Skip to main content

Possible Parties to a Crime

 Possible Parties to a Crime:

There are 4 types:

1) Principle in the 1st Degree

2) Principle in the 2nd Degree

3) Accessories before the fact

4) Accessories after the fact

1. Principle in the 1st Degree:

Any person who actually commits or has committed or participates in the commission of a crime is called the Actual Offender is also known as Principles in the 1st Degree. The person of the Principle in the 1st Degree is awarded by punishment as per the law.

Eg:

Q) A and B plans to commit a robbery in a house after breaking it?

Ans) both are of the Principle in 1st Degree.

2. Principle in the 2nd Degree:

Any person, who directly or indirectly aids, assists, encourages or instigates the offender during the commission of offence or crime is called Principle in 2nd Degree. The person of the Principle in the 2nd Degree may or may not be physically present at the time and place of occurrence.

Eg: like Terrorist.

Q) B waits outside the house and keeps a watch for any unexpected situation?

Ans) Here, B is called the Principle in 2nd Degree.

3. Accessories before the fact:

Any person who contributes something in the commission of an offence or a crime is called Accessories before crime. In the accessories before the fact, the person may not be physically present at the time and place of occurrence but if he assists or instigates, he is liable.

Eg: Abettor means instigating etc.

Section- 108 of IPC comes under these Accessories before the fact.

(Like supporting with money, giving information etc)

Q) A and B planned to commit a robbery in a house?

Ans) Here, both are Accessories before the fact.

4. Accessories after the fact:

Any person knowing that the offender committed the offence or crime aids or gives shelter to the offender with an intention to defeat the fair trail and Justice is known as Accessories after the fact.

Eg: Knowingly receiving the stolen property.

Q) After the warrant is issued for the arrest of A and B, they go to their friends C’s house.

Ans) C knowing about their crime that was committed by A and B, allows them to hide inside his house or somewhere else.

 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Republic Day 26 Jan 2021 Celebration at ETA GARDEN Apartment

 Republic Day 26 Jan 2021 Celebration at ETA GARDEN Apartment I, Trilok Chand Gupta Joint Secretary of ETA Garden have celebrated and raised our country Flag at our pavilion. It's been published in the News Paper for welcoming people for Flag Hoisting.
Post a Comment
Read more

THEFT (Section 378)

  THEFT (Section 378) Sec-378 Indian Penal Code defines theft. A person is guilty of theft is he takes with dishonest intention, any moveable property, out of the possession of any person, without his consent and moves with the property. 1)  If an item is attached to the earth, it cannot be stolen, but if it is freed from the earth it may be stolen. 2)  Moving the property is essential. Removing an obstacle amounts to theft. Eg: 1) A cuts down a -tree from the field of Z with a view to dishonestly taking the 2) tree. He has committed theft. A meets a bullock cart carrying valuable articles, he causes it to be moved in a different direction with a dishonest intention to take it. This is theft. Essentials: 1. Dishonest taking. 2. Moveable property 3. Out of the possession of the person 4. Without consent 5. Moving with the property 1. Dishonest Taking: The dishonest intention is the gist of the offense. The accused must make wrongful gain or wrongful loss. The taking must b...
Post a Comment
Read more

Insanity (Section 84)

  Insanity (Sec-84) Act of a person of unsound mind is given under Sec-84 as, “Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law” The law of Insanity was introduced by a leading case of McNaughton. In R V Mc. Naughten Facts: Daniel Mc. Naughten the accused, murdered Mr. Drummond, the private secretary of Sir. Robert Peel, the Prime Minister of England, by confusion that Mr. Drummond was Sir. Robert Peel. He was tried for murder. On behalf of the accused, the defense counsel pleaded that, the accused due to the insanity, he was not able to know that he was violating the laws of God and man. It was established that the accused lost his power of control of mind, while committing the offence, a medical report was also produced to that effect. Judgment: The court acquitted Mc. Naughten on the grounds of Insanity. Mc. Naug...
Post a Comment
Read more