acts justified by law in criminal law

7/24/2019 Acts Justified by Law in Criminal Law

1/21

ACTS JUSTIFIED BY LAW IN CRIMINAL LAW

(Project towards partial fulfillment of the assessment in the subject of Legal Methods and Legal

Research )

Submitted By: Submitted To:

Abhinav Raj Professor Dr. V. Seshaiah Shasthri,

U.G.-I Semester Additiona Dean, !ac" t# of $a%

&.A., $.$.& ('ons.)

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY,

JOD !UR

Submitted o" # $% Au&u't, $()*


2/21

A+ "o-.ed&eme"t

A major research roject i*e this is never the %or* of an#one a one. +he contrib"tions of man#

different eo e, in their different %a#s, have made this ossib e. I %o" d i*e to than* God for the %isdom and erseverance that he has besto%ed " on me d"rin this research roject, and

indeed, thro" ho"t m# ife I can do ever#thin thro" h him %ho ives me stren th./

I %o" d i*e to ta*e this o ort"nit# to than* Professor Dr. V. Seshaiah Shasthri, %itho"t %hose

va "ab e s" ort, "idance and advice this roject %o" d not e0ist. +he# have been a so"rce of

determination %ith the immense *no% ed e and command over the s"bject. I %o" d a so i*e to

than* the ibrar# staff for %or*in on ho"rs to faci itate "s %ith re1"ired materia oin a on

%a# in 1"enchin o"r thirst for ed"cation. I %o" d i*e to mention m# seniors2 efforts in "idinme thro" h to" h times the# themse ves have been thro" h, and ast # I %o" d i*e to than* m#

friends for *ee in a ive the s irit of com etition in me.

Abhinav Raj

+ab e of 3ontent

4


3/21

tab e of case a%s.............................................................................................................................5

introd"ction......................................................................................................................................6

j"stification- an overvie%................................................................................................................7difference bet%een j"stification and e0c"se....................................................................................7

enera e0ce tion in i c...................................................................................................................8

case ana #sis................................................................................................................................... 9

conc "sion......................................................................................................................................4

bib io ra h#...................................................................................................................................4

:


4/21

TABLE OF CASE LAWS

)/ State of %est &en a vs Shre% ;an a Sin h, AIR arnata*a, AIR


5/21

INTRODUCTION

3rimina a% o"t ines different "nishments for vario"s crimes. &"t a erson ma# not a %a#s be

"nished for a crime that he she has committed. +he a% offers certain defenses that e0c" atecrimina iabi it#. +hese defenses are based on the remise that tho" h the erson committed the

offence, he cannot be he d iab e. +his is beca"se at the time of commission of the offence, either

the revai in circ"mstances %ere s"ch that the act of the erson %as j"stified or his condition

%as s"ch that he co" d not form the re1"isite mens rea for the crime. +he defenses are enera #

c assified "nder t%o heads- j"stifiab e and e0c"sab e. +h"s, as Bohn Gardner "ts it, for

committin a %ron , a erson m"st be res onsib e for doin a %ron f" act %itho"t havin an#

j"stification or e0c"se for it.

A j"stified act is a one %hich other%ise, "nder norma conditions, %o" d have been %ron f" b"t

the circ"mstances "nder %hich the act %as committed ma*e it to erab e and acce tab e. +he

erson f" fi s a the in redients of the offence b"t his cond"ct is he d to be ri ht "nder the

circ"mstances. !or e0am e, a man %hi e rotectin his fie ds shot an arro% at a movin fi "re

honest # be ievin it to be a bear b"t ca"sed the death of a man %ho hidin in the b"shes. 'e

cannot be he d iab e since his cond"ct %as j"stified "nder the circ"mstances. 4 In case of an

e0c"se, tho" h the erson has ca"sed harm, it is he d that the erson sho" d be

e0c"sed beca"se he cannot be b amed for the act. !or e0am e, if a erson of "nso"nd mind com

mits acrime, he cannot be he d res onsib e for bein menta # sic*. +he t%o terms do not mean

the same thin . As Bosh"a Dress er sa#s in his artic e, EA j"stification does not e0c"se cond"ctF

an e0c"se does not j"stif# cond"ct.2 :

Bohn Gardner, Offences and Defense: Selected Essays in the Philosophy of riminal Law (C0ford Universit# Press4998) 448 in AP Simester, E?ron s and Reasons2 499


6/21

+he Indian Pena 3ode, =79 ( hereinafter the IP3) reco niJes defenses in cha ter fo"r "nder the

headin EGenera 0ce tions.2 Sections 87 to 97 of the IP3 cover these defenses. +ho" h there

is no s"ch e0 ress c assification of defenses "nder j"stifiab e and e0c"sab e iven in the code,

the distinction bet%een the t%o cate ories has neverthe ess been re arded as an im ortant to ic

in crimina a%. +he rimar# aim of %ritin on this to ic is to hi h i ht this distinction and

resent the vie%s of vario"s e a scho ars on the iss"e. +his roject see*s to as* the need for

c assif#in defenses "nder these t%o headin s. +he vie%s have been resented in the ne0t art of

the roject "nder E$iterat"re S"rve#2. It disc"sses a enera overvie% of

the j"stifiab e and e0c"sab e defenses. +he different defenses feat"red in the IP3 and "nder %hat

cate or# the# fa have been disc"ssed. +he ne0t section e0 resses m# vie%s on the attem t to

c assif# the defenses.

JUSTIFICATION 5 AN OVERVIEW

+o avai the defense of j"stification, the res onse of the erson "nder the iven circ"mstances

m"st be to rotect the interest at sta*e and it m"st a so be ro ortiona to the harm that is

threatened. +here are fo"r theories of j"stification that have been ro osed b# Dress er. +he first

theor# is the mora forfeit"re theor#. It states that if a erson *no%in # and vo "ntari #

commits an offence then he cannot e0 ect the a% to rotect him. !or e0am e, if a erson

vo "ntari # attem ts to *i another and in the rocess of se f-defense is himse f *i ed, then this

act of se f-defense is j"stified. +he second theor# is the Eri hts theor#.2 It states that a erson2s

cond"ct %i be j"stified if he has a e a ri ht to rotect a mora interest.

+he third E esser harm2 theor# sa#s that if an act is done to revent a reater harm from

occ"rrin , it is j"stified. !or e0am e, if a erson tres asses on the ro ert# of another in order to

save a chi d tra ed in a fire inside the ro ert#, his act of tres assin %i be j"stified. +he ast

theor# abe s a cond"ct as j"stifiab e if it is done in reater "b ic interest.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN JUSTIFICATION AND E6CUSE

A c ose er"sa of iterat"re and the nat"re of these defenses %i revea some c ear distinctions

bet%een the t%o cate ories of defenses. B"stified acts do not necessari # ac* intention. &"t the

intention "nder the revai in circ"mstances at the time of commission of the offence does not

7


7/21

1"a if# as crimina intent. 0c"sab e defenses a # on # if the act is done %itho"t an# intention.

B"stifications foc"s on the %ron f" nat"re of the act. Cn the other hand, e0c"ses oo* at the

b ame%orthiness of the actor. An act is j"stified "nder the circ"mstances re ard ess of the fact

%hether the defendant is a%are of them or not. 'o%ever, circ"mstances that can e0c"se cond"ct

%i not e0c"se the erson "n ess he is a%are of them. B"stifications ne ate the socia harm of the

offence %hereas e0c"ses e0onerate the actor of mora b ame%orthiness for the offence.

B"stifications a so arise from ba ancin of harms. !or e0am e if a o ice officer "ses force to

search for evidence "nder a j"dicia search %arrant, he %i be j"stified

even if his cond"ct amo"nts to an offence. 0c"ses, on the other hand, do not invo vean# s"ch

ba ancin of harms.

7ENERAL E6CE!TION IN I!C

Sections 87 to 97 of the IP3 rovide enera e0ce tions to offences. +hese inc "de mista*e of

fact, j"dicia acts, accident, necessit#, infanc#, insanit#, into0ication, consent, d"ress, trivia acts

and the ri ht of rivate defence. +his section %i disc"ss each of these e0ce tions and their

a icabi it# "nder the IP3.

i/ Mi't8 e o9 98+t Se+tio"' 21 8"d 24 ; :5

Section 87 e0c" ates a erson from crimina iabi it# %ho is bo"nd b# a% to do an act or %ho

does an act in ood faith "nder a mista*e of fact that he %as bo"nd b# a% to do it. ;ista*e is

considered e%cusatory in nature since the erson did not intend nor foresee the conse1"ences of

his act. +he mista*e sho" d be of s"ch a nat"re that had the circ"mstances that the

erson be ieved to e0ist indeed revai ed, he %o" d have been abso ved from iabi it#. +he

mista*e m"st be a mista*e of fact not of a%. +he face sho" d be materia to constit"te an

offence.

Section 8< of the IP3 e0c"ses an act that the erson fe t %as j"stified b# a%. +he osition that

emer es is this. B"ris r"dentia # vie%ed, an act ma# be an offence, definitiona # s ea*in b"tF a

forbidden act ma# not s e inevitab e "i t,H the a% itse f dec ares that in certain s ecia

circ"mstances it is not to be re arded as an offence. Section8< ma*es an offence a non-offence.

?henK Cn # %hen the offendin act is act"a # j"stified b# a% or is bona fide be ieved b#

8


8/21

mista*e of fact to be so j"stified. +h"s a erson %i be rotected "nder Section 8< on # if there

%as a e a j"stification avai ab e for his actions and he a ied the a% to the best of his

j"d ment in ood faith.

ii/ Judi+i8. A+t' Se+tio" 22 8"d 23 ; :5

+hese rovisions rotect j"d es and j"dicia officers %hen actin j"dicia # in e0ercise of o%ers

iven to them b# a% or %hich the# be ieve in ood faith to be vested in them b# the a%. +he

acts are justified by law . +he rationa e behind these rovisions is that j"d es and j"dicia officers

sho" d not be "nder an# e0terna inf "ence so that the# can act in a fear ess and j"st manner.

B"dicia acts e0tend to orders assed in the chambers of a j"d e. If a j"dicia officer is invo ved

in a crimina case, his arrest has to be in accordance %ith the directions iss"ed b# the S" reme

3o"rt.

iii/ Ne+e''ity Se+tio" 3) ; :5

+he defense of necessit# is considered to be a justifiable defense . +he act is done %itho"t an#

crimina intention b"t not %itho"t *no% ed e. It is acce tab e to do an act in ood faith

that revents a reater harm from ta*in ace. !or e0am e, if the o ice "ts a dr"n* erson

"nder restraint %itho"t %arrant for carr#in a revo ver, even tho" h "b ic n"isance is a non-

co niJab e offence, the# %i be rotected "nder Section =9 for reventin reater harm to

other eo e and ro ert#. An im ortant iss"e %hi e a #in this defense is %hether necessit#

can be "sed to j"stif# m"rder. In the o d case, R ! Dudley Stephens & a shi %as cast a%a# in a

storm. +he eo e on board had nothin to eat for man# da#s. Cn the t%entieth da#, the acc"sed

decided to *i the cabin bo# and feed on his bod#. After bein resc"ed, the# %ere char ed for

m"rder. +he# eaded necessit# b"t the co"rt he d that se f- reservation %as not an abso "te ri ht

and convicted them of m"rder.

5 R ! Dudley Stephens$ ==5H 5 L&D 48:.

=


9/21

i


10/21

CASE ANALYSIS

*' Shrikant Anandrao Bhosale vs State of Maharashtra '+

!acts -

+he a e ant %as a Po ice 3onstab e. 'e and S"re*ha %as married in the #ear


11/21

?hether the a e ant has roved the e0istence of circ"mstances brin in his case %ithin

the "rvie% of Section =5 %i have to be e0amined from the tota it# of circ"mstances .

B"d ement of S" reme 3o"rt -

S" reme co"rt %ere of the vie% that the a e ant has roved the e0istence of

circ"mstances as re1"ired b# Section 96 of the vidence Act so as to et benefit of

Section =5 IP3. +he# %ere "nab e to ho d that the crime %as committed as a res" t of

e0treme fit of an er. +here is a reasonab e do"bt that at the time of commission of the

crime, the a e ant %as inca ab e of *no%in the nat"re of the act b# reason of

"nso"ndness of mind and, th"s, he is entit ed to the benefit of Section =5 IP3. 'ence, the

conviction and sentence of the a e ant cannot be s"stained.

Reasonin of the 3o"rt -

+he a e ant has a fami # histor# - his father %as s"fferin from s#chiatric i ness.

3a"se of ai ment not *no%n - hereditar# a#s a art.

A e ant %as bein treated for "nso"ndness of mind since


12/21

4. Atmendra vs state of Karnataka .8

!acts -

+here %as t%o brothers Gana ati and Asho* 'e de. &oth %ere ivin in adjacent ho"ses.

&"t the re ations bet%een them %ere far from cordia . At the bac*#ard of their ho"ses on the %estern side, there is a dis "ted cocon"t tree of

%hich both c aimed to be the o%ners. Cnce Asho* and his %ife Vija#a a*shmi noticed that one Vitta &handari %as "c*in

the cocon"ts in c "sters and thro%in them do%n, %hi e the a e ant and his father %ere

standin on M3hairM behind their ho"se %atchin the cocon"ts. Asho*, his %ife and came on to the 3hair of their ho"se on hearin the noise of fa in of

the cocon"ts and 1"estioned &handari as to %h# he %as "c*in the cocon"ts. In the

co"rse of e0chan e of %ords Gana ati insti ated the a e ant to finish Asho* statin

that be had become arro ant and then there fo o%ed a shot from the "n, %hich res" ted

in instantaneo"s death of Asho*, the deceased. +he defence of the a e ant %as that the deceased s%"n the rea er at the a e ant and

as he %as t"rnin to avoid the b o% the "n a so t"rned in the same direction on acco"nt

of %hich the rea er to"ched the hammer of the "n %hich %ent off and hit the deceased.

Proceedin &efore +ria B"d e -

+he a e ant and Gana ati %ere char ed and tried for the offences stated above "nder

Section :94 .

L"estion &efore +ria 3o"rt -

?hether the a e ant shot at the deceased and th"s *i ed him or %hether the "n ot

fired d"e to the stri*e of the rea er s%"n b# the deceased.

B"d ement of the +ria 3o"rt -

8 -tmendra !s state of "arnata,a , AIR


13/21

+he +ria 3o"rt fo"nd that motive %as estab ishedF tho" h it did not be ieve the ea of

se f-defence %hich %as a so set " b# the acc"sed, ho%ever, it he d that on the facts

accidenta firin of "n co" d not be r" ed o"t and conse1"ent # ac1"itted the acc"sed.

A ea &efore 'i h 3o"rt -

+he State of >arnata*a f i ed 3rimina A ea o. 8 of


14/21

+he com ainant a ied for sanction "nder Section


15/21

$e a it# of the j"d ment %hereb# Division &ench of Patna 'i h 3o"rt directed ac1"itta

of < res ondents, this a ea has been fi ed b# the informant.

B"d ment of the S" reme 3o"rt -

+he S" reme 3o"rt said since the j"d ment of the 'i h 3o"rt is ractica # non-

reasoned, one co"rse o en is to remit the matter bac* to the 'i h 3o"rt to rehear a ea

and ass a reasoned j"d ment dea in %ith a re evant as ects. &"t considerin the on

assa e of time, %e thin* it a ro riate to decide the case b# ana #Jin the evidence

bro" ht on record.

Reasonin -

+he Investi atin Cfficer %ho died before com etion of his testimon# had recordedobjective findin sF

+he ace of occ"rrence mi ht be as has been s" ested b# the defenceF

+he medica evidence is not consistent %ith rosec"tion case as the doctor has stated in

his evidence that "n mi ht have been fired from a distance of 89-=9 ft %hi e the first

information re ort revea s that it mi ht have been fired from a c ose ran eF

Since the Investi atin Cfficer had died, it had ca"sed rej"dice d"e to non-e0amination

of the Investi atin Cfficer.

3ase note -

+he cr"cia oint of time for decidin %hether the benefit of Section =5 sho" d be

iven or not, is the materia time %hen the offence ta*es ace.

6. State of Karnataka


16/21

+he res ondents restrained the com ainant of the a e ants b# sho% of force from

ta*in %ater from a ne% # d" -" bore%e on the ro"nd that the#(a e ants) are

"nto"chab es.

A a &a " In a e and fo"r others %ere tried for the offences "nder Sections 5 and 8 of

the Protection of 3ivi Ri hts Act,


17/21

Res ondents Shan*ar &abaji Pati and Rajaram Rama San* a sha "nder o the sentence

of sim e im risonment for one month and to a# the fine of Rs. 99 each %ith the

defa" t c a"se as a%arded b# the tria co"rt

Reasons for the 3o"rt of A ea

nforcement of an# disabi it# is a crime a ainst h"man ri hts and the 3onstit"tion entai s

the %ron doer %ith "nishment.

+he ractice of "nto"chabi it# in an# form is a crime a ainst the 3onstit"tion

;ost Im ortant Reason or Ratio

A c"stoms, "sa es, ractices direct # or indirect # reco nisin or enco"ra in the

ractice of "nto"chabi it# in an# form is void ab initio.

Genera Princi e of $a%

+he ractice of "nto"chabi it# in an# form is a crime a ainst the 3onstit"tion

". Sekar # Raja Shekharan vs State rep. B$ Inspe%tor of poli%e& '. (adu.

!acts -

Pa anis%am# (hereinafter referred to as Mthe deceasedM) im " ned the shee %hich,

accordin to him, %as destro#in his cro s. Acc"sed and others %ent to the ace %here

the shee %as tied and the# "ntied it from the ro e. +his ed to e0chan e of %ords

bet%een the deceased and the acc"sed. ?hen the deceased fe do%n after receivin

inj"ries on his hand and eft sho" der, the acc"sed a ain inf icted another b o% on his

nec*. +he occ"rrence %as %itnessed b# : ersons. Information %as od ed at the o ice

station and on com etion of investi ation, char e-sheet %as aced and the acc"sed

faced tria . +he acc"sed too* the ea of fa se im ication and a ternative # eaded that

the assa" ts %ere made in e0ercise of ri ht of rivate defence.

Proceedin before +ria co"rt -

Se,ar 3 Raja She,haran !s State rep' 0y 4nspector of police$ 5' 6adu , AIR 4994 S3 :778.

8


18/21

+he tria co"rt acin re iance on evidence of %itnesses came to ho d that the acc"sed

%as res onsib e for the death of the deceased. P ea of the acc"sed that the assa" ts %ere

made in e0ercise of the ri ht of rivate defence %as not acce ted, more artic" ar # in

vie% of the fact that even after the deceased had fa en do%n, the acc"sed inf icted a

f"rther b o% on the nec*.

Proceedin before 'i h 3o"rt -

'i h 3o"rt did not find an# merit in the s"bmissions made to the effect that this %as a

case %hich %as c ear # covered b# the acc"sedNs e0ercise of ri ht of rivate defence.

'avin rejected this stand of the acc"sed, the 'i h 3o"rt ana #sed the evidence to

conc "de that the conviction %as j"stified.

B"d ment of 'i h 3o"rt -

'i h 3o"rt have come to conc "de that the acc"sed %as res onsib e for the death of the

deceased and this is not a case %here the ri ht of rivate defence can be ressed into

service b# the acc"sed.

A ea &efore S" reme 3o"rt -

L"estion &efore S" reme 3o"rt -

%hether ri ht of rivate defence is avai ab e or not, the inj"ries received b# the acc"sed,

the imminence of threat to his safet#, the inj"ries ca"sed b# the acc"sed and the

circ"mstances %hether the acc"sed had time to have reco"rse to "b ic a"thorities are a

re evant factors to be consideredK

B"d ment of S" reme 3o"rt -

The S" reme 3o"rt reduce the sentence to 10 years and if the accused has

undergone the period of 10 years and is not required to be in custody in any other

case, he shall be released forthwith and the appeal is allowed to the e tent

indicated.

Reasonin -

=


19/21

+he# noticed that there %as an a tercation bet%een the acc"sed and the deceased. +here

%as no re-meditation and the assa" ts %ere iven b# the acc"sed d"rin the co"rse of

the s"dden 1"arre . +his, accordin to them, brin s the case %ithin the ambit of 0ce tion

IV to Section :99 IP3. ven other%ise, this a ears to be a case of acc"sed e0ceedin the

ri ht of rivate defence. +he a ro riate conviction %o" d, therefore, be "nder

Section :95 Part I IP3 and c"stodia sentence of 9 #ears %o" d meet hand of j"stice.

3ase Ratio -

Section


20/21

a% %as b"rnt and had died. ;oti a the father of the Sh#am a to d him

that 'ari Sin h had s a ed him at his chee* and had a so *ic*ed him at his bac* and b#

ta*in athi and trish" he ran after him, then he a so ran a%a#. +hen acc"sed started

beatin deceased 'ari a %ith stic* and acc"sed hit 'ari a severa times d"e to %hich

'ari a died. +hen acc"sed "t some rains on fire %hich %ere #in in that room, d"e to

%hich not on # the ho"se ca" ht the fire b"t 'ari a %as a so b"rnt.

Proceedin before +ria 3o"rt -

+he tria co"rt re ied on the evidence of e#e %itness ;oti $a %hi e >a i &ai

corroborated the statement of e#e %itness abo"t the "n"s"a behavio"r of the acc"sed.

B"d ment of +ria 3o"rt -

+he tria co"rt fo"nd the evidence to be co ent and accordin # recorded conviction and

im osed sentence as noted above. It did not acce t the ea that Section =5 IP3 has

a ication.

Proceedin before 'i h 3o"rt -

In a ea before the 'i h 3o"rt the stand abo"t "nso"ndness of mind and rotection

"nder Section =5 IP3 %as ressed into service.

B"d ment before 'i h 3o"rt -

'i h 3o"rt acce ted StateNs stand and accordin # dismissed the a ea .

A ea &efore S" reme 3o"rt -

L"estion &efore S" reme 3o"rt -

?hether there %as de iberation and re aration for the actF %hether it %as done in a

manner %hich sho%ed a desire to concea ment F %hether after the crime, the offender sho%ed conscio"sness of "i t and made efforts to avoid detections %hether, after his

arrest, he offered fa se e0c"ses and made fa se statementsK

B"d ment of S" reme 3o"rt -

49


21/21

+he# said that the tria 3o"rt and the 'i h 3o"rt have, on the facts of the case, ri ht #

he d that Section =5 IP3 has no a ication. It is s"bmitted that the acc"sed-a e ant

is in c"stod# since 4:. .

acts justified by law in criminal law

Documents