Effect caused partly by act and partly by omission
Section 36 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 deals with effect caused partly by act and partly by omission. Wherever the causing of a certain effect, or an attempt to cause that effect, by an act or by an omission, is an offence, it is to be understood that the causing of that effect partly by an act and partly by an omission is the same offence. The Act came into force on 01 Jan 1862. Repealed by section 358 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (45 of 2023) with effect from 1 July 2024, but conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under it.
Wherever the causing of a certain effect, or an attempt to cause that effect, by an act or by an omission, is an offence, it is to be understood that the causing of that effect partly by an act and partly by an omission is the same offence.
Illustration
A intentionally causes Z's death, partly by illegally omitting to give Z food, and party by beating Z. A has committed murder.
Section 36, The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860).
Now in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita
BNS 3 General explanations Close, with changes 67%
Measured by comparing the text of the two provisions, not taken from an official correspondence table — there is no machine-readable one. See both texts side by side before relying on it.
Both regimes are live. The repealed enactment still governs what happened while it was in force. We never redirect one to the other.
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Gopal Ansal vs State Tr. C. B. I
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of criminal negligence causing mass casualties in public places, particularly where the convict is advanced in age and health, the court may enhance the sentence from the High Court's award to the maximum prescribed under law, but may substitute the enhanced portion with substantial fines directed toward constructive public purposes (such as trauma centre construction and healthcare infrastructure development), with the alternative of full imprisonment if fines are not paid within the specified timeframe. The principle of parity requires that similarly situated convicts receive similar sentencing treatment. Courts may creatively deploy sentencing to serve both retributive justice (through financial liability) and restorative justice (through victim-benefiting infrastructure) simultaneously.
On this section: Act of a person of unsound mind - read with primary sections to establish liability
-
Harsarup Panwar vs State(nct of Delhi) Thr. Cbi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In criminal cases involving death by negligence where the accused have already undergone substantial portion of sentence and are willing to pay substantial fine, such fine can be substituted for remaining imprisonment period if the fine amount is directed towards a public purpose serving restorative justice and community welfare, and this approach is particularly appropriate when the accused are aged or infirm and the victims' families are not seeking monetary compensation. The appropriate quantum of sentence in such cases must balance the gravity of offense (number of deaths and injuries) with mitigating factors such as advanced age, willingness to pay fine, and opportunity to serve public purpose through fine amount.
On this section: Provides for Act of person who by reason of unsoundness of mind does not know nature of act, quality of act, or that it is wrong; cited in conjunction with Section 304-A in the conviction charges.
-
Association of Victim of Uphar Tragedy vs Sushil Ansal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of criminal negligence resulting in mass casualties where the legal maximum sentence available is not commensurate with the gravity of the offense and the number of victims, and where the accused are of advanced age or suffering from serious health conditions, and where crime victims do not seek traditional compensation, the court may substitute imprisonment with substantial monetary penalty directed towards public welfare purposes (such as trauma center establishment) that serve both criminal accountability and victim-protective objectives. The sentence may be further reduced to period already undergone upon payment of such fine. Principles of parity require similarly-situated accused to receive proportional treatment unless material differences in culpability exist.
On this section: Applied for act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention; used to establish common criminal act by cinema owners in creating unsafe conditions
-
Sushil Ansal vs State Thr. Cbi
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases involving mass casualty criminal negligence, the appropriate sentence should balance the gravity of the offense with the circumstances of the accused, and when imprisonment becomes unfruitful due to advanced age or health conditions, a substantial fine directed towards public purpose (such as healthcare infrastructure) can be imposed in substitution for additional imprisonment, while ensuring that at least the minimum sentence proportionate to culpability is served. The approval of authorities for certain safety measures does not absolve the accused of criminal responsibility for negligence in their domain of control.
On this section: Act of body of persons - applied to hold the cinema establishment collectively liable for acts of management in maintaining safety standards
-
State through C. B. I vs Sushil Ansal
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
In cases of criminal negligence resulting in mass casualties, where the accused has undergone substantial imprisonment and demonstrates willingness to make meaningful financial contribution, and where such financial contribution can be directed towards public welfare purposes serving the interests of victims and society, courts may appropriately substitute a portion of enhanced sentence with substantial fines, particularly when age and health conditions of aged accused make further imprisonment unduly burdensome. The quantum of such fines must reflect the gravity of the offense while balancing principles of mercy and proportionality. The conviction itself remains unaffected by such sentence modifications, ensuring accountability is maintained.
On this section: Act of person bound by law when applicable to person subject to that law - applied to cinema owners as business operators subject to safety regulations
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Questions about Section 36
What have the courts held on Section 36 of the Indian Penal Code?
Gopal Ansal vs State Tr. C. B. I (22 Sep 2015) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: Act of a person of unsound mind - read with primary sections to establish liability. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court.
How do I find court cases under Section 36 of the Indian Penal Code?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: IPC 36, section 36 IPC, section 36 of the Indian Penal Code. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Gopal Ansal vs State Tr. C. B. I (22 Sep 2015).
What should I read with Section 36 of the Indian Penal Code, and has it changed?
For anything done on or after 1 July 2024 the provision to read is BNS 3 (General explanations), which replaced it; conduct before that date is still charged, tried and appealed under this section.
When did Section 36 of the Indian Penal Code come into force?
Section 36 of the Indian Penal Code, cited as IPC 36, came into force on 01 Jan 1862, having been enacted on 06 Oct 1860. It is no longer in force.
Other sections of this Act
- 499. Defamation1512 words
- 464. Making a false document1223 words
- 300. Murder1172 words
- 378. Theft980 words
- 108. Abettor745 words
- 403. Dishonest misappropriation of property727 words
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Recovered from the consolidated text published by India Code (item 7b7d4fe6-206b-4e33-81f1-b98b018acaf6). This page is not a substitute for legal advice.