Advertisements
Advertisements
Question
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
Options
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
Solution
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
RELATED QUESTIONS
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: 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 causes death by rash or negligent act commits an offence.
Facts: X is having a house on the roadside which is also having a street on the back of the house. He has a lawn on the back of his house where he has built a toilet. To prevent the intruders from entering his house, he got the fence charged with a high voltage live electric wire. Z was passing through the street at the backyard of the house of X and sat down to take rest near the fence. While getting up, his hands came in contact with the fence which was connected to high voltage electric wire causing his death.
Disagreement between the two Houses of Indian Parliament is finally resolved through
Legal Principle: Nuisance is the unlawful interference with a person’s enjoyment of his land or some rights over or in connection with it.
Fact Situation: Ashok, in his nineties, is hard of hearing and plays the radio very loudly throughout the day and on a daily basis. Raju, his neighbor, complained that he cannot listen to his favorite TV show in his home due to the radio of Ashok.
Which of the following statements is the most appropriate in relation to the legal principle stated above?
Result of successful prosecution is
Which Parliamentary Committee is described as ‘Watch-dog’ and guardian of the people against official negligence of corruption?
Negligence means
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.
Principle: Vicarious liability is the liability of the Master or Principal for the tort committed by his servant or agent, provided the tort is committed in the course of employment. The Master or Principal is not liable for private wrongs of the servant/agent.
Facts: 'X' hands over some cash money at his house to 'Y', who is his (X's) neighbour and is also cashier in a bank, to be deposited in A's account in the bank. Instead of depositing the money, 'Y' misappropriates it.
Which of the following statements depicts the correct legal position in this given situation?
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.
Principle: In a civil action for defamation, the truth of the defamatory matter is an absolute defense. However, the burden of proving truth is on the defendant; and he is liable if he does not successfully discharge this burden.
Facts: 'D' who was the editor of a local weekly, published a series of articles mentioning that 'P', who was a government servant, issued false certificates, accepted bribe, adopted corrupt and illegal means to mint money and was a 'mischief monger'. 'P' brought a civil action against 'D', who could not prove the facts published by him.
Under the circumstances, which of the following derivations is correct?
