This article is written by Shaivy Maheshwari, from Symbiosis Law School, Noida. This article briefly explains about Section 425 of Indian Penal Code. 

Introduction  

“A person commits mischief if he causes destruction of property knowing that he is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or any person even if an intention to cause that damage is not made out”.

While the Indian Penal Code provides with a lot of provisions dealing with the protection of a person and public tranquility, efforts have also been made to extend these rights to include a person’s private property or property belonging to the public. Trespass is one such example in which it is ensured that no person without any prior permission of the owner, illegally enters into the domain of his property.

Mischief

Section 425 of the IPC defines the crime of mischief which ensures that a property belonging to a person is not damaged by someone else without the prior permission of the owner. Hence, even though a person has not moved the property but he has completely destroyed or shrunk its value or usage to the extent that it does not appear or can be used in the same manner that it was before the act of the perpetrator, mischief is said to have occurred.  It is based upon the principle ‘sic utre tuo ut allenum non leadas’ which means that ‘use your own property, so as not to injure your neighbor’s property’[2] . Hence, this law protects the owner or any person associated with a property from any kind of wrongful harm caused by others.

Area of Law 

The crime of mischief deals covers the domain of offences against private or public properties excluding the act of conversion. However in such cases, the assessment of compensation for the consequential loss becomes difficult. Explanation 1 to section 425 adds up the element of intention by saying that it would be sufficient for the crime of mischief if the person has the idea that his act is going to cause some kind of loss to the property belonging to a person irrespective of the fact that whether that property actually belongs to him or not.

Need of the Act

Hence, the act provides for a method through which a person can be held guilty if he wrongfully intends to permanently damage or diminish the property belonging to a person or public. When a person takes away the property belonging to another theft is said to have occurred but what in the case that he diminishes the value or damages it completely without claiming or taking away its possession? That is when mischief comes into the picture. The section covers damages done to both movable and immovable properties.

What happens when a property other than the property which was intended is damaged?

The presence of mens rea is a prerequisite in this case. In order to become guilty, a person should have acted in such a manner that a particular targeted property is destroyed in order to cause loss to a person. It is also immaterial that whether the person is actually the owner of the property or is in some way associated with it. What matters is that he suffers loss of some kind due to the act of the doer. 

The offence of mischief imports an act done willfully and not merely negligently].So, if in the process there is damage to any other property as a consequence, it would not itself constitute mischief. Intention should be proved prima facie in such cases. Also, it is material to note that this offence lays in the intention of a person. When there is no intention to cause harm to the other person be it owner or possessor, he would not be liable. For example – In the case where the property of a person is damaged due to the vibrations caused to it by the property installed by his neighbor, it would not constitute this mischief as the destruction of the property was not intended but was rather merely a consequence of the usage of his own property.

What is the degree of harm casted upon a property in order to constitute mischief?

In order to constitute mischief, it is necessary that there is some kind of harm that has been casted upon the property/commodity such that it does not remain what it was before. This can vary from merely changing the shape to the usage to complete destruction of the property.

The degree of harm has no impact over the question of whether mischief has taken place or not. What is important is the irreversible act of the doer which changes the value or the structure of the property. The harm can vary from complete destruction to a mere change of shape of the property or from partial destruction to change in the value or usage of the commodity. Hence, it covers all types of damage that are done by unlawful means. There is no threshold value of the loss that has been suffered in order to constitute mischief. Hence, any value, even if it was trifling, may be sufficient to find a person guilty if the other ingredients are established.

How does explanation 1 to section 425 help in determining the intention of a person?

This explanation further enunciates the kind of intention that is material to constitute the crime of mischief. It makes a fine distinction between the person who has been harmed and the person who the accused intended to harm. It explains that every act that is based upon causing harm to another person constitutes mischief irrespective of the fact that whether that person has been actually harmed or some other person is harmed as a result of the act. It is not necessary that the accused should be benefitted by the act of damaging the property belonging to another. Here, the mens rea is not benefiting oneself but causing wrongful loss to the other person. Therefore, while defending the accused would not say that he did not gain something from the act and therefore would not be held liable. 

The essential element is that the harm to a person should have been intended while causing damage to the property in question.Hence, it is not essential that the owner of the property that has been damaged should necessarily be at loss but it would be sufficient if a person is at loss due to the act of the accused. 

For example – If a man destroys the crops of a farmland over which the ownership is had been distributed, it does not matter if he intended to provide wrongful loss to one of them, by doing such an act and narrowing down the value of the property, would be liable to all of them.

Necessary ingredients to prove that a person is guilty under this Act

• Mens Rea

In order to become guilty under this section a person should know that the consequence of his act would be damage to other person’s property. He should have seen that by doing such an act, a party whether a particular person or general public should be at loss. The loss can be wholly (destroying the property altogether) or party by lowering down the value of the property. In the case of Juggeshwar Das, the court said that “It requires merely that there should be an invasion of a right, and diminution of the value of one’s property, caused by that invasion of right, which must have been contemplated by the doer of it when he did it.”

It is therefore conclusive that a mere negligent act of a person which causes loss to the other person by diminishing the value of the property would not itself amount to negligence. The person should have foreseen that by doing such an act he would intentionally cause loss to another person.

• Should cause damage

It is essential that the property in question must have suffered some harm or the other such that it does not remain what it was originally before the act was done. Also, it is necessary to note that even if the property was in any way associated with the accused or he had a right over it in any way, still this would not entitle him to diminish the value of the property in such cases. This is because the law would never encourage a party to not follow the legal recourse in any matter. Thus in the case of Arjuna Gouda v. State of Orissa, the accused was held guilty merely because he had some right over the land of the defendant does not mean that he would destroy the crops of that field.

• The worth of the property should decrease

Take the example of a newly purchased computer, it’s present value would be nearly the market value. Now, if someone in order to cause damage to the owner puts a scratch on the screen of the monitor, the market value of the commodity quickly decreases. Here, it is worth noting that even though a scratch would not decrease the usage of the computer but it surely decreases its market value.

Although sometimes there is an unclear line of distinction between the crimes of theft and mischief. In the case where the accused took his cattle to graze on the land belonging to other person, he would be guilty of theft and not mischief. Thus in the case of Palaniandi Muthirian v Ramaswamy Reddy the court said that by sending his cattle to graze to the land belonging to the owner, the accused infringed the right of the owner.

Quantum of punishment 

Section 426 signifies the standard quantum of punishment which shall be given in cases of mischief. It says that the person committing the act of mischief could be imprisoned which can extend to three months or he could be made liable for fine or he can be punished with both. Section 427 onwards till section 440, special/aggravated cases of mischief have been referred to in which different quantums of punishment with respect to each case has been specified.

These are essentially based on:

(1)  The value of the damage caused;

(2)  The nature of the property damaged;

(3)  The method adopted to cause damage; and

(4)  Other criminal motives influencing the act.

Conclusion

Section 425 of the Indian Penal Code defines the crime of mischief ensuring that a person’s personal property remains protected from the wrongful damage by another. It deals with the area of offences against private or public properties excluding the act of conversion. Both movable and immovable properties are covered under this section. Explanation 1 to this section further enunciates the mens rea that is required in such cases in addition to the actus reus by saying that it is not necessary if a person intends to cause damage to the owner of the property that has been affected but rather it would be sufficient if any person is at wrongful loss as a result of the damage that has been constituted upon the property. There is often some kind of nexus between the crime of theft and the crime of mischief but this can be dealt easily by looking upon the act of a person and matching it with the intention which is necessary to constitute mischief.

There are four ingredients which are necessary to constitute mischief. These are intentions to cause damage, actual causation of damage and decline in the utility of the property. The intention must be such that there should not be merely negligence but a person should know that the consequence of his act would be damage to other person’s property. He should have seen that by doing such an act, a party whether a particular person or general public should be at loss. It is also essential that the property must have suffered some harm or the other such that it does not remain what it was originally before the act was done. The degree of harm has no impact over the question of whether mischief has taken place or not. It is sufficient that some kind of harm has been inflicted resulting in the damage of some kind to the property. What is important is the irreversible act of the doer which changes the value or the structure of the property. There is no threshold value of the loss that has been suffered in order to constitute mischief. Hence, this provides that a person’s property whether movable or immovable remains protected even if the doer does not take it but only causes some kind of harm to it.

References

PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law. 11. Gurgaon: LexisNexis, 2012.

Textbook on Criminal Law. 13. New York : Oxford University Press, 2009.

Gibbons, S. (2004). The Costs of Urban Property Crime. The Economic Journal, 114(499), F441-F463.

Locke, J., Rousseau, J., Bentham, J., Marx, K., Mill, J., Green, T., . Reich, C. (1978). Property: Mainstream and Critical Positions (MACPHERSON C., Ed.). TORONTO; BUFFALO: University of Toronto Press.

O’Connor, P. (1983). Irish Jurist (1966-), 18(2), new series, 380-382. 

Wasik, M. (1988). Criminal Damage/Criminal Mischief. Anglo-American Law Review, 17(1), 37–45. 

[1] Kastur Chand v. State of Tripura AIR 1955 Cri LJ 1304.

[2]  PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law. 11. Gurgaon: LexisNexis, 2012.

[3] O’Connor, P. (1983). Irish Jurist (1966-), 18(2), new series, 380-382. 

[4] Section 425 Indian Penal Code, 1860

[5] AkidiiUah (1911) 13 Cri LJ 536.

[6] Bihar State Electricity Board v. Nand Kishore Tamakhuwala AIR 1986 Cr Lj 1246.

[7] Shama (1874) Unrep Cr G 88.

[8] Vellayya Konar And Anr. v. Ramaswami Konar And Anr AIR 1939 Mad 400, 1940 Cr Lj 656.

[9] Golam Ahia v. Lutfal Hoda And Anr. AIR 1955 Cal 558, 1955 CriLJ 1357.

[10] JuggeshwarDass v. Koylash Chunder Chatterjee(1885) 12 Cal 55.

[11] JuggeshwarDass v. Koylash Chunder Chatterjee(1885) 12 Cal 55.

[12] Arjuna Gouda v. State of Orissa AIR 1969 Ori 200, (1969) Cr Lj 999.

[13]  Palaniandi Muthirian v Ramaswamy Reddy AIR 1942 Mad 5, (1930) Cr Lj 3126.

[14] PSA Pillai’s Criminal Law. 11. Gurgaon: LexisNexis, 2012.

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join: