IPC Section 36 : Effect Caused Partly By Act And Partly By Omission

In criminal law, determining liability often depends not only on what a person does, but also on what they fail to do. While most offences involve an active criminal act (actus reus), there are instances where a combination of action and inaction leads to a punishable consequence. This is where IPC Section 36 becomes relevant.

IPC Section 36 [Now replaced by BNS section 3(7)] acknowledges that a criminal effect or consequence can arise partly from an act and partly from an omission. It ensures that offenders cannot escape liability by claiming they only committed part of the offence or did nothing at all.

In This Blog, You Will Learn:

• What does IPC Section 36 legally mean
• The meaning of “act” vs “omission” in criminal law
• When partial omission leads to full liability
• Real-life examples and legal illustrations
• How it works in combination with other IPC sections
• Important judicial interpretations

What Is IPC Section 36?

Legal Definition:

“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.”

Simplified Explanation

IPC Section 36 says that if an act becomes criminal either by doing something (an act) or by not doing something (an omission), then a combination of both—action + omission—can also make a person fully liable.

This provision closes the legal loophole where someone might avoid punishment by claiming they only partially contributed to the offence, or only omitted to act.

Understanding "Act" vs "Omission"

• Act: A positive step taken by a person that results in a consequence (e.g., pushing someone off a ledge).
• Omission: A failure to act where the law imposes a duty to act (e.g., not feeding a dependent child).

IPC Section 36 bridges the gap when both occur together, and the final result is a criminal consequence.

Example

Example 1: Negligent Medical Care

A doctor administers the wrong medicine (an act) and also fails to monitor the patient afterward (an omission), resulting in the patient's death. The offence is caused partly by act and partly by omission.

Example 2: Fire Escape Blocked

An employer locks an emergency exit (act) and fails to conduct regular fire drills (omission). During a fire, employees die due to both factors. Liability arises under Section 36 for causing death by combined negligence.

Key Elements Of IPC Section 36

To invoke IPC Section 36, the following must be present:

• A legally recognized duty to act or avoid a certain act
• A criminal effect (like death, injury, or damage)
• A combination of both doing something wrong and failing to do something necessary
• A clear causal link between the act/omission and the result

Application With Other IPC Sections

IPC Section 36 is not standalone—it applies along with other IPC provisions like:

• Section 304A – Causing death by negligence
• Section 269/270 – Negligent acts likely to spread infection
• Section 375 (Explanation) – Consent obtained by silence may involve omission
• Section 299/300 – Culpable homicide and murder when neglect is involved

Case Laws On IPC Section 36

Indian courts have recognized the importance of this provision, especially in cases involving death, public duty, and professional negligence. Here are notable examples:

1. Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT, Delhi (2004)

Facts:
Dr. Suresh Gupta, a plastic surgeon, was accused of medical negligence under Section 304A IPC after a patient died during a nasal surgery. The prosecution alleged that a wrong incision led to blood entering the respiratory tract, causing death.

Held:
In the case of Suresh Gupta v. Government of NCT, Delhi (2004) Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings, emphasizing that gross negligence (not mere error) is required for criminal liability. While not explicitly citing Section 36, the case underscores how negligence could involve both acts (surgical error) and omissions (failure to monitor post-surgery), aligning with Section 36’s principle of combined liability.

2. Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983)

Facts:
A life convict, Mithu, was charged under Section 303 IPC (mandatory death penalty for murder by a life-term prisoner). The provision was challenged as unconstitutional.

Held:
In the case of Mithu v. State of Punjab (1983) Supreme Court struck down Section 303 IPC, ruling that mandatory death penalties violate constitutional rights. While the case focused on sentencing, it indirectly highlights how legal liability (e.g., acts of murder and systemic omissions in prison safety) can combine to create offenses, resonating with Section 36’s logic.

3. Sandeep Arjun Kudale v. State of Maharashtra (2023)

Facts:
The petitioner was charged under Section 153A IPC for allegedly making inflammatory comments. The court examined whether his speech constituted an intent to incite violence.

Held:
In the case of Sandeep Arjun Kudale v. State of Maharashtra (2023) Bombay High Court quashed charges, noting that criticism or dissent (act of speech) without overt incitement (omission of violent intent) does not attract Section 153A. This aligns with Section 36’s framework, where liability depends on evaluating both actions and contextual omissions.

Conclusion

IPC Section 36 plays a vital role in ensuring that partial responsibility does not lead to complete immunity. It reflects the principle that both actions and inactions can be equally dangerous, and when they work together to produce a criminal consequence, the law must treat them as one complete offence.

In modern legal contexts like medical negligence, industrial accidents, and custodial deaths, Section 36 acts as a bridge between intent, action, and duty of care. It strengthens accountability and ensures that offenders cannot hide behind the technicalities of partial participation.

FAQs On IPC Section 36

To clarify how IPC Section 36 operates in real-world legal scenarios, here are some commonly asked questions:

Q1: Is IPC Section 36 a standalone offence?

No. Section 36 is not an independent offence—it is applied along with another IPC section where an act and omission together cause a criminal effect.

Q2: Can omission alone result in liability?

Yes, if the person had a legal duty to act, and the omission caused the criminal result, it can result in liability, even without IPC 36.

Q3: How is Section 36 different from Section 34 or 35?

• Section 34: Joint acts with common intention
• Section 35: Joint acts with shared knowledge or intention
• Section 36: A single person’s liability due to a mix of action and omission

Q4: Is this section useful in professional negligence cases?

Absolutely. Section 36 is often used in cases involving doctors, engineers, employers, and public servants where inaction and wrongful action lead to harm.