| Front | Gallu Shah v. State of Bihar |
| Back | (1958,SC) In this case the main accused was charged under Section 436, Mischief by fire, for setting on fire a hut. The appellant was charged for abetting by instigation the principal. Principal accused was acquitted. The appeal was dismissed and it was held that conviction of main accused was not bad, merely because evidence was not sufficient for conviction of Principal |
| Tags |
| Front | Yogendra Morarji v. State of Gujrat |
| Back | (1980,SC)The right to private defence of body for the purpose of repelling unlovable integration has been regulated and circumscribed by several principles and limitations. Firstly, there is no right of private defence against an act which is not an offence under IPC. Secondly, the right commences as soon as and not before a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit some offence although the offence may not have been committed and it is coterminous with the duration of such apprehension. That is to say, the right is available only against a danger imminent, present and the real. Thirdly it is a defensive and not a punitive or retributive right. Consequently, in no case the right extends to inflicting of more harm than that is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence. In other words, the injury which is inflicted by the person exercising the right should be commensurate with the injury with which he is threatened. At the same time it must be understood, that it is difficult to expect from a person exercising this right in good faith, to weigh with golden scales what maximum amount of force is necessary to keep within the right. Every reasonable allowance should be made for the bona fides of the defender if he with the instinct of self-preservation strong upon him, pursues his defence a little further than that may be strictly necessary in the circumstances to avoid the attack. Fourthly, the right extends to the killing of the actual or potential assailant when there is a reasonable and imminent apprehension of the atrocious crimes and enumerated in section 100. Fifthly, there must be no safe or reasonable mode of escape by retreat for the person confronted with an impending peril to the life or grave bodily harm except by inflicting death on the assailant. Lastly, the right is a defensive right and hence it does not accrue and avail when there is a time to have effective recourse to the protection of public authorities. |
| Tags | IPC |
| Front | Wrongful gain, wrongful loss, dishonestly and fraudulent |
| Back | Section 23 is also extremely important. It defines Wrongful loss and wrongful gain. This has been used many times in IPC. Wrongful gain is the gain by wrongful means of anything to which a person is not legally entitled. It means that if a person is entitled to the property and even though his means are wrongful, the gain can not be called wrongful. Snatching ones own purse from a thief is not wrongful gain, on the other hand, winning a property of which a person is not entitled through legal means is also not wrongful gain.Wrongful loss is loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing is legally entitled. SO if a person is not legally entitled to a property and he looses it by wrongful means then the loss can not be called wrongful loss. Similarly the loss by legal and lawful means of a property to which someone is not entitled can not also be called a wrongful loss.Gaining wrongfully includes not only a situation when a person gains the property , it also includes a condition when someone also retains the same wrongfully. Similarly losing wrongfully includes a condition when a person is deprived of the property and also a condition when a person is kept out of property.Section 24 defines dishonestly. When someone does an act with the intention(knowledge and reason to believe are not included. Only intention is) of causing wrongful loss to one person or wrongful gain to another person, then he is said to be acting dishonestly. It is imperative to understand that to act dishonestly a person must not only have the knowledge that the someone is not entitled to a property but he must also know that the means that he is using are illegal or unlawful. If either of these knowledge is missing then his act can not be said to have been done dishonestly.Section 25 defines fraudulently, a thing is said to have been done fraudulently only when it is done with the intention to defraud and not otherwise. |
| Tags | IPC |