Module 3 Flashcards
There is burden of proof on the accused
Section 105 evidence act 1872
General Exceptions which chapter
Chapter 4, section 76-106
Mistake of Law case and section
State of Maharashtra v MH George [Section 79]
Mistake of Fact
Section 76
Which section defines good faith
Section 52
Mistake of fact latin maxim
Ignoratia facti doth excusat
Mistake of law latin maxim
Ignorantia juris non excusat
section __ is bound by law and section __ is justified by law
76, 79
Accident [Section]
80
essentials of accident
act should be lawful
manner should be lawful
without criminal intention and knowledge
with due care
should happen by accident
What is Necessity? [sec + case]
in order to prevent a biggest harm, doing a smaller harm
Section 81
R v Dudley and Stevens
doli inacapax
sec 82
doli capax
sec 83
explain doli incapax
act of a child under seven years of age is not an offence
provides absolute immunity
however if there is a special law eg sec 130 of Indian Railway Act, 1890, then special law will prevail
doli incapax special law example case
Wali Mohd. case
two kids, aged 8 and 5 were tried for throwing stones at a railway train
What is doli capax
act of chlid above 7 and below 12, the presumption of innocence and immaturity is there but can be challenged
court will ascertain whether child has attained maturity or not
What is the Godi Case
Girl was married as a child but she thought it was a game, therefore not liable
Insanity [Section]
84
What is Insanity
Act of a person of unsound mind.—Nothing is an offence which is done by a person who, at the time of doing it, by reason of unsoundness of mind, is incapable of knowing the nature of the act, or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law.
What are the four tests of insanity
Wild Beast test [R v Arnold]
Insane Delusion test [Hatfield Case]
Bowlers test
McNaughten rules aka Right and Wrong test
What is the WIld Beast Test
When a person cannot differentiate between right and evil hence, is entitled to defense of insanity.
What is the insane delusion test
when person has insane delusion. Hadfield was discharged from the army on the ground of insanity and was tried for high treason in attempting to assassinate King George III. The counsel of the accused, Lord Thomas Erskine, defended him and proved in front of the judge that Hadfield only pretended to kill the King and is not guilty, on the ground of insane delusion from which the accused was suffering.
Bowler’s case
the jury has to decide when the accused committed the offence, whether he was capable of distinguishing right from wrong or under the control of an illusion. After the Bowler’s case, the courts have placed more emphasis on the capacity of the accused to distinguish right from wrong, though the test was not that clear.
McNaughten Rules
There are five rules
1. Every man is presumed to be sane and is considered to be responsible for his acts unless contrary proved
2. Defect of mind and knowledge to be seen at the time when the crime was committed
3. test is to process the power to distinguish between right and wrong not in a way abstract but with regard to act when it was done
4. If a person commits a crime under insane delusion, he would be responsible to extent he could have been if he supposed the facts had existed and had knowledge of the fact.
5. Knowledge merely of wrongfulness and coupled with the fact which is contrary to law makes the accused liable.
Essentials of Defense of Insanity
accused was suffering from unsoundness of mind at the time of committing the offence
he was incapable of knowing the nature of the act
an insane man is excused from punishment because:
Furiosus furore sui ponier: a madman is punishable by his madness only.
Furiosus nulla voluntus est: a mad man has no will.
what is the difference between legal insanity and medical insanity
LEGAL INSANITY: INCAPABLE OF KNOWING
-THE NATURE OF THE ACT
ACT IS WORNG/ CONTRARY TO LAW
MEDICAL INSANITY CAPABLE OF KNOWING
THE NATURE OF ACT
HIS ACT IS WRONG/CONTRARY TO LAW
does depression come under unsoundness of mind under sec 84
no
Case law for insanity
Ashok Dattareya v UOI
ccused a labourer kills sister and law due to quarrel on money . He absconds for 3 months. He starts working in neighbouring village within 15 days of committing crime.
Plea of sanity
Court said your conduct is inconsistent and no defence of sanity.
Ratan Lal v State of MP facts
accused was putting fire on a haystack, psychologists report showed him to be unstable and his plea was accepted
Act of person incapable of judgement by reason of intoxication beyond his will [section]
85
Conditions for the defence of involuntary intoxication
Must be intoxicated at the time
unable to understand the nature of the act [this must be a result of the intoxication]
the intoxicant must be administered without one’s will or even without one’s knowledge
The earliest case of intoxication was in England where the court approved the death sentence for a homicide committed in extreme intoxication
Reninger v. Fogossa
if is a person’s intoxication is voluntary in nature then it will be considered as an aggravation and not a defense.
DPP V BEARD
Voluntary intoxication
86
Basudev v Pepsu facts
Retired officer and boy aged 15 years went to bride’s house to take mid day meal. The officer being intoxicated asked the boy to step aside so that he could occupy the seat.
The boy didn’t move. The result was the officer had shot dead the boy in his abdomen.
After shooting the victim, he ran away from scene and was caught in short distance proved he had knowledge of the act.
Volenti non fit injuria
Section 87
Private defence which sections
96 to 106
