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: Everyone has the right of private defense to defend his body and property by use of reasonable force unless that person had time to have recourse to the protection of public authorities.
Facts: X receives information at 5.00 pm that Y along with few friends are planning to burn his crop at midnight which is ready to be harvested. He does not inform the village Police Station which was just one kilometer away. He gathers his family members and directs them to collect some weapons in the form of swords and lathis to protect his field/crop. At around 11.00 pm Y and his aides attack the crop and a severe fight ensues wherein Y is seriously injured.
Mark the best option:
Facts: A had pawned his gold chain to B. One night he sneaks into B’s shop and takes away the gold chain. B had installed a CCTV in his shop and when he replays the previous days recording he finds out what A has done. B wants to file a complaint of theft against A. He comes to you for advice. Give legal advice to B.
Principle: Whoever, intending to take dishonestly any moveable property out of the possession of any person without that person's consent moves that property in order to take it, is said to commit theft.
India became a member of the United Nations in the Year
Which of the following statements concerning enforcement agreement is true?
Mark the best option:
Principles: An unlawful interference with a person's use or enjoyment of land, or some right over, or in connection with it, is a nuisance in law of tort.
Facts: During the scarcity of onions, long queues were made outside the defendant's shop who having a licence to sell fruits and vegetables used to sell only 1 kg of onion per ration card. The queues extended on to the highway and l also caused some obstruction to the neighboring shops. The neighboring shopkeepers filed a suit for nuisance against the defendant. which one of the following decisions will be correct in this suit?
Decide:
Torts are grounded in the concept of
The following is not a tort described as ‘trespass to the person...
PRINCIPLE Res ipsa loquitur reverses the burden of proof, creating a rebuttable presumption of the guilt of the defendant in situations where the default of the defendant seems apparent.
FACTS X, a truck driver, crashed into Y for no fault of his while trying to save Z, a student who was loitering in school uniform. Based on the facts above, Y inquires the presumption of negligence shall be in favour of
The question contains some basic principles and fact situations in which these basic principles have to be applied. A list of probable decisions and reasons are given.
Principles:
(1) Consumable goods that are not fit for consumption are not marketable.
(2) A consumer shall not suffer on account of unmarketable goods.
(3) A seller is liable for knowingly selling unmarketable goods.
(4) A manufacturer shall be liable for the quality of his products.
Facts:
Ram bought a Coca Cola bottle from Shama's shop. Back at home, the server opened the bottle and poured the drink into the glasses of Ram and his friend Tom. As Tom started drinking, he felt irritation in his throat. Immediately, Ram and Tom took the sample to test and found nitric acid in the content. Ram filed a suit against Shama, Coca Cola company and the bottler, Kishen and Co.
Suggested Decisions
(a) Ram cannot get compensation
(b) Tom can get compensation
(c) Both Ram and Tom can get compensation
Suggested Reasons
(i) Shama did not know the contents of sealed bottle.
(ii) Ram did not actually suffer though he bought the bottle.
(iii) Tom did not buy the bottle.
(iv) Coca Cola company is responsible since it supplied the concentrate.
(v) Kishen & Co is responsible since it added water, sugar, etc., and sealed the bottle.
(vi) Shama is responsible for selling the defective product. Your decision with the reason,
Principle: Where there is a transfer of ownership of one thing for the ownership of some other thing it is called an exchange, while the transfer of ownership for consideration of money is called a sale, whereas without consideration it becomes a gift.
Facts: 'A' transfers his house worth `50 lakh to 'B' for a shopping building worth the same amount, as consideration from 'B'.
