Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Principle: Use of criminal force intentionally knowing that it would cause or is likely to cause injury or annoyance to the person against whom force is used, is an offense.
Facts: X, a renowned social worker who had launched a movement for the liberation of women, pull up a Muslim women‘s veil in public in good faith without her consent causing annoyance to her.
पर्याय
X is a renowned social worker and he has committed no offence because his motive was good
X acted in good faith to liberate her from clutches of tradition and has hence has committed no offence
X has done the act in public and not in secrecy, therefore, had not committed any offence
X has committed an offence by use of criminal force
उत्तर
X has committed an offense by use of criminal force
Explanation:
X has committed an offense by the use of criminal force. The act has caused annoyance to the victim. Moreover, X used criminal force (using his physical power to unveil the woman) and the use of criminal force is intentional. According to the principle intentional use of criminal force and the knowledge that it would cause annoyance makes it an offense.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: Nothing is an offense if it is done under intoxication and the person committing the offense was incapable to understand the nature of the Act. Intoxication should be without the knowledge or against the will of the person.
Facts: A, B and C were having a party in Bar where A persuaded B and C to take alcoholic drinks. On the persistent persuasion B and C also consumed alcohol along with A. B and C had never consumed alcohol before. After intoxication, there was some argument between B and C where C pushed B with full force causing serious injury to B.
Principle: Whoever does not arrest the killer and report the matter to the concerned authorities commits an offence.
Facts: 'A', a woman, sees 'B', another woman, killing a third woman 'C'. 'A' neither attempted to arrest 'B' nor informed the concerned authorities.
Mark the best option:
Facts: Manohar and Dev are childhood friends. One day while ploughing the field they have an argument and end up in blows. Satish, another farmer, has to intervene and separate them. Manohar swears that he will take revenge. In the evening Satishtells Dev that Manohar wants to reach a settlement and asks him to wait near the Mukhiya’s farmland behind the rose bush. Dev sits behind the bush and waits. Meanwhile, Satish goes to Manohar and tells him that wild animals have attacked theMukhiya’s farmland and asks Manohar to bring his shotgun to scare the animals away. On reaching the farm, Satish shouts out loudly that he has spotted a leopard behind the rose bush and asks Manohar to fire at the bush. Manohar fires two rounds. The bullet hits and kills Dev.
Principle: Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death or bodily injury as is likely to cause death or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death commits the offence of culpable homicide.
Defamation involves:
PRINCIPLE Where a dangerous article escapes, the owner shall be strictly liable for the harm which comes without being at fault.
FACTS Bhopal Gas Co. was in the business of manufacturing chemicals that produced a large amount of toxic residue. As per procedure, they used to store the waste in insulated boxes and hand it over to the collecting van of the municipal corporation once a week. After one such collection, the van driver drove negligently resulting in the escape and spilling of the contents of one of the waste barrels. Is Bhopal Gas Co. liable?
Principle: Interfering with another's goods in such a way as to deny the latter's title to the goods amounts to conversion and it is a civil wrong.
Facts: Ram went to the bicycle stand to a park his bicycle and he found the stand fully occupied. Ram removed a few bicycles in order to rearrange the stand and make some space for his bicycle. He parked his bicycle properly and put back all the bicycles except the one belonging to Shyam. It was rather negligent on the part of Ram and he was in fact in a hurry to get into his office. Somebody came on the way and took away Shyam's cycle. The watchman of the stand did not take care of it assuming that the cycle was not parked inside the stand. Shyam filed a suit against Ram for conversion.
Principle: A person is liable for all the injurious consequences of his careless act.
Facts: Ram, a snake charmer, was exhibiting his talents to a group of people. One of the snakes escaped and bit a child who had to be hospitalized for two days for treatment.
Principle: A citizen is expected to take the reasonable duty of care while driving on the road and not to cause injuries to any person.
Facts: X, the owner of a car, asked his friend Y to drive the car to his office. As the car was near his (X' s) office, it hit a pedestrian P on account of Y' s negligent driving and injured him seriously. P sued X for damages.
Two persons are said to be joint tort-feasors when
Given below is a Statement of legal principle followed by a factual situation. Apply the principle to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer.
Legal Principle: The occupier of a premise owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitor.
Factual Situation: Radhika's brother, Akash, had come to visit at her place. After seeing her wealth. Akash decided to commit theft that night. While he was trying to escape that night he gets electrocuted by the wires which were fixed on the boundary walls. Akash plans to sue Radhika. Will his claim succeed? DECISION:
LEGAL PRINCIPLE:
1. Medical professionals are not immune from liability in tort on the ground of negligence.
2. Services rendered to a patient by a doctor (except when given free of charge) by way of consultation, diagnosis and treatment fall in the definition of "service" under the Consumer Protection Act, in case of negligence, the doctors are liable in tort as well as under the Consumer Protection Act.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A was the only child of his parents. Once he had a high fever and his parents called a doctor at home. This doctor used to work at a respectable hospital in Delhi. The doctor administered certain medicines and asked the nurse to stay with him for the night and administer to him a chloroquine injection. This injection was generally not suitable for young children. The nurse, without a prior test, followed instructions of the doctor and gave the injection. As a result of an allergic reaction, the child died. The parents sued the nurse and the doctor. DECISION:
