetment is a total complete offence.
Conspiracy is one of the forms of abetment.
(iii) Punishment:
Section 109 P.P.C is concerned only with the punishment of abetments for which no
express provision is made under the penal code. A charge u/sec 190, should therefore be
along with some other substantive offence committed in consequence of abetment.
The offence of criminal conspiracy is an independent offence. It is made punishable u/sec
120-B.
(iv) scope:
Abetment by conspiracy is narrow in scope. Criminal conspiracy is wider in scope.
6. CONCLUSION:
To conclude, I can say that the offence of criminal conspiracy is a substantive offence and
is punishable as such. It has nothing to do with abetment although it is one of the ways by
which offence of abetment may be committed. It is wider in scope and covers acts which do
not amount to abetment by conspiracy within the meaning of sec. 107.
Trespass
Q5. Explain criminal trespass stating it different kinds.
Q. Define lurking house trespass and house trespass.
Q. Define trespass what punishment is provided for this offences.
1. INTRODUCTION:
Trespass is an unlawful interference with one‟ s person , property or rights. At common law,
trespass was a form of action brought to recover damages for any injury to one‟s person or
relationship with another. Section 441 to 456 of P.P.C deals with different kinds of trespass.
Following are the relevant provision of P.P.C
Section 441 and 477 for criminal trespass
Section 442 and 448 for house trespass
Section 443 and 453 for lurking house trespass.
3. CRIMINAL TRESPASS:
“Whoever enters into or upon property in the possession of another with intent to commit an
offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any person in possession of such property or
having lawfully entered into or upon such property unlawfully remains there with intent as
aforesaid, is said to commit criminal trespass.”
(II) INGREDIENTS:
Following are the ingredients of section 441.
(i) Entry into Property in Possession of Another:
There must be entry into or upon property in the possession of another. Entry may be
accomplished either by physically setting foot personally or by some other method.
1. Property:
The word property in this section is wide enough to cover moveable property into or upon
which it is possible for a person to enter or upon entering remain, with intention described
in the section.
Possession of Another:
The possession must be actual possession some person other than the alleged trespasser.
It they complained is not in actual possession of the property this offence cannot be
committed.
(ii)Unlawful entry or Unlawfully Remaining There:
The entry may be lawful or unlawful where the original entry was lawful i.e without any
intention to commit an offence, but the person entering remains there with the intent
specified in the section, he commits criminal trespass.
(iii)Intention to Commit Offence, Offence, Intimidate, Insult or Annoy Person in Possession:
Criminal trespass depends on the intention the offender and not upon the nature of the act
intention must always be gathered from the circumstances of each case.
Commit an Offence:
There may be intention to commit an offence. The offence referred to cannot be the offence
of criminal trespass itself, but must be some other offence either under the P.P.C or under
any special enactment.
Intimidate, Insult or Annoy:
Intimidate means to over awe or to put in fear by some force or threat of violence. The word
annoyance must be taken to mean annoyance that would generally and reasonably affect
an ordinary person and not a particular individual. Where the intention is to commit an
offence or intimate, insult or annoy any person in possession it would amount to criminal
trespass.
(III) OBJECT OF SEC. 441:
Object of section 441 P.P.C is to maintain peace by protecting possession irrespective of
title.(PLD 1975SC556)
(IV) RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE AGAINST CRIMINAL TRESPASS:
In case of criminal trespass, the right of private defence continues so long as the trespass
continues and is controlled by section 99 of P.P.C
Trespasser on property cannot claim right of private defence of his person unless he first
brings to an end his own act of trespass.(PLD 1983 SC 135)
(V) PUNISHMENT U/SEC 447:
Whoever commits criminal trespass shall be punished with:
1. Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three months or
2. With fine which may extend to RS. 1500, or
3. With both
4. HOUSE TRESPASS:
(I) DEFINITION U/SEC 442:
Whoever commits criminal trespass by entering into or remaining in any building tent or
vessel used as a human dwelling or any building used as a place for worship or as a place
for the custody of property, is said to commit house trespass.
(II) INGREDIENTS:
(i)Criminal Trespass:
House trespass in an aggravated from of criminal trespass. All the ingredients of criminal
trespass must be present to constitute the offence of house trespass.
(ii)Entry into Building, Tent or Vessel:
According to the explanation of section 442, the introduction of any part of the trespass‟ s
body is entering sufficient to constitute house trespass.
The entry must be in any building tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or any building
used as a place of worship or for the custody of property.
What is building must always be a question of decree and circumstances, its usual and
ordinary meaning is an enclosure of brick or stone work covered by a roof.
(II) SCOPE OF SEC. 442:
Section 442 dose not contemplate the intended or the prospective use of the building. Only
those buildings fall within the purview of this section which have been put to the uses
specified in the section.
(IV) PUNISHMENT U/SEC 448:
Whoever commits house trespass shall be punished with.
a. Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to one year, or
c. With fine which may extend to Rs. 3000. Or,
d. With both.
5. LURKING HOUSE TRESPASS:
Whoever commits house trespass having taken precaution to conceal such house trespass
from some person who has a right to exclude or eject the trespass from the building, tent or
vessel which is the subject of the trespass, is said to commit lurking house-trespass.
(II) INGREDIENTS:
(i)House-trespass:
The lurking house-trespass is an aggravated from of house-trespass. So to constitute this
offence, all the ingredients of section 442 need to be fulfilled.
(ii)Made in Surreptitious Manner:
In order to constitute the offence of lurking house-trespass, the offender must have taken
precautions to conceal such house-trespass.
(iii)Concealment From Person Who has Right to Exclude:
The concealment should be from such person who has the right to exclude or eject the
trespasser.
Whoever commits lurking house-trespass shall be punished with.
(i)Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years and shall
also be liable to fine.
6. CONLUSION:
To conclude, I can say that trespass in the name of every usurpation, however, slight of
dominion over property, Section 441 defines criminal trespass punishment for which is
provided in section 447. The offence of criminal trespass may be aggravated by the way in
which it is committed and by the end for which it is committed. House-trespass is an
aggravated from of criminal trespass and when it is being committed in a surreptitious
manner it is called lurking house-trespass.
Theft And Extortion

Q6. Define and distinguish between theft and extortion? What punishment is provided for
these offences.
1. INTRODUCTION:
Extortion is the offence carried out by overpowering the will of the owner, while theft is the
offence which is committed without the consent of the owner. The offence of extortion
occupies a middle place between theft and robbery.
Section 378 and 379 for theft
Section 383 and 379 for Extortion
3. THEFT U/SEC 378:
Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any
person without that person „s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said
to commit theft.
(I) INGREDIENTS OF THEFT:
In order to constitute theft, following factors are essential.
(i) Dishonest intention to take property
(ii) Property must be moveable
(iii) That should be in possession of other person
(iv) There must be removal or moving of that property
(v) Without consent of the owner
(Explanation of these ingredients have been given in the question difference between theft
and criminal breath of trust)
(II) PUNISHMENT U/SEC 379:
Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years or with fine or both.
Case Law (2000 MLD 651)
It was held that person found guilty of offence of theft u/s 397 cannot Simultaneously be
convicted u/s 411 of P.P.C
4. EXTORTION U/SEC 383:
Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person or to any other
and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put deliver to any person any property or
valuable security or anything signed or sealed which may be converted into a valuable
security, commits extortion.
(I) INGREDIENTS:
Following are the ingredients of extortion
(i) Fear of Injury
There must be intentionally putting a person in fear of injury to himself or another. Injury
implies illegal harm, and it may be of any kind.
Illustration: „A‟ threatens „B‟ that he will keep „A‟s child in wrongful confinement unless „A‟
gives him certain amount of money. „A‟ has committed extortion.
(ii) Dishonest Inducement:
The element of dishonesty is the essence of the offence of extortion. There can be no
extortion unless a person is by threat of injury dishonestly induces to security, or anything
signed or sealed which may be converted into valuable security.
Illustration: „A‟ by putting ;Z‟ in fear of grievous hurt, dishonestly induces „Z‟ to sing or affix
his seal to a bland paper and deliver it to „A‟. „Z‟ sings and delivers the paper to „A‟ Here as
the paper so signed may be converted into a valuable security „A‟ has committed extortion.
a. To Any Person:
It is not necessary that the threat should be used and the property received by one and the
same individual. A threat may be made by some and the property received by other
persons, and they all will be guilty of extortion.
(II) PUNISHMENT U/SEC 384:
Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.
5. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEFT AND EXTORTION:
(I) As To Consent:
In extortion, consent is obtained by putting the person in possession of property in fear of
property in fear of injury to himself or any other person.
In theft, the offender‟s intention is to take the property without the owner‟s consent.
There is no element of force in theft.
(II)Property:
In Extortion , both moveable and immoveable property may be the subject of the offence. In
theft it is limited only to moveable property.
(III) Element Of Force:
There is element of force in the offence of extortion as the property is obtained by putting a
person in fear of injury to that person or any other.
There is no element of force in theft.
(IV) Scope:
Extortion is wider in scope as it coved any kind of property, valuable security or anything
that may be converted into valuable security.
Theft covers only the cases of moveable property.
(V) Taking Of Property:
In extortion, threat may be by one person and the property may be received by another
person.
In theft, property must be move by person in order to such taking.
(VI) Effect:
In extortion, the property is delivered.
In theft, there is dishonest removal of property.
6. CONCLUSION:
To Conclude, I can say, that the offence of theft and extortion are offence against property.
Extortion is the offence which occupies a middle place between theft and robbery as the
element of force is present in this offence, which is missing in the offence of theft.
Theft And Criminal Breach Of Trust

Q7. Define and distinguish between theft and criminal breach of trust.
1. INTRODUCTION:
Theft and criminal breath of trust are offence against property. In theft, the property is taken
out of the possession of another person without his consent while in criminal breach of
trust, it is the misuse or disposes of property without the consent of real owner.
Section 378 and 379 for theft
Section 405 and 406 for criminal breach of trust.
3. THEFT
(I)THEFT U/SEC 378:
Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any
person without that person‟ s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, is said
to commit theft.”
(II) INGREDIENTS OF THEFT:
In order to constitute theft, following factors are essential.
(i) Dishonest Intention:
There must be dishonest intention to take property. Where the circumstances show that the
bona fide claim or right, it is not theft,
(ii) Movable Property:
The property must be moveable to constitute the offence of theft. According to explanation
1 to sec 378, a thing so long as it is attached to the earth is not the subject of theft but it
becomes capable of being subject of theft as soon as it is severed form the earth.
Illustration: „A‟ cuts down a tree on Z‟s ground with the intention of dishonestly taking the
tree out of „Z‟ s possession without his consent. Here as soon as „A‟ has severed the tree
un order to such taking, he has committed theft.
(iii)Possession of Other person:
The property should be in possession of another person and it should be taken out of his
possession. There is not theft of wild animals, birds or fish while at large, but there is a theft
of tamed of tamed animals.
(iv)Moving or Removal of Property:
There must be some removal of the property in explanation 3 of Sec 378 , a person is said
to cause a thing to move by removing an obstacle which prevented it from moving or by
separating it from any other things as well as by actually moving it
a. Moving an Animal:
According to explanation 4 0f Section 378, a person who any means causes an animal to
move is said to move that animal and to move everything which in consequence of the
motion so caused, is moved by that animal.
Illustration: „A‟ puts a bait for dogs in his pockets and thus induces Z‟ s dog to follow it.
Here if A‟ s intention be dishonestly to take the dog out of Z‟s possession without his
consent. He committed theft as soon as Z‟ s dog has begun to follow him.
(v) Without Consent of Possession:
The thing must move without consent of the possessor. According to explanation 5 of
section 378 the consent may be express or implied and may be given either by the person
in possession or by any person having for that purpose authority either express or implied.
Illustration: „A‟ a friend of „Z‟ goes to this library in this absence and takes away a book
without his express consent for the purpose of merely reading it. And with the intention of
intention of returning it Here if „A‟ impression is that he had Z‟ s implied consent to use „Z‟ s
book he has not committed theft.
(III) Punishment U/Sec 397:
Whoever commits theft shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term
which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.
4. CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST
(I) CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST U/SEC 405:
A person commits criminal breach of trust if he being in any manner entrusted with property
or with my dominion over property, dishonestly misappropriates or converts to his own use
that property or dishonestly uses or disposes of that property in violation of any direction of
law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged. Or of my legal contract,
express or implied which he has made touching the discharge of such trust or will full
suffers any other person to do so.
Case Law (SCMR 1980 402)
To establish the charge of criminal breach of trust the prosecution must prove not only
entrustment but also that the accuse dishonestly misappropriated the property.
(II) INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 405:
Following are the ingredients of criminal breach of trust.
(i) Entrusted to Person Property:
Entrustment is an essential element of the offence of criminal breach of trust. It may have
different implication in different contexts. In its most general significance , it means handing
over the possession for some purposes. Entrustment of property and failure of the accused
to account of the sane is sufficient to infer that the accused committed the offence of
criminal breach of trust.
(ii)Dishonestly Misappropriation or Converting that Property:
Offence of criminal breach of trust world not be made out when there is no material to
substantive allegation of dishonest misappropriation or conversion to one‟ s own use of that
properly.
(iii)Dishonestly Use or Disposal of Property:
A criminal breach of trust may be committed by a person who dishonestly uses disposes of
that property or will full suffers any other person so to do in violation.
a. Of any direction of law prescribing the mode in which such trust is to be discharged.
b. Of any legal contract made touching the discharge of such trust.
Illustration: „A‟ being executor to the will of a deceased person, dishonestly disobeys the
law which directs him to divide the effects according to the will and appropriates them to his
own use.‟ A„ has committed breach of trust.
(III) Punishment U/Sec 406:
Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to seven years or with fine or with both.
5. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEFT AND CRIMINAL BREACH OF TRUST:
(I) Mode Of Acquisition:
In theft, property is acquired without the consent of the owner.
In criminal breach of trust property is acquired with the consent of the owner.
(II)As To Intention:
In theft, the dishonest intention to take property exists at the time of such taking.
In criminal breach of trust, that intention may acquire subsequently to the acquisition of
roperty
(III) As To Possession Of Property:
In theft, there is no prior possession of property, the offence is completed as soon as the
property is dishonestly taken away.
In criminal breach of trust, the offender prior to the offence is himself in possession of the
property and the offence is completed when he dishonestly converts the same to his own
use.
(IV) Nature Of Property:
In theft, the property involved is a moveable property.
In criminal breach of trust, it may be any property i. e . moveable or immoveable.
(V) In theft, there is no relation exists between the offender and the owner
In criminal breach of trust, there is same sort, of relationship exists between the offender
and the owner and the property is given on trust or received on one „ s behalf.
(VI) The punishment for theft is three years imprisonment or fine or both.
The punishment for criminal breath of trust is imprisonment which may extend to seven
years or fine or both.
6. CONCLUSION:
To conclude. I can say that the offence of criminal breach of trust is akin to theft but differs
form it in important respects. Both these offences are against property but in criminal
breach of trust there must be entrustment of property which is not the element of theft.
Self-Defence
Q9. What is right of private Defence? When it extends to causing death of another.
Q. What are the restrictions imposed upon the use of force in self defence under P.P.C.
1. INTRODUCTION:
Under Pakistan penal code everyone has right to defend his property honour and himself.
Self-defense is a fundamental right it is provided by every religion. Law, constitution and
ethics. Right of self-defense can defend also be exercised even by a stranger to defend the
person or property of another. The right of private defence is restricted to not inflicting more
harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.
Sec. 96, 97, 99, 100, 101and 102 P.P.C
3.SELF DEFENCE:
(I) MEANING OF SELF DEFENCE:
Concise Oxford Dictionary:
A defence of oneself, one, s right or position.
(II) DEFINITION OF SELF DEFANCE:
Black Law Dictionary: “The use of force to protect one‟s self, one‟s family or ones
property from a real or threatened attack.
(III) KIND SELF DEFENCE:
(i) Right of self defence of body. (ii) Right of self defence of property.ss
4. RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFANCE AGAINST THE PERSON OF UNSOUND MIND, ETC.
Under an act, which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that ofence, by reason of
the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the
intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of misconception on part of that
person, every person has right of private defance against that act which he would have if
the act were the offence.
5. ACTS AGAINST WHICH THERE IS NO RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFANCE U/S-99:
(i) There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the
apprehension of death or grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done by a public
servant acting in good faith under command of his office, though that act may not be strictly
justifiable by law.
(ii)There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the
apprehension of death or grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of
the public servant acting in good faith under the color of his office through that direction
may not be strictly justifiable by law.
(iii)There is no defence in cases in which there is time to recourse to the protection of public
authorities.
(iv)There right of private defence is no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is
necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.
6. WHEN THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENSE OF THE BODY EXTENDS TO CAUSING
DEATH U/S 100:
It extends to voluntary causing of death of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence be
any of the following description.
(i)Such as assault as reasonably causes the apprehension of death.
(ii)Such as assault as reasonably cases the apprehension of grievous hurt.
(iii)An assault to commit rape.
(iv)An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural Lust.
(v)An assault with intention of kidnapping or abducting.
(vi)An assault for wrongful confinement under the circumstances which provide reasonable
apprehension that recourse to readdress shall not be possible.
Case Law (2004 YLR LAH 2320(b)
It was held that sec 100 being subject to sec 99, and cannot be read in isolation from 99
PPC
7. COMMENCEMENT AND CONTINUANCE OF THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE DEFENCE OF
BODY S.102:
The right of private defence of body commence as soon as a reasonable apprehension of
danger to the body arises from an attempt or thereat to commit an offence though the
offence, may not have been committed and it continues as long as such apprehension of
danger to the body continues.
8. CONDTIONS FOR EXERCISING RIGHT OF SELF DEFENCE:
Following condition must be fulfilled in order to exercise the right of self defence.
(i)The accused must be free from fault in bringing about the encounter.
(ii)There must be present impending perial to life or great bodily harm either real or so
apparent as to create honest belief of an existing necessity.
(iii)There must be not safe or reasonable mode of escable by retreat.
(iv) There must have been a necessity for life taking.
9. BUDEN OF PROOF:
The burdon of proving is on defence.
Case Law (2002 SCMR 1425)
IT was held that when a specific plea of self defence is raised, the burden to prove the
same laid upon the party claiming the same.
10. CONCLUSION:
To conclude it can be said that, self defence is a best defence. The right of self defence is
based on the law of necessity of self-preservation. This right would arise only where danger
to a person or property is imminent and would remain available as long as such danger
exist.
Robbery And Dacoity

Q10. Define and explain Robbery, Dacoity and extortion.
Q. Distinguish between Robbery and Dacoity what Punishment are Provided for these
offences. Or Q. Discuss fully the Provisions under P.P.C relating to the offence of
robbery and dacoity explaining the distinction between two.
1. INTRODUCTION:
Robbery is a special and aggravated from of either theft or extortion and means felonious
taking from the person of another or in his presence against his wall, by violence or putting
him in fear, and it becomes dacoity when it is committed by five or more person co-jointly.
2. RELEVANT PROVISION:
Following are the relevant provision of P.P.C
Section 390 and 392 for Robbery.
Section 391 and 395 for Dacoity.
3. ROBBERY
ROBBERY U/SEC 390:
In all robbery, there is either theft or extortion.
(I) WHEN THEFT AMOUNTS TO ROBBERY:
Where robbery as an aggravated from of theft is alleged, following things has to be proved.
(A) Theft:
Proof of theft is essential for convicting a person for robbery.
(i) Meaning of Theft u/sec 378:
Whoever intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any
person without that person‟ s consent, moves that property in order to such taking, in said
to commit theft.
(ii) Ingredients of Theft:
Following are the ingredients of theft.
a)Dishonest intention to take property.
b)Property must be moveable
c) That should be in possession of another person
d)There must be removal or moving of that property
e) Without consent of the owner.
(B) Death, Hurt or Wrongful Restraint:
Accused should in order to commit theft, either causes or attempts to cause any person‟s
death or hurt him or put him under a wrongful restraint.
(i) Meaning of Wrongful Restraint:
“ It implies an obstruction so as to prevent a person from proceeding in any direction where
he has right to proceed.”
(C) Fear of Death, Hurt or Wrongful Restraint:
There may be for o instant death or of instant hurt or of instant wrongful to the victim to
achieve the and specified in section 390.
(D) For the Specified in Sec. 390:
The use of violence will not convert the offence of theft into robbery the violence he be
committed for one of the ends specified in sec. 390 Viz to committing of theft carrying away
or attempting to carry away property obtained by theft.
Illustration:„ A‟ holds „Z‟ down and fraudulently takes Z‟s clothes without Z‟s consent. Here
„A‟ has committed theft and in order to the committing of that theft, has voluntarily caused
wrongful restraint to „Z‟. „A‟ has therefore committed robbery.
(II) WHEN EXTORTION AMOUNTS TO ROBBERY:
Where robbery as an aggravated form of extortion is alleged, following things has to be
proved.
(i) Extortion:A proof of extortion is essential for convicting a person for robbery.
A. Meaning of Extortion u/sec 383:
Whoever intentionally puts any person in fear of any injury to that person or to any other
and thereby dishonestly induces the person so put in fear to deliver to any person any
property or valuable security or anything singed or sealed which may be converted into a
valuable security, commits extortion.
(ii)Fear of Instant Death, Hurt or Wrongful Restraint:
There must be extortion by putting the person in fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of
instant wrongful restraint to that person or to some other person and they by doing so,
induces the person so put in fear then and there to deliver up the thing extorted.
Illustration:
„A‟ object property from „Z‟ by saying “Your child is in the hands of my gang and will be put
to death unless you send us ten thousand Rs.”
This is extortion punishable as such but it is not robbery, unless „Z‟ is put in fear of the
instant death of his child.
(iii)Presence of person put in fear:
It is necessary that the extortion must be committed by the offender in the presence of the
person put in fear and commits the extortion by putting that person in fear of instant death,
hurt or wrongful restraint. The offender is said to be present if he is sufficiently near to put
the other person in fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful robbery.
Illustration:„A‟ meets „Z‟ on the high road, shows a pistol and demands Z‟ s purse. „Z‟ in
consequence surrenders his purse here „A‟ has extorted the purse from „Z‟ by putting him in
fear of instant hurt and being at the time of committing the extorted in his presence „A‟ has
therefore committed robbery.
Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than three years nor more than ten years and shell also be liable to fine
and if the robbery be committed on the highway the imprisonment may be extended to
fourteen years.
Case La (2005 TLR 128)
It was held that the offence of robbery though not compoundable but compromise always
considered as redeeming feature. An accused can be acquitted on the basis of
Compromise between the parties.
4. DACOITY:
When five or more persons co-jointly commit or attempt to commit a robbery or where the
whole number of persons co-jointly committed or attempting to commit a robbery and
persons present and aiding such commission or attempt, amount to five or more, every
person so committing, attempting or aiding is said to commit dacoity.
(I)INGREDIENTS OF DACOITY:
(i)Five or More Persons:
Under this section, the number of persons committing robbery must be five or more. Where
the evidence showed that there were six robbers but at the trial three were acquitted, it was
held that the conviction under this section is not sustainable.
(ii)Committing or Attempting to Commit robbery:
Robbery becomes dacoity when it is committed by five or more persons. Even an
attempted robbery by five or more persons amounts to an offence of dacoity and the fact
that the dacoits failed to remove any booty is irrelevant.
(iii)Co-jointly Committing:
There should be co-jointly committing of offence of dacoity word co-jointly used in section
391 P.P.C means jointly.(1995 MLD 1779)
(II)PROOF OF DACOITY:
A decoity begins as soon as there is an attempt to commit robbery. It is not necessary that
the force or menace should be displayed by any overt act and it may be implied in the
conduct of the mob.
Whoever commits dacoity shall be punished with imprisonment for life or which rigorous
imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than four years nor more than years, and
shell also be liable to fine.
(i)Jurisdiction of Court
Offence u/sec 395, being trial by the court of session, magistrate section 30 had no
jurisdiction to take cognizance of the same.(1995PrLj 1819)
5. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ROBBERY AND DACOITY:
(I)Number Of Persons:
In Robbery the number of persons are less than five. It may be committed by a single
person.
In dacoity, the number of persons are five or more.
(II)Seriousness:
Robbery is less serious in nature.
Dacoity is more serious offence than robbery because of the terror caused by the presence
number of offenders.
(III)Position Of Abettors:
In Robbery, the abettors are liable independently.
In dacoity abettors who are present and aiding when the crime is committed are counted in
the number.
(IV)Jurisdiction Of Court:
Robbery may be tribal by the illaqa magistrate.
Dacoity shall be tribal by the Court of Session.
(V)Punishment:
Whoever commits robbery shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which
shall not be less than three years, nor more than ten years and shall also be liable to fine
Court while convicting a person u/sec 395, P.P.C, can either sentence him to imprisonment
for life or to rigorous imprisonment which cannot be than four years or more than ten years
in addition to fine(1993 SCMR 1058)
(VI)Position In Highway:
If robbery is committed on the highway, the imprisonment may be extended to fourteen
years.
The fact that the Dacoity is committed on the highway does not change the position or
punishment.
6. CONCLUSION:
To conclude, I can say, that the definition of robbery contemplates that an accused should
from very beginning have the intention to deprive another person of the property and to
achieve that end, either hurt is caused or a person is placed. Under wrongful restraint, or it
must be actually found that victim was put in fear of instant death, hurt or wrongful
confinement when the same offence is committed by five or more serious in nature.
Rioting And Affray

Q11. Distinguish between rioting and affray What Punishment is Provided for this offence.
1. INTRODUCTION:
Chapter VIII of P.P.C deals with the offences against public peace. It may be disturbed
even by single person but when it is disturbed by more than one person; the trouble
becomes magnified and deserves special treatment. Both rioting and affray are offences
against public peace but differ in their magnitude and scope.
following are the relevant provisions of P.P.C
Section 146 and 147 for rioting
Section 159 and 160 for affray
3. RIOTING:
Whenever force or violence is used by an unlawful assembly or by any member thereof in
prosecution of the common object of such assembly is guilty of the offence of rioting.
(II) INGREDIENTS:
Following are the ingredients of an offence of rioting.
(i) Use of Force or Violence:
There must be use of force or violence by an unlawful assembly or any member thereof to
constitute an offence of rioting. It is not necessary that the force or violence should be
directed against any particular person or object.
(ii)By Unlawful Assembly or Any Member:
The force or violence must be used by an unlawful assembly or any member of it, so to
constitute an offence of rioting all the ingredients of sec. 141 need to be fulfilled.
(ii) In Prosecution of Common Object:
Such force or violence should have been used in prosecution of the common object of such
assembly.
(III) PUNISHMENT U/SEC 47:
Whoever is guilty of rioting, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years or with fine or with both.
(IV) PUNISHMENT WHERE RIOTING ARMED WITH DEADLY WEAPON U/SEC 148:
However is guilty of rioting being armed with deadly weapon or with anything which used as
a weapon, offence, is likely to cause death shall be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years or with fine or with both.
A person cannot be found guilty under this section unless he actually has a dangerous
weapon in his hands. (PLD 1981 Sc286)
4. AFFRAY:
When 2 or more persons by fighting in a public place disturb the public peace, they are said
to commit an affray.
(II) INGREDIENTS:
(i) Two or More Person:
An affray requires two sides fighting.
Case Law (PLD 1959 LAH I0I8)
It was held that on the offence of affray there must be to or more person. Passive
submission by one party to a beating by the other is not affray.
(ii) Public Place:
Fighting must be at public place. A public place is one where the public go, on matter,
Whether they have a right to go or not.
(iii) Disturbance of Public Peace:
It is essential that there must be a disturbance of the public peace i.e assault or breath of
the peace. Mere quarrelling is not sufficient to attract section 159.
(III) PUNISHMENT U/SEC 160:
Whoever commits an affray shall be punished with imprisonment of either for a term which
may extend to one month or with fine which may extend to one hundred Rs. With both.
5. DISTINCTION BETWEEN RIOTING AND AFFRAY:
(I) Place
Rioting can be committed at any place whether private or public.
Affray can be committed at only Public place.
(II) Number Of Person:
Rioting requires five-or more persons. Affray requires two or more persons.
(III) Liability:
In riot every member of an unlawful assembly is punishable although some of them may
not have personally used force or violence. In affray only those actually engaged are liable.
(IV) Object:
In rioting the object to use force or violence must be one mentioned in sec. 141.
In affray, the object is to disturb the public peace.
(V) Punishment:
In riot, punishment awarded is imprisonment which may extend to two years or which fine
or with both.
The punishment for affray is imprisonment which may extend to one month or with fine
which may extend to RS. 100 or with both.
(VI) As To Enhancement Of Punishment:
Enhanced punishment is provided for rioting if a person is armed with a deadly weapon
u/sec 148.
For affray no such provision is present.
6. CONCLUSION:
To conclude, I can say, that the law takes special measure to restrain acts involving breach
of peace and punish those acts as such. Rioting and affray both defines offence involving
disturbance in a peace.
Qisas And Diyat

Q12.Define and distinguish between Qasis and Diyat.
1. INTRODUCTION:
Every crime involves either Haqooq Allah or Haqooq-ul-ilbad or both. The offences relating
Qisas and diyat are offences against individuals affecting human body and are haqooq-al-
ilbad. The Holy Quran therefore gives right to victim or his wail to exact Qisas or claim
Diyat. Chapter XVI of P.P.C relates to offences, which describes punishment of Qasis and
Diyat.
Section 299, 302, 304, 306, 307, 334, 336, 337-A, for Qasis
Section 299(e), 302, 316, 319, 320, 322, 323, 330, 331, for Diyat.
3. RELEVANT AYATS OF HOLY QURAN:
Following are the relevant Ayast of Holy Quran regarding the topic of Qisas and Diyat.
(i) Surah Albaqareh Ayats 178, 179, and 194.
(ii) Surch Al-nsiah Ayast 29, 92, and 93
(iii) Surah Almaidah Ayats 32, 33, and 45
(iv) Surah Alinam Ayat 151
(v) Surah Alfurqan Ayat 68
(vi) Surah Bani Isreal Ayats 31 and 32
4. QISAS:
(I) MEANING OF QISAS:
(i) Literal Meaning:
The term Qasis is literally derived from “Al-Qasas” which means to follow in some ones
foot-steps.
(ii) Legal Mening:
Qasis signifies or means to shed blood in repetition or retribution. It is to award an
equitable punishment to the offender for an intentional crime of homicide or for severing
any organ of the body or injuring it.
(iii) Meaning U/sec 279(k):
“Qasis means punishment by causing similar hurt at the same part of the body of the
convict as he has caused to the victim or by causing his death if he has committed qatl-i-
amd in exercise of the right of the victim or a wali.”
(II) BASIC PRINCIPAL OF QASIS:
The basic principal of qasis is similarity. If similarity of injury is not possible qasis may not
be enforced.
(III)RIGHT OF QASIS:
Qasis is the right of wali of victim or the victim and is executed by the state.
According to Sec. 305:
In case of qatl, the wali shall be
1. The heirs of the victim, according to the personal law, and
2. The Government if there is no heir.
(IV) QASIS AS PUNISHMENT FOR DIFFERENT OFFENCES UNDER P.P.C:
Following offences, punishment of qasis is provided under P.P.C
(A) QATL-I-AMD:
Whoever commits qatl-i-Amd shall be punished with death as qasis u/sec 302 if proof in
either of the forms mentioned in sec. 304 is available viz.
1. Confession by an accused
2. By evidence as provided in Article 17 of Q.S.O, 1984.
(i) Qatl-i-Amd Not Liable to Qasis:
Qatl-i-Amd shall not be liable to Qasis in the following cases.
1. When an offender is minor or insane
2. When an offender causes death of his child or grandchild how low so ever.
3. When any wali of the victim is a direct descendant how low so ever of the offender.
(ii) Cases Where Qasis for Qatl-i-Amd not Enforced U/Sec 307:
Qasis for Qatl-i-Amd shall not be enforced in the following cases.
1. When the offence dies before the enforcement of qasis.
2. When any wali voluntarily and without duress waives or compound the right of Qasis
u/sec 309 and 310 respectively.
3. When the right of Qisas devolves on the offender as a result or the death of the wali of
the victim or on the person who has no right of qisas against the offender.
B. HURT CASES:
Qisas shall also be enforced in some hurt cases, and the principle of enforcement and
evidence will be same as it is in qatl cases.
In hurt cases, Qisas shall be enforced under following provisions of P.P.C.
Section 334
Section 336
Section 337-A(ii)
(V) THEORY OF QISAS:
The basic theory of Qisas is retributive i-e an eye for an eye. a tooth for a tooth etc.
5. DLYAT:
(I) MEANING:
(i) Legal Meaning:
“ Diyat means the compensation granted to the heirs of the victim by the offender.”
(ii) Meaning U/sec 299(e):
“Diyat means the compensation specified in section 323 payable to the heirs of the victim.”
(II) BASIC PRINCIPAL OF DIYAT:
Diyat is a compensation for human life. In the definition u/sec 323 the words “heirs of
victim” have been used and not the words “ the victim or his heirs”. This means that Diyat is
a compensation payable only in cases of Qatl, and not in cases of hurt.
(III) RIGHT OF DIYAT:
Diyat is a right of the wali of the victim and executed by the state.
(IV) DIYAT AS PUNISHMENT FOR DIFFERENT OFFENCES UNDER P.P.C:
For following offences, punishment of Diyat in the following cases.
1. Where offender guilty of Qatl-i-Amd is not liable to Qisas , or
2. Where Qisas is not enforceable, or
3. Where one of the several Walis does not Waive right of Qisas and in such case would be
entitled to his share of Diyat.(NLR 1993 criminal 203)
(ii)Qatl Shibh Amd: Qatl Shib-Amd is liable to the payment of diyat u/sec 316.
(iii)Qatl-i-Khata: Qatl-i-Khata is also liable to the payment of diyat u/sec 319 and 320.
(iv)Qatl-bis-Sabab: Qatl-bis-Sabab is also liable to the payment of diyat u/sec 322.
(V) THEORY OF DIYAT:
The basic theory of Diyat is the compensation and provide relief to the heirs of the victim.
(VI) VALUE OF DIYAT U/SEC 323:
The value of diyat shall be fix by the court, keeping in view the following points.
i. Injunctions of Islam as laid down in Holy Quran and Sunnah. The value is not fixed in the
Holy Quran and it is not static. It is said that Hazrat Umer Farooq (R.A) enhanced the value
of Diyat fixed during the lifetime of Holy Prophet (P.B.U.H)
ii. Financial position of the convict, and
iii. Financial Position of the victim.
A. Limit of Diyat Money:
The diyat money money fixed by the court , shall not be less than the value of the thirty
thousand, six hundred and thirty grams, of silver.
Case Law (1999 MLD 2271)
It was held that court can enhance amount of Diyat, but cannot reduce the value fixed in
accordance with the holy Quran and Sunnah.
Value of Silver:
The federal Govt, shall by notification in the official Gazette declare the value of silver on
the first of July each year or on such date as it may deem fit , which shall be the value
payable during a financial years.
(VII)DISBURSEMENT OF DIYAT U/SEC 330:
The diyat shall be disbursed among the heirs of the victim according to their respective
shares in inheritance
(i)Where Any Heir Forgoes his Share:
Where any heir of the victim forgoes his share, the diyat shall not be recovered to the
extent of his share.
(VIII) PAYMENT OF DIYAT U/SEC 331:
(i)Mode of Payment:
a. In lumpsum, or
b. In installments spread over a period of three years from the date of the final judgment.
(ii)Failure to Pay Diyat by Convict:
Where a convict fails to pay diyat or any part thereof within the period of three years.
He may be kept in jail to serve simple imprisonment until the diyat is paid full, or
May be released bail if he furnishes security equivalent to the amount of diyat, to the
satisfaction of the court.
1. Period of Imprisonment in Case of Default:
Neither the provision of sec. 331P.P.C provide any definite period of imprisonment for
default in payment of diyat, nor the court has the powers to fix such period. Matter was
therefore, referred to the law-making authority to consider this aspect.(1998 PC r LJ 1781)
6. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN QISAS AND DIYAT:
(I)Principle:
Punishment of Qisas is based on the principal of retaliation.
Punishment of Diyat is based on the principle of compensation.
(II) Applicability:
Punishment of Qisas is applicable on cases of Qatl and hurt.
Punishment of Diyat is applicable only in cases of Qatl.
(III) As To Demand:
Qisas is the right of the victim or the wali of the victim and may be demanded by either of
them.
Diyat is the right of the wali of the victim and it may be demanded by them alone.
(IV)Effect Of Waiver Of Right:
When any wali of the victim waives his right of qisas, it shall not be enforced against
convict.
Waiving of right of diyat by any of the wali of the victim does not affect the right of others.
(V) Applicability On Different Kinds Of Qatl:
Qisas is applicable only to the Qalt-i-Amd.
Diyat is applicable on Qatl-i-amd, Qatl-Shibh-amd, Qatal Khata, Qatal-bis-Sabab.
7. CONCLUSION:
To conclude, I can say, that the offences relating to Qisas and Diyat are offences relating to
Haqooq-ul-Ibad. Qisas and Diyat will be the right of wali of the victim and are executed by
the state.
Qatl
Q13. what are different kinds of Qatl and their punishments? When is it liable to.
Q. Define and fully explain the difference between qatl-i-khata and qatl-dis-sabab.
1. INTRODUCTION:
According to Islamic law, there are kind of qutl. Which have been included in P.P.C.
The word “ Qqtl” simply means the unlawful killing of a human being. It is equivalent to
culpable homicide culpable homicide either amounts to murder i-e-qatl-l-Amd or dose not
amount to murder as defined in section 315, 318, and 321 P.P.C.
Follow are the relevant provisions of P.P.C
3. DEFINITION OF QATL U/SEC. 299(J:
“Qatl means causing death of person.”
4. KINDS OF QATL:
Following are the different kinds of Qatl.
(I) Qatl-l-AMD (II) Qatl shibh-i-Aed (iii) Qatl –i khata (IV) Qatl- Bis- Sabab
(I) QALT-L-AMD:
A. Definition u/sec 300:
Whoever with the intention of causing death or with the intention of causing bodily injury to
a person by doing an act which in the ordinary course of nature is likely to cause death or
with the knowledge that his act is so imminently dangerous that must in all probability
cause death causes the death of such person, is said to commit qatl-i- amd.
B. Ingredients Of Sec. 300:
Following are the ingredients of Sec. 300.
(i) Intention:
To constitute the offence of Qatl- l-Amd there must be intention to cause death or to cause
bodily injury, on the part of the offender where the accused had the intention to cause such
bodily injury as he knew to be likely to cause the victim, s death or if he knew that his act
was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death he would be guilty
of Qatl-i-amd.
(ii) Doing of Act:
Intention must be accompanied with doing of an act which in the ordinary course of nature
is likely to cause death or which is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability
cause death. The phrase “ Imminently dangerous” deals with cases where an act in dose
without any intention to kill but with such utter disregard of consequences that there is
imputable knowledge that death is an extremely contingency.
Illustration:
A‟ shoots „Z‟ with the intention of killing him .‟A‟ commits the offence of Qatl-i-amd.
(iii)Causing of Death:
To constitute Qatl-i-amd. The act must result in casing of death of another person.
Accused can come within the mischief of this section only if death is direct result of the
injury inflicted by the accused. (PLD1976 Sc 377)
C. Determining Factors:
Following factors may be taken into consideration by the court to determine whether the
accused in guilty of qatl-i-amd or not.
1. Manner of causing the injuries as defined by the prosecution witnesses.
2. The nature of the injuries caused.
3. The part of the body where they were caused.
4. The weapon used by the accused in the commission of the offence.
5. The conduct of the accused.
D. Proof of Qatl-I-AMD:
Prosecution has to establish its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and
every doubt is to be resolved in fa vour of the accused.(2994 SC MR 1614)
E. Punishment u/sec 302:
Whoever commits qatl-I amd shall be punished with:
1. Death as qisas.
2. Death or imprisonment for life as tazir having regard to the facts and circumstances of
the case, if the proof in either of the forms specified in section 304 is not available, or
Case law (P.L.D 1994 S.S 274)
Sec. 302 of Pakistan penal code therefore, itself contemplates plainly clearly a category of
cases which are within the definition of Qatl-I Amd but for which the punishment can, under
the Islamic Law, be one other than death or life imprisonment. An to what are the cases
falling under c1use © of 302, the, law maker has left it to courts to decide on a case to case
basis
1. Imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to twenty-five years,
where according to the injunctions of Islam the punishment of qisas is not applicable.
F. Poof of Qatl-i-Amd Liable to Qisas u/sec 304:
Proof of Qatl-i-amd shall be in any of the following foornis.
(i) Confession
(ii) Evidence provided by article 17 Q.S.O, 1984.
(i) Confession:
Accused must makes before a court competent to try the offence a voluntary and true
confession of the commission of the offence.
a. Meaning of Confession:
“it is not defined in P.P.C.
Naryanswami vs emperor (air 1939):
“A” confession is a statement made by an accused which must either admit in terms the
offence or at any rate substantially all fact which constitute the offence.”
b. Before Competent Court:
Confession must be made before a court competent to try the offence. Extra judicial
confession is excluded from the ambit of proof of Qati-I amd liable to qisas, by sec. 340
P.P.C.
c. True and Voluntarily:
The test of admissibility of confession its voluntariness, the question as to whether a
confession was voluntary being a question of fact, had to be determine keeping in view the
facts and circumstances of each case are hard and fast rule of general application could be
laid down (2003PCRLJ1212)
(ii) Evidence Provided in Article 17 of Q.SO 1984)
Qatl-i-amd liable to Qisas may be proved by the evidence as provided in Article 17 of
Q.S.O,1984.
(II) QATL SHIBH-L AMD:
A. Definition u/se 315:
Whoever with intent to cause harm to the body or mind of any person, causes the death of
that or of any other perse by means of a weapon or an act which in the ordinary course
(nature is not likely to cause death, is said to commit qatl Shibhi –I amd .
B. Illustration: „A‟ in order to cause hurt strikes „Z‟ with a stick c stone which in the ordinary
course of nature is not likely to cause death. „Z‟ dies as a result of such hurt. „A‟ shall be
guilty of qatl shibh –I amd.
C. Ingredients:
Following are the essential ingredient of see.315.
(i) Causing death of human beings
(ii) Intention was to cause harm to body or mind.
(iii) Death must be caused by means of a weapon or a act.
(iv) Which in ordinary cause of nature is not likely to cause death.
D. Punishment u/sec 316:
Whoever commits qatl - shibh –I amd be liable to diyat and may also be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen years as tazir.
(i) Meaning of Diyat u/sec 299(e):
Diyat means the compensation specified in section 323 payable to the heirs of the victim.
Which is not less than the value of thirty thousand, six hundred and thirty grams of silver.
(III)QATL –I KHATA
A. Dfinition u/sec 318:
Whoever without any intention to cause death of or harm to a person cause death of such
person either by mistake of act or by mistake of fact.
B. Illustration: „A‟ aims at a deer hut misses the target and Kill „Z‟ who is standing by „A‟ is
guilty of Qatl i- Khata.
C. Following are the essential ingredients of sec 318.
(i) Causing death of a human being.
(ii) Unintentionally
(iii) By mistake of fact, or
(iv) By mistake of act.
D. Punishment:
(i) U/sec 319
Whoever commits qatl-I khata shall be liable diyat and where it was committed by any rash
negligent act the offender may in addition to diyat also be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend to five years as tazir.
(ii) U/sec 320:
Whoever commits qatl –I-khata by rash or negligent driving shall in addition to diyat by
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years.
E. Scope:
Word driving in its application u/sec 320 is limited to a person or person on road and not to
animals on the road. Injury or death of occupants or passengers of a driven vehicle will not
be covered by mischief of sec. 320 P.P.C(1995MILD 1775)
(IV)QATL- BLS-SABAB:
A. Definition U/sec 321:
Whoever without any intention to cause death of or harm to any person dose any unlawful
act which become a case for the death of another person, is said to commit qatl- bis-sabab.
B. Illustration:„A‟ unlawfully digs a pit in the thoroughfare, but without any intention to
cause the death of or harm to any person. „B‟ while passing form there falls in it and is killed
„A‟ has committed qatl- bis- sabab.
C. Ingredients:
Following are the essential ingredients of sec. 321.
(i) Causing death of a human being
(ii) Unintentionally
(iii) By doing of an unlawful act
(iv) That unlawful act becomes the cause of the death
D. Punishment u/sec 322:
Whoever commits qaly-bis-sabsb shall be liable to diyat.
5. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN QATL-L-KHATA AND QATAL- BIS- SABAB:
(I) As To Mistake:
Qatl-i-khata is committed due to some mistake which is either of fact or act.
Qatl- bis – sabab is wholly unintentional and whith any mistake.
(II)Cause Of Death:
In Qatl-i-khata, cause of the death is the direct act of the offender.
In Qatl-bis-sabsb, cause of the death is some another unlaeful intervening act.
(III) Aggravating Punishement:
Punishment of qatl-I –khata is the payment of diyat but if it is committed by any rash of
negligent act the offender may. In addition to diyat also be punished with imprisonment.
Qatl-i-bis-sabab is punishable only with dityat
(IV) Effect Of Rash Or Negligent:
If Qatl-i-khata is committed by rash or negligent driving the punishment is the payment of
Diyt with imprisonment which may extend to ten years.
Effect of driving is not provided for qatl-bis-sabab.
6. CONCLUSION:
To conclude. I can say, that qatl is the causing of death of another person. It may be
intentional unintentional. There are different types of qatl provided under P.P.C. qatl which
amounted to murder is called qatl-i-amd while the qalt which does not amounted to murder
is called qatl shibh-amd, qatl-i- khata and Qatal-bis-sadad- Mensrea is an essential
ingredient of qatl-I- khata and qatl-i-shilbh-amd while in the remaining two cases mensrea
cannot contemplated.
Kidnapping And Abduction

Q14. Define and differentiate between Kidnapping and abduction.
1. INTRODUCTION:
Under the P.P.C, Kidnapping has been declared a substantive offence. It is of two kinds
and kidnapping from guardianship is completed as soon as the minor is actually taken out
of the custody of his or her guardian while the section 362 of P.P.C gives a definition of
abduction which occurs in some of the penal provision which follow.
Following are the relevant provisions P.P.C
Section 360,361 and 363 for Kidnapping and section 362 for abduction
3. KIDNAPPING:
The literal meaning of Kidnapping is child stealing.
4. KINDS OF KIDNAPPING U/SEC 359:
Kidnapping is f two kinds
(i) Kidnapping from Pakistan
(ii) Kidnapping from lawful guardianship
(I) KIDNAPPING FROM PAKISTAN U/SEC 360:
Whoever conveys any person beyond the limits of Pakistan without the consent of that
person or of some person or of some person legally authorized to consent on behalf of that
person is said to Kidnap that person from Pakistan.
i. Scope:
The offence of Kidnapping out of Pakistan may be committed in respect of minors as well
as grown up persons.
ii. Ingredients: Following are the essential ingredients of sec 360.
(i) Conveying of any person:
There must be conveying of any person beyond the limits of Pakistan, from Pakistan.
(ii)Without Consent:
Such conveying must be without the consent of that person or of some person, legally
authorized to consent on behalf of that person.
iii. Meaning of Consent:
Consent means as active will in the mind of a person to permit the doing of the act
complained of and knowledge of what is to be done, or of the nature of the act that is being
done.
(II)Kidnapping From Lawful Guardianship U/Sec. 361:
Whoever takes or entices any minor under fourteen years of age if a male or under sixteen
years of age if a female or any person of unsound mind, out of the keeping of the lawful
guardian of such minor or person of unsound mind, without the consent of such guardian is
said to kidnap such minor or person from lawful guardianship.
a. Ingredients:
Following are the essential ingredients of sec. 361.
(i)Taking or Enticing:
There must be taking or enticing away a minor or a person of unsound mind. The word
taking means to capturing. Taking under this section does not mean mere physical taking
but also includes constructive possession of guardian e.g. meeting at an appointed place
outside.
Enticing is an act of the accused by which the person Kidnapped is induced of his own
accord to go to unsound mind.
(ii)Minor or Person of Unsound Mind:
The offence under this section may be committed in respect of either a minor or a person of
unsound mind.
Age of Minor:
Such minor must be under fourteen years of age, if a male or under sixteen years of age, if
a female.
(iii)Keeping Out of Lawful Guardianship:
The taking or enticing must be out of the keeping of the lawful guarding of such minor
person of unsound mind. The word keeping implies neither apprehension nor detention but
rather maintenance, protection and control.
a. Lawful Guardian:
According to explanation to section 361 P.P.C, the words lawful guarding include any
person lawfully entrusted with the care or custody of such minor other person the
explanation is intended to extend the protection given to parents, any person lawfully
entrusted with the care or custody of such minor or other person.
The expression “Lawfully entrusted” signifies that the care and custody of a minor should
have arisen in some lawful manner.
Case Law (2001 P.C.R. L.J. 31)
It was held that father of child nature Guardion along with the mother can never be
ascribed or attributed the offence of Kidnapping of his own child.
(iv)Without consent of Guardian:
The taking or enticing must be without the consent of guardian. The consent of minor or
person of unsound mind is immaterial.
B. Illustration: „A‟ enticed “B‟ a minor girl to come out of the house and sit in the car with
him, so that he might drive away with her. The offence of Kidnapping was complete when
‟B‟ drove away with her.
1. Exception:
This section does not extend to the act of any person who in good faith believes himself:
(i)to be of an illegitimate child or
(ii)To be entitled to the lawful custody of such child unless such act is committed for an
immoral or unlawful purpose.
1. Object Of Sec. 361:
Sec. 361 has two fold objects
(i) To protect children of tender age from being abducted or seduced for improper
purposes,
(ii) To protect the rights of parents and guardians having the lawful charge or custody of
minors or insane persons.
Whoever kidnaps any persons from Pakistan or from lawful guardianship, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years and
shall also be liable to fine.
6. ABDUCTION:
(I) Definition U/Sec 362:
Whoever by force compels or by any deceitful means induces any person to go from any
place, is said to abduct that person.
(II) Ingredients:
(i) Forceful Compulsion or Inducement:
There must be forceful compulsion or inducement by deceitful means to any person. Force
means the actual force and not the show of force.
(ii) To Go From One Place to Another:
The object of such compulsion or inducement must be the going of a person from any
place. It is a continuing offence, and a girl is being abducted not only when she is first
taken from any public place but also when she is removed from one place to another.
(III) Scope:
Section 362 merely gives a definition of the word abduction which occurs in some of the
penal provision which fellow. It is an auxiliary act, not punishable by itself.
7. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KIDNAPPING AND ABDUCTION:
(I) Means Used:
In kidnapping the minor is simply taken away. The means used may be innocent.
In abduction force, compulsion or deceitful means are used.
(II) Scope:
Kidnapping is committed only in respect of a minor or person of unsound mind or if it is
from Pakistan, of person of any age.
Abduction is committed in respect of any person of any age.:
(III)Kinds:
Kidnapping is of two kinds viz kidnapping from guardianship and kidnapping from Pakistan.
(IV)Effect Of Consent:
In kidnapping from guardianship consent of a person taken or enticed is immaterial.
In person removed, condones abduction.
(V)Place:
In kidnapping from Pakistan, the place to which the victim is taken must be outside the
limits of Pakistan.
In abduction, the place is not important.
(VI)As To Guardian:
In kidnapping from guardianship a child wither guardian cannot be kidnapping.s
Abduction has reference exclusively to the person abducted.
(VII)Intent:
In kidnapping, the intent of the offender is wholly irrelevant
In abduction, intention is the most important factor.
(VIII) Continuous:
Kidnapping from guardianship is not a continuing offence and it is complete as soon as the
minor is removed from the custody of his or her guardian.
Abduction is a continuing offence and a person is abducted both when he is first taken from
any place and also when he is removed from one place to another.
(IX)Nature:
Kidnapping is a substantive offence.
Abduction not punishment by itself unless accompanied with some criminal intent.
8. CONCLUSION:
To conclude, I can say, that kidnapping is an offence irrespective of any intent with which it
is committed. It is a substantive offence and made punishable as such while the abduction
is merely an auxiliary act, not punishable by itself, but made criminal only when it is done
with criminal intentions.
Kinds and punishment of hurt

Q15. what are the kinds and punishment of hurt provided under P.P.C
1. INTRODUCTION:
Hurt is harm caused to human body other than death. In P.P.C, human body has been
divided into various section and keeping in view those various section, five kinds of hurt
have been stated in section 332.P.P.C and also provides punishment for hurt In other
various provisions.
2. RELEVANT PROVISION:
3. DEFINITION OF HURT U/SEC 332(I):
“whoever causes pain, harm, disease infirmity or injury to any person or impairs, disable or
or dismembers any organ of the body or part thereof any person without casing his death,
is said to cause hurt.”
4. KINDS OF HURT U/SEC 332(2):
Following are the kinds of hurt.
(i) 1tlaf-Ude (ii) 1tlaf –i- Salahiyat-1-Udw (iii) Shajjah
(iv) Jurh (v) All kinds of other hurt
(I) 1TLAF-I-UDW:
(i) Litearl Meaning:
The word 1tlaf means to destroy and Udw means limb or organ.
(ii) Meaning U/sec 333:
Whoever dismembers, amputates severs any limb or organ of the body of another person
is said to cause 1taf-i-udw.
(iii) Punishment U/sec 334:
Whoever by doing any act with the intention of thereby causing hurt to any person or with
the knowledge that he is likely to cause hurt to any person causes 1ylaf-i-udw of any
person shall be punished with:
a. Qisas in consultation with the authorized medical officer, that is the court will require the
authorized medical to appear as a witness to give opinion, in view principles of equality.
Illustration:
An offender inflicts blow with sword resulting amputation of one- fourth of left forearm. The
punishment of qisas will be executable only if the authorized medical officer an opinion the
similar result could possibly be achieved without any additional damage to the offender.
b. Arsh if the qisas is not executable and is mandatory upon the court and may also be
punished with imprisonment either description for a term which may extend to ten years A
TAZIR and it is discretionary with the court.
(II) 1TLAF-I-SHALAHIYAT-1-UDW:
(i) Meaning U/sec 335:
1tlaf –i- salahiyat-1-udw means destroying or permanently impairing the functioning power
or capacity of a person or casing permanent disfigurement of some organ.
(ii) Punishment U/sec 336:
The punishment for 1talf –i-Salahiyat-1-udw is the same as provided for 1tlaf-i-udw is sec
334.
(III) SHAJJAH:
(i) Literal Maening:
It is an Arabic word which means injuries on hard or face.
(ii) Meaning U/sec 337:
Any hurt on the face or heard of a person which does not amount to 1tlaf-i-udw or 1tlaf-i-
salahiyat-i-udw is called shajjah.
(iii) Kinds of Shajjah U/sec 337(2):
Following are the kinds of shajjah
A. Shajjah-i-Khafifah
B. Shajjah-i-Mudihah
C. Shajjah-i-Hashimah
D. Shajjah-i-Munaqqilah
E. Shajjah-i-Ammah
F. Shajjah-i-Damighah
A. Shajjah-i-khafifah :
It means hurt by any weapon on head or face without exposing bone of the victim.
Punishment U/sec 337-A(i):
Shall be liable to daman , which is mandatory and is to be finds by court in its discretion
and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to two years as Tazir.
B. Shajjah-i-Mudihah:
It means simple hurt by any weapon on head or face where thought bone is exposed but
on fracture is caused.
Punishment U/sec 337-A(ii):
The person causing it shall be punished with qisas after consultation with the authorized
medical officer and if it not executable, the convict shall be liable to Arsh which shall be five
person of value of Diyat and may also be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a team which may extend to five years as tazir.
C. Shajjah-i-hashimad
It is grievous hurt by any weapon on head or face, resulting in fracture of bone of the victim
without dislocation it.
Punishment U/sec 337-A(iii):
The person causing it shall be liable to Arsh which shall be ten percent of the diyat and
may also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a team which may extend
to ten years as Tazir.
D. Shajjah-i-Munaqqilah:
It is grievous hurt by any weapon on head or face, resulting in fracture and dislocation of
bone of victim.
Punishment U/sec 337-A(iv):
The person causing it shall be liable or arsh which shall be 15% of the diyat and may also
be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend ten years
as Tazir.
E. Shajjah-i-Ammah:
It is grievous hurt by any weapon causing fracture of the shall of the victim, where the
wound touches the membrane of the brain.
Punishment U/sec 337-A(v):
The person causing is shall be liable to Arsh which shall be one-half of the diyat and may
also be punished with imprisonment of either description for a team which may extend to
fourteen years as tazir.
F. Shajjah-i-Damighah:
It is grievous hurt by any weapon causing fracture of the skull of the victim, so that the
wound touches the membrane of the brain.
Punishment U/sec 337-A (vi):
The person causing it shall liable to arsh which shall one-half of diyat and may also
punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to fourteen
years as tazir.
(IV) JURH:
(i)Literal Meaning:
The word jurh is derived from the word Jarroh which means injury.
(ii)Meaning U/sec 337-B(1):
whoever causes on any part of the body of a person, other than the head or face, which
leaves a mark of the, wound whether temporary or permanent, is said to cause jurh.
A. Kinds of Jurh U/sec 337-B(2):
(i) Jaifah
(ii) Ghayr-Jaifah
(i) JaifahU/sec 337-C:
Whoever causes jurh in which the injury extends to the cavity of the trunk, is said to cause
jaifah.
a.Case Law (PLD 1998 LAH 84)
Body cavity means a part of body under which vital organs are located and if an injury
penetrates into the body cavity and then exters the pert of the body where in vital organ are
located, lonely then that can be treated as Jaifah and punishment can be awarded
accordingly.
b.Punishment for Jaifah U/sec 337-D:
The person causing it, with the intention or knowledge of hurt to a hurt to a person, shall be
liable to arsh which shall be one-third of the diyat and may also be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years as tazir.
(ii) Ghayr-Jaifah
Whoever causes jurh which does not amount to jaifah , is said to cause ghayr-jaifah.
A. Kinds of Chayr- Jaifah:
Following are the kinds of Ghayr-jaifah.
1. Damiyah:
It is injury in which the skin is ruptured and blessing occurs.
2. Badiyah:
It is a injury by cutting or incising the flesh without exposing the bone.
3. Mutalahima:
It is a injury by lacerating the flesh.
4. Mudihah:
It is injury be exposing the bone.
5. Muanaqqilah:
It is a injury by fracturing and dislocation the bone.
B. Punishment of Ghayr-Jaifh u/sec 337-F:
If a person with the intention or knowledge of causing hurt causes any of Ghyr-jaifah
injuries shall be punished as under.
a. Punishment for Damiyah:
He shall be lible to daman and may also be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to one year as tazir.
b. punishment for Badiah and Mutalahimah:
He shall be liable to daman and may also be punished with imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to three years as tazir.
c. punishment for Mudihah and Hashimah:
description for a term which may extend to five years as tazir.
d. Punishment for Munaqqilah:
description for a term which may extend to seven as tazir.
(V)OTHER HURT:
A hurt which is not covered by any of the four clauses give above, and which endangers life
or causes the sufferer to remain server bodily pain for 20 day or more or render him unable
to follow the ordinary pursuits for 20 days or more, is covered by daman and may be
imprisoned up to seven years, and if it is not of kind mentioned here before the punishment
shall be imprisonment which may extend to two years or with daman or both.
5.CONCLUION:
To conclude, I can say, that the punishments of hurt has been provided by ordinance in
accordance with the injunction of Islam and each offence is described explicitly and the
punishment of Ars/Damann has been made as substantive offence.
Hadd and Tazir

Q16 Define Hadd and Tazir what is distinction between these two?
Q Define Hadd and Tazia. Discuss the offences punishable by Hadd.
1. INTRODUCTION:
When certain public rights are violated the wrong is called maasiat that is, crime or offence
and it gives rise to certain substitutory public rights in the form of uqa‟ bat punishments viz:
Hadd and Tazir. The distinction between Hadd and Tazir is of fundamental and concerns
the doctrine of Hadd itself.
2. TYPES OF PUNISHMENT:
Punishments are divided into two types:
(i) Hadd (ii) Tazir
3. HADD:
(I) Meaning Of Hadd:
(i) Literal Meaning:
The word Hadd literally means prevention, measure, limit.
(ii) Legal Meaning:
“Hadd Means a punishment which is fixed and enjoined as the right of Allah.”
(II) Origin Of HADD Punishment:
Hadd used to be prevalent in Arabia at the time of the promulgation of Islam, and the
Muhammadan law laid down conditions of a stringent nature under which such
punishments may be inflicted.
4. OBJECT OF PUNISHMENT IN ISLAM:
Case Law 1999 MLD 2450
It was held that object of punishment is reformation of convicts and not to penalize them
vengeance
5. TAZIR:
(I) Meaning Of Tazir:
Tazir literally means disgracing the criminal for his shameful conduct.
(ii) Legal MEANING:
“punishment that are at the discretion of the judge when the offence is related to a private
injury are called Tazir.”
6. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HADD AND TAZIR:
There is no indication is Sunnah about the difference between Hadd and Tazir. It would be
open to legislature to add to the categories of Hadd and also enhance the punishment fixed
by the q uran and the Sunnah keeping in view, the circumstances and requirements of an
age, thought the punishments so finds cannot be reduced (PLD 1983 FSC 255) following
are some points of distinction between Hadd and Tazir.
(I) As To Object:
The object of Hadd is prevention of a crime by following the principle of retaliation and
keeps everyone in the limits prescribed by Allah.
To object of Tazir is reformation and correction of the offender.
(II) Procedure:
The procedure of trial in Hadd is complicated.
The procedure of trail in Tazir is simple as according to same jurists judge can even render
judgement on the basis of his own knowledge.
(III) As To Right:
Violation of rights of Allah gives rise to hadd punishments.
Violation of rights of individual gives rise to hudud punishments.
(IV) Commuting Of Sentence:
The penality of Hadd cannot be commuted.
The penality of Tazir can be commuted
(V) Pardon Of Sentence:
Pardon cannot be granted in Hudud cases.
Pardon may be granted in Tazir cases.
(VI) Operation Of Mistake:
Doubt or mistake has the effect of waiving the penalty of hadd.
Doubt or mistake has effect in Tazir.
(VII) Rule Of Evidence:
Evidence of women is not admissible in hudud cases.
The evidence of women is admissible in Taizr cases, but the nisab of one man and two
women has to be maintained.
(VIII) Standard Of Evidnece:
In Hudud, the standard of evidence is very high as to the number and qualification of
witnesses and the conditions under which hadd may be imposed and any doubt would be
sufficient to prevent the imposition of hadd.
In Tazir, the standard of evidence is not so high.
(IX) Mention Of Offences:
Some jurists list seven hadd offences.
(i) Zina (ii) Sariqah (iii) Hirabah (iv) Qazf (v) Sharab (vi) Riddha (vii) Baghy
Tazir offences has not be mentioned exclusively and they are innumerable.
(X) Discretion:
In Hudud crimes, the judge cannot exercise his discretion.
In Tazur. Judge or head of the state may exercise discretion.
(XI) Replacement:
Hadd punishments can be death with under Taizr.
In Tazir the punishment of Hudud cannot be enforced.
7. CONCLUSION:
To conclude, I can say, that the punishments of Hadd and Tazir is a part of Islamic law.
Hadd was prevalent in Arabia before the promulgation of Islam and it is prior to the concept
of punishment as Tazir. In Pakistan today Tazir and Siyasah are both ciassified under the
heading of Taizr. While the law of Hudud is enforced thought the prohibition of Hadd order
(No. 4), 1979 Hndud ordinance VI 1979 (offences against property) and Zine ordinance
(enforcement of hadd) VII1979.
Defamation
Q17 Define defamation what are the exception to the charge of defamation? Discuss.
Q Define defamation what are the defences available to a charge of defamation.
1. INTRODUCTION:
The essence of the offence of defamation consists in its tendency to cause that description
of pain which is felt by a person who know himself to be the object of the unfavorable
sentiments of his fellow creature, and those inconveniences to which a person, who is the
object of such unfavorable sentiments, is exposed. Chapter XXI of P.P.C relates to of
defamation.
Section 499 to 502 of P.P.C
3. DEFAMATION U/SEC 499:
Whoever by works, signs or by visible representations makes or publishes any imputation
concerning any person intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such
imputation will harm the reputation of such person, is said to defame that person.
(I) INGREDIENTS OF SEC. 499:
The offence of defamation consists of following essential ingredients.
(i) Making or Publishing any Imputation:
There must be making or publishing of any imputation concerning any person, that is,
communicated to some person other than the person to whom it is addressed, e. g .
dictating a letter to a clerk is publication.
It is immaterial whether the imputation is conveyed obliquely or indirectly or by way of
question, exclamation or by irony.
(ii) Concerning Any Person:
The words must contain an imputation concerning some particular person or persons
whose identity can be established.
(iii) Mode of Such Imputation:
Such imputation must have been made by either of following modes.
a. Words:
Such imputation may by mead by words either spoken or intended to be read.
b. By Signs or Visible Representation:
Imputation may be made or visible representations. The words “Visible representations” will
Include every possible form of defamation which ingenuity can devise. For instance, a
statute, chalk marks on a wall, signs or pictures may constitute a imputation.
(iv) Intention, Knowledge or Belief to Harm the Reputation:
It is not necessary to prove that the complainant actually suffered directly from the
scandalous imputation alleged, it is sufficient to show that the accused intended to harm, or
had reason to believe that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation of the
complainant.
Case Law (P.L.D 2001 KAR115)
It was held that Mens rea or intention is essential clement of the offence of Defamation.
a. Meaning of Harm:
By harm is meant Imputation on a man‟s character made and expressed to other so as to
lower him in their estimation.
(II) WHAT AMOUNTS TO DEFAMATION:
Explanation appended to sec. 449 lay down that the following may amount to defamation.
(i) Imputation to Dead Person:
It may amount to defamation to Impute anything to a deceased person would harm the
reputation of that person if living, and is intended to be hurtful to the feelings of his or other
near relatives.
A prosecution may be maintained for defamation of a deceased person, but no suit for
damages will lie.
(ii) Imputation Concerning Company etc:
It may amount to defamation to make an imputation concerning a company or an
association or collection of persons as such.
(iii) Alternative or ironical Imputation:
An imputation in the form of an alternative or expressed ironically may amount to
defamation. They even words of praise may be used in a defamation sense. But in such
cases, the complainant or plaintiff has to prove that the words have not been understood in
their primary sense but in their different and defamation sense.
4. EXCEPTIONS OR DEFENCES TO OFFENCES OF DEFAMATION:
Following are the exception or defences to the offence of defamation.
(I) Imputation of truth which public good requires to be made:
It is not defamation to impute anything which is true concerning any person, if it for the
public and that he imputation should be made or published. But the privilege does not
justify publication in excess of the purpose or object which gives rise to it.
(II) Public conduct of public servants:
It is not defamation to express is good faith any opinion whatever respecting the conduct of
a public servant in the discharge of the public functions or respecting his character, so for
as his character appears in that conduct. It is because every subject has a right to
comment on those acts of public men which concern him as a subjects of the realm.
(III) Conduct of any person touching ant public question:
It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the conduct of any
person touching any public question and respecting his character so far as his character
appears in that conduct.
(IV) Publication of reports of proceedings of courts:
it is not defamation to publish a substantially true report of the proceeding of a court justice
or of the result of any such proceedings.
But the resort of judicial proceeding cannot be published to the court has prohibited the
publication of any such proceeding or where the subject matter of the trial is obscene.
(V) Merits of case or conduct of witnesses etc.:
The administration of justice is a matter of universal interest to the whole public. The
judgment of the court, the verdict of the jury. The conduct of parties and of witness may all
made subject of free comment. But the criticism should be made in good faith.
Illustration:„A‟ says „‟I think “Z‟ evidence n that trial is so contradictory that he must be
stupid or dishonest,” „A‟ is within this exception if he says in good faith.
(VI) Merits of public performance:
It is not defamation to express in good faith any opinion respecting the merits of any
performance which it‟s another has submitted to the judgment of the public or respecting
the character of the author so far as his character appears in such performance and no
further. A performance may be submitted expressly or impliedly by the author. In other
words, all kinds of performances in public may criticized provided the comments are made
is good faith and fair.
Illustration: An actor or a singer who appears on a public stage, submits his action or
singing to the judgment of the public.
(VII) Ensure passed in good faith by person having lawful authority over another:
The exception allows a person under whose authority others have been placed, either by
their own consent or by the law, to censure them is good faith, so far as regards the matter
to which that authority relates.
Illustration: A head of a department censuring in good faith those who are under these
orders.
(VIII) Accusation preferred in good faith to authorized person:
It is not defamation to prefer in good faith an accusation against any person to any of those
who have lawful authority over that person with respect to subject- matter of accusation.
Illustration: „A‟ in good faith accuses „Z‟ before a magistrate he is within this exception.
(IX) Imputation by person for protection of his others‟ s interests:
It is not defamation to make an imputation on the character of another if it made in good
faith for the protection of the interest of the person making it, or of any other person or for
public good.
The rule of public policy on which it is based is that honest transaction of business and of
social intercourse will otherwise be deprived of protection which they should enjoy.
Illustration: „A‟ a shopkeeper says to „B‟ his manger “sell nothing to „Z‟ unless he pays you
ready money for I have no opinion of his honesty „A‟ is within this exception.
(X) Caution intended for good of person or for public good:
It is not defamation where a person gives caution in good faith to another for the good of
that other, or of some person in whom that other is interested or for public good.
Example : This exception for instance will apply where one man warns another against
employing a third person in his service, saying that he is a dishonest person. (1979 SCMP
545)
5. PUNISHMENT FOR DEFAMATION U/SEC 500:
Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which
may extend to two years or with fine or with both.
6. CONCLUSION:
To conclude, I can say, that under the provisions of P.P.C, defamation has been made an
offence without any reference to its tendency to cause acts of illegal violence. Imputation
made in respect of any person amount to defamation for the purposes of sec. 499 P.P.C ,
only if such are published and the person publishing the same intends to harm or has
reasons to believe that such imputation will harm the reputations of the person in respect of
whom the imputation are published.
Defence against a charge of crime

Q18. In what cases consent, compulsion or necessity may be a sufficient defence against
a charge of crime.
1. INTRODUCTION:
Chapter IV P.P.C deals with exception to criminal liability in general. There are cases
where the consent, compulsion or necessity may operate as a defence to a criminal when
the case when the case of an accused comes into these sections, he can take the benefit
of it.
Section 81 for necessity
Section 94 for compulsion
Section 87 to 91 for consents.
3. NECESSITY AS A DEFENCE TO CRIMINAL OFFENCE U/SEC 81:
(I) MEANING OF NECESSITY:
Necessity may be defined as under “Necessity means unavoidable circumstances or
situations critical in nature leaving no choice in action.”
(II)NECESSITY AS A DEFENCE U/SEC 81:
Where an act is done voluntarily, but in good faith and without any criminal intention to
cause harm for the purpose of preventing or avoiding other harm to person or property, it
will be not an offence.
(III) INGREDIENTS OF SEC. 81:
(i)No Intention to Cause Harm:
In order to get the benefit of sec, 81, the act complained of must be done without any
criminal intention to cause harm. It is not of the doctrines of criminal jurisprudence that no
crime is committed unless it is with a criminal intention. This doctrine is included in sec 81
of P.P.C.
(ii) Act Done In Good Faith:
The act must be done in good faith in order or prevent or avoid harm to the person or
property.
(iii) To A void Harm to Person or Property:
An act which would otherwise be a crime may in some cases be excused if the person
accused can show that it was done only in order to avoid consequences which could not
otherwise be avoided and which may inflicted upon him or upon others inevitable and
irreparable and irreparable evil.
(iv)Illustration:
`A` in a great fire, pulls down house in order to prevent the configuration from spreading in
good faith of saving human life or property. `A` is not guilty of the offence.
4. CONSENT AS A DEFENCE TO A CRIMINAL OFFENCE:
(I) MEANING OF CONSENT:
The word consent has not been define by P.P.C .So it may be define in a general way.
“Consent means an active will in the mind of a person to permit the doing of the act
complained of and knowledge of what is to be done or of the nature of the act that is being
done, is essential to a consent to act”.
(II) CONSENT U/SEC 90:
Section 90 of P.P.C says what is not consent and thus runs in negative terms. According to
it a consent is not a consent intended by this code, if it is given.
(i) By a person under fear of injury, or by a person under misconception of fact and the
person obtaining the consent knows or has reason to believe that the consent was giving in
consequence of such fear or misconception. Or
(ii) By a person of unsound mined or who Is intoxicated and who is unable to understand
the nature and consequence of that to which he gives his consent, or
(iii) By a person under twelve years of age.
(III)CASES WHERE CONSENT JUSTIFICATION FOR AN OFFENCE:
(I)ACT DONE BY CONSENT U/SEC 87:
A person who causes injury to another person above eighteen years of age, who has given
his consent to suffer the harm, by doing an act which is not knowing by the door to be likely
to cause death or grievous hurt, does not commit an offence.
A. Basis of sec.87:
Sec.87 is based on the following maxim.
“volenti non fit injuria.” (he who consents suffers no injury)
B. Scope of sec.87:
Sec. 87 does not permit a man to give his consent to anything intended or knows to be
likely to cause his own death or grievous hurt. Ordinarily games such as boxing, football
are protected by this section.
(II) ACT DONE IN GOOD FAITH FOR PERSON‟S BENEFIT U/SEC 88:
Nothing, which is not intended to cause death, is an offence by reason of any harm which it
may cause or be intended by the doer to cause or be known by the doer to be likely to
cause, to any person for whose benefit it is done in good faith and who has given a
consent, whether express or implied, to suffer that harm or to take the risk of that harm.
A. Scope of sec.88:
Under sec. 88, a person from whose benefit a thing is done may consent that another shall
do that thing even if it cause harm to him. Under it any harm except death may be inflicted.
Illustration: „A‟ a surgeon knowing that a particular operation is likely to cause death of „Z‟
and intending in good faith Z‟ s benefit, performs that operation on Z‟ s consent „A‟ has
committed no offence.
(IV) ACT DONE IN GOOD FAITH FOR BENEFIT OF CHILD OR INSANE PERSON BY
CONSENT OF GUARDIAN U/SEC 89:
Nothing, which is done in good faith for the benefit of a person under twelve years of age or
of unsound mind by or by the consent of the guardian, is an offence by reason of any harm
which it may cause or be intended by the doer to cause or be known by the doer to by likely
t cause to that person.
A. Conditions:
To attract sec. 89, following conditions need to be fulfilled.
1. The act was done for the benefit of child or lunatic
2. It was done in good faith by or by the consent of guardian.
B. Exceptions:
Following are the exceptions to sec.89.
1. It shall not extend to the intentional causing of death or to the attempting to cause death.
2. It shall not extend to the doing of anything which the doer knows to be likely to cause
death, for any purpose other than the preventing of death or grievous disease or infirmity.
3. It shall not extend to the voluntary causing of grievous hurt, unless it be for the purpose
of preventing death or the curing of any grievous disease or infirmity.
4. It shall not extend to the abetment of any offence.
(IV)EXCEPTIONS WHERE CONSENT WILL NOT JUSTIFY AS DEFENCE U/SEC 91:
Section 91 says that consent u/sec 87, 88 and 89 will only condone the act causing harm to
the person giving the consent which will otherwise be an offence. Acts which are offences
independently of any harm which they may cause will not be covered by such which they
may cause will not be covered by such consent. E.g. Causing miscarriage, public nuisance,
offences against public safety, morals etc.
5. COMPULSION AS A DEFENCE TO CRIMINAL OFFENCE U/SEC 94:
Section 94 provides exception for offences committed by a person who dose any act
except murder and offences against the state punishable with death, under fear of instant
death, but fear of hurt or even of grievous hurt is not a sufficient justification. Even fear of
future death is not sufficient for availing the protection provided by this section.
(I) INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 94:
Following are the essential ingredients of sec.94
(i) The act has been done under compulsion.
(ii) The murder or offence against the state punishable with death should have not been
committed.
(iii) The doer of the act did not voluntarily put himself in the situation.
(iv) The fear under which he did the act was not short of instant death.
6. CONCLUSION:
To conclude, I can say, that the consent, compulsion or necessity may operate as a
defence to a criminal offence and the burden will lie upon the accused to prove these
circumstances or exceptions under Article 121 of Q.S.O, 1984, and the court shall presume
the absence of circumstances brining the case within any of the exceptions.
Abetment
Q19.Define abetment. What are its different kinds and punishments provided under P.P.C
Q. Define abetment and discuss the liability of an abettor in different circumstances.
1. INTRODUCTION:
Abetment is an instigation to a person to do an act in a certain way or aid some other
person in doing an act which in an offence.
Abetment can be committed only when there is positive evidence of either instigation or
conspiracy or intentional aid. At English common law it is committed by the principal in the
2nd degree.
Section 107 to 120 P.P.C
3. DEFINITION OF ABETMENT:
(i)Black‟s law Dictionary:
To encourage, incite or set another to commit a crime.:
(ii) case law Definition
Muthammal Vaz Maruthathal: (1981)
Abetment is a preparatory act and connotes active complicity on the part of the abettor at a
point of time prior to the actual commission of the offence.
(iii) Definition u/sea 107 P.P.C:
A person abets the doing of a thing who:
First instigates any person to do that thing, or
Secondly engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the
doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy
and in order to the doing of that thing, or
Thirdly intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
4. ESSENTIALS OF ABETMENT:
(i) There must be an abettor
(ii) He must abet
(iii) The abetment must be an offence
5. MODES TO CONSTITUTE ABETMENT U/SEC107:
There are three modes to constitute an abetment.
(i) By instigation
(ii) By conspiracy
(iii) By Ailing
(I) Abetment by instigation:
The word instigate means to goad or urge forward. Instigation shows some sort of advice
for the commission of an act, which if dose would be an offence. Advice can become
instigation only if it is found that it was meant actively to suggest or stimulate the
commission of an offence.
(i) Misrepresentation or concealment as abetment:
According to explanation 1 of sec107,a person who by willful misrepresentation or by willful
concealment of an material fact which he is bound to disclose voluntarily causes or
procures or attempts to cause or procures a thing to be dose, is said to instigate the doing
of that of that thing.
Illustration: „A‟ knows that „B‟ is not „c there is warrant for the arrest of „c‟. He represents
the offices executing the warrant that „B‟ is „C‟. and thereby causes the officer to arrest „B‟
the officer is guilty of wrongful restraint but „A‟ is guilty of abetment.
(II) Abetment by conspiracy:
(i) Definition of conspiracy u/sec 120-A P.P.C:
When two or more persons agree to do or cause to be done:
(1) An illegal act, or
(2) An Act which is not illegal by illegal means, such an agreement is designated a criminal
conspiracy.
Case Law (1998 P.C r. L. J 1486)
It was held that to constitute criminal conspiracy there must be agreement of two or more
person to do an act which is illegal or which is to be done by illegal means
(ii) Conspiracy amount to abetment:
Conspiracy can only amount to abetment if an act or illegal omission takes place in
pursuance of the conspiracy:
(iii) Concert with person abetted not necessary:
According to explanation 5 to sec 108, concert of abettor with the person abetted is not
necessary. It is sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence
is committed.
(III) Abetment by aid:
If a person joins another in the commission of a crime by which he is benefit and which it
would not be possible to commit but for his aid, he is guilty of the commission of the crime
of abetment.
According to explanation 2 of sec 107, a person abets by aiding, when by any act done
either prior to or at the time of the commission of the act, he intends to facilitate and dose in
fact facilitate the commission thereof,
Illustration:
A village magistrate who was present while certain police constable were wrongfully
beating the person, and who not stop the criminal act being committed in his presence he
abetted within the meaning of this section.
6. ABETTOR U/SEC. 108:
A person abets an offence who abets either the commission of an offence or the
commission of an act which be an offence, if committed by a person capable by law of
committing an offence with the same intention or knowledge as that of the abettor:
(I) Abettor may be innocent as principal:
According to explanation 1 of sec. 108, a person can be held guilty as abettor, thought as a
principal he omission of an act to a public servant by private person.
(II) Act abetted need not tom be committed:
According to explanation 2 of section 108, to constitute the offence of abetment, it is not
necessary that the act abetted should be committed or that the effect requisite to constitute
the offence should be ca used.
Illustration: „A‟ instigates „B‟ to murder „c‟. B refuses to do so „A‟ is guilty abetting „B‟ to
commit murder.
(III) Capacity of person abetted:
According to explanation 3 of sec 108 the person abetted need not have any guilty
intention in committing the act, nor should he be necessarily capable by law of committing
an offence, thus a child or a lunatic who are supposed by law incapable to commit an
offence may be abetted by another person who is capable law to commit an offence with
guilty intention and the abettor is guilty. Whether the act is actually committed or not.
(Iv) Abetment of an abetment:
According to explanation 4 of sec. 108, when the abetment of an offence is an offence, the
abetment of such abetment is also an offence.
Illustration: „A‟ instigates ‟B‟ to instigate „C‟ to murder Z. „B‟ accordingly instigates „C‟ to
murder „Z‟ and „C‟ murder, „Z‟ All are liable „C‟ is for murder, „B‟ for abetting murder and „A‟
for abetting the abetment of murder.
7. PUNISHMENTS OF ABETMENT:
(I) Where no punishment is provided for abetment u/sec 109:
If no express provision in the code for the punishment of a particular abetment is made and
the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment. The abettor shall be
awarded the same punishment prescribed for the offence and the abettor of an offence
referred to in chapter XVI shall be liable to punishment of Tazir specified for such offence
including death except in case of Ikrah –i- Tam.
(II) Where offence committed with different intention of abettor u/sec110:
Where offence is committed with different intention or knowledge from that of abettor, the
punishment awarded to the abettor will be the same as provided for the offence of which he
abetted, and will on other.
(III) Act done is. Different from one abetted u/sec 111:
When an act is abetted and a different act is bone, the abettor is liable for the act done in
the same manner and to the same extent as if he had directly abetted it. But it is necessary
that the act done was a probable consequence of the abetment.
(Iv) Where different effect cause from act abetted u/sec 113:
Where the act done is the same as the act abetted but its effect than the abettor is liable for
the effect caused provided he know that the act abetted was likely to cause that effect.
(v) Presence of abettor when offence is committed u/sec . 114:
If abettor is found present at the scene when offence was committed, he shall be
punishable in the same manner as if he himself has committed the offence.
(V) Abetment of offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, if offence not
committed u/sec. 115:
If abetment is for not offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life and no express
provision for its punishment is made, the abettor shall be punished as under.
(i) If offence is not committed. 7years and fin
(ii) If act done cause hurt to any person 14years and fine
(VI) Abetment of offence punishable with imprisonment if offence not committed
u/sec 116:
If abetment is the for the offence punishable with imprisonment and no express provision
for its punishment is made, the shall be punished as under.
(i) If offence is not committed Imprisonment of any description provided
For that offence for a term which may
Extend to one- fourth part of the longest
Term provided for that offence. Or with fine
Or with both
(ii) If abettor is public servant Imprisonment of any description for a term
Which may extend to one half of the longest
Term provided for that offence. Or with fine
Or with both
(VIII)Abetting commission of offence by the public or by more than 10 person
u/sec117:
Whoever abets the commission of an offence by the public generally or by any number or
class of person exceeding ten, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to 3 years or with fine or with both.
(IX)Concealment of design to commit offence:
Section 118 to 120 penalize the concealment of design to commit the offence in the
following manner.
(i) Offence Punishable With Death or Imprisonment for Life u/sec 118:
If offence is punishable with death or imprisonment for life and the same is
A, Committed Imprisonment that may extend to 7 years and fine
B, Not committed Imprisonment that may extend to 3 years and fine
(ii) Offence committed by public servant u/sec 119:
If a public servant intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby
facilitate the commission of an offence which it is his duty as such public servant to
prevent, the punishment shall be
1. If offence is committed he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one half of the longest term provided for the offence or with fine or both and if it is
punishable with death or imprisonment for life, the punishment may extend to 10 years.
2. If offence is not committed, he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may
extend to one-fourth part of the longest term provided for the offence or with fine or both.
(iii)Offence Punishable With Imprisonment U/sec 120:
If offence is punishable with imprisonment only and the offence is
a. Committed. Imprisonment that many extend to one fourth provide for the offence
With or without fine
b. Not committed Imprisonment that may extend to one eight of the longest term
Provided for the offence with or without fine.
8. CONCLUSION:
To conclude, I can say, that abetment is a substantive offence. The offence of abetment is
possible thought the offence abetted is not committed. It is a Crime apart or a distinct
offence not a mere minor offence.
PART B: Principles of criminal law

Theories Of Negligence
Q1 what is negligence? What are its different theories? Discuss in detail
Q What are subjective and objective theories of negligence?
1. INTRODUCTION:
Negligence in the breath of duty to take care. It is carelessness in a matter in which
carefulness is made obligatory by law. It essentially consists in the mental attitude of under
indifference with respect to one„s conduct and its consequences whenever a person is
under a duty to take care, he is bound to take that amount of care which is considered
reasonable under the circumstances.
2. DEFINITION OF NEGLIGENCE:
(i) According to salmond:
“Negligence is the state of mind of under indifference towards one „s conduct and its
consequences.”
(ii) According to wiles:
“Negligence is the absence of such care as it was the duty of the defendant to use.”
(iii) According to austin:
“Negligence is the breach by omission of a positive duty.
(iv) According to clark:
“Negligence is the omission to take such care under the circumstances it is the legal duty of
a person to take it is in a no sense a positive idea and has nothing to do with a state of
mind.”
3. KINDS OF NEGLIGENCE:
Negligence is of two kinds:
(i) Advertent Negligence (ii) Inadvertent Negligence
(I) Advertent Negligence:
It is commonly called willful negligence or recklessness. In this case, the harm done is
foreseen as probable but in not willed. E. g. Rash driving on a road.
(II) Inadvertent Negligence:
Inadvertent negligence can be called simple negligence. In this case, the harm done is
neither foreseen nor willed e. g. a drunkard is walking along the road and he breaks a shop
window as he knocks against the same.
(i) Negligence and Inadvertence:
According to some jurists, all negligence consists in inadvertence. An act is done
negligently when the done did not know that the act was wrong but could have found out if
he had tried to do so.
Criticism by Salmond:
Saimond raises two objections against this view.
a. All Negligence is Not Inadvertent:
According to slmound, all negligence is not inadvertent. Even if a thing is known to be
wrong, I may do the same with the hope that it will not result in e. g. driving a fast car
though a crowded street.
b. All Inadvertence is Not Negligence:
According to Salmond, all inadvertence in not Negligence. I cannot negligent if I take full
care which can reasonably be expected under the circumstances.
4. CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE:
Carelessness becomes culpable when law imposes a duty of being careful. While
measuring a degree of carelessness two things are taken into consideration and those are
the degree of the seriousness of the consequences possible and the extent to which those
consequences were probable.
(I) Duty Of Care:
It was thought at one time that there was no such thing in civil law as a legal duty to take
care and therefore as such legal duty to the plaintiff by the defendant.
Salmond „s View:
In general , we may say that whenever an act would be a civil wrong if done intentionally it
is also a civil wrong if done negligently. When there is a legal duty not do a thing on
purpose, there is commonly a legal duty to take care not to do it accidentally. No general
principle can be jaid down as to the existence of this duty for it is a by brid compounded of
an element of law and an element of fact.
Donoghue vs Stevenson :
Facts: A manufacture of ginger beer sold to a retailer ginger been in bottle which contained
the decomposed remains of a dead snail that fact was not known to the manufacture.
Held: It was held that the manufacture owed a duty to take care that bottle did not contain
any noxious matter and he was liable if the duty was broken.
(II) Standard Of Care:
According to Salmond ,English law recognizes only one standard of care and only one
degree of negligence . whenever a person is under a duty to take care at all, he is bound to
take that amount of it which is considered reasonable under the circumstances and the
absence of which is culpable negligence.
(i) Standard of Care Which May Possibly Adopt:
It is possible to adopt either of the two standards of care, want of which amounts to
negligence.
a. Highest degree of care of which human nature is capable.
b. Amount of care which would be reasonable in the circumstances of the particular case
The first standard is rejected and the second standard is accepted in actual practice. Law
requires not what is possible but what is reasonable under the circumstances. Theoretically
negligence is the omitting of that which a reasonable man would do or the doing of that
which a reasonable man would not do.
(ii) Factors Determining Standard of Care:
The standard of care cannot be predetermined. It is a variable thing which varies form case
to case and time while determining the amount of care necessary in any particular case,
two factors must be taken into consideration.
a. Magnitude of risk to which other are existed by the act, and
b. The amount of benefit to be derived from the act.
Illustration: If the driver of a car drives it at the speed of 40 miles an hour in the city, he
considered to be guilty of negligence as the danger of accident in much greater than the
benefit derived by the car driver. But if a train is run at the speed of 50 miles an hour, it is
not considered to be negligence as the benefit enjoyed by the public on account of high
speed are much greater than the risk of accident.
5. THEORIES OF NEGLIGENCE:
Following are the theories of negligence,
(I) Austin „ S Theory:
Negligence consist essentially in inadvertence. It consists in a failure to be alert or vigilant.
A negligent wrongdoer is one who does not know that his act is wrong but who would have
if had not been mentally indolent.
Criticism:
Salmond points out that there may be advertent or willful negligence as where a person
sees the conseques of his act and in spite of that recklessly dose it without intending those
consequence.
(II) Holnad „s Theory:
According to Holand, negligence is of two kinds, gross negligence and simple negligence.
Criticism:
These distinctions are based on roman law and are not recognized by English law.
(III) Subjective Theory:
Sir john salmond has propounded the subjective theory of negligence. According to him,
negligence is purely subjective. It relates to the state of mind. It is a mental condition.
Negligence consists in the mental attitude of under indifference with respect to one„ s
conduct and its consequences. The essence of negligence is not inadvertence which may
or may not be due carelessness but carelessness which may or may not result in
inadvertence.
(IV) Objective Theory:
According to this view, negligence is not a state of mind but a particular type of conduct. It
is a breach of the duty of taking care against the harmful results of one „s actions, and to
refrain from unreasonably dangerous kinds of conduct. This theory finds the support from
the fact that in the law of Torts, negligence consists in failure to take such care, which
ordinarily prudent man would take in circumstance.
According to Clark and lindsell:
“Negligence consists in and omission to take such care as under the circumstances is it
legal duty of a person to take.”
Criticism: Salmond points out that negligent conduct differs from negligence negligent
conduct is a course of action which is the result of negligence. It is an objective fact which
results form a state of mind.
(V) Reconciliation Of Theories:
Neither the objective nor the subjective theory is correct. Negligence is both subjective.
They emphasize different aspects of negligence. An contrasted with wrongful intention the
negligence is subjective. As contrasted with inevitable accident, negligence is objective.
6. Conclusion:
To conclude, I can say, that negligence is nothing short of extreme carelessness.
Carelessness excludes wrongful intention. A thing which is intended cannot be attribute to
carelessness. Negligence does not necessarily consist in thoughtlessness or inadvertence.
It is true that it is the commonest form of negligence but is not the only form.
Strict Liability
Q2. Discuss the law relating to strict liability which excludes mens rea in criminal case.
Q. How does liability accure without default or Q. Ignorance of law is no excuse?
Discuss with reference to mistake of law and mistake of fact.
1. INTRODUCTION:
The liability is the ultimate purpose of the law because the wrong-doer must make up or
suffer for he has already failed in doing what he ought to have done a man may be
punished for wrong done, even if he has no guilty mind or at fault. These are wrongs of
strict liability.
2. STRICT LIABILITY:
Wrongs which do not require either wrongful intent or negligence are known as the wrongs
of strict liability. In such cases, a person in punished for committing wrongs even if he has
no guilty mind.
3. RELEVANT FOR STRICT LIABILITY:
Strict liability is imposed chiefly where it will be hard to prove by evidence the intention or
negligence of the offender.
4. STRICT LIABILITY IN STATUTORY CONTEXT:
The presence in or absence from the definition of the offence, of the word “Knowingly” or a
similar word require mens rea is of great importance but not conclusive.
“Sweet vs parsley (1970)”
“Where the section of the Act expressly require men srea, for example because they
contain the word “Knowingly” is not itself sufficient to justify a decision that a section which
is silent as to mens rea, creates an absolute offence.”
5. STRICT LIABILITY IN CIVIL CASES:
Mens rea is generally irrelevant in civil proceedings as the object is to compensate the
plaintiff for his loss and not punish the defendant, so the rule of strict liability is generally
applied civil cases.
(I)Exceptions:
In certain civil actions, the object of the law is to punish the defendant and strict liability is
not imposed e.g malicious prosecution, negligence etc.
6. STRICT LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL CASES:
Generally in criminal cases, there is no criminal liability unless mens rea is present and
strict liability is not imposed.
(I)Exception:
Following are exception at common law to the rule requiring mens rea or where rule of strict
liability is imposed.
(i)Public Nuisance:
In the public nuisance any employer might be held liable for the act of his employer even
though he himself did not know it had taken place.
(ii)Criminal Libel:
In criminal libel a newspapers proprietor is liable for libels punished by his employers.
(iii)Contempt of Court:
In criminal contempt of court intention or negligence need be proved.
(iv)Outraging Public Decency:
This offence require a proof of conduct of obscene nature, as to result in an outrage to
public decency.
7. FIRST CASE ON STRICT LIABILITY:
The case which has been said to be the first to impose strict liability is Woodrow.
“Case of Woodrow(1846)”
Facts: Defendant was found guilty of having in his possession adulterated tobacco,
although he did not know it was adulterated.
Held: Defendant was held liable even if the adulteration was discoverable only by a nice
chemical analysis.”
8. LIABILITY IS STRICT NOT ABSOLUTE:
The liability is strict but not absolute in offences of strict liability.
There is no reason why all other defences should not be available as they are in the case
of offences requiring full mens rea. Even when dangerous driving was an offence of strict
liability it was held to be a defence, if defendant was in state of automatism when he drove
the vehicle so insanity, necessity, duress or coercion should be available equally on a
charge of offence of strict liability as in the case of any other offence.
9. CATEGORIES OF WRONGS OF STRICT LIABILITY:
The most important wrongs of strict liability fall into three categories.
(I) MISTAKE OF LAW:
Absolute responsibility in the case of a mistaken of law is based on the following maxim.
“Ignorantia juris enminem excusat.” (Ignorance of law is not excuse)
Even if a person commits an offence on account of a mistake of law, that is no excuse in
the eye of law. He is liable to be punished although he had no guilty mind at the time of
committing the offence.
(i)Reasons for Mistake of Law is Not Considered As Defence:
a. Law is the embodiment of common sense and natural justice and hence must be
obeyed.
b. Law both can be should be limited in extent.
c. According to Salmond, the law is in legal theory definite and knowable, it is the duty of
every man to know that part of it which concerns him, therefore innocent and inevitable
ignorance of law is impossible.
d. According to Austin, if ignorance of law were a ground of exemption the administration of
justice would be arrested. For in almost every case, ignorance of law would be alleged.
(ii)Exceptions:
There are certain exceptions to the general rule that the ignorance of law is no excuse.
1. Ignorance of special law is excusable. No person can be held guilty for the violation of
the foreign law of any country.
2. It also does not apply to the rules of equity as developed in England.
(II) MISTAKE OF FACT:
Absolute responsibility of mistake of fact can be disused under the following heads.
(i)Mistake of Fact in Criminal Cases:
In criminal cases, mistake of fact is a good defence against strict liability. If a person does
something under a mistake without intending to do which he actually dose, he is not
criminally liable for his action.
Example: A police constable goes to arrest „X‟ to be ‟X‟ but arrest „Y‟ THINKING „y‟ to be
„X‟ he is not guilty of any crime.
(ii)Mistake of fact in Civil Cases:
In the case of civil law, a mistake of fact involves liability.
According to Salmond:
“It is the general principal of law that he who intentionally or semi-intentionally interferes
with the person, property, reputation or other rightful interests of another, does as his peril”
(III INEVITABLE ACCIDENT:
Inevitable accident is that, which avoidance requires a degree of care exceeding the
standard demanded by law. It is commonly regarded as a ground of exemption from liability
in civil and criminal cases. There is no intention because the consequences are not desired
in the case of an accident.
(i)Exception:
There is one important exception to the above rule in civil law. There are cases in which the
law provides that a man shall at his peril and shall take his chance if an accident happens.
“Rylands vs Fletcher”
“It was held that if a person brings or accumulates on his land anything which if escapes
and causes damage to his neighbours he is responsible, however careful he may have
taken to prevent damage.”
10. CONCLUSION:
To conclude, I can say, that law imposes strict liability mostly on cases in which high
standard of care is required like food, drugs etc to save people from the negligent acts of
others. The greater the degree of social danger, the more likely is the offence to be
interpreted as one strict liability.
Principle Of Vicarious Liability

Q3 Write a detail note on principle vicarious liability.
1. INTRODUCTION:
The liability is the ultimate purpose of the law because the wrong dose must make up or
suffer for he has already failed in doing what he ought to have done. As a general rule,
man is answerable for his own acts but in certain cases, he is liable for the acts of other
and these are the cases of vicarious liability.
2. MEANING OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY:
It is a situation in which a person serves instead of someone else or something else .
3. VICARIOUS LIABILITY IN CRIMINAL CASES:
Vicarious liability is not common in criminal law. As a general rule, a person cannot be
punished for a crime committed by another this rule is subject to certain exceptions.
(I) EXCEPTIONS:
At common law, there were only two exception.
(i) Public Nuisance:
In public nuisance, any employer might he held liable for the act of his employee, even
though he himself did not know, it had taken place.
(ii) Criminal Libel:
In criminal libel, a newspaper proprietor was liable for libels published by his employees
without , his authority or consent.
Other Exceptions Under Statute:
By statute there are many offences, which recongised rule of vicarious liability section 34
and 149 of P.P.C embodies the rule vicarious liability for crimes, which held persons liable
for the acts of others.
4. VICARIOUS LIABILITY IN CIVIL CASES:
Civil law recognizes the principle of vicarious liability. Civil law recognizes vicarious liability
in two cases.
(I) Master „ s Liability For The Acts Of The Servant:
The masters become liable for the acts of their servants if they had delegated them powers
to do certain things.
(II) Responsibility Of Living Persons For The Acts Of The Deceased:
The right of the injured part to receive redress continues against the representatives of the
dead.
5. ARISEMENT OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY:
The liability of other may arise by:
(i) Subsequent ratification or previous authority.
(ii) Abetment
(iii) Relationship
(I) Liability By Ratification:
A person is liable for the act of another person., if that other person has committed that act
with the previous authority of such person or such person has subsequently ratified the act
of that other person.
Conditions:
Following conditions must be satisfied to hold a person liable for the act of another on the
ground of ratification.
a. Only such acts binds the principal what is done on his behalf.
b. The person ratifying the act must have knowledge of tortuous character of the act.
c. Illegal and void cannot be ratified.
(II) Liability By Relationship:
Liability by abetment is that a person who abets to commit the tort, is responsible for that
act.
(III) Liability for the acts of other may be arise out of existing special relationship between
them.
a. Master and Servant:
A master is responsible to even such wrong of the servant as it committed in the course of
employment, service or business, though no express command be proved. This is based
on the maxim.
b. Principal and Agent:
A principal is liable to third person for tortuous act of his servants, it is was done in the
scope of his agency, although the principal did not authorize it.
c. Company and Director:
A company is liable to third person for torts arising from doing of certain intra vires act by its
directors.
d. Firm and Partner:
A firm is liable for torts committed by a partner in the ordinary course of the business of the
firm.
e. Guardian and Ward:
Guardians are not personally liable for torts committed by minors under their charge. But
guarding can sue for person injuries to minors under their charge on their behalf.
6. CONCLUSION:
To conclude, I can say, that normally and naturally the person who is liable for a wrong is
he who done it. Yet both ancient and modern law admit instance of vicarious liability, in
which one man is made answerable for the acts of anothers.
Measurement Of Criminal Liability

Q4 How criminal liability is measured to determine appropriate punishment.
Q What elements are taken into consideration in determining the appropriate punishment
1. INTRODUCTION:
The responsibility or liability is the ultimate purpose of the law because the wrong-doer
must make up or suffer for he has already failed in doing what he ought to have done. It is
the ultimatum of the law and has its source in the supreme will of the state. It arises form a
wrong or the breach of a duty.
2. DEFINITION OF LIABILITY:
(I) According To Salnond:
“Liability or responsibility is the bond of necessity that exists between the wrong-doer and
the remedy of the wrong.
(II) According To Markby:
“The word liability is used to describe the condition of a person who has a duty to perform. “
3. Case Law (2005 YLR 742)
It was held that supreme object with the court is always to administer even handed justice
to parties in a criminal case without un-reasonably learning in favour of the party nor
depriving the other party of its due right to offer defence. Court must keep the scale justice
even to both sides and conduct of the proceeding must visibly to reflective of its clean and
un-biased mind in every sense.
4. KINDS OF LIABILITY:
Following are the different kinds of liability.
(i) Civil liability
(ii) Criminal liability
(iii) Remedial Liability
(iv) Vicarious liability
(v) Strict liability
5. CRIMINAL LIABILITY:
Criminal liability is the liability to be punished in a criminal proceeding. The redress for
criminal liability in is the form to punishment which may be in the form of imprisonment, fine
or death.
(I) Conditions Of Criminal Liability:
There must be two condition before fixing criminal liability
(i) Actus reus
(ii) Mens rea
(i) Actus Reus:
The first condition is the actus or prescribed act Salmond calls it the physical or material
condition of liability. If there is no act there can-be no punishment.
Justice Bryan Stated:
“The thought of a man cannot be tried, for the devil itself knoweth not the thought of a
man.”
Example:A man take an umbrella form a stand at his club with intent to steal it ,but finds it
is own, he has committed no offence.
(ii) Mens Rea:
The second condition of criminal liability is mens rea or guilty mind. An act is punishable
only if it is done intentionally or negligently Intention and negligence are the alternative
forms in which mens rea can exhibit itself. If a wrongful act is done intentionally, penal
action will serve as a deterrent for the future. If it is doe negligence or carelessly,
punishment will make the offender more vigilant in future. Where the law presumes that
there can be no will at all, penal liability can be imposed, e. g. children under the age of
seven and insane person are regarderd by law as incapable of having mens rea.
(II) Measurement Of Criminal Liability:
According to Salomnd, following elements should be take into consideration in
determining the measure of criminal liability.
(i) Motive (ii) Magnitude of the offence (iii) Character of the offender
(i) Motive:
As regards motive of offence, the greater the temptation to commit the crime, the greater
should be the punishment. The object of punishment is to suppress those motives which
lade to crimes. The stronger these motives are , the severe must be the punishment in the
case. If the profit to be gained from the act is great, the punishment should also be severe
proportionately.
(ii) Magnitude of the Offence:
The second rule for the measurement of criminal liability is the magnitude of the offence the
greater the magnitude of the offence, the greater should be its punishment. The greater the
mischief of any offence, the greater is the punishment which it is profitable to inflict with the
hope of preventing it. If the punishment dose not vary with the magnitude of the offence,
there will be temptation to commit offence of very serious nature as punishment is the
same in both cases. If punishment for burglary and murder were to be the same, the
burglar would not stop at a lesser crime.
(iii) Character of the Offender:
The character of the offender should also be taken into consideration which determining
the measure of criminal liability. The worse the character or disposition of the offender, the
more serious should be the punishment. The law imposes upon habitual offender penalties
which bear no relation to them magnitude of the offence. The most degraded criminals are
said to exhibit insensibility even to physical pain, many murderers of worst type show
Indifference to death itself. So it is desirable to punish more severely the more corrupt.
6. CONCLUSION:
To conclude, I can say, that In considering the measure of criminal liability, the deterrent
purpose of the criminal law should be given exclusive attention. The perfect law is that in
which the difference between the good and the evil is at a maximum in favour of the good
and the rules as to the measures of criminal liability are the rules for the attainment of this
maximum.
Theories Of Punishment
Q5. Define criminal justice? What are different theories of punishment?
Q. What are various theories of punishment? Discuss fully.
1. INTRODUCTION:
The most essential functions of a state are. Primarily two. War and administration of justice.
Administration of justice is classified into parts, civil justice and criminal justice. The
purpose of criminal justice is to punish the wrong doer who is punished by the state, on the
question whether the purpose of punishment is the desire to make men better or to protect
society, certain theories have been given by different jurists.
2. MEANING OF PUNISHMENT:
Punishment may be regarded as a method of protecting society by reducing the occurrence
it as an end itself.
3. MEANING OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE:
Criminal justice is that which dealt with in criminal proceeding the object of criminal justice
is to punished the wrong doer.
(I)Purpose Of Criminal Justice:
The purpose of criminal justice is to punish the wrongdoer by the state. From very ancient
times, a number of theories have been given concerning the purpose of punishment which
may broadly be divided into classes.
(i) The view of first class is that, the end of criminal justice is to protect and add to the
welfare of the state and society.
(ii) The view of other class in that, purpose of punishment is retribution.
4. OBJECTIVES OF PUNISHMENT:
Following are the objectives punishment
(i) Supremacy of law.
(ii) Maintenance of peace in society.
(iii) Punishment of offender.
(iv)Protection of public from crime.
(v) Protection of state.
(vi)Preservation of life.
(vii) Protection of individual property.
(viii) Upkeep morality and culture
(ix) Prevention of crime.
5.THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT:
There are certain theories behind the concept of punishment.
(I)DETERRENT THEORY:
According to this theory, the object of criminal justice in awarding punishment is to deter the
people from committing crimes again.
According to Prof Salmond:
“Punishment is before all the deterrent and the chief end of the law of crime is to make the
evil-doer an example and a warning to all that are like-minded with him.”
According to Locke:
“The commission of every offence should be made bargain for the offender:
(i)Aim of Punishment:
The aim of punishment is not revenge but terror. An exemplary punishment should be
given to the criminals so that the others may learn a lesson from him.
Manu states:
“Penalty keeps the people under control.”
Criticism:There is a lot of criticism of the deterrent theory of punishment in modern times.
1. Excessive hardness of punishment tends to defeat its own purpose by arousing the
sympathy of the public towards those who are given cruel punishments.
2. Deterrent punishment is likely to harden the criminal instead of creating in him the
fear of law.
3. Punishment loses its horror once the criminal is punished.
(II)PREVENTIVE THEORY:
In preventive theory, the offender are disabled from repeating the offences by such
punishment such as imprisonment, death, exile etc. This theory does not act so much on
the motive of the wrong-doer but disables his physical power to commit the offence.
Prof. paton states:
The preventive theory concentrates on the prisoner but seeks to prevent him from
offending again in the future.
Example:An example of preventive punishment is the cancellation of the driving licenses of
a person.
Criticism:This theory has been criticized on following aspects.
1. It hardens the first offender by putting him in constant association with the habitual
offenders.
2. When offender puts in jail, it breeds move crime.
(III)REFORMATIVE THEORY:
According to this theory, the object of punishment should be the reform of the offender.
Even in he commits a crime, he does not cease to be a human being. He must be
educated and taught some art of industry-during the period of his imprisonment so that he
may be able to start his life again after his release from jail.
Prof. Jennings Stated:
“Punishment not the revenge but to reform the offender.”
Criticism:The view of Salmond on the reformation theory that if criminals are to be sent to
prison to be means formed into good citizens, prisoner must be turned into comfortable
develling place. The theory of reformative punishment alone is not sufficient and there
should be a compromise between the deterrent theory and the reformative theory and the
deterrent theory must have the last word.
(IV)RETRIBUTIVE THEORY:
In primitive times, punishment was mainly retributive. The person wronged was allowed to
have his revenge against the wrong-doer the principal of “an eye for an eye ”a” tooth for a
tooth” was recognized and followed. The Plato was a supporter of the retributive theory.
Prof. kant Stated:
“Judicial punishment can never serve merely as a means to further another good, whether
for the offender himself or for society, but must always be inflicted on him for the sole
reason that he has committed a crime.”
Criticism:Critics points out to punishment in itself is not a remedy for the mischief
committed by the offender. It merely aggregates the mischief. Punishment is itself is an evil
and can be justified only on the ground that it is going to yield better results.
(V)EXPIATIVE THEORY:
This theory is similar to the idea of retribution. Expiation means the suffering or punishment
for an offence. To suffer punishment is to pay a debt due to the law that has been violated.
Lilly Stated: “The wrong whereby he has transgressed the law of right, has incurred a
debt. Justice requires that the debt be paid, that the wrong be expiated.”
Criticism:Justice Holmes writes “This passion of vengeance is not one which we
encourage, either as private individuals or as law-makers”.
(VI)COMPENSATORY THEORY:
According to this theory, the object of punishment must be not merely to prevent further
crimes but also to compensate the victim of the crime. The contention is that the
mainspring of criminality is greed and if the offender is made to return the sill-gotten
benefits of the crime, the spring of criminality would dry up.
Criticism:This theory has been criticized on the following points:
1. It tends to over simply the motives of crime. The motives of crime is not always
economic.
2. Even in cases of offences actuated by economic motives the economic position of the
poor offender may be such that compensation may not be available.
3. If the offender is a rich person the payment of any amount may be no punishment for
him.
6. CONCLUSION:
To conclude, I can say, that a perfect system of criminal justice cannot be based on any
one theory of punishment. Every has its own merits and every effort must be made to take
the good points of all. The deterrent aspect of punishment must not be ignored, likewise the
reformative aspect must be given its due place.
Crime
Q6. Define Crime? What are its essential elements.
Q discuss mans Rea and Actus Rea as essentials of crime.
Q Define crime and discuss in detail , Mens Rea, and Actus Reus, as elements of crime.
1. INTRODUCTION:
General speaking, the law in general is a preservative instinct OF the individual and of the
race. The primary function of criminal law is the preservation of life and protection of
society. A crime may be said to be an act which any gives society considers to be
sufficiently injurious to justify imposing punishment on the wrongdoer and prescribing a
special procedure for dealing with it. There are some essential elements to constitute a
crime.
2. DEFINITION OF CRIME:
Following are the different definitions of crime.
(I) According To Blackstone:
“An act committer or omitted in violation of public law forbidding or commanding it.”
3. HISTORICAL BACK GROUND
Crime is inevitable in human society. It is integral part of any human society. It is as old as
human society itself.
4. CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIME:
Following are different characteristics of crime:
(i) It is a harm brought about by human conduct which the sovereign power in the state
desires to prevent.
(ii) It is against the public order and moral.
(iii) It is an act, which is against penal laws enacted by statute.
(iv) It is the threat of punishment that is selected among the measure of prevention.
(v) Proceeding of special kind are employed to decide whether the person accused did in-
fact cause the harm.
5. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF CRIME:
Following are the essential elements of crime:
(i) Human being
(ii) Mens Rea
(iii) Actue Reus
(iv) Injury
(I) HUMAN BEING:
The first essential element of crime requires that the act must be committed by a human
being. In ancient times, punishments were inflicted on animals also for injury done by them,
but now this practice is abandoned so to constitute a crime. There must be a human being
who.
(i) Must be under legal obligation to act in a particular manner and,
(ii) Should be fit subject for award of appropriate punishment.
(II) MENS REA:
The second essential of crime is mens rea (guilty mind). There can be no crime of any
nature with an evil mind. Mens rea is the criminal state of mind of the accused.
(i) Use Of Mens rea in Different Senses:
According to Kenny, the team mens rea has been used by the court in two different senses.
a. To denote the accused person „ s attitude of mind to what he was doing, form which can
be decided the question whether his conduct was or was not voluntary, and
b. To denote the accused person foresight of the consequences of what he was doing.
(ii) Form of Mens rea:
The form which mens rea assumes will depend on the provisions of the particular legal
system. Criminal liability may require the wrongful act to be done intentionally or with some
wrongful purpose in mind or with recklessly (conscious risk taking) and in each case the
mental attitude of the door is such to make punishment effective.
(iii) Mens rea in P.P.C:
In P.P.C, mens rea has been applied in two different ways:
(i) The expressions fraudulently, dishonestly. Voluntarily and intentionally etc used in
definitions indicate the criminal intent.
(ii) A separate chapter on general exceptions prescribes circumstances where absence of
criminal intent may be presumed. This is the negative method of applying mens rea.
(iv)Exception to Mens rea:
a. Wrongs of Strict Liability:
Wrongs of strict liability are wrongs which are, exception to the rule of mens rea and in
such cases, mens rea is not required to be proved.
b. Wrongs Excluded by Statute:
Mens rea may be excluded for certain offences, form a statute by necessary implications
and it can be done only where it is absolutely clear that the implementation of the object of
the statute would otherwise be defeated.
(III) ACTUS REUS:
The third essential of crime is actus reus, or prescribed act Salmond calls it the physical or
material condition of liability. If there is not act, there can be no punishment.
(i) Meaning of Actus Reus: According to poof Kenny:
“Such result of human conduct as the law seeks to prevent.”
(ii) Actus Reus Interested in Conduct:
Offence can be designated into two types:
(i) Result crimes
(ii) Conduct crimes
Actue reus is interested in conduct and much more often the actus reus requires proof of
an act or an omission (conduct) for example a deed man with a knife in his back is not the
actus reus of the murder. It is putting the knife in the back thereby causing the death which
is the actus reus.
(iii) Components of Actus Reus:
The actus reus is constituted by the event and not by the activity which caused the event.
A deed may consist of harm and destruction of property and even the life, but is not a crime
unless it is legally prohibited by law.
(iv) Components of Actus Reus:
Following are the components of actus Reus.
a. The conduct which is the central feature of the crime.
b. The surrounding circumstances
c. The consequences
(v) Conduct Must be Willed:
If the actus reus of the crime includes an act, it must be proved that defendant did that act
voluntarily.
Exception:Where the act was done while in state of intoxication self-induced by taking
alcohol or a durg. The defendant is liable.
(iv)causation:
When the definition of an actus reus requires the occurrence of certain consequences, it is
necessary to prove that it was the conduct of the accused which cause those
consequences to occur. For example in murder it is necessary to prove that the act of the
accused caused the death, if the death came about solely thought some other cause, than
the crime is not committed even thought all the other elements of the actus reus and
means rea rea present.
“Case of which (1910)”
“Defendant put potassium cyanide into a drink with intent to murder his mother , but
medical evidence showed that she died not poison but of heart failure. Although the
consequences which . defendant intended occurred, he did not cause it to occur and there
was no actus reus of murder and he was acquitted of murder.”
(vi)Completion of Actus Reus:
The autcs reus of an offence is complete in the following circumstance.
a. Where the Participation is Direct:
Where an accused himself commits the act and brings about the results himself e. g where
A shoots at B and bring about B‟s death.
b. Where the Participation is Indirect:
Acts reus is committed where A enrages an innocent person B and commits offence
thought B for example where A puts poison into the cup of tea which he knows would be
offered by B to C and thus kills C indirectly where c takes the tea not know to B.
c. Where Another Person has Intervened:
Where a third person has intervened in the act of the accused and if the result is due to the
intervention, the accused is not responsible sine the result or harm is not consequence of
what the prisoner did.
“R Vs Hilton (1938)”
“it was held that the death was not the act of the accused but of the person who set the
engine in motion after the accused had gone away.”
(IV) INJURY:
The fourth essential requirement in crime in injury to another person or to society at large.
According to section 44P.P.C, the word injury denotes any harm whatever illegally caused
to any person in body, mind reputation or property. It is very wide connotation and includes
all injuries caused by tortuous act.
6. CONCLUSION:
To conclude, I can say, that crime is an act of omission or commission. Generally it is
violation of every moral rule established by religious usage or code of morality recognized
by people to constitute a crime, some essential elements must be there and if any one of
those elements missing, it would not be a crime.
Substantive And Procedural Law

Q7. Explain the difference between substantive law and law of procedure.
1. INTRODUCTION:
Statute law is either substantive or procedural. Substantive law confers the rights and
procedural is the mode by which a legal right is enforced. The distinction between
substantive and procedural law is drawn by each legal system along the lines of
expediency and not in the same place for all purposes. The distinction between these two
is very important as every lawyer has to get in touch with them in his daily routine.
2. LAW OF PROCEDURE:
(I)Definition
(i)According to Salmond:
“The law of procedure may be defined as that branch of law which governs the process of
litigation. It is the law of actions and includes all legal proceedings whether civil or criminal.
Criticism:
Salmond has ignored that less spectacular and unattractive side of procedural law, which
goes under the name of ”Conveyancing” such as drawing sale deeds, partnership deeds,
chequse and other bills of exchange.
(II)Elements Of Procedural Law:
Following are the elements of judicial procedure or procedural law.
(i) Summons:
This is given an opportunity to all the parties interested, to present themselves before the
court and making the case heard.
(ii)Pleadings:
Pleadings bring to light the matters in-issue between the parties. In civil law, it consists of
plaint, written statement and replication. In criminal law, it includes complaints and written
statement.
(iii)Proof:
Proof is the process by which the parties supply the court with the data necessary for the
decision of the case.
(iv)Judgment: A judgment is the decision of the court. It may be in the form of decree or
order.
(v)Execution:
It is the use of the physical force of the state in enforcing the judgement when voluntary
submission to it is withheld.
3. SUBSTANTIVE LAW:
i. According to Salmond:
substantive law relates not to the process of litigation but to its purpose and subject-matter.
4. Distinction between Sub-Sanative and Procedural Law:
(I)According to Holland:
Substantive law determines right and procedural law determines remedies.
Criticism:
Salmond criticizes this view on two grounds.
1. The whole law of remedies does not belong to procedure as a right to recover damages
is a remedial right, but it belongs to substantive law and not to the law of procedure.
2. According to Holand, there can be no rights in the realm of procedure. But the law of
procedure also creates rights. A right of appeal is both a matter of substance and
procedure.
(ii)According to Salmond:
The difference between substantive law and procedural law is one of form and not of
substance. A rule belonging to one class may, by a change form, pass over into the other
without materially affecting the practical issue. He refers to three classes of such cases.
Equivalency of Exclusive Evidential Fact:
An exclusive evidential fact is practically equivalent to a constituent element in the title of
the right to be proved. The rule of evidence is that a contract can be proved only by a
writing. This corresponds to a rule of substantive law that a contract is void unless it is
reduced to writing. In one case, the writing is the exclusive evidence of title. In other cases
the writing is a part of the title itself.
Equivalency of Exclusive Evidential Fact to Fact Proved:
A conclusive evidential fact is equivalent to and tends to take the place of the pact proved
by it. Procedural law says that the child under the age of 8 cannot have a criminal intention
and substantive law exempts such a child from punishment.
Equivalency of Limitation of Actions to Prescription of Right:
The limitation of actions is the procedural equivalent of the prescription of rights. The legal
procedure destroys the bond between right and remedy and substantive law destroys the
right itself.
5. OTHER DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN SUBSTANTIVE AND PROCEDURAL LAW:
(I)As To Purpose:
Substantive law is concerned with the ends which the administration of justice seeks.
Procedural law deals with the means and instruments by which those ends can be
achieved.
(II)Regulation:
Substantive law determines the conduct and relation of litigants in respect of the matters
litigated.
Procedural law regulates the conduct and relations of courts and litigants in respect of the
litigation itself.
(III)Subject Matter:
Substantive law regulates the affairs controlled by judicial proceedings.
Procedural law regulates the conduct of affairs in the judicial the conduct of affairs in the
judicial proceedings.
(IV)As To Facts Constitute A Wrong:
What fact constitute a wrong is determined by substantive law.
What facts constitute proof of a wrong is a question of procedure.
(V)Nature:
Substantive law deals with the ends which the administration of justice seeks.
Procedural law deals with the means and instruments by which the administration of justice
achieve.
(VI)As To Connection:
Substantive law is related and connected with public at large.
Procedural law is connected with the parties before the court.
(VII)As To Abolition Of Punishment:
The abolition of capital punishment is an alteration of the substantive law.
The abolition of imprisonment for debt is merely an alteration in the law of procedure as the
imprisonment for debt is merely an instrument to enforce payment.
(VIII)Scope:
Substantive law relates to matters outside the court.
Procedural law deals with matters inside courts.
(IX)Appearance:
Substantive law provides substance of law in the shape of statute.
Procedural law is the law of actions meanings by actions.
(X)Branch Of Law:
Procedural law is that branch of the law which governs the process of litigation.
All the residue is substantive law.
(XI) Supremacy:
Substantive law is supreme in nature.
Procedural law is subordinate in nature.
6. CONCLUSION:
To conclude, I can say, that the substantive law which defines our rights and duties is, of
course important to all of us, but unless the adjective law of procedure is a working
machine, constantly translating these obligations in terms of court orders and actual
execution, the substantive law might as well not exist.
PART C: Hadood Laws
HARABAH LIABLE TO HADD
Q1. Explain Haraabah liable to hadd? What proof is needed to prove this offence?.
1. INTRODUCTION:
Haraabah is an aggravated form of theft. More or less it is synonymous to robbery, which
contains the element of either theft or extortion. This offence required to be proved in the
same manner as the offence of theft liable to hadd described in section 7,
Following are the relevant provisions
Section 15 to 20 of Enforcement of Hudood regarding the VI of 1979.
3. DEFINITION OF HARAABAH U/SEC 15:
When a person armed or not armed make a show of force for taking away the property of
another and attack him or cause wrongful restraint or put him in fear of death or hurt. Such
person commits the offence of Haraabah.
4. INGREDIENTS OF HARSSBAH:
(i) It may be committed by one or more person.
(ii) There must be showing of force for the purpose of taking away the property of another.
(iii) There must be some attack by the offender, or cause wrongful restraint or put in fear of
death or hurt.
5. PROOF OF HAARABAH U/SEC 16:
The provisions of section of section 7, shall also apply for the proof of haarabah which is as
under.
A. Confession Before the Court:
Where accused pleads guilty of haarabah liable to hadd, shall be punished with hadd.
B. By Evidence of Witnesses:
Haraabah liable to hadd may to prove by the evidence of at – least two eye – witnesses.
(i) Requirements Regarding Witnesses:
a. Witnesses must be male.
b. They must be Muslim, but if the accused is non – Muslim the eye – Witnesses may non –
Muslims.
c. They must be adult. Evidence of minor witnesses is not acceptable.
d. They must not be the victim of haraabah.
e. The court must be satisfied about them having regarded to the requirements of tazkiyaal-
shahood (inquiry adopted by the court to satisfy itself to the credibility of a witness) those
they are Truthful persons, and Abstain from major sins.
6. PUNISHMENT OF HARAABAH U/SEC 17:
Whoever being an adult is guilty of Haraabah, shall be liable to following punishments.
(i) Where neither any murder has been committed nor any property has been taken away,
he shall be punished with.
a. Whipping not exceeding thirty stripes
b. Rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3 years and it will continue
until the court is satisfied of his being sincerely penitent and
c. Punishment for causing such hurt in accordance with such other law, which is applicable
at the time.
(iii) Where no murder has been committed but the property of the prescribed nisab has
been taken away, he shall, he shall be punished with.
Amputation of his right hand form the wrist and of his left foot form the ankle and if the hand
or the right foot of the offender is missing or is entirely unserviceable the punishment of
amputation shall not be enforced and punishment will be the rigorous imprisonment which
may extend to 14 years with whipping not exceeding 30 stripes.
(iii) Where murder has been committed he shall be punished with.
a. Death imposed as hadd.
A. Confirmation of Court of Appeal U/sec 17 (5):
Punishment of amputation or death shall not be executed it is confirmed by the court
appeal.
7. CASES IN WHICH PUNISHMENT OF AMPUTATION OR DEATH NOT IMPOSED
U/SEC 18:
Punishment of Amputation or death shall not be imposed in the following cases.
i. When victim and offender are related to each other as
a. Spouses
b. Ascendants ,Paternal or Maternal
c. Brothers or sisters of father and mother
d. Brother or sisters or their children
e. Descendants., paternal or maternal
ii. When guest commits harabaah form the house of his host.
iii. When servant or employee commits harabaah form the hirz of his master or employee.
iv. When the property is wild grass, fish bird, dog pig intoxicant musical instrument or
perishable foodstuff.
v. When the offender has a share in property, the value of which after deduction of his
share is less than the nisab
vi. When creditor steals his debtor‟s property, the value of which after deduction of his
share is less than the nisab.
vii. When the offender has committed harabaah under ikrah or iztrar.
8. PUNISHMENT FOR HARAABAH LIABLE TO TAZIR U/SEC 20:
When the harabaah is not liable to hadd, the harabaah be same be liable taizr and the
punishment would be some as of dacoity rabbery or extortion as provided in P.P.C.
9. CONCLUSION:
To Conclude, I can say, that harabaah is an offence under the Islamic law. This term is
often used in place of robbery but it seem to be more wider than the term robbery we may
say that the harabaah occupies a middle place between the offence of robbery, decoity and
extortion. And the punishment of it is provided u/sec 17 of the concerned ordinance.
THEFT LIABLE TO HADD

Q2. Define theft and explain when it is liable to hadd? What proof is required for it.
Q. Define theft liable to hadd. How it is proved..
1. INTRODUCTION:
In Islamic law, theft signifies the taking away the property of another in a secret manner at
a time when such property is an custody and the value of such is not less than the
prescribed nisab. The Holy Quran in Sura-Al-Maida provides punishment for such offence
and it is also made punishable under the hudood ordinance.
Following are the relevant provisions .
Section 4 to 9 of Enforcement of “Enforcement of Hudood Ordinance VI of 1979”.
3. MEANING OF THEFT
The literary meaning of theft is the secretly taking away of another property.
4. KINDS OF THEFT:
There are two kinds of theft:
(i) Theft liable to Hadd
(ii) Theft liable to Tazir
5. THEFT LIABLE TO HADD:
(I) Definition Liable U/Sec 5:
Whoever, being an adult, surreptitiously commits, from any hirz theft of property of the
value of the nisab or more, not being stolen property is said to commit theft liable to hadd”.
(II) Ingredients:
Following are the essentials of theft liable to hadd.
(i)Adult Offender:
The offender must be an adult person.
Adult u/sec 2(a):
adult means a person who has attained the age of eighteen years of puberty.
(ii)Surreptitiously Commits:
Offence of theft liable to hadd must be committed surreptitiously. According to Explanation
2 of sec. 5, it means that the person committing the theft commits it believing that the victim
of theft does not know of his action.
Continuance of Surreption:
For surreptitious removal of property, it is necessary
If it is day, time surreption should continue till the completion of the offence, and
If it is night, surreption need not continue after commencement of the offence.
(iii)Removal From Hirz:
The property must be removed from any hirz.
Meaning of Hirz:
Literally hiez means precaution and protecting.
Hirz U/sec2(d):
“Hirz means an arrangement made for the custody of property.”
According to Explanation 1 of sec. 2, it is not necessary that the goods in hirz be confined
in a building or a in a locked house. Grazing cattle under the custody of the herdsman are
considered under his hirz. If any of the cattle is stolen, it will be deemed to be a theft from
hirz.
(iv)Value of Stolen Property:
The property must be nisab as laid down in section 6.
Nisab U/sec 6.
The nisab for theft liable to hadd is 4. 457 grams of gold. According to explanation to
section 6, If theft is committed from the same hirze in more than one transaction or from
more than one hirz and the value of stolen property in each case if the less than nisab, it is
not liable to hadd even though the value of the properties removed exceeds the nisab, if
collected.
Illustration:„A‟ enters a house several times and removes from the house on each
occasion property, the value of which does not amount to the nisab. Such theft is not liable
to hadd even though the value of the properties removed exceeds the nisab, if collected.
(v) Not Being a Stolen Property:
It must not be a stolen property i.e. must not be acquired by means of theft. According to
explanation 1 of section 5, stolen property does not include property which has been
criminally misappropriated or in respect of which criminal breach of trust has been
committed.
(vi)Knowledge of Accused:
Accused must be aware that the property stolen by him is either equivalent or exceeding
limit of nisab.
6. PROOF OF THEFT LIABLE TO HADD U/SEC 7:
The proof of theft liable to hadd shall be in one of the following forms.
(I)Confession:
Where the accused pleads guilty of the commission of theft liable to hadd then he shall be
liable to hadd.
“Ghulam Habib Vs. state (1994)”
“Confession in a theft case would be material only if made before the trial court.”
(II)By Evidence Of Witnesses:
Theft liable to hadd may be proved by the evidence of at-least two eye witnesses.
Case Law (2004 P. cr. L. J 285)
It was held that an accused person is presumed to be innocent unlit his guilt is proved.
1. Witnesses must be male
2. They must be Muslim, but if the accused in non-Muslim the witnesses may be non-
Muslim.
3. They must be adult
4. They must not be the victim of the theft
5. The court must be satisfied about them having regard to the requirements of tazkiya-al-
shuhood (inquiry adopted by the court to satisfy itself to the credibility of a witness) that
they are: Truthful persons and Abstain from major sins
7. THEFT BY MORE THAN ONE PERSON U/SEC 8:
Where theft liable to hadd is committed by more than one person and the aggregate value
of the stolen property is such that, if the property is divided equally among them, each one
of them gets a share which amounts to or exceeds the nisab, the hadd shall be imposed on
each of them.
8. PUNISHMENT FOR THEFT LIABLE TO HADD U/SEC 9:
However commits theft liable to hadd shall be punished with.
(i)Amputation of his right hand from the joint of the wrist, if it is committed for first time.
(ii) Amputation of his left foot up to the ankle, if it is committed for the second time.
(iii)Imprisonment for life, if it is committed third time or any time subsequent thereto.
Confirmation by Court Appeal:
Punishment of hadd shall not be executed unless it is confirmed by the court to which an
appeal from the order of the conviction lose.
Postponement of Hadd.
Hadd shall be postponed if the authorized medical officer is of the opinion that the
amputation of hand or foot may cause the death of the convict, until the apprehension of
death ceases.
9. CONCLUSION:
To conclude, I can say, that theft liable to hadd will be committed when property is stealthily
taken away from the custody of that person or a person under whose hirz the property was,
and the value of that property was not less than the prescribed nisab. Crime of theft
represent the most serious crime against property and by severing the hand of the robber.
Islam gets to the root of evil and protects society from the destruction.
DRINKING
Q3. Define Drinking When it is liable to Tazir under the prohibition ordinance 1997.
1. INTRODUCTION:
It is a consumption of intoxicating liquor, whatever the quantity consumed, which is
described as shrub (drinking) and made punishable under Islamic law. The prohibition
(Enforcement of Hadd) order IV of 1979 Defines drinking and prescribes various penalties
for it.
Following are the relevant provisions regarding the concerned topic.
Section 6 to 11 of the prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) order of 1997.
3. DRINKING U/SEC 6:
Whoever intentionally and without Ikrah or iztirar takes an intoxicant by any means, shall be
guilty of drinking.
(I) ingredients:
Following are the essential ingredients of sec. 6
(i)Intention:
A person may be guilty of drinking only, if he takes an intoxication intentionally.
(ii)Without Ikrah or Iztirar:
Intoxication must be without any ikrah or iztirar.
a. Meaning of Ikrah:
According to explanation of sec. 6, Ikrah means putting any person in fear of injury to the
person. Property or honour of that or any other person.
b. Meaning of Iztirar:
Iztirar means a situation in which a person is in apprehension of death due to extreme
hunger or thirsty or serious illness.
4. KINDS OF DRINKING U/SEC 7:
There are two liable to Hadd.
(i) Drinking liable to Hadd.
(ii) Drinking liable to Tazir.
5. DRINKING LIABLE TO HADD U/SEC 8:
If an adult Muslim takes an intoxicating liquor by mouth he shall be guilty of drinking liable
to hadd.
(I)Explanation:
(i) Adult u/sec 2(a):
Adult means a person who has attained the age of eighteen years of puberty.
(ii)Intoxicating Liquor U/sec2(h):
Intoxicating liquor includes toddy spirits of wine, beer and all liquids consisting of or
containing alcohol normally used for purposes of intoxication but does not include a solid
intoxication even if liquefied.
(II)Punishment:
Whoever guilty of drinking liable to hadd shall be punished with whipping numbering eighty
stripes.
6. PROOF OF DRINKING LIABLE TO HADD U/SEC 9:
Drinking liable to hadd shall be proved in any one of the following forms.
(I)Confession:
The accused makes before a court of competent jurisdiction a confession of the
commission of the offence.
(II)By Evidence Of Witnesses:
Drinking may also be proved by the evidence of at-least two witnesses.
2. They must be Muslim
4. The court must be satisfied about them having regard to the requirements of tazkiya-al-
shahood (Modes of Inquiry adopted by a court to satisfy itself as to the credibility of a
witness)that they are (Truthful person and Abstain from major sins)
7. DRINKING LIABLE TO TAZIR U/SEC 11:
Drinking liable to tazir punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to three years or with whipping not exceeding thirty stripes or with both.
(I)Persons Liable To Tazir:
(i) Muslim:
A Muslim may be guilty of drinking liable to Tazir, if following conditions are fulfilled,
a. Drinking not liable to hadd u/sec 8 or for which proof in either of the forms mentioned in
section 9 i.e confession and evidence of two adult male Muslim witnesses, is not available.
b. The court is satisfied that the evidence on the record.
(ii)Non-Muslim Citizen Of Pakistan:
A non-Muslim citizen of Pakistan who is guilty of drinking, shall be liable to tazir.
Exception:
He will not be guilty of drinking if he takes it as a part of a ceremony prescribed by his
religion.
(iii)Non-Muslim:
A non-Muslim who is not a citizen of Pakistan shall be liable to tazir, if he is guilty of
drinking at public place.
8. CONCLUSION:
To conclude, I say , that the drinking is made punishable by the ordinance, both as liable to
hadd as well as tazir. Section 8 prescribes punishment for drinking liable to tazir.
QAZAF
Q4. Define and explain Qazf. How is it proved and what is its punishment.
Q Define Qazaf liable to hadd and proof required for it?
1. INTRODUCTION:
“They who define virtuous woman and bring not four witnesses, scourge them with
fourscore stripes and receive be not their testimony forever, for are perverse person. “(Ai-
Quran)
If a person accuses another of fornication or adultery, he is required to support his
accusation by procuring four reliable witnesses. If he is unable to do so he is guilty of Qazf.
Following are the relevant provisions of concerned ordinance the topic of Qafz.
Section 3 t0 8 offence of Qazf (Enforcement Hadd) ordinance VIII of 1979.
3. DEFINITION OF QAZF U/SEC 3:
“Whoever makes or publishes an imputation of Zina concerning any person intending to
harm or knowing or having will harm the reputation or hurt feelings of such person is said to
commit Qafz.”
(I) INGREDIENTS OF SEC. 3:
(i) Making or Publishing of Imputation of Zina:
There must be making or publishing of imputation of Zina the term publish means that it
must be communicated to some person other than the person to whom it is addressed.
(ii) Concerning Any Person:
Imputation of Zina must be against some particular person or person whose identity can be
established.
(iii) Intention or Knowledge to Harm or Hurt the Reputation or Feelings:
It is sufficient to show that the accused intended to harm or knew or had reason to believe
that the imputation made by him would harm the reputation or hurt the feelings of the
complainant.
According to Explanation 1 of sec. 3, It may amount to Qafz to impute Zina to a deceased
person, if the amputation would harm the reputation or hurt the feelings of that person if
living and is harmful to the feelings of his family or other near relatives.
(iv) Modes of Imputation:
Imputation of Zina may be made in either the following modes.
a. By words, which may be either spoken or intended to be read.
b. By signs or visible representation that will include every possible form of imputation.
According to explanation 2 of sec. 3 , An imputation in the form of an alternative or
expressed ironically may amount to Qazf.
Illustration: “Mushtaq Ahmad vs state 1991”
“ It was observed that direct allegation of Zina against a person is not necessary to hold a
person liable under Qazf rather than offence can be committed in any of the modes in sec.
3 of the ordinance.”
(II) Exceptions: Following are the exception to the offence of Qazf u/sec 3.
(i) Imputation of Truth Which Public Good Requires to be Made:
It is not Qazf to impute Zine to any person if the imputation be true and made or published
for the public good
(ii) Accusation Preferred in Good Faith to Authorized person:
It is not Qafz prefer in good faith an accusation of Zina against any person to any of other
who have lawful authority over that person with respect to the subject matter of the
accusation. Good faith dose not merely imply absence of ill-will but pre-supposes
reasonable degree of care and caution in making an amputation. (PSC 1984 S.C.1)
Exceptions: It will amount to Qafz if Complainant makes an accusation in the court but
fails to produce four witnesses in support thereof before the court.
Illustration: “Naheed Ahmad vs Mahmood khan (1991)”
“Respondents failed to produce four witnesses in support of their claim. They were held
liable for the offence of Qazf.
According to the finding of the court, a complaint or a witness has made false accusation or
given false evidence, as the case may be, of zina or zina-bil-jabr.
4. KINDS OF QAZF U/SEC 4:
There are two kinds of Qafz.
(i) Qazf liable to hadd
(ii) Qazf liable to Tazir
5. QAZF LIABLE TO HADD U/SEC 5:
Qazf liable to hadd is constituted when any person, who is an adult, intentionally makes an
imputation of Zina liable to hadd against any person who is Muhsan and capable of
performing sexual intercourse.
(I) Essentials: Following are the essential ingredients of section 5.
(i) Imputation Made by Adult:
Imputation of Zine must be made by an adult person.
a. Meaning of Adult u/sec 2(a):
“Adult means a person who is attained the age of majority.”
(ii) Against a Muhsan:
Imputation must be made against a particular person who is a Muhsan.
According to Explanation 1 of sec 5, Muhsan means sane and adult Muslim who either has
had no sexual intercourse or has had such intercourse only with his or her lawfully wedded
spouse.
(II) Imputation Of illegitimacy:
According to Explanation 2 of sec. 5 if a person makes an imputation in respect of another
person, that he is not a legitimate child or refuses to recognize him to be legitimate one, be
shall be deemed to have committed Qazaf liable to hadd in respect of the mother of that
other person.
5. PROOF OF QAZF LIABLE TO HADD U/SEC 6:
Qazf liable to hadd shall be proved any of the following forms.
(I) Confession:
The accused makes before a court of competent jurisdiction a confession of the s
(II) Qazf In Presence Of Court:
If the accused commits Qazf in the presence of the court, then he shall be liable to Qazf
liable to hadd.
(III) By Evidence Of Witnesses:
Qazf may also prove by the evidence of at-least two witnesses.
a. Witnesses must be male.
b. They must be Muslim, but if the accused is non-Muslim the witnesses may be non-
Muslims.
c. They must be adult.
d. They must not be the victim of the qazf.
e. The court must be satisfied about them, having regard to the requirements of tazkiyah-al-
shahood that they are Truthful persons and Abstain from major sins.
6. PUNISHMENT OF QAZF LIABLE TO HADD U/SEC 7:
Whoever commits qazf liable to hadd, shall be punished with.
(i) Whopping numbering eighty stripes, which shall not be executed until it has been
confirmed by the court appeal, and
(ii) His evidence shall not be admissible in any court of law.
7. PERSON WHO MAY FILE A COMPLAINT U/SEC 8:
Cognizance of offence of Qazf can be taken only on a report made to the police or on
complaint lodged in court by either of the following person.
(I) If Victim Is Alive:
If the person in respect of whom the qazf has been committed be alive, them
(i) That person or
(ii) Any person authorized by him
(II) If Victim Is Dead:
If the person in respect of whom the qazf has been committed be dead. Then
I any of the descendants or ascendants of that person.
8. CONCLUSION:
To conclude, I can say, that the provisions of huddod ordinance are indication of the
important position which morality and protection of the family occupied in Islamic law. As a
counterweight to the severe punishment imposed on the adulterer, the law stipulates
definite requirements for the proof necessary to establish the crime.
ZINA AND ZINA BEL JABRS

Q5. defince Zina bil jaber and state the punishment provided for it in the offence of
Zina ordinance what proof is needed to impose hadd in such case
1. INTRODUCTION:
Zina means fornication or adultery. Sexual intercourse not permitted by Muhammadan Law
is both word Zina as defined in the ordinces covers both void and irrelegular marriage. Void
marriage can fall within definition of Zina liable to hadd and an irregular marriage can fall
within definition of Zina liable to Tazir.
Following are the relevant provisions .
Section 4 to 10 of the offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) ordinance VII of 1979.
3. OFFENCE OF ZINA:
(I) GENERAL MEANING:
According to hanafis, Zina means intercourse without milk(ownership) or sh/*ubat milk.
(II)MEANING U/SEC 4:
A man and a woman are said to commit Zina, if they willfully have sexual intercourse
without being validly married to each other.”
(III) INGREDIENTS OF OFFENCE OF ZINA:
Following ingredients must be prove in order to secure the conviction of an accused person
for the offence of Zina.
(i)Between Opposite Sexes:
There should be a man and a woman. This offence is not possible between human being
belonging to the same sex or being sexless.
(ii) Not Validly Married:
There must not be a valid married between such man and a woman. The expression valid
marriage will imply the requirements of such marriage as required under Muhammadan
Law.
(iii)Sexual Intercourse:
A man and a woman should have committed sexual intercourse with each other. Zina is
complete if there is sexual intercourse without valid marriage (1989 PCR L J878)
According to explanation of section 4 penetration is sufficient to constitute the sexual
intercourse. Penetration means entering of the male organ into the vagina for the offence of
Zina.(1985 PCRL J 110)
(iv)Willfully:
A man and a woman must commit sexual intercourse willfully. Willfully signify an act done
by design with set purpose. (PLD 1985FSC 126)
(IV) ZINA IS LIABLE TO HADD, IF IT IS COMMITTED BY A MAN OR A WOMAN WHO
IS.
(i)An adult and according to section 2(a) adult means a person who has attained.
a. If male, eighteen years of age.
b. If female, sixteen years of age or puberty.
(ii)Not Insane
(iii) with the woman or man as the case be, to whom he or she is not and does not suspect
to be married.
(V)PUNISHMENT OF ZINA U/SEC 5(2):
Whoever is guilty of Zina liable to hadd shall be punished as under.
(i)If Musan:
If he or she is a Muhsan, be stonned to death at a public place.
(ii)If not Musan:
If he or she not a muhsan, be punished at a public place whit whipping numbering one
hundred stripes.
Meaning of Muhsan:
According to section2(a), Muhsan means an adult Muslim man or woman who is not insane
and has had sexual intercourse with a Muslim adult, who at the time he or she had sexual
intercourse with her or him was married to him or her and was not insane. In other words
Muhsan means a married men or woman.
Confirmation of Court of Appeal:
Punishment of hadd shall be executed only when it is confirm by the court of appeal.
4. OFFENCE OF ZINA-BIL-JABR U/SEC 6:
A person is said commit Zina-bil-jabr if he or she has sexual intercourse with a woman or
man, as the case may be to when he or she is not validly married, under any of the
following circumstances.
i. Against the will of the victim
ii. Without the consent of the victim
iii. With the consent of the victim when the consent has been obtained by putting the victim
in fear of death or hurt.
iv. With the consent of the victim, when the consent is given under mistake believing that
the offender is another person to whom victim is validly married and the offender knows
that he is not validly married to the victim.
(I) ZINA-BIL-JABR LIABLE TO HADD U/SEC 6(2):
Zina-bil-jaber is liable to hadd if it is committed by a man or woman who is.
i. An adult
ii. Not insane
iii. With a woman or man, as the case may be, to whom he or she is not and does not
suspect to be married.
(II)PUNISHMENT OF ZINA-BIL-JABR U/SEC 6(3):
Whoever is guilty of Zina-bil-jabr liable to hadd, shall be punished as under.
(i)If Muhsan:
If he or she is Mushan be stonned to death at a public place.
(ii)If Not Muhsan:
If he or she is not Muhsan, be punished with whipping numbering one hundred stripes at a
public place and with such other punishment including the sentence of death as the court
may deem fit having regard to the circumstances of the case.
Confirmation of Court Of Appeal:
Punishment of hadd shall be executed only when it is confirm by the court of appeal.
5. PUNISHMENT OF ZINA OR ZINA-BIL-JABR WHERE CONVICT IS NOT ADULT
U/SEC 7:
Whoever, who is not an adult, is guilty of Zina or Zina-bil-jabr be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years or with fine or
with both and may also be awarded the punishment of whipping not exceeding thirty stripes
and in the case of Zina-bil-jabr, if the offender is not under the age of 15 years, the
punishment of whipping must be awarded.
6. PROOF OF ZINA OR ZINA-BIL-JABR LIABLE TO HADD U/SEC 8:
Zina or Zina-bil-jabr liable to hadd shall be proved in any one of the following forms.
(I)CONFESSION:
The accused makes before a court of competent jurisdiction a confession of the
(II)BY EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES:
It may be proved by the evidence of at-least four witnesses, who give evidence as eye-
witnesses of the act of penetration.
i. Requirements Regarding Witnesses:
3. They must be Muslim but if accused is non-Muslim, the eye-witnesses may be non-
Muslim.
4. The court must be satisfied about them having regard to the requirements of tazkiyah-al-
shahood(mode of inquiry adopted by a court to satisfy itself as to the credibility of a
witness)that they are Truthful and Abstain from major sins
7. ZINA OR ZINA-BIL-JABR LIABLE TO TAZIR U/SEC 10:
When Zina or Zina-bil-jabr
(i) is not liable to hadd or
(ii) not proved under section 8 or the punishment of Qazf liable to hadd is not awarded to
the complainant, or
(iii) for which hadd may not be enforced under this ordinance. It is liable to tazir.
(I)PUSISHMENT OF ZINA LIABLE TO TAZIR:
Zina liable to tazir shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not
be less than four years nor more than ten years and with whipping numbering thirty stripes
and shall also be liable to fine.
(II)PUNISHMENT OF ZINA-BIL-JABR LIABLE TO TAZIR:
Whoever commits Zina-bil-jabr liable to tazir, shall punished with imprisonment for a term
which shall not be less than four years nor more than twenty five years and shall also be
awarded the punishment of whipping numbering thirty stripes.
(i) When Committed by Two or More Person:
When Zna-bl-jabr to tazir is committed by two or more person in furtherance of common
intention of all, each of such person shall be punished with death.
8. CONCLUSION:
To conclude, I can say, that when a man and a woman who are not validly married to each
other willfully commit sexual intercourse, they shall be deemed to have committed the
offence of Zina. It is a wider term and includes both fornication and adultery and when it is
committed under the circumstances and when sec. 6, it becomes more serious offence.

CRIMINAL LAW Notes AND Hadood Law Full PPC PDF

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CRIMINAL LAW Notes AND Hadood Law Full PPC PDF

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

LLB PART 1 Paper 6

Balochistan Book Center

PART A: PAKISTAN PENAL CODE.

Common Intention And Common Object

Theft And Extortion

Theft And Criminal Breach Of Trust

Robbery And Dacoity

Rioting And Affray

Qisas And Diyat

Kidnapping And Abduction

Kinds and punishment of hurt

Hadd and Tazir

Defence against a charge of crime

PART B: Principles of criminal law

Principle Of Vicarious Liability

Measurement Of Criminal Liability

Substantive And Procedural Law

THEFT LIABLE TO HADD

ZINA AND ZINA BEL JABRS

S-ar putea să vă placă și