Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
The principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option:
Principle: There are legal provisions to give authority to a person to use necessary force against an assailant or wrongdoer for the purpose of protecting one’s own body and property as also another’s body and property when immediate aid from the state machinery is not readily available; and in so doing he is not answerable in law for his deeds.
Facts: X, a rich man was taking his morning walk. Due to the threat of robbers in the locality, he was carrying his pistol also. In the opposite direction, another person was coming with a ferocious-looking dog. All of a sudden, the dog which was on a chain held by the owner, started barking at X. The owner of the dog called the dog to be calm. Th ey crossed each other without any problem. But suddenly, the dog started barking again from a distance. X immediately took out his pistol. By seeing the pistol the dog stopped barking and started walking with the owner. However, X shot at the dog which died instantly. The owner of the dog files a complaint against X, which in due course reached the Magistrate Court. X pleads the right of private defense. Decide
विकल्प
There was no imminent danger to X as the dog stopped barking and was walking with the owner. Hence, shooting it amounted to excessive use of the right of private defense and hence liable for killing the dog.
The right of private defence is available to persons against assailants or wrongdoers only and a dog does not fall in this category.
Shooting a fierce dog is not to be brought under the criminal law. So the case should be dismissed.
As there was no guarantee that the dog would not bark again, shooting it was a precautionary measure and hence within the right available to X under law.
Advertisements
उत्तर
There was no imminent danger to X as the dog stopped barking and was walking with the owner. Hence, shooting it amounted to excessive use of the right of private defense and hence liable for killing the dog.
Explanation:
There was no imminent danger to X as the dog stopped barking and was walking with the owner. Hence, shooting it amounted to excessive use of the right to private defense and hence liable for killing the dog. The principle provides that a person can use force against an assailant or wrongdoer in self- defense when imminent danger is present. The right to private defense can only be exercised when the circumstances justify it and not otherwise.
In the given question, the dog stopped barking after which X used his gun to kill the dog. Therefore, the force used by X was excessive and unnecessary.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Principle: Damages the money recompense, as far as money can do, for the loss suffered by a person.
Facts: A, an Indian citizen, have a right to vote, was not allowed to cast his vote on the polling booth, by the returning officer. The name of A was mentioned in the voter‘s list. A has also reported at the polling booth in time. However, the candidate in whose favor A would have cast his vote won the election. A filed a suit claiming damages.
Principle: One who asserts must prove.
Facts: A desires a Court to give judgment that B, C, and D shall be punished for a crime which A says B, C, and D have committed.
Principle: Civil Suit can be filed where the defendant resides or carries on business or where the cause of action arises.
Facts: 'A‘ carries on business in Gurgaon, 'B‘ carries on Business in Mumbai. 'B‘ through his agent in Gurgaon purchases goods in Gurgaon and takes delivery through an agent in Gurgaon. Where Civil Suit for payment of price can be filed by 'A‘?
Principle: Law does not penalise for wrongs which are of trivial nature.
Facts: In the course of a discussion, 'A' threw a file of papers at the table which touched the hands of 'B'.
The defence under nuisance is
PRINCIPLE Vis major or an act of God entails a sudden manoeuvre by elements of nature over which we have no control.
FACTS In a bus accident where the driver died of a sudden cardiac arrest, the legal heirs of the deceased brought a suit against the bus company for not making the driver undergo the mandatory health and fitness test before giving employment. The bus company claims a defence of 'vis major'. The defence of vis major in this case shall
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 Principles:
1. Master/ Principal is vicariously liable for the tort committed by a servant/ agent, in the performance of his duties as a servant/ agent.
2. Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do.
Factual situation: A patient is brought to a hospital maintained by B. The patient is to be operated upon, As a result of faulty oxygen supply, the patient dies on the operation theatre table, then DECISION:
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:
1. An act done by the consent of a person above 18 years is not an offense; provide the offender did not intend to cause death or grievous hurt.
2. Mere pecuniary benefit is not a thing done for a person's benefit'.
FACTUAL SITUATION: A is in a house which is on fire, with Z, a child. People below hold out a blanket. A drops the child from the housetop, knowing it to be likely that the fall may kill the child but intending to save him from the fire. Unfortunately, the child is killed is guilty? DECISION:
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: Whoever stores a substance that could cause damage to escape shall be absolutely liable (i.e. liable even when he has exercised necessary care) for any damage caused by the escape of the substance.
Factual situation: Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) manufactured methyl isocyanate, an extremely toxic gas. Due to a storm, the gas that was being stored in sealed containers got released. Before much could happen, the local municipal authorities managed to contain the disaster. The authorities filed a suit against UCIL for the costs that were incurred in decontamination. However, later it was realized that the clean-up by the authorities could have been done without spending as many resources and the damage was not that significant. UCIL argued that it would pay only part of the amount demanded by the authorities, which could have dealt with the contamination. DECISION:
Apply the legal principles to the facts given below and select the most appropriate answer:
Legal Principles:
1. The Tort of Negligence is a legal wrong that is suffered by someone at the hands of another who fails to take proper care to avoid what a reasonable person would regard as a foreseeable risk.
2. The test of liability requires that the harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct, a relationship of proximity must exist and it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.
3. Volenti non-fit injuria is defence to action in negligence.
Facts:
In a sad incident, 95 fans of a Football club died in a stampede in the Nehru Stadium. The court has decided that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the Police in permitting too many supporters to crowd in one part of the stadium. Now, a suit is filed by Harman and several other people against the Commissioner of State Police. Harman and the other claimants had relatives who were caught up in the Nehru Stadium disaster. The disaster was broadcast on live television, where several claimants alleged, they had witnessed friends and relatives die. Others were present in the stadium or had heard about the events in other ways. All claimed damages for the psychiatric harm they suffered as a result. Determine whether, for the purposes of establishing liability in negligence, those who suffer purely psychiatric harm from witnessing an event at which they are not physically present are sufficiently proximate for a duty to be owed, and thus can be said to be reasonably within the contemplation of the tortfeasor?
