IPC Section 427- Mischief Causing Damage To The Amount Of Fifty Rupees

The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) is the backbone of the Indian criminal justice system. It provides for definitions of various offences and the respective punishments attached to them. One such important provision is Section 427 where the act of mischief resulting in great damage to property, is criminalised with a punishment. The primary objective of this Section is to prevent evil acts that cause destruction or damage to property with proper compensation to the victims of such offences. 

Legal Provision: IPC Section 427- Mischief Causing Damage

“Section 427- Mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees—

Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

Simplified Explanation Of IPC Section 427

Key elements of Section 427 are as follows:

• Mischief: The offence covered under Section 425 of the Code.

• Damage of fifty rupees or upwards: The damage so caused must be measurable and should be of a sum exceeding fifty rupees for it to attract punishment under this Section

• Punishment: The punishment is imprisonment of either description which may extend up to two years, or fine or both.

Section 427 provides for punishment of the offence committed by any person who damages any property, so long as the loss caused amounts to fifty rupees or more. The punishment may extend to imprisonment of either description which may extend up to two years; or may award a fine or both. The law, in essence, is intended to deter people from intentionally causing destruction to the property of others.

Practical Examples Illustrating IPC Section 427

Section 427 of the Code provides the punishment for mischief that causes damage amounting to fifty rupees or upward. These can be explained in basic terms with examples as follows: 

• A person breaks the windshield of a car: Assume that a man, in anger, breaks the windshield of the car of another man. The windshield is repaired at over fifty rupees. Here, this man has done mischief under Section 427 because his intentional act caused over fifty-rupee worth of damage to the property of another. He can be punished with imprisonment extending up to two years, or with a fine or with both.

• Destroying crops of a farmer: Suppose somebody maliciously sets fire to the crops of a farmer and the damage exceeds fifty rupees. The offender will be guilty of mischief under Section 427 for causing wilful damage to the crops.

• Damage to a shop: If a man deliberately scatters paint or wrecks the windows of a shop. If the expenses of cleansing or repairing the damage exceed fifty rupees, the man would be liable under Section 427 for having caused this damage

• Damage to public property: Let's take an example when a person breaks street lights or damages a public bench in the park and the cost to repair them is above fifty rupees. This again is under mischief causing damage and liable to punishment in the context of Section 427.

In simpler words, this law punishes an individual for intentionally harming the property belonging to somebody else where the damage exceeds or is at least fifty rupees.

Penalties And Punishments Under IPC Section 427

The penalties provided under Section 427 are:

• Imprisonment: Imprisonment shall not exceed two years and it shall be either rigorous or simple.

• Fine: The Court is given the discretion to fine anybody liable under Section 427. 

• Both: The accused can be sentenced to both, i.e., imprisonment and be liable for a fine. It depends on the scale of damage caused and the conditions wherein the mischief is done.

Application And Relevance Of Section 427 Of IPC In The Modern Day 

This Section remains relevant in the contemporary Indian era, where disputes over property, acts of vandalism, and damages caused in public and private properties are a very common affair. A few of the most prominent areas where this Section finds application are:

• Vandalism and Destruction of Public Property: When cases of protests, political rallies, and mob-violence occur, the public property goes under destruction such as burning buses, throwing stones at government buildings, road blockades, etc. Section 427 empowers the Court to punish those involved in it and take recourse for claiming compensation.

• Commercial Disputes: This Section applies whenever there is damage to property during a business dispute and the value of damages caused to property reaches above fifty rupees.

• Domestic Disputes: Section 427 is applied when domestic altercations lead to malicious damage to the assets belonging to the household property.

• Damage to Environmental Assets: This Section is also applicable where mischief is done against the environmental assets such as trees, water resources, or local public parks if the loss caused can be quantified in terms of money.

Challenging In Enforcement Of Section 427

Section 427 of the Code plays an important role on  our criminal justice system, however, there are certain challenges behind its enforcement:

• Determining the actual value of the damage caused: Generally, there is always a controversy regarding the exact amount of damage inflicted. Courts require tangible evidence, like expert opinion or physical examination, which establishes whether the threshold of fifty rupees has been crossed.

• Evidence of proving the intent: The prosecution has to prove that the accused had a deliberate intent to do the harm and cause damage. It can also be challenging, where the inflicted damage was indirect or accidental.

• Numerous offenders: When there is violence by a mob or a mass, it is again very burdensome for the police to identify and trace the particular offenders responsible for the damage caused.

Notable Case Laws Related To IPC Section 427

Sippattar Singh & Ors. vs. Krishna (1957)

In this case, the accused cut and removed the sugarcane crop of Smt. Krishan. On a prima facie reading, it appears to satisfy the elements of mischief and wrongful loss/damage which form the core constituents of Section 427. The Sessions Judge and then the High Court concluded that cutting the ripe sugarcane, on its own did not amount to “mischief” as defined under Section 425, which forms a prerequisite for Section 427. The inference drawn by the Court was that since the sugarcane had already become ripe, it would have been cut in any event, and thus the act of cutting made it no less valuable or useful. The emphasis for Section 425 and thus 427, conviction is on the destruction of the value or the utility of the property, which was not established in the cutting of the sugarcane.

Kashiben Chhaganbhai Koli vs. State Of Gujarat (2008)

This appeal arises from a conviction on a charge of mischief (Section 425) under the Code. Kashiben Chhaganbhai Koli was involved in a dispute over the sale of agricultural land in Gujarat, with a purchaser, Kanchhibhai. The buyer claimed that he was wrongfully dispossessed of the land and his crop of sugarcane was destroyed by the seller. Here, the appellant was convicted for wrongfully entering the land of the complainant, tilling the same and destroying his crop of sugarcane. This act was held to fulfil the ingredients of the mischief as defined by Section 425 of the Code. Therefore, his appeal against conviction under Section 427 of the Code was dismissed by the Court.

The Court elaborated that the term “mischief” under Section 425 of the Code, essentially involves an act done with the intent to cause, or knowing it is likely to cause wrongful loss or injury, resulting in destruction of property. Here, in this, the destruction of sugarcane crops came under the definition of “mischief”. 

U.Nalini Madhavan vs. The State of Kerala (2010)

This case involves allegations brought against the police for having caused damage to the property during a search. The editor of the “Sudhinam” newspaper, Madhavan, charged the police with mischief under Section 427 of the Code. The prosecution had levelled charges against the police officers for having caused damage to the office and the printing press of the newspaper "Sudhinam" when a search was being conducted under the pretext of investigating a case against Madhavan. This act of destruction directly led to the charge under Section 427 of the Code.

The Court held that the acts of the police officers, particularly of the third accused, caused wrongful loss to Madhavan. This wrongful loss was the physical damage suffered by the printing machinery as well as the financial losses incurred owing to the newspaper being closed during these days.

This case stresses the point that proof of intent to cause damage forms a basic ingredient of the offence under Section 427 of the Code. The Court may infer such an intent from the nature of the act itself. The Court noted that the intensity of damage suggests that the act was not accidental in the course of a search, but intentional.

Importantly, the Court held that an official act of police does not protect an officer from prosecution. Their actions were considered to have been excessive and unreasonable, thus making them liable for conviction.

Lastly, the case highlighted that the findings in civil cases do not have a binding effect on criminal cases. Although the civil suits filed by Madhavan for damages were dismissed, the criminal Court found sufficient evidence to convict the police officers under Section 427 of the Code.

Recent Changes

No amendments had been made in Section 427 of the Code since its very beginning. The concept behind Section 427 has been incorporated in Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,2023 under Section 324(4). Section 324(4) provides for “Whoever commits mischief and thereby causes loss or damage to the amount of twenty thousand rupees and more but less than one lakh rupees shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.”

Summary

Section 427 of the Code deals with the mischief that is causing an amount of more than fifty rupees or above. According to Section 427, whoever intentionally damages or causes any loss to the property of somebody else to any extent of fifty rupees or upwards, shall be punished up to imprisonment of either description for two years, with a fine, or both.

Key Insights & Quick Facts

• Cognizance: As per the First Schedule of the Code for Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) the offence under Section 427 is non-cognizable.

• Bail: As per the First Schedule of CrPC, the offence under Section 427 is bailable

• Triable by: As per the First Schedule of CrPC, the offence under Section 427 is triable by the Court of any Magistrate or District Court. 

• Compoundable: As per Section 320 of CrPC, the offence under Section 427 of the Code is compoundable by the person to whom the loss or damage is caused. 

• The offence of Mischief: Section 427 is applied when someone causes intentional damage or harm to the property of someone else.

• Minimum damage: Section 427 will come into action if the damages fall within the range of fifty rupees or more.

• Nature of damage: The damage should be caused intentionally and not accidentally.

• Type of imprisonment: The imprisonment could be either rigorous or simple, as the option would rely upon the discretion of the Court.