Legal provisions regarding Meaning of Mischief under section 425 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Meaning of Mischief:
Section 425 of the I PC is based on the principle enunciated in the maxim ‘sic utere tuo ut allenum non leadas’ which means, “use your own property, so as not to injure your neighbour’s (or others) property”. ‘Mischief comprises of a mental element, mens rea and a physical element, actus reus. Mens rea lies in the doer’s intent to cause, or knowledge that he is likely to cause, ‘wrongful loss’ or, ‘damage’ to any person. The actus reus for mischief is the destruction of property or any change in its situation that destroys or diminishes its value or utility.
Image Source: f1.bcbits.com
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Section 425 requires three things:
1) Intention or knowledge of likelihood to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person.
2) Causing the destruction of some property or any change in it or in its situation; and
ADVERTISEMENTS:
3) Such change must destroy or diminish its value or utility, or affect it injuriously.
To constitute an offence of mischief under Section 425 it has to be shown that the accused person intentionally or knowingly caused the destruction of any property or any such change in the property or in its situation thereof.
The word ‘mischief here defined has been used in a special sense as a term of act as implying the causing of such unlawful injury to property as is punishable by law. The first and its most essential element is the intent to cause, or knowledge that he is likely to cause, wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person. This furnishes the mens rea but for which there can be no offence.
It is true that mens rea is an essential ingredient or the offence of mischief and evidence of the same may be inferred from the overt act done by the accused. In some cases the offence is said to lie in the intention but this is inaccurate, for as apparent from the section, the offence may be equally committed if there is no intention but merely a knowledge of likelihood, the question of intention being then material only as regards the sentence.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Where a person is driving a car with hopelessly poor light, he can certainly be imputed with the knowledge that the result of his act is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to any person though there may be no intention to cause wrongful loss or damage to the public or to any person.
‘Mischief as defined in Section 425, IPC, relates not merely to intention but also to knowledge of the likelihood of wrongful loss being caused. Even if there is no intention, but there is knowledge that a particular act will result in wrongful loss or damage, then such act will fall under the definition of mischief. It is enough if the accused knew that by blocking the channel through which the persons who had a right to take water for their own lands, wrongful loss would be caused to the persons.
The intention (or knowledge) referred here is the real and not a hypothetical intention (or knowledge) though in most cases it is a matter or inference rather than of direct proof. As such, it is a question of fact and not of law. Intention or knowledge is facts that can be gauged by the action of the accused person in the circumstances of each case.
The offence of mischief under Section 425 covers not just acts which result in wrongful loss, but also instances of all types of damage by unlawful means, which are actuated with the intention or knowledge to cause the same. The term ‘damage’ involves an invasion of right and diminution of the value of one’s property, which must have been contemplated by the doer of it when he did it.
The damage need not necessarily consist in the infringement of an existing, present and complete right, but it may be caused by an act done with the intention of defeating and rendering in fructuous a right to come into existence.
The term ‘wrongful loss or damage’ necessarily includes within its coverage that which is caused by unlawful means. The definition of mischief comprehends not just a situation when the property is destroyed. In many instances, the property may not be destroyed in such a way that it no longer can be used. There exists a possibility when the property has been changed in such a way that its use, value or utility is changed.
Even if the accused were to have a right in any property, that does not entitle them to take law into their own hands and cause damage to the property of others.
An act will not be a mischief, merely because it was the result of negligence for the definition of mischief itself requires mens rea as a necessary condition.
The wrongful loss arising out of destruction contemplated by Section 425 must be in reference to some other person and not to the owner himself, who destroys or damages the property.
It is the essence of the offence of mischief in Section 425 that the perpetrator must cause the destruction of property or such change in it as destroys or diminishes its value or utility.
The ‘destruction’ or ‘change’ should be contrary to the natural use and serviceableness of the property in question. ‘Change’ means a physical change in composition or form. Section 425 contemplates a physical injury from a physical cause.
The expression ‘change in property so as to destroy or diminish its value or utility’ does not necessarily mean a change in character, composition or form. If something is done to the property contrary to its natural use and serviceability that destroys or diminishes its value or utility, it will amount to mischief.
‘Property’ means some tangible property capable of being forcibly destroyed but does not include an easement. Section 425 refers to corporeal property and provides for cases in which such property is either destroyed or altered or otherwise damaged with a particular intent. The offence of mischief may be committed in respect of both movable and immovable property.
Destruction or diminution in value of the property regarding which the offence is committed is essential. The value is not to be considered as market value or utility. Section 425 can only mean the value or utility which the object possesses prior to the change it was forced to undergo by the unlawful methods.
The term ‘utility’ referred in Section 425 is that conceived by the owner and not by the accused. The owner or possessor is entitled to his notion of utility of his goods and nobody can force his ideas of utility on others by taking their property from them and altering in a manner which they disapprove.
Thus, where the value or utility of the property has been diminished, or it has been destroyed, only in such circumstances can it be said that the offence of mischief has been established. Destruction or diminution in value and utility, however, must be immediate or proximate consequence of the alleged act of the accused.
According to Explanation 1 to Section 425, it is not necessary that the property destroyed should belong to the person injuriously affected. It is sufficient if he suffers loss of interest due to destruction of such property. Illustrations (c) and (f) exemplify this Explanation.
According to Explanation 2 to Section 425, one may commit an offence under Section 425 even by the destruction of his own property. Illustrations (b) and (g) show that a man may commit mischief on his own property. A person who destroys property which at the time belongs to himself, with the intention of causing or knowing that it is likely to cause wrongful loss or damage to anybody else is guilty of this offence.
In illustrations (a) and (d) the actus reus is destruction by burning or otherwise. In illustration (b), the actus reus is by change of the property by causing ice to be melted. Causing a ring to disappear is the wrongful act in illustration (c). Casting away of a ship is the wrongful act in illustrations (e) and (f). Destruction by shooting a horse and causing damage to crops through cattle constitute the actus reus in illustrations (g) and (h) respectively.