Skip to main content

Criminal force and Assault

Force (Section 349):

A is said to use force to B, if A causes motion or change of motion to B, or if A causes with any substance such a motion or change of motion so as to make that substance has come in contact with the body of B or anything he is carrying so as to affect his sense of feeling. provided that the person causing the motion, or change of motion or cessation of motion, causes that motion , change of motion or cessation of motion in one of the three ways described, they are:

1) By A, with his own bodily power.

2) By setting the substance in motion without further acting on it.

3) By inducing any animal to move.

Criminal force (Section 350)

Using criminal force is an offence punishable under I.P.C.Any person who intentionally uses 'force' on another without his consent with a view to commit an offence or knowingly uses force to cause injury, fear or annoyance to him, is guilty of using criminal force. The term “battery” of English law is also included in Criminal force.

E.g:

1. A incites his dog to spring upon Z without Z's consent. This annoys Z. A is guilty.

2. Z is carrying a pot of water. A, without Z's consent, intentionally to annoy Z, hits the pot with a stone. The stone makes a hole and water rushes out causing annoyance to Z. A is guilty.

3. A intentionally pulls the purdha of a woman without her consent to annoy her. A is guilty under this section.

Assault (Section 351):

Any person who intentionally or knowingly makes any gesture or preparation to apprehend another with a preparation to use criminal force is guilty of assault.

Explanation:

Mere words do not amount to assault. But the words with the use of gestures or preparations bring such a meaning that criminal force is about to be applied.

Eg:

1) A shakes his fist at Z, and moves towards Z in such a manner that Z believes that criminal force is about to be used on him. This is assault.

2) A begins to let loose a ferocious dog to cause fear and annoyance to Z.

This is assault.



Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Republic Day 26 Jan 2021 Celebration at ETA GARDEN Apartment

 Republic Day 26 Jan 2021 Celebration at ETA GARDEN Apartment I, Trilok Chand Gupta Joint Secretary of ETA Garden have celebrated and raised our country Flag at our pavilion. It's been published in the News Paper for welcoming people for Flag Hoisting.
Post a Comment
Read more

THEFT (Section 378)

  THEFT (Section 378) Sec-378 Indian Penal Code defines theft. A person is guilty of theft is he takes with dishonest intention, any moveable property, out of the possession of any person, without his consent and moves with the property. 1)  If an item is attached to the earth, it cannot be stolen, but if it is freed from the earth it may be stolen. 2)  Moving the property is essential. Removing an obstacle amounts to theft. Eg: 1) A cuts down a -tree from the field of Z with a view to dishonestly taking the 2) tree. He has committed theft. A meets a bullock cart carrying valuable articles, he causes it to be moved in a different direction with a dishonest intention to take it. This is theft. Essentials: 1. Dishonest taking. 2. Moveable property 3. Out of the possession of the person 4. Without consent 5. Moving with the property 1. Dishonest Taking: The dishonest intention is the gist of the offense. The accused must make wrongful gain or wrongful loss. The taking must b...
Post a Comment
Read more

Insanity (Section 84)

  Insanity (Sec-84) Act of a person of unsound mind is given under Sec-84 as, “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 what he is doing is either wrong or contrary to law” The law of Insanity was introduced by a leading case of McNaughton. In R V Mc. Naughten Facts: Daniel Mc. Naughten the accused, murdered Mr. Drummond, the private secretary of Sir. Robert Peel, the Prime Minister of England, by confusion that Mr. Drummond was Sir. Robert Peel. He was tried for murder. On behalf of the accused, the defense counsel pleaded that, the accused due to the insanity, he was not able to know that he was violating the laws of God and man. It was established that the accused lost his power of control of mind, while committing the offence, a medical report was also produced to that effect. Judgment: The court acquitted Mc. Naughten on the grounds of Insanity. Mc. Naug...
Post a Comment
Read more