Question

The question consists of legal propositions/ principles (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. These principles have to be applied to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion.

Principle: Whoever intentionally uses force to any person, without that person's consent in order to the committing of any offense, or intending by the use of such force to cause, or knowing it to be likely that by the use of such force he will cause injury, fear or annoyance to the person to whom the force is used, is said to use criminal force to that other.

Facts: 'Z' is riding in a palanquin. 'A' intending to rob 'Z', seizes the pole and stop the palanquin. Here 'A' has caused cessation of motion to 'Z', and 'A' has done this by his own bodily power.

Options

• 'A' has used criminal force to 'Z'

• 'A' has no intention to use criminal force to 'Z'

• 'A' has used force with the consent of 'Z'

• None of the above is correct

Answer 1

'A' has used criminal force to 'Z'

Explanation:

Section 350 of the Indian penal code deals with the offence of Criminal force. In the present case, A is guilty of using criminal force to Z, because he (A) with the intention of robbing Z, stops the palanquin without Z's consent and by using his own bodily power.