Sections 2 ,3 and 4 of IPC

Section 2 of IPC.   2. Punishment of offences committed within India.- Every person shall be liable to punishment under this Code and not otherwise for every act or omission contrary to the provisions thereof, of which, he shall be guilty within Indian.


Indian Penal Code was written by First Indian Law Commission which was formed in 1834 and the whole thing completed in 1837 and submitted to Governor General in Council in 1837. 
At the time of writing where transportation and communication was far from advanced when a letter from England to India may take some six months to reach the members who had been entrusted to draft the IPC could have hardly imagined that a person sitting in Australia or some other place will commit an offence in England or India. So it is just natural to take it for granted that the offence and offender must be at the same place. It is only after the transportation was quicker after steam ships were normal and communication also consequently was quicker and then after telegraph was invented and cables were laid across the vast oceans were laid it was possible for someone sitting thousands of miles away could commit a crime at a distant place. At the time of writing the IPC the honourable members entrusted with that arduous task never had an inkling of suspicion that the offender will be far away from the place where the offence has taken place.
So the inherent meaning of this clause is everyone irrespective of his national status or caste or creed or religion or anything if an offence is committed in India is liable to be punished as per Indian laws and it is inherently implied that the offender was corporeally present at the place of offence. To interpret that even if the offender was at some other place is nothing but mis-interpreting the Code. It is separating the sense and the words and interpreting the words only.
Section 3 of IPC.  3. Punishment of offences committed beyond but which by law may be tried within India.- Any person liable by any Indian law to be tried for an offence committed beyond India shall be dealt with according to the provisions of this Code for any act committed beyond India in the same manner as if such act had been committed within India.
Section 4 of IPC  4. Extension of Code to extra territorial offences.- The provisions if this Code apply also to any offence committed by- (1) any citizen of India in any place without and beyond India; (2) any person on any shop or aircraft registered in India wherever it may be.
Here IPC is crossing the border. But it is not a free bird that it can fly and settle anywhere. It goes to a specific target. The person who has committed an offence in a foreign land. A nation is bound to protect its citizens wherever they might be and also punish them wherever they might be. So if a person has committed a felony in a foreign land as a citizen he or she will be punished by Indian laws. IPC will not cross the border to punish a foreign citizen for an offence committed by him. If a foreigner commits a crime against a citizen of India as long as the person is in the foreign land IPC cannot do anything. But once that offender comes within the space where Indian laws prevail he or she can be punished for the offence.
IPC or CrPC or any other laws are interpreted to one's own convenience. Different judges give different interpretations. It is those differences in interpretations which helps many an accused and convicts also  many.
Till 1982 when United Nations has made laws relating to sea as per the UNCLOS the generally accepted  territorial sea limit was 3 miles. It was equivalent roughly to one league of length measurement. And this 3 miles limit was accepted for the purpose of protecting the land from fire or other attack from the sea. The cannon of that time could fire an iron ball to a maximum of 3 miles and so that limit was accepted.
Why this was quoted was when any persons write a law his outlook will be based on the facts prevailing at that period. When the IPC was written in the early half of 1830s those who were entrusted with that work would never have imagined that a crime could be committed remaining far away from the place where the crime has actually occurred. For them the perpetrator and the crime must have been always at the same place. If they had any suspicion of such thing happening they definitely would have added in Section 3 " any person anywhere" if foreign lands were also to be included. Section 2 is without any ambiguity as it states 'every person' as the incident is happening in inside India where its law run automatically. In Section 3 it is outside the reach of Indian law in general and it applies to only those who are liable to Indian laws. To me the law seems to be very clear and there is no scope to doubt about its intent. Inside India to each and every person. Outside India to those who are liable to Indian laws.