Section 5: The appropriate Government may, without the consent of the offender, commute

of sentence. any punishment under this Sanhita to any other punishment in accordance with section 474
of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
Explanation.––For the purposes of this section the expression “appropriate
Government” means,––
(a) in cases where the sentence is a sentence of death or is for an offence
against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the Union extends,
the Central Government; and
(b) in cases where the sentence (whether of death or not) is for an offence
against any law relating to a matter to which the executive power of the State extends,
the Government of the State within which the offender is sentenced.
conspiracy that the abettor should concert the offence with the person who commits it. It is
sufficient if he engages in the conspiracy in pursuance of which the offence is committed.
Illustration.
A concerts with B a plan for poisoning Z. It is agreed that A shall administer the poison.
B then explains the plan to C mentioning that a third person is to administer the poison, but
without mentioning A’s name. C agrees to procure the poison, and procures and delivers it to
B for the purpose of its being used in the manner explained. A administers the poison; Z dies
in consequence. Here, though A and C have not conspired together, yet C has been engaged
in the conspiracy in pursuance of which Z has been murdered. C has therefore committed the
offence defined in this section and is liable to the punishment for murder.
being above the age of eighteen years, suffers death or takes the risk of death with his own
consent.
Illustration.
A, by instigation, voluntarily causes Z, a child to commit suicide. Here, on account of
Z’s youth, he was incapable of giving consent to his own death; A has therefore abetted
murder.

34 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY
____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________ [Part II—
_____________________________________________________________
____________
and may be given either by the person in possession, or by any person having for that
purpose authority either express or implied.
Illustrations.
(a) A cuts down a tree on Z’s ground, with the intention of dishonestly taking the tree
out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent. Here, as soon as A has severed the tree in order
to such taking, he has committed theft.
(b) A puts a bait for dogs in his pocket, 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 Z’s consent. A
has committed theft as soon as Z’s dog has begun to follow A.
(c) A meets a bullock carrying a box of treasure. He drives the bullock in a certain
direction, in order that he may dishonestly take the treasure. As soon as the bullock begins
to move, A has committed theft of the treasure.
(d) A being Z’s servant, and entrusted by Z with the care of Z’s plate, dishonestly runs
away with the plate, without Z’s consent. A has committed theft.
(e) Z, going on a journey, entrusts his plate to A, the keeper of a warehouse, till Z shall
return. A carries the plate to a goldsmith and sells it. Here the plate was not in Z’s possession.
It could not therefore be taken out of Z’s possession, and A has not committed theft, though
he may have committed criminal breach of trust.

Sec. 1] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY
____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________ 79
_____________________________________________________________
____________

(f) A finds a ring belonging to Z on a table in the house which Z occupies. Here the ring
is in Z’s possession, and if A dishonestly removes it, A commits theft.

(g) A finds a ring lying on the highroad, not in the possession of any person. A, by
taking it, commits no theft, though he may commit criminal misappropriation of property.

(h) A sees a ring belonging to Z lying on a table in Z’s house. Not venturing to
misappropriate the ring immediately for fear of search and detection, A hides the ring in a
place where it is highly improbable that it will ever be found by Z, with the intention of taking
the ring from the hiding place and selling it when the loss is forgotten. Here A, at the time of
first moving the ring, commits theft.

(i) A delivers his watch to Z, a jeweler, to be regulated. Z carries it to his shop. A, not
owing to the jeweler any debt for which the jeweler might lawfully detain the watch as a
security, enters the shop openly, takes his watch by force out of Z’s hand, and carries it away.
Here A, though he may have committed criminal trespass and assault, has not committed
theft, in as much as what he did was not done dishonestly.

(j) If A owes money to Z for repairing the watch, and if Z retains the watch lawfully as
a security for the debt, and A takes the watch out of Z’s possession, with the intention of
depriving Z of the property as a security for his debt, he commits theft, in as much as he takes
it dishonestly.

(k) Again, if A, having pawned his watch to Z, takes it out of Z’s possession without
Z’s consent, not having paid what he borrowed on the watch, he commits theft, though the
watch is his own property in as much as he takes it dishonestly.

(l) A takes an article belonging to Z out of Z’s possession without Z’s consent, with
the intention of keeping it until he obtains money from Z as a reward for its restoration. Here
A takes dishonestly; A has therefore committed theft.

(m) A, being on friendly terms with Z, goes into Z’s library in Z’s absence, and takes
away a book without Z’s express consent for the purpose merely of reading it, and with the
intention of returning it. Here, it is probable that A may have conceived that he had Z’s
implied consent to use Z’s book. If this was A’s impression, A has not committed theft.

(n) A asks charity from Z’s wife. She gives A money, food and clothes, which A knows
to belong to Z her husband. Here it is probable that A may conceive that Z’s wife is authorised
to give away alms. If this was A’s impression, A has not committed theft.

(o) A is the paramour of Z’s wife. She gives a valuable property, which A knows to
belong to her husband Z, and to be such property as she has no authority from Z to give. If
A takes the property dishonestly, he commits theft.

(p) A, in good faith, believing property belonging to Z to be A’s own property, takes
that property out of Z’s possession. Here, as A does not take dishonestly, he does not
commit theft.

(2) 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 and in case of second
or subsequent conviction of any person under this section, he shall be punished with
rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend
to five years and with fine:

Provided that in cases of theft where the value of the stolen property is less than five
thousand rupees, and a person is convicted for the first time, shall upon return of the value
of property or restoration of the stolen property, shall be punished with community service.

80 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA EXTRAORDINARY
____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________ [Part II—
_____________________________________________________________
____________
respecting the merits of any case, civil or criminal, which has been decided by a Court, or
respecting the conduct of any person as a party, witness or agent, in any such case, or
respecting the character of such person, as far as his character appears in that conduct, and
no further.
Illustrations.
(a) A says—“I think Z’s evidence on that trial is so contradictory that he must be
stupid or dishonest”. A is within this exception if he says this in good faith, in as much as the
opinion which he expresses respects Z’s character as it appears in Z’s conduct as a witness,
and no further.
(b) But if A says—“I do not believe what Z asserted at that trial because I know him to
be a man without veracity”; A is not within this exception, in as much as the opinion which
expresses of Z’s character, is an opinion not founded on Z’s conduct as a witness.