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
पर्याय
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: An employer is liable for an injury caused by an employee in the course of employment.
Facts: 'A‘ and 'B‘ were working in a factory as unskilled laborers. A was carrying a basket of stones on his head. B was sitting on the ground. When A crossed B, all of a sudden a stone fell down from the basket and hit B on his head. B died instantaneously.
Principle: Death caused by a rash or negligent act of a person is an offence.
Facts: X was driving his SUV car on a lonely road leading to a forest at 160 km per hour. Suddenly, someone appears from the forest on the road and in the resultant accident, the car hits the commuter causing his death.
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.
Consists of legal proposition(s)/ principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such principles may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this Section. In other words, in answering these questions, you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given herein below for every question.
Further, you must not assume any facts other than those stated in the question. The objective of this section is to test your interest in the study of law, research aptitude, and problem-solving ability, even if the 'most reasonable conclusion' arrived at may be absurd or unacceptable for any other reason. It is not the objective of this section to test your knowledge of the law.
Therefore, to answer a question, the principle is to be applied to the given facts and to choose the most appropriate option.
Principle: When a person makes such a statement that lowers another person's reputation in the estimation of other persons, it is liable for committing defamation.
Facts: 'A' writes a letter to 'B' in which he uses abusive language against 'B' and also states that 'B' is a dishonest person. 'A' put the letter in a sealed envelope and delivered it to 'B'.
PRINCIPLE An unlawful action is sufficient to establish an actionable claim under the law of torts and the court need not go into the motivations behind such unlawful action.
FACTS Z, a reporter, had approached A, a famous politician, several times for an interview. Z knew that A was having an affair with his secretary. Frustrated and vengeful, z ran a cover story about the affair disclosing all the information and evidence of the affair. A in tum sued Z for defamation, stating the action was based on vendetta and malice on account of his refusal to give Z an interview. The suit against Z shall
Which follow from the application of the undermentioned legal principle:
Legal Principle: The occupier of premises owes a duty of care to all his invitees and visitors.
Factual Situation:
Devi who was the owner of a big home with a compound wall, constructed an underground tank to store water. This was covered by jute bags since the work was incomplete. The postman who came inside to deliver registered letter fell into this tank and hurt himself. There was also a box on the outside of the compound wall, where all the mail could be deposited. The injured man filed a suit against Devi claiming compensation.
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. Joint tort-feasters means joint wrongdoers. People can be joint tortfeasors in case of common action in fact or in law.
2. Joint tort-feasters are jointly and severally liable.
Factual situation: Two dogs belonging to two different owners acting in concert attacked a flock of sheep and injured several sheep. In an action for damages brought against the owners of the dogs. If one of them puts a defene claiming that he was liable for one half only of the damage, then which one of the following statements is legally sustainable in the above case? 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 Principles: In a suit for malicious prosecution, the plaintiff must prove the following essentials:
1. That he was prosecuted by the defendant.
2. That the proceeding complained was terminated in favour of the present plaintiff.
3. That the prosecution was instituted against him without any just or reasonable cause.
4. That the prosecution was instituted with a malicious intention, that is, not with the mere intention of getting the law into effect, but with an intention, which was wrongful in fact.
5. That he suffered damage to his reputation or to the safety of person, or to the security of his property.
Factual situation: A recovered a large sum of money from Railway Co. for personal injuries. Subsequently, Railway Co. came to know that injuries were not real and were created by doctor B. Railway Co, prosecuted B for playing fraud on the company, but B was acquitted. B sued Railway Co. for malicious prosecution. In the light of these facts which of the following statements is true? DECISION:
Define vicarious liability.
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: Everybody is under a legal obligation to take reasonable care to avoid act or omission which he can foresee would injure his neighbor, the neighbour for this purpose is any person whom he should have in his mind as likely to be affected by his act.
Factual situation: Krish, while driving a car at a high speed in a crowded road, knocked down a cyclist. The cyclist died on the spot with a lot of blood spilling around, Lekha, a pregnant woman passing by, suffered from a nervous shock, leading’ to abortion. Lekha filed a suit against Krishnan claiming damages. DECISION:
