December 15, 2023
symbolizing the legal focus

When someone actually breaks the law, they are typically held responsible and given the appropriate punishment. According to the theory of criminal liability, the person who commits an offense has responsibility and has the potential to be found guilty on their own.

Liability in IPC: About

A breach of the law results in liability. The law establishes an individual’s rights and obligations. One person is granted legal rights by the law, while another is required to fulfil obligations. It is improper for someone to violate another person’s legal rights. A transgression of another person’s legal rights is considered wrong. A liability exists whenever there is a wrong.

types of liabilities in ipc

joint liability under ipc

  • It speaks about the responsibility of two or more people for a crime.
  • When two or more people are involved in committing an offense, each of them will be held accountable for the crime as though it were only committed by him if one or more of them did something illegal for the advantage of the group as a whole.
  • Joint criminal culpability is the name given to this criminal law principle.
  • According to Section 34 of the IPC each person who performs an act in support of a shared aim bears responsibility for it in the same way as if they were acting alone.

Case Law:

  • In the case of Suresh v State of U.P, the Supreme Court ruled that in order for section 34 of IPC. to be applicable, the accused must have done anything related to the offense. Section 34 exempts the defendant from liability if they maintain the common goal in mind and do not attempt any acts at the scene.
  • The Court decided that it would be sufficient to charge someone under Section 34 even if they are merely providing security at the crime scene for other accused. It is sufficient if the act is just covert as long as it is demonstrated that the co-accused performed it to accomplish their shared goal. An overt act is not necessary.

constructive liability in ipc

  • The enhanced form or expansion of joint liability is known as constructive joint liability in ipc.
  • Merely being a member of the unlawful assembly does not absolve any member of being held constructively liable for any acts committed by any of its members in furtherance of the assembly’s common goal, regardless of whether the member was present when the act was committed.
  • According to Section 149 of IPC, anyone who is a member of the same assembly at the time of the offense is guilty of that offense if it is committed by any member of the unlawful assembly in furtherance of the assembly’s common object or in furtherance of anything the assembly members knew to be most likely to be committed in that pursuit.

Case Law:

  • In the case of Roy Fernandes v State of Goa, the Supreme Court ruled that in order to establish whether there is a common object, the court must consider the incident’s circumstances as well as the members of the unlawful assembly’s behaviour, including the weapon of offense that the accused used to commit the offense.

vicarious liability in ipc

  • A liability that is incurred in place of or in lieu of another is known as vicarious liability.
  • In general, when someone commits a tort, they are held accountable. However, there are also situations where one person is held accountable for the wrongdoing of another. We refer to this type of obligation as vicarious liability.
  • The standard principle that man must be made to perform by the force of law whatever he is committed to do by a rule of law has three exceptions.

Case Law:

  • In the case of Dharangadhara Chemical Works Ltd. v State of Saurashtra, it was decided that since it isn’t always feasible these days, the control test needs to be diluted. However, the master’s control remains unaltered since he will still be held accountable to the same degree if one of his employees commits wrongdoing.

strict liability in ipc

  • Under this type of liability, an individual bears legal responsibility for the outcomes arising from their actions, even in cases when they did not intend to cause harm or have a fault.
  • In essence, it is a legal theory that makes the defendant accountable for their deeds without requiring the plaintiff to establish the defendant’s carelessness or wrongdoing.
  • When someone engages in extremely dangerous activities, such as raising wild animals, handling explosives, or producing faulty goods, they could be held accountable if another person sustains injuries as a result of their actions, even if they took all the required safety precautions.

Case Law:

  • In the case of Rylands v Fletcher, the defendant hired an independent contractor to build a reservoir. The contractors neglected to notice the ancient, abandoned shafts beneath the reservoir site and chose not to block them. Upon filling the reservoir, the water poured through the shafts and inundated the coal mines owned by the plaintiff on the adjacent property.
  • Despite not being careless and beingunaware of the shaft, the defendant was nevertheless found accountable. ‘No fault’ liability is another term for this. In this instance, the ruling recognized “strict liability,” which means that the defendant may still be held accountable even in the absence of negligence or intentional harm.

To guarantee justice and maintain social order, it makes sense to comprehend the basic principles of the many different types of liabilities found under the virtue of the Indian Penal Code. To effectively navigate the complex rules of the Indian legal system and support a fair and peaceful society, legal experts, law enforcement organizations, and the general public must possess an in-depth understanding of these obligations.

Leave a Comment