| --- |
| license: cc-by-4.0 |
| language: |
| - en |
| task_categories: |
| - text-retrieval |
| - text-classification |
| tags: |
| - legal |
| - law |
| - india |
| - indian-penal-code |
| - statute-identification |
| - retrieval |
| pretty_name: Indian IPC Statute Identification |
| size_categories: |
| - 10K<n<100K |
| configs: |
| - config_name: default |
| data_files: data/*.parquet |
| --- |
| |
| # Indian IPC Statute Identification |
|
|
| Given the **facts of an Indian court case**, identify the relevant **Indian Penal Code (IPC) section**. Each example |
| pairs the factual narrative of a High Court judgment with the text of an IPC section that the judgment applies. |
|
|
| The task is framed as retrieval / statute identification: from a fact scenario, retrieve (or classify) the governing |
| statute. It is a useful benchmark and training signal for legal information retrieval, legal text classification, and |
| domain adaptation of text embedding models to Indian criminal law. |
|
|
| ## Contents |
|
|
| | column | description | |
| |--------|-------------| |
| | `case_facts` | The factual narrative from an Indian High Court judgment. Explicit references to the governing section (e.g. "Section 302 IPC", "u/s 420") are **masked as `[STATUTE]`** so the example is a genuine facts→statute task and cannot be solved by string-matching the section number. | |
| | `ipc_section` | The relevant IPC section number (e.g. `302`, `304B`, `498A`). | |
| | `statute_text` | The full operative text of that IPC section — the offence definition and punishment (the "Whoever… shall be punished…" statutory language). | |
|
|
| - **40,001** examples · **~14,900** distinct cases · **320** distinct IPC sections. |
| - A case charged under multiple sections appears as multiple rows (one per relevant section). |
| - The section distribution reflects real criminal litigation — the most frequent sections are the common offences |
| (murder §302, culpable homicide §304, hurt §323/§325, theft §379, cheating §420, cruelty §498A, rioting §147, …). |
|
|
| ## How it was built |
|
|
| 1. **Judgments**: factual narratives are drawn from Indian High Court judgments. |
| 2. **Statute mapping**: each judgment's *own* citations to IPC sections are extracted (e.g. "under Section 302 IPC", |
| "u/s 420") — a factual reference contained in the public record of the judgment. Those citations are then **masked** |
| in `case_facts` so the model must infer the statute from the facts rather than read it off. |
| 3. **Statute text**: the `statute_text` for each section is the corresponding IPC provision (offence + punishment). |
|
|
| ## Sources & licensing |
|
|
| - **Court judgments** are Indian High Court decisions, redistributed here in reformatted, excerpted form under |
| **CC-BY-4.0** — see NOTICE for attribution. Indian court judgments are themselves public records |
| (Indian Copyright Act, 1957, §52(1)(q)). |
| - **IPC statute text** is the text of the Indian Penal Code, a public-domain enactment of the Government of India. |
| - **Curation** (citation extraction, masking, formatting) © 2026 Clause Logic Inc. |
|
|
| This dataset is released under **CC-BY-4.0**: free to use, including commercially, with attribution. |
|
|
| ## Disclaimer |
|
|
| Provided "as is", without warranty of any kind. This dataset is for research and machine-learning purposes and does |
| **not** constitute legal advice. |
|
|
