# data[].attributes.body
Criminal defense is a strategic argument used to attack the prosecution's evidence's legitimacy and sufficiency. The prosecution is the party attempting to prove someone's criminal charges. It is also a set of legal protections for those accused of committing a crime. The resources at the disposal of law enforcement authorities and government prosecutors are vast. The court system's balance of power would become tilted in favor of the government if the accused were not adequately protected. As it stands, the expertise of a criminal defendant's defense counsel is often as important as the actual legal protections.

Automatism; An act is performed in a state of automatism if it is performed by the body without control by the mind (e.g., a spasm or a reflex) or by a person who is unaware of what they are doing.

Intoxication; Intoxication can be voluntary or involuntary, and it can be caused by alcohol or narcotics. Intoxication has the ability to deprive a defendant of the necessary mental element required to commit an offense. It is not a defense in the traditional sense. Intoxication can be voluntary or involuntary.

Mistake; raising the defense of mistake involves denying the mens rea of the specific crime alleged. The mistake defense requires the accused to have made a mistake about the circumstances or implications of conduct, which negates any claim of criminal intent.

Insanity; is a complete defense, even for strict responsibility offenses. To establish an insanity defense, it must be clearly demonstrated that, at the time of the act in question, the accused was suffering from such a defect of reason, from a disease of the mind, that they did not know the nature and quality of the act they were doing, or, if they did know it, they did not know it was wrong. When a person tries to use insanity as a defense, the defendant bears the burden of proof (on the balance of probabilities).

Duress and necessity; duress by threats is a complete defense to any crime other than murder, attempted murder, or (possibly) treason. The defense arises when the defendant commits the relevant offense with the relevant intent but is induced to act by a threat made by another person, or when the defendant reasonably believes such a threat has been made, to the effect that unless the defendant commits the offense with which they are charged, they or a third person will be harmed. The defendant must present evidence to support a duress defense.

Self-defense, defense of others, and defense of property; Self-defense is an absolute defense that can be used to defend against violent crimes. Self-defense as a defense can take the form of defending oneself or one's property, preventing crime, and lawfully arresting and apprehending perpetrators. It may rely on considerations such as the use of excessive force and the repercussions of the action performed, particularly where the result was death or serious harm, as well as the use of a weapon in applying force and premeditated violence (eg going armed to exact revenge)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pale Yellow Pink Digitalism Simple Presentation

# data[].attributes.body
In court, the accused can be held criminally liable in two ways. The first is if the accused enters a guilty plea (section 173(b) of the CPC). The case does not proceed to trial in this situation. Second, the accused requests a trial, and following the full trial. It is important to define two terms when discussing criminal liability "criminal responsibility" and "criminal liability." The term "liable" appears frequently in the Penal Code to indicate the accused's guilt. In other words, in order to hold someone criminally liable, he must first be found guilty of the offense.

The accused can defend himself in court in a variety of ways. The first is disputing criminal accountability by denying responsibility for the claimed offense. The second option is to accept blame for the claimed offense while rejecting criminal responsibility. The accused rejects both criminal guilt and liability in the first case. He believes that he should not be held accountable for the claimed crime because he was not the perpetrator in the first place.

INFANCY

Sec. 82: Nothing constitutes an offense if committed by a youngster under the age of ten. (<10) No mentality, no mens rea, no criminal responsibility, doli incapax, irrebuttable presumption [absolute defense- the presumption that a kid is incapable of committing a crime]

Sec. 83: Nothing is an offense if done by a youngster aged 10 to 12. (10 to 12), he has not yet attained adequate understanding maturity to determine the nature and consequences of his conduct [qualified defense- rebuttable presumption that he does not realize his act is 'seriously wrong' as opposed to merely naughty]

must demonstrate that the youngster lacks the capacity to understand the nature and consequences of the behavior Otherwise, he will be found guilty.

(To refute the presumption of doli incapax, he must demonstrate that he is aware that what he is doing is bad, though not necessarily legally incorrect.)

Sec. 113 evidence act: A boy under the age of 13 is deemed to be incapable of committing rape. It can be refuted by demonstrating his maturity (knowledge of the nature and consequence.) (<13)

UNSOUNDNESS OF MIND

Sec. 84: Nothing is an offense done by a person who, at the time of committing it, is incapable of knowing the nature of the conduct or that he is doing what is either wrong or contrary to law due to unsoundness of mind.

INTOXICATION

Sec. 85(1): Intoxication might be employed to defend one

Sec. 85(2): Intoxication can be an offense if the accused did not realize that the conduct or omission complained of was wrong or did not know what he was doing at the time.

CONSENT

Sec. 87: Act did with consent that was not planned and was not known to be likely to cause death or serious harm.

Sec. 88: Act is done by consent in good faith for the benefit of a person that is not intended to cause death.

Sec. 89: Act performed in good faith for the benefit of a child or person of unsound mind, with or without the agreement of a guardian.

Sec. 90: Act did in good faith for the benefit of another without their consent.

MISTAKES

Sec. 52:

Nothing is claimed to be done or believed in good faith if it is done or believed carelessly.

Sec. 76: Nothing constitutes an offense if it is committed by a person who is, or thinks himself to be, bound by law to do it due to a mistake of fact rather than a mistake of law.

Sec. 79: Nothing constitutes a crime committed by someone who is justified by law, or who, in good faith, thinks himself to be justified by the law in doing it due to an error of fact rather than a mistake of law.

ACCIDENT

Sec. 80: Nothing in the performance of a lawful act in a lawful manner, by lawful means, and with due care and caution is a crime if it is done by accident or misfortune, and without any criminal intention or knowledge.

NECESSITY

Sec. 81: Nothing is an offense simply because it is done with the knowledge that it is likely to cause injury, provided it is done without any criminal intent to cause harm and in good faith to prevent or avert additional harm to a person or property.

DURESS

Sec. 94: A person is not subject to the exception if he willingly places himself in a situation in which he is threatened.

PRIVATE DEFENCE

Sec. 96: Private defense can be raised and used to void the offense.

Sev. 97(a) Every individual has the right to private defense of the own body, or other's body against any offense harming the human body (it must be an offense under the penal code)

Private property defense

Sec. 97(b) Every person has the right to protect his or her own or others' property against the following offenses: theft, robbery, mischief, criminal trespass, or an attempt to commit all of the above.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pale Yellow Pink Digitalism Simple Presentation (4)

# data[].attributes.body
1. Bhawoo Jivaji vs. Mulji Dayal, 1888 – A Mistake by Good Faith.

FACTS

The complainant was walking along the street, carrying some garments with him. When a police officer (respondent) observed the complainant, he assumed he was taking stolen stuff. Based on his assumptions, he approached the complainant and inquired about the clothes he was carrying. The complainant provided replies, but the police officer was not satisfied, so he told the complainant that he needed to inspect the garments, which the complainant denied. This resulted in a scuffle between them since the policeman suspected stolen property with the complainant and the complainant refused to allow the constable to inspect them. The complainant was arrested and taken to the police station based on the constable's concerns. The complaint was made public by the Inspector of Police. Following that, the complainant filed a complaint against the police constable for improper restraint and imprisonment.

OUTCOME

The court stated that even though the accused's (constable's) actions could not be said to be "strictly justified by law," the complainant had no right to private defense in this case because the accused was an on-duty public servant and his actions were not grievous enough to cause any fear of death or grievous harm. The court also determined that when the constable asked questions to clarify his thoughts and problems, he acted in good faith, and the constable is protected under Section 79 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

India, E. (2021, April 1). Bhawoo Jivaji vs. Mulji Dayal: Case Summary. E-Justice India. Retrieved May 14, 2022, from https://www.ejusticeindia.com/bhawoo-jivaji-vs-mulji-dayal-case-summary/

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pale Yellow Pink Digitalism Simple Presentation (2)

# data[].attributes.body
2. R v Kingston, 1994 - Involuntary Intoxication

FACTS

A friend poisoned Barry Kingston involuntarily. Kingston's friend urged him to conduct sexual acts on a 15-year-old youngster while he was intoxicated. His pal had staged the whole thing. Kingston was found guilty of lewd behavior. Kingston's defense was that he would not have acted the way he did if he hadn't been drugged. Whether Kingston had the essential purpose when doing the conduct, even if the defense of involuntary intoxication is available.

OUTCOME

The Court determined that, while the drugs had essentially removed Kingston's inhibitions, this did not negate the requisite mental element that was shown to be present in Kingston's behavior. Furthermore, even if an intention evolved in circumstances beyond Kingston's control, it is still an unlawful intent that does not justify acquittal. If a person becomes so intoxicated that he becomes "legless" and commits a crime, it is a defense to a crime of specific intent but not to a crime of primary intent because he is still somewhat conscious of himself and thus accountable. Kingston was judged to be aware that his actions were wrong because he would not have done them if he had not been intoxicated. Involuntary intoxication was not adequate to negate the men's rea criterion in circumstances where Kingston was determined to have possessed the necessary intent to conduct the crime. The appeal was granted, and the conviction was upheld.

Teacher, Law. (November 2013). R v Kingston - 1994. Retrieved from https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-kingston.php?vref=1

# data[].attributes.body
3. Khairul Anuar bin Zakaria v PP, 2002 – Private Defence to Property.

FACTS

The appellant was discovered with his hands smeared in blood and a machete in his hand. He gave himself up. According to the appellant, the two others and the deceased were smoking substances brought by the deceased. Fearing the dead's declaration that he was invulnerable, the appellant struck a fan and a vase in the deceased's head and hit the deceased's hands with a hammer. He then slashed the corpse with a machete to safeguard himself and his family, and he cut the deceased's body, fearing the deceased would resurrect.

OUTCOME

When he was attacked with the table fan, vase, and hammer, the appellant demonstrated that he knew the deceased had died. The appellant's act of repeatedly striking the deceased and slicing the deceased with the machete a few times was irrational because the deceased's threat against the appellant had ended at the material period. The stab to the heart and lungs had resulted in the deceased's death. The appellant's awareness of his act of slicing the dead with the machete clearly demonstrated that it was done with the intent to cause the deceased's death.

Yumpu.com. (n.d.). perbicaraan jenayah alor setar. Retrieved May 14, 2022, from https://www.yumpu.com/id/document/view/17728061/perbicaraan-jenayah-alor-setar

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Pale Yellow Pink Digitalism Simple Presentation (3)