Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
Legal Principle: It is an offense to obstruct a public servant in the due discharge of his duty. The right of private defense is available to protect one’s person and property.
Fact Situation: Sidhu comes to the rescue of his uncle who is sought to be taken into a car by some men. In the process, he causes injury to some of them. Later, it turns out that the men were police persons in plain clothes trying to enforce a warrant against his uncle.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Options
Sidhu has committed the offence of obstructing a public servant in due discharge of his duty.
Sidhu has not committed an offence since he did not know that the men were from the police.
Sidhu’s uncle has resisted arrest and should be proceeded against.
Sidhu should not have tried to help his uncle without ascertaining the fact
Advertisements
Solution
Sidhu has not committed an offense since he did not know that the men were from the police.
Explanation:
Right of private defense of body, this right has been given by the state to every citizen of the country to take law into his own hand for their safety of themselves or anybody else. The right is not dependent on the actual criminality of the person resisted. It depends solely on the wrongful or apparently wrongful character of the act attempted, if the apprehension is real and reasonable, it makes no difference that it is mistaken. IPC Section 96
Nothing is an offense, which is done in the exercise of the right of private defense.
In the light of above arguments, "Sidhu has not committed an offense since he did not know that the men were from the police" is the most appropriate and it can be clearly said that Sidhu has not committed an offense since he did not know that the men were from the police and he was only trying to save his uncle in good faith.
APPEARS IN
RELATED QUESTIONS
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: 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'.
Mark the best option:
Facts: Vir, a window cleaner was hired to clean the windows of Palam club. One of the windows was defective and so when it was being cleaned, it ran down quickly and injured the hand of the window cleaner and caused injuries. Vir used Palam club for damages Decide.
Principle: The occupier can expect that a person in the exercise of his calling will appreciate and guard against risks incidental to his calling and he need not be, therefore, warned about them.
Who among the following was the first Chief Information Commissioner of India?
Volenti nonfit injuria’ refers to:
Which of the following statements concerning enforcement agreement is true?
Alexa waves at Bella in a friendly fashion and reaches out to pat her on the shoulder. Bella, who has a pathological fear of catching germs from others, recoils violently from the contact. Which of the following is correct?
What main element differentiates the crime of battery from the tort of battery?
Defamation involves:
Principle: Nobody shall make use of his property in such a way as to cause damage to others. Any such use constitutes a private nuisance, a wrongful act under Law of Torts.
Facts: Vasan was owing to a house, adjacent to a cluster of houses, owned by Varadan. Varadan was leasing out these houses whereas Vasan was living in his house. When Vasan was transferred to another place, he leased out his house to a person suffering from AIDS. Fearing the spread of AIDS, the tenants moved out of Varadan's houses. Varadan requested Vasan to evict AIDS patient and he offered to fix a suitable tenant for Vasan's house if the AIDS patient is evicted. But Vasan refused by arguing that AIDS would not spread as feared by Varadan's tenants. Varadan filed a suit against Vasan.
